Sitting of 19 March 1855

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Cavan, v. The Right Hon. Sir John Young, bt., Chief Commissioner of the Ionian Islands.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Metropolis Local Management.
2° Burial Grounds (Scotland).

THE NEW ORDER OF MERIT— QUESTION.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether Her Majesty's Government had decided to recommend the institution of an Order of Merit; if so, whether such Order was intended to be a new and distinct one, restricted to the military and naval services, and applicable to every grade therein; and whether it was determined to bring such Order of Merit into prompt operation?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to state, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as was stated on a former occasion in the other House of Parliament, to establish an Order of that description. Of course, it will apply to both services, because wo hope that merit will be equally prominent in both. The particular arrangements of that institution have not yet been settled. Information has been sought in other Countries in which a similar institution exists, and, until that information is obtained, the Government cannot frame the regulations under which the Order will be distributed.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS, ETC.
Order for Committee read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am come down to the House prepared to introduce the Resolutions with regard to newspaper stamps; but although the statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government may be made on the Resolutions, yet as the Bill which I shall ask permission of the House to introduce is not yet in the hands of hon. Members, it will be perhaps inconvenient to enter into a debate upon the question at present; if, however, it be the wish of the House there should be a debate, I would reserve my statement till the second reading. If, on the other hand, the House is willing to listen to my statement and to postpone the debate until the second read-

775
ing I shall be happy to make that statement now.
MR. DISRAELI: I think, Sir, that it would be very convenient that the House should be favoured with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because there is considerable obscurity as to the exact meaning of the Resolutions.
House in Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Bouverie, in the year 1851 a Select Committee was appointed, upon the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson), to inquire into the question of newspaper stamps. That Committee examined many witnesses, they investigated the entire subject in considerable detail; and they embodied the result of their inquiry in a Report, which concludes with the following passage—
"In conclusion, your Committee consider it their duty to direct attention to the objections and abuses incident to the present system of newspaper stamps, arising from the difficulty of defining and determining the meaning of the term 'news;' to the inequalities which exist in the application of the Newspaper Stamp Act, and the anomalies and evasions that it occasions in postal arrangements; to the unfair competition to which stamped newspapers are exposed with unstamped publications; to the limitation imposed newspapers; and to the impediments which it throws in the way of the diffusion of useful knowledge regarding current and recent events among the poorer classes, which species of knowledge, relating to subjects which most obviously interest them, calls out the intelligence by awakening the curiosity of those classes."
They then proceed to say—
"How far it may be expedient that this tax should be maintained as a source of revenue, either in its present or in any modified form, your Committee do not feel themselves called upon to state; other considerations, not within their province, would enter into that question. But, apart from fiscal considerations, they do not consider that news is of itself a desirable subject of taxation."
My right hon. Friend followed up the subject in subsequent Sessions; and in the last Session he brought forward a Resolution, which, after a debate, was carried by the unanimous vote of this House. That Resolution was in the following terms—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the laws in reference to the periodical press and newspaper stamp are ill defined and unequally enforced; and it appears to this House that the subject demands the early consideration of Parliament."
This Resolution having been unanimously agreed to by the House last Session, the
776
question naturally came under the consideration of Lord Aberdeen's Government during the recess, and the subject fell necessarily within the province of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. The plan which he submitted to the consideration of the Government is now before the House. It involves, substantially, the abolition of the newspaper stamp as a compulsory stamp. The reasons which pressed upon Lord Aberdeen's Government at that time were partly the unanimous resolution of the House of Commons during the last Session, and partly the anomalous state of the law which had grown up of late years under the administration of the Board of Inland Revenue. That anomalous state of the law, which was fully investigated by the Committee of 1851, grew out of relaxations which had been introduced for the purpose of meeting the views of a species of periodical publications which are now known by the denomination of class news papers. The first case, as I understand, in which a relaxation was admitted, was that of the Literary Gazette, a paper which merely contained critical notices—mere reviews—and was not a newspaper within the strict meaning of the act. It by the stamp upon the circulation of the best was found, however, by the managers of The Chancellor of the Exchequer that periodical that it would be convenient that a portion of its circulation should enjoy the privilege of the stamp, in order that it might be transmitted through the post-office. Accordingly, a few lines of political news were introduced in order to qualify it for the newspaper stamp. In that manner the principle was introduced of partly stamped and partly unstamped publications. That principle was afterwards extended to a large number of periodical publications relating to subjects which interested particular classes—such, for instance, as the members of different professions. There were publications relating to law, to medicine, to architecture, to horticulture, and to various other subjects; and in all those cases the rule was established that they should not be considered as newspapers subject to the compulsory tax, but that a portion of the impression might be stamped for the convenience of transmission through the post-office. After a time, a portion of those periodical publications introduced news in the proper sense of the word. It was not political news, but it was literary news, or it related to legal, medical, or other professions; and there can be no doubt that, according to the strict con-

777
struction of the law, a large number of the class publications which enjoyed a partial immunity from the stamp were newspapers within the meaning of the law, and were liable to a penalty if any portion of their impression were unstamped. The relaxation had, however, been established; and this was the state of practice which my right hon. Friend found in existence during the last recess, when the subject came under his consideration.
If the Government had decided to disregard the unanimous resolution of the House, and to attempt to enforce the law strictly against these class publications, in order to make its administration uniform instead of anomalous, they must have directed numerous prosecutions to have been instituted against this class of newspapers, or they must have come to Parliament for a Bill to render the existing law more stringent and severe. My right hon. Friend decided—and, in my opinion, he exercised a very wise discretion—not to attempt to render the law more stringent, but to relax it, and, at the same time, to make it uniform. The plan which I am about to submit to the Committee is identical in substance and principle with that of my right hon. Friend. The details are not identical, but the plan is founded upon the self-same principles; and whatever credit may belong to it will be due to him, and not to me. The Bill which I shall ask permission of the House to lay upon the table, if these Resolutions shall be agreed to, is based upon the following principle—to abolish the legal definition of a newspaper, and to extend the existing rules respecting newspapers to all printed periodical publications which appear at intervals not greater than thirty-one days. In the case of all periodicals falling within that definition, the present penalty for the publication of any newspaper without a stamp will be repealed, and it will be optional with the proprietors of any such periodical either to stamp any portion of their publication, or to leave it altogether unstamped. If they come to the Stamp-office and apply for stamped sheets upon which to print any portion of their impression, they will be subjected, in respect to the sheets so stamped, to precisely the same rules with respect to superficial contents as existing newspapers are subject to. That is to say, that the first sheet may contain 2,295 superficial square inches covered by a ld. stamp, and the second sheet may contain 1,148 square inches, covered by a
778
stamp of one halfpenny. In this respect I propose to make no alteration, but simply to extend the present limit of superficial contents to all periodical publications which shall appear within intervals of thirty-one days. With regard to all periodical publications which shall stamp any portion of their impression, I propose that they shall be subjected to the present rules respecting registration and sureties. Those rules are to the following effect:—Any person now desirous of publishing a newspaper makes a declaration at the Stamp-office, and he furnishes a copy of every number of his publication, which is registered at the Stamp-office; and the production of it is at all times evidence of publication against the printer and publisher of that newspaper. I propose that the proprietor of any periodical who shall be desirous of stamping any portion of his impression shall be subject to that rule. With respect to the securities, every newspaper proprietor is at present bound in his own recognisance, and is obliged also to produce two sureties in London to the extent of 400 l., and in the country to the extent of 300 l., to answer any civil action or criminal prosecution which may be brought against him for libel. These are provisions in the existing law which I propose to retain with regard to all newspaper proprietors who shall stamp any portion of their publication. I will now state to the Committee the reasons why I propose to retain these provisions. It has for some time been the policy of this country to make newspapers, as distinguished from pamphlets and other publications which are not periodical, the subject of exceptional and separate legislation with regard to securities against the publisher in civil actions or criminal prosecutions for libel. The law with regard to those securities has been amended more than once, and with respect to that subject the policy of the country may be considered settled. It appears to me that this policy can be justified by sound argument, and that there is an essential difference between newspapers and pamphlets with regard to the subject of libel. A newspaper—that is, one of the periodical publications to which that name is generally applied—has an established circulation, which is immediate and to a great extent universal. It extends over the whole country, and is also nearly simultaneous, for, by means of the post, it is carried on the day of publication to

779
almost all parts of the kingdom; the consequence of this is, that libellous matter published in a newspaper affecting any individual exercises a much more instantaneous and a much more detrimental influence upon his character than would be the case if such matter were published in a simple pamphlet. There are, no doubt, Gentlemen in this House who have had some experience in the publication of pamphlets, and who know the difficulty with which a pamphlet struggles into notoriety. A few copies are generally first distributed voluntarily, and attempts are made to gain publicity for the work, but those attempts are generally not very successful, and the publicity, if obtained at all, is slow of arrival, and very limited and partial in extent. Now, with regard to a newspaper, these conditions are reversed, for the publicity is immediate, simultaneous, and practically universal. For these reasons it appears to me to be wise and expedient that, with regard to newspapers, securities should be imposed which are not applicable to other parts of the press; and, therefore, I propose to retain the regulations with regard to sureties. But there is an-other reason. By the original act which established these sureties they were limited to actions for blasphemous or seditious libels, and the measure was introduced as a protection to the Government. It was found, however, that these were valuable securities which might be extended to the public; and accordingly, by a subsequent Act, actions for libels on private individuals were brought within the same provisions; and the consequence is, that any private person is at the present day protected against libel by the proprietor of a newspaper being compelled to enter into his own recognisances, and also to find sureties to answer actions for libel brought against him. If, therefore, the provisions to which I have adverted were repealed, not only would the security which at present exists for the preservation of good order—whatever its value may be—be removed, but also a most valuable and effective security for the respect of private character would be taken away. For these reasons, then, I propose to retain the existing provisions on that subject in the Bill which I shall have the honour of submitting to the House, so far as regards all periodicals which, by publishing a portion of their impression stamped, may bring themselves within the provisions of the Bill. I may state, however, that the provisions
780
with regard to sureties do not form any essential or necessary part of the plan which I propose, and as far as I am officially concerned, they will not in any way affect the interests of the public exchequer; but they rather form part of the criminal and civil law now existing: and, as they appear to me to be founded upon sound policy, I have included them in the measure which I hope to introduce into this House.
Now, Sir, I have stated in general terms the nature and effect of the plan which I propose. The effect will be to legalise generally what at present is only tacitly sanctioned with respect to the publication of class publications, such as the Athenœum, the Builder, the Medical Times, the Medical Gazette, and others of that description. Such papers will be admitted by law to the same indulgence which they now possess, and will be authorised to follow the method of publication which they now frequently practise in defiance of, or at least unsanctioned by., the law; that is, their proprietors will be permitted to publish their impression on a stamp or not, as they may think fit. The same legislation will be further extended to the rest of the periodical press. The political newspapers, such as The Times, The Morning Chronicle, The Herald, The Morning Advertiser, and others, will be subject to the same rule, and be permitted to stamp that portion of their impression which they may wish to transmit by post, and to publish that portion which is independent of transmission by the post without a stamp—just as they may find it for their interest to do. Beyond these changes I do not propose to go. The Bill which I propose to introduce will be confined to the change to which I have referred.
And now, with the permission of the House, I will proceed to examine certain objections which have been made to this plan, and which have been represented as fatal to its operation. One of these objections is, that it will produce great confusion in the printing establishments if a portion of the impression of a paper has to be printed on stamped and the other portion on unstamped paper, and that the consequence of that confusion would be a loss to the proprietors of newspapers. Now, Sir, I have used my best endeavours to ascertain, as far as I could, if there is any foundation for that statement, and I will inform the House of the results of my inquiry. It appears from a return which has been laid before this House on

781
the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) that the number of what may be called class papers amounts to 137, and the business of all of them is conducted by a mixed circulation of stamped and unstamped copies, and as no complaint has ever been made in the case of those publications, which may be called quasi-newspapers, the presumption appears to me to be that there is no real practical difficulty in printing and publishing the mixed circulation of stamped and unstamped copies we propose. One of the principal periodicals which publishes a portion of their impression stamped, and the remainder unstamped, is that publication so familiarly known to all the Members of this House— I mean Punch. in the year 1854, 425,000 stamped copies of that periodical were published; and I understand that, out of a weekly circulation of about 40,000 copies, 8,000 are published on stamped paper, and 32,000 are unstamped. I have had an interview with the manager of that publication—not to make inquiry as to how his interesting publication is compiled, but to obtain some information as to the economical branch of the establishment. That gentleman told me that there was not the least difficulty with regard to the printing of the paper, and that the mixed nature of the circulation did not give rise to the slightest confusion, nor was there any loss to the proprietors in consequence of it; and he describes the difficulty which had been represented to me to exist as perfectly imaginary. I made further inquiry of the manager of the Athenœm, a paper which is also printed, partly on stamped, and partly on unstamped paper, and I found that 3,000 copies of that paper are printed on stamps, and 4,200 are published unstamped; and the gentlemen connected with that paper told me that there was no practical difficulty or loss in conducting that paper with the mixed circulation, although the demand for stamped copies was affected by various circumstances—such as the absence from London in the summer of persons usually resident there when there exists a much greater demand for stamped copies to be sent by post than at other periods of the year; yet those temporary variations are easily adjusted, and neither confusion nor loss occurs. I further consulted the proprieter of the Illustrated London News, a gentleman of great experience in the management of newspapers, and who has brought the circulation or that
782
paper up to 140,000 a week; and that gentleman gave me his confident opinion that no difficulty would arise in the case of his paper, or in that of any daily paper, from the adoption of a mixed system of stamped and unstamped impressions.
But, Sir, another objection, and that of a more serious character, has been brought under my notice by various persons, who have described the proposition to repeal the compulsory newspaper stamp as one which would be most dangerous to society. It has been described as a measure which will open the floodgates of sedition and blasphemy, and which will inundate the country with licentious and immoral productions, which will undermine the very foundations of society, and scatter the seeds of revolution broadcast over the land. These expressions are not exaggerated representations of the opinions which have been communicated to me from many quarters since this measure has been under my consideration. I regret to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford is looked upon as an accomplice of the Government in this wicked and dangerous design. I need not state that, if Her Majesty's Government believed that there was any foundation for these views, or for any appreciable fractional part of these views, they would not propose the measure which I am now submitting to the consideration of the Committee. They have the greatest confidence in the stability of our political institutions, in the soundness of our social system, in the loyalty and good disposition of the great body of the people; and they do not believe that increased facilities for public discussion through the press will lead to any such consequences as some have apprehended. But, Sir, we are not left merely to conjecture, or indirect evidence, with respect, to the conduct and character of a cheap unstamped press. There is already in existence a large class of publications which, not containing news, are exempt from the stamp, are printed at a very cheap race, and circulate most extensively through the country. Now, though these publications do not contain news, yet, if it were true that the people of this country have so insatiable an appetite for immoral and licentious reading as some seem to ascribe to them, they would possess a very different character from what they actually exhibit. I beg to call the attention of the Committee to the names of some of these publications. There is the Illustrated

783
News, which is sold for 6d., and circulates no less than 140,000 copies per week, and although it is published only hebdomadally, I think it is second, or nearly second, in point of circulation to The Times. The Illustrated News is so very well known a publication that I need scarcely say its contents are perfectly unexceptionable, and that it obtains a willing admission to every family in the kingdom. But there are other periodicals that are unstamped which are sold at a lower price, and which circulate widely among the poorer classes. One of these is a periodical of which I confess that I never heard the name until recently, and perhaps the same may be the case of some other Members of this House; I mean a penny weekly publication called the London Journal, and which, I am assured by very sufficient evidence, circulates 510,000, or more than half a million copies, per week, or equal to 26,520,000 per annum—a circulation, exceeding by 10,000,000 that of The Times, though it appears only once a week, whereas The Times is published six times in the week. I have examined certain numbers of this periodical, and find that it somewhat resembles the Penny Magazine, which was well known several years ago. The London Journal appears to be unexceptionable in point of morality; its matter may not, indeed, be of the most instructive character—it is in fact, rather amusing than instructive—but certainly, it does not at all correspond with the very frightful picture of cheap periodicals which has been drawn to us by the objectors to the repeal of the compulsory stamp. There is another publication, similar in its character—the Family Herald—which circulates about 240,000 weekly, or at the rate of 12,500,000 per annum. It is also somewhat analogous to the Penny Magazine, which is now extinct, and which at one time had a circulation of about 200,000 copies per week. These facts must be considered as showing that the spontaneous taste of the poorer classes of readers in this country, as regards cheap unstamped periodicals at the present moment, leads them to prefer a species of literature wholly innocuous in its character, and quite free from all the dangerous elements which have been held up to our fears. Now, let us look to the reverse of the picture. Some years ago, I am informed, there were five or six publications in London of a different description from
784
the foregoing. Among them were the Town, and others of a similarly licentious character. The illustrations they contained corresponded with their letterpress, and these publications obtained a certain circulation. But a gentleman who made an inquiry into this subject a few years since, and who recently completed his inquiry, assures me that the entire class of publications of this nature is now extinct; that out of five or six which he noticed a few years ago not one now remains in existence. It will be in the recollection of the House that there was likewise a higher class of publications of the same character as those to which I am now referring, comprising the Age, the Satirist, and the Argus, which enjoyed a considerable circulation some few years since, but they have now also ceased to exist. It may, I believe, be said with perfect truth, that no immoral or licentious publication has a long life, or obtains an extensive circulation. Another objection made to the proposed change is, that there would be one press for the rich and another for the poor; that there would be one description of newspapers intended for wealthy readers and for the upper classes of society, and another description of cheap newspaper designed for circulation among the working classes. Now, to a certain extent, that state of things already exists. There are newspapers now enjoying a very wide circulation which are printed at a cheaper rate than the ordinary daily and weekly papers, and whose principal circulation lies among the less wealthy classes of the people. Two of these journals are called The News of the World and Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, and they have the largest circulation after The Times. This extensive circulation they owe to the fact that their price is 3d., instead of 5d. or 6d.—the preference they enjoy in the newspaper market being solely attributable to the lower rate at which they are sold. But even if two kinds of newspapers should be established to a certain extent, it may be doubted whether there will be any reason for regretting it. If the taste of the poorer classes of readers prevents them from enjoying and perusing those newspapers which are prepared for a different class of readers if a class of newspapers grows up which is intended to meet the wants of the working classes—and if those newspapers are moral and useful in their tendency, it may be regarded as an advantage that they should circulate among that por-

785
tion of society. We are not to assume that the class of newspapers which may be addressed to the working people will be tainted with any immoral or anti-social doctrines; and at all events those persons who devote themselves to the moral, religious, and intellectual improvement of the people, and to the diffusion of sound opinions among them, will here find a field for their philanthropic exertions, and will be able to counteract any mischievous or anarchical principles which may be disseminated through channels of this description. The present necessity of imposing a stamp on every copy of a local newspaper is frequently attended with detrimental effects; and, in illustration of the mischief and injustice occasionally produced by the existing law, I will take the liberty of quoting an extract from a letter published by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley) relating to this subject. He says—
"I have by me a small advertising sheet which appears in a neighbouring town (to save the law) monthly; and which, but for the operation of the law, would probably appear fortnightly, if not weekly. Its weight, to judge by the quantity of paper which it contains, does not exceed 1–20th that of The Times when the latter appears with its full 16 pages of print. The little local journal to which I have referred does not want the Post Office at all. If living in a town, I wish to send out 1,000 copies of a circular, I should certainly find it cheaper and more convenient to hire a messenger to distribute them than to pay 4l. 3s. 4d. for their circulation by the local post. In this case Government allows me the option. But if I issue a weekly or fortnightly circular, in the shape of a newspaper, I have no similar freedom of choice. Whether I use the postal arrangements which Government has provided, or dispense with them, is immaterial to the State; but in either case I must pay equally."
Now, under the regulations which I propose, it will be optional for the publisher of any local journal, such as the noble Lord has described, to stamp one portion of his impression, and to leave unstamped such copies as he may wish to circulate by messenger. Thus, if it is any convenience to him to stamp any portion in order that it may pass through the post, it will be perfectly competent for him to do so. At the same time, having shown that the publication of local newspapers will be greatly facilitated by the removal of the stamp, I must express a doubt whether any considerable number of such new newspapers will spring into existence. No newspaper can obtain any considerable circulation unless it be a good medium for advertisements. It is by the advertisements that
786
the large and well-conducted newspapers are maintained, and it is out of the profits of advertisements that the deficiency in the expenditure of these newspapers is supported. Now, Sir, small local newspapers are never a profitable vehicle for advertisements, and, therefore, such a newspaper can never become, in the proper sense of the term, a good newspaper. The established provincial newspapers, having large capital and extensive circulation, are already in possession of the market, and, having a wide field now open before them, and enjoying the preference of the advertising public, they will enter into competition with small local newspapers on the most advantageous terms. And I confess I think that the advent of the newspaper Utopia which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Milner Gibson) anticipates, as soon as the stamp is taken off, is yet far distant. I do not expect that a great number of new newspapers will be established if the stamp duty is removed, but, at the same time, if any such demand for a new class of newspapers should exist, the reality of that demand will be tested by the facilities for their establishment which the change in the law will bring.
Another objection to the measure—an objection which has been mentioned in the other House, and which must have occurred to my right hon. Friend my predecessor in office, as it occurred to myself—is the loss of revenue which will be entailed by the proposed changes. Now, Sir, if we had at this time a surplus revenue, and if the expenditure of the country did not greatly exceed its ordinary revenue, the newspaper stamp would have a fair claim to be considered in any plan for repeal or readjustment of taxes, and those who object to it might claim that its repeal should have precedence in any financial scheme. This, however, is not the present financial state of the country, and, if the House should decide in favour of this measure, it would be my duty to call upon them to provide for the deficiency of the revenue which might thereby be occasioned by some other mode of taxation. The present stamp duty on newspapers produces to the revenue rather more than 400,000 l. a year, and it is estimated that a measure for repealing the compulsory stamp will entail a loss of 200,000 l. per annum. At the same time, there are some facts which may lead to the inference that, after the

787
compulsory stamp shall be repealed, the newspapers will continue to print a considerable portion of their impression upon stamped paper. I will, with the permission of the House, state some facts relative to The Times newspaper, which will throw some light on this part of the question. The circulation of The Times is 59,000 per diem; of these, 33,000 are distributed by news-agents in London, and 26,000 go into the country, of which about 22,000 are conveyed by railway trains, and 5,800 by post. About three-fourths of the copies of The Times—and of this I am assured by excellent authority—ultimately pass through the post, most copies three or four times. Although the number of copies which leave London and are distributed by the newsagents is so large, yet I am assured that, altogether, at least three-fourths of the entire impression of The Times ultimately pass through the post. Such is the convenience of the postage stamp. I have been further assured by a deputation of provincial newspaper proprietors that about two-thirds of the country papers are sent directly through the post, and that about half the remaining third are afterwards sent, making altogether about five-sixths which pass through the post. These facts lead to the inference that the present stamp is found to be a convenience in the transmission of newspapers, and that, even if it ceased to be a compulsory stamp, a large circulation of stamped newspapers would, nevertheless, take place. Moreover, if the alteration of the law should lead to a large increase in the number of newspapers, the addition in the circulation would produce such an increase in the paper duty as would in some degree compensate for the loss of revenue in the stamped circulation of newspapers. It is my duty to inform the House that the estimate of persons of authority as to the loss of revenue must not be taken to be less than 200,000 l. Such a loss of revenue is, no doubt, inconvenient at the present moment. On the other hand, the House will bear in mind that to refuse to repeal the stamp would be to recede from the unanimous resolution which it agreed to last Session, and will render necessary the passing of some measure declaratory of the law. Indulgences must be withdrawn, and the House must consent to the adoption of stringent measures for collecting the newspaper stamp.
I have heard it argued, and it has been
788
suggested to me since the Resolutions have been laid upon the table, that the plan would be more perfect if it included all sorts of printed matter, and not merely periodical publications. That proposition, Sir, involves the question of a cheap book post. At the present time there is a cheap book post, and the payment of 6d. will enable a book of not more than 1 lb. to be carried by the post. That system has been established by a succession of Treasury warrants, and it is competent for the Lords of the Treasury to vary and modify the existing system, and to bring the present charges to lower rates than exist at present. Her Majesty's Government think that the question of periodical publications and their transmission through the post stands upon different grounds from the question of books and pamphlets, and that it ought to be kept separate. I admit, however, the importance of legislating with respect to the transmission of books and pamphlets by post, and, if it should meet with the approval of the House, I shall be ready to take that question into consideration hereafter, as a separate measure. I may, however, state one fact for the information of hon. Members, that, according to information given before a Committee which sat last Session upon postal communication, the following appears to be the comparative weight of the different class of articles carried by the post;—Out of 100 parts, letters formed 13 per cent; books, 2 per cent; newspapers, 76 per cent; and the mailbags as much as 9 per cent. So that, judging by weight, newspapers now form by far the largest portion of the articles conveyed by post. The books only form 2 per cent; and therefore, if anything like equality and correspondence is to be established between books and newspapers, some new regulations must be hereafter established with regard to books and pamphlets.
Having thus explained the intentions of the Government relative to the newspaper stamp, I beg leave now to move the following Resolutions—
"That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the Stamp Duties on Newspapers, and to provide for the transmission by Post of printed periodical publications.
"That any periodical publication, to be entitled to the privilege of transmission and retransmission by the Post, shall be printed on paper stamped for denoting the Stamp Duty imposed by Law on a Newspaper, printed on the like number of sheets or pieces of paper, and of the

789
like dimensions, with respect to the superficics, of the letterpress thereof.
"That printed Newspapers (British, Colonial, or Foreign) shall be transmitted by Post between places in the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Colonies, or Foreign Countries, or between any ports or places beyond the Sea (whether through the United Kingdom or not), either free of Postage, or subject to such rates of Postage, not exceeding 2d. for each Newspaper, irrespective of any charge for Foreign Postage, as the Commissioners of the Treasury, or Her Majesty's Postmaster General, with their consent, shall from time to time think fit."
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have listened with great interest to the very elaborate statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I entirely agree with him in the opinion he seems to entertain, that it would be better that the Bill should be printed and laid before the House, and that there should be some brief opportunity at least of giving it consideration before we enter into any full discussion of its merits, or into any comparison between the particular provisions of my right hon. Friend's measure and of that which I had the honour of introducing. Parental partiality, probably, renders me an unfair judge on this subject, but I cannot deny that I regard with regret the changes which my right hon. Friend has introduced into the plan as originally framed. At the same time, in considering a measure of this kind, I think it is our duty, as Members of this House, to ask ourselves, not so much whether the measure that is proposed is in all respects conformable to our own wishes and predilections, or even whether it is the best that in our opinion could be submitted to Parliament, but whether, upon the whole, it goes so far in avoiding all existing difficulties of a serious and pressing character, and in introducing material and substantial improvements in the law, as to make it worth our while to recommend and promote its adoption by the Legislature. That is the principle upon which I desire to consider this Bill of my right hon. Friend's when it shall have been laid upon the table. There are, however, one or two points in the measure proposed by my right hon. Friend upon which I wish to say a word. I confess I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend signify, towards the close of his speech, that he was not indisposed to give a favourable consideration to the proposal, provided it appeared to be in accordance with the wishes of the House, to introduce into his Bill, not a qualification or alteration of the measure, but Simply an
790
extension of it, which would establish a moderate and low tariff for printed matter in general. I certainly think that such a regulation would be a most valuable addition to the Bill, and would in no respect interfere with the principle which my right hon. Friend proposes to establish. I can conceive no reason whatever why newspapers or periodicals published within thirty-one days should enjoy privileges that are denied to the feebler means and resources of those who may occasionally, or under particular circumstances, wish to give the public the benefit of their thoughts in print. With respect to one serious portion of this question to which my right hon. Friend adverted—namely, the effect of his measure upon the revenue—I would remind him that the introduction of a low and moderate postage tariff for printed matter of all descriptions would materially tend towards indemnifying him for the loss he is likely to sustain by the abolition of the compulsory stamp. I have no scruple in adverting to this point, and I may remind the House that, although the present tariff for the transport of books by post is not immoderate when it is applied to the case of what may fairly be called books—I mean works of considerable bulk, such, for instance, as the Quarterly or Edinburgh Review, which approach the weight of a pound—yet, so far as pamphlets are concerned, it is little less than a prohibitory duty. Indeed, it would very commonly better answer the purpose of those who wish to circulate pamphlets through the post to send them as letters, subject to the letter postage, than to avail themselves of the existing tariff for the transmission of books by post. I think, therefore, there is every necessity for an alteration in this respect. With regard to my right hon. Friend's definition of periodicals, I do not intend to enter into that part of the question at present, but, if I understand his resolutions rightly, it appears to me that the only periodicals which would be able to avail themselves of his proposition would be periodicals that conform, in a certain degree, to the arrangements of newspapers, and particularly periodicals that are limited to a couple of sheets. I must confess I apprehend that this regulation will be found materially to limit the beneficial effect of my right hon. Friend's measure, and, if so, it will be an additional argument for his adopting the proposal that greatly increased facilities should be given for the circulation of printed matter of all

791
descriptions whatsoever, whether periodicals or otherwise, by post. The next point I wish to mention is one to which I advert with greater unwillingness, but upon which I differ from the views of my right hon. Friend. He has announced his intention to propose that the use of the impressed stamp, which is to convey the postal privilege, shall be conditional upon a registration that is to entail the necessity of giving of securities. Now, it is quite true that at the present moment we have a law of this kind in operation. It is quite true that if a tradesman at the present time carries his circular to the Board of Inland Revenue he obtains the postal privilege on the condition of his declaring his circular to be a newspaper, although, if the Board of Inland Revenue were afterwards to prosecute him for not stamping his entire impression, he would be entitled to go into a Court of Justice and there to contend that that was not a newspaper which he himself had declared to be a newspaper in order to obtain the postal privilege for part of his impression. Now, the declaration thus made undoubtedly entails upon him the condition of giving securities; and at present, if a tradesman thinks he can supply his customers and the public with any given article upon such terms that it is worth while to advertise his prices from time to time, and if his ambition has so wide a range that he wishes to make them known, not only in the place where he may live, but throughout the country, it is necessary for him to register his circular or advertisement sheet, or whatever it may be, as a newspaper, and to give security that he will not print therein any blasphemous or seditious libles. Undoubtedly this is the practice under the law as it stands; but I must confess my belief always has been that this was one of the anomalies and absurdities of the practice which induced the House during the last year to do what it is not very apt to do, and what I think it most wisely eschews doing—namely, to pass an abstract Resolution to the effect that the law ought to be altered. My right hon. Friend proposes that this condition of giving securities shall be retained, but that it shall be retained not as a condition of publishing a newspaper, but as a condition of the postal privilege. But, is it possible for this House to embody permanently in one law a regulation founded upon such a basis? It is perfectly intelligible if a man tells me that securities ought to be given by those who publish
792
newspapers. There certainly may be differences of opinion upon that subject, some parties may think that these securities are highly important for the protection of public order or of private character. I confess that I am not of that opinion. My belief is, that securities have this effect—they provide that if the man who has given them commits an offence against the law, and the party whom he has wronged proceeds against him in a Court of Justice, the man who has committed the wrong shall have the means of paying counsel and attorneys to defend him. This I believe to be the first effect of these securities. That is a question of policy, but what question of policy, or what intelligible object or motive can be connected with the retention of securities as a condition of postal transmission? Why, if these securities are important at all, they are important as a protection, not to public men, not to Ministers of the Crown, or to members of this House, but to the private characters of individuals. Now, where is it important to defend private character? Why, within the particular sphere where each man is known; but if you are to say to a clergyman in Devonshire, "we will take care you shall not be libelled in Northumberland, where the people know nothing about you, but you may be libelled ad libitum by the newspapers published in your own town—we will allow you to be libelled in that part of the country where it is material that you should have your character defended, but we will prevent you from being libelled in a part of the country with which yon have no connection or concern"—it is plain that you place your law upon an irrational basis, and my right hon. Friend will run great risk of not attaining the object he has in view, namely, that of effecting a complete and final settlement of this long-vexed question. There is another point which is not a matter of indifference to me, namely, the question of copyright, for the protection of literary property in newspapers. I do not wonder, so far as we know any thing of the plan of my right hon. Friend from his explanation to-night, that he has not included in his Bill any clauses upon this subject. I think, indeed, it is a matter with reference to which it would be very difficult to devise a plan. At the same time I am under the impression that the proprietors of newspapers, in many cases, entertain great anxiety that the provisions of the law with respect to the protection of literary pro-

793
perty should undergo special consideration, and should, if practicable, receive some extension with a view to the protection of literary property in newspapers. Undoubtedly, so far as the article that is most strictly called "news" is concerned, for instance, the communication of facts, which may generally be comprised within a very brief space, and the language, the outward shape and form of which can be varied almost at will, I do not know how you are to introduce any further provisions than the law at present contains; but I have understood from some persons who ought to be well informed on the subject, that the great anxiety of those who think this question worth consideration in the press as it stands, is not so much directed to the protection of their "news," strictly so called, which, in point of fact, it would be very difficult to protect, as to the protection of what may more fairly be called their literary composition—for example, the leading articles in their newspapers, and, especially as regards the London press, the communications of their foreign correspondents. Now I, for one, am very anxious that, either in the plan of my right hon. Friend, or in some other effective form, this question should be brought to a settlement. I think what my right hon. Friend has stated tonight must suffice to convince the House that the question now before them is not whether or not you will have a cheap press. You have got your cheap press at this moment. London is already inundated with these cheap weekly prints. My right hon. Friend has told us of one single publication in London which now issues some 510,000 copies a-week, and of another which prints at the rate of 240,000 a-week. Here, then, are upwards of 34,000,000 copies of two publications alone printed annually in this metropolis. How many more similar publications there may be we have no means of knowing; but I apprehend that this statement is far from representing the actual number. You have then your cheap press established in the country. If it does not exist throughout the country, it is certainly established in the great centres of the population, and, above all, in London; and, as I have just observed, London is already inundated by those weekly prints. By the present frame and structure of your laws, you prevent the insertion, in these publications, of what may be considered discussions upon public events, or the statement of public news; and the ques-
794
tion for the House to decide is, not whether it is expedient to have a cheap press or to prohibit a cheap press, but rather when you have got a cheap press, whether you will give to the promoters of that cheap press the means of providing the people with intelligence of the events in which we are all so deeply interested, with intelligence relative to the working of our institutions and the passing of our laws, or whether you will drive them to what is petty and paltry, to cramming their columns with novels and romances,—whether you will preclude them from affording that information which really forms the worthiest material for consideration and reflection, or whether you will allow a fair competition between public news, as we understand it, and those inferior materials to which it is the tendency and effect of the present law to confine the conductors of these publications. Determined as I am to do all in my power completely to set free the press—whether it be a cheap or a dear one—for the handling of public events and news of all kinds, and to apply to this subject those principles of free commerce which have been extended with such efficacy to the general mercantile transactions of the country, yet, I fully admit that, so far as literary compositions are concerned, we now find them in our existing press of a high standard and of very great value, and that the principle of protection to those compositions is a perfectly fair and just one. I am not prepared to say, and indeed it would require one more skilled in the law, and better acquainted with the whole facts of the case, and the feelings and interest of the parties concerned than I am, to point out in what form this could best be done. I do not venture to prejudge this question, but I would venture to express a hope that, in endeavouring to carry out the principle of the freedom of the press, my right hon. Friend will not be indisposed to take into his favourable consideration any reasonable proposition which may be made to him for the improvement of the law of copyright, in order that we may not run any risk of breaking down that system under which the highest talent in the country is applied largely and advantageously devoted to supplying the public with intelligence and to the discussion of that intelligence. I must confess that I should regard the destruction of that system as a public misfortune—a misfortune which I am the less disposed to incur, because I do not

795
look upon it as a natural or necessary consequence of the important measure of emancipation which is now contemplated by Her Majesty's Government. Of course I do not offer any opposition to these Resolutions. When the Bill of my right hon. Friend comes before us, we shall have an opportunity of discussing it, and I entertain a most confident hope that it will receive a candid and favourable reception at the hands of the House.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: Sir, I am not about to enter into the discussion of the Motion itself now before the House, but there is one part of the subject which I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with rather unsatisfactorily, and which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) touched on still more lightly—I mean that part having reference to our financial operations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated with perfect candour that he apprehends that at least 200,000 l. will be the loss on the measure proposed. Now, I do not pretend myself to draw an estimate different from my right hon. Friend, but I would remind him that Mr. Rowland Hill, in that Committee from whose labours he has derived the great part of his observations, stated—if my recollection serves me correctly—that the utmost he thought would be obtained by the adoption of a measure similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman would be 130,000 l. Mr. Rowland Hill thought that that would be the maximum, but there has been some increase of income since, and I apprehend that you may count on the loss of about 250,000 l. of revenue in adopting the proposed arrangement. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he thought that by a cheap mode of carrying books by post you might obtain an additional sum of money; but I am afraid that our finances are in such a state that you must not neglect any mode of raising money; and you will have before long to consider, not only whether you cannot raise money by a cheap mode of carrying books, but by many other modes also which may be much less agreeable to the House and the country. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, though not responsible for bringing forward the project at the present moment, yet, following the example of the late Cancellor of the Exchequer, has made this proposal at what I certainly think a very unfit time. I have repeatedly known—and perhaps I myself may have done what I am about to
796
describe—that when bon. Gentlemen on different sides of the House have proposed arrangements entailing a loss of revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being has risen and advised them, in reference to Motions affecting the revenue, to wait until the financial statement should be made, and then they would know what sum of money there might be to dispose of, then a full and comprehensive view could be taken of the taxation of the country, and then they would know how to apply any sum of public money they might have to spare in the manner the most advantageous for the public good. These proposals were made and this advice given when you were sure that you had some surplus; but are you at all certain at the present moment that you have a surplus? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has fairly told you, that if you pass this measure he must of necessity propose some other taxation to compensate for the sum it is now proposed should be lost. Well, then, let us know what is the taxation which the right hon. Gentleman will propose in lieu? We all know, and no one better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that every tax is an evil in itself, and nothing in the world is so easy as to make a case against any tax you please if you consider it by itself. But you ought to consider it in reference and in comparison with other modes of raising money; and, though there can be no objection to allow the right hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill, and lay his plan fairly before the House, yet we ought not to proceed to vote away 250,000 l. of public money, until we have before us the whole state of the finances of the country, and are thereby able to take a full and comprehensive view of the subject. Therefore, I will not now enter further into the details of the plan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained so clearly and candidly to the House, but if he proposes, after bringing in Ids Bill, to pass it before his financial statement is made, I am afraid that he will find me prepared, even if I should find myself in a minority of one, to vote for the postponement of the measure.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I think, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken has scarcely placed this matter on its proper footing. This is not properly a fiscal question, though it does involve revenue considerations; but are we to be told that this country is so pressed in her finances as to be unable to meddle

797
with a subject which incidentally involves 200,000 l. of public revenue, when it is necessary to do so on grounds of public policy in order to avoid a vexatious system of prosecutions and difficulties of the most serious character to the press of this country? I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that we must be careful in times like these in not abandoning sources of revenue; but I cannot see that we should take such an alarming view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition as to reject it on revenue grounds alone. I am sorry that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has left out of his plan that portion of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme which would have compensated for the loss of revenue occasioned by the removal of the newspaper stamp, because, while on the one hand the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up the newspaper stamp, he on the other, by admitting for the first time all printed matter to be carried by the Post-office at the rate of a penny for four ounces, opened a new source of revenue, which, giving great convenience to the public, would also have compensated to some extent, the loss incurred by the abolition of the newspaper stamp. It is difficult to speculate to what amount this compensation would have reached; but as the whole loss of revenue was calculated at 200,000 l. it is quite certain that a large portion of that sum would have been replaced by the post-age rate for cheap printed matter, and, perhaps, even a larger sum might have been obtained than the 200,000 l. about to be lost. Whether that would be so or not is, of course, a matter of opinion; but I hope the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the proposition of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and add to his plan the proposal of a cheap rate of postage for all printed matter. It is a monstrous thing that The Times, for instance, weighing six ounces, or whatever else, is to be permitted for 1d. to be transmitted and retransmitted through the post for the term of our natural lives, and yet I may not send once through the Post Office a pamphlet for a ld., though perfectly willing to pay that sum for a single transmission. So far from any undue advantage being taken of the proposed change of the law by the transmission of improper publications through the post, I will venture to say that for one had publication sent by post there will be 100 good publications circulated by it. There will
798
for instance be religious tracts without number from philanthropic societies which at present have no means of distributing their productions throughout the country. With regard to the securities afforded by the present system, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not correctly stated the law upon that subject. The liability to give securities does not apply to newspapers alone. Every person who publishes a pamphlet which comments on matters of Church and State and is sold at a less price than 6d., and contains letter-press matter of less than 1,714 square inches, is bound to find securities, and also to declare that he is worth 400 l. after all his debts are paid. At the present moment, no man in London, according to law, is at liberty to express an opinion upon paper, and publish the same at a low price and in a small size, unless he is worth 400 l. after all his debts are paid. These are the provisions of the present law, but they are not enforced, except against newspapers only. But if the law is not enforced, can there be a better reason advanced for repealing it? Do I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he intends to repeal only a portion of the law respecting securities; that he is going to retain them as against newspapers, and to abandon them as against other publications? If so I consider it would be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to show why that distinction should be drawn. With regard to registration which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) proposed to abolish, I wish to observe that an effectual registration would still exist, because the Act of George III., which requires that every printer should put his name and place of abode to every printed paper, would still remain in force. Every printer is also required to keep a register of his employers, and is bound to produce it on an order being issued by a justice of the peace for that purpose. So that in point of fact, there would still be a full registration of any printed paper, and the means of tracing the persons who were responsible for its publication, even if the registration referred to by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) were abolished as that right hon. Gentleman proposed. I for one shall be extremely glad to give my support to the Resolutions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; at the same time I shall endeavour to add to those parts

799
of the Bill which I think to be deficient, for I cannot say that I consider the measure as a whole to be so good as the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he would not then express an opinion on the comparative merits of the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and the Resolutions now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed, however, that, by imposing a fixed charge on all printed matter transmitted through the post, the revenue would not gain back altogether so much as it would lose by the repeal of the present postal duty for such publications. However, the whole question was one on which the opinion of the country was greatly divided, as to whether the inconveniences of any legislation whatever might not exceed the advantages that could accrue from it. The great majority of the press were opposed to both the proposed measures, while he believed the people of the country generally would prefer the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford to that now submitted to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was great truth in what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), that the House should take into consideration what were the wants of the country, before they consented to throw away any considerable amount of revenue. He looked with very great concern at the present state of the revenue; and it should have been one of the first duties of the Government to have submitted their budget to the House, in order that it might be known what were the means which the Government possessed to meet the largely increased expenditure which the exigencies of the war had imposed on the country. It was true that in consequence of the changes in the Government it had not been possible hitherto to bring forward any financial statement, but he did trust that in a very short period the budget of the Government would be laid before the House and the country for due consideration. He trusted especially—indeed he did not believe the Government could be so insane as to do so—that they would not resort to disturb the glorious policy of no duties, or very low ones, on articles the essential food of man; and certainly not to increase the duties on articles which, as necessaries, formed the consolation of every cottager's,
800
labourer's, and tradesman's family: he meant the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar. They had done so already on a nutritious and wholesome beverage, good ale—and that very injudiciously, very unpopularly and unjustly.
MR. WARNERsaid, he thought no time should be lost in repealing those absurd and mischievous laws which obstructed the circulation of news; but he entertained very great doubts as to whether this was the proper time for extending the postal privileges of printed matter. He would admit that in principle books were as much entitled to be circulated through the post as newspapers were; neither had any claim to postal privileges. If we could legislate de novo on this subject, it would be desirable to carry all printed matter at as low a price as possible, without loss to the revenue. But in practice there was this difference in favour of newspaper. Through the clumsy legislation of past times they had acquired a claim to be carried at a price which he believed resulted in a positive loss, and though it might be exceedingly inconvenient to curtail these privileges, there could be no reason for extending them. It was, after all, a question of cost. He should be glad to hear from some hon. Member competent to give an opinion on this matter, whether any profits accrued to the revenue by the transmission of newspapers through the Post Office. If so, and it could be shown that books could be transmitted without loss, it would be a strong argument for extending to them the privileges of newspapers. But he feared this was not the case. The Post Office ought to be at least self-supporting. Whether the carriage of newspapers was remunerative or not, he should give his support to the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the hope that the House would repeal those obnoxious laws which now interfered with the circulation of news.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, as this was not the first time a measure of the kind now proposed had been submitted to the House, it was impossible not to be in a certain degree influenced by a consideration of the quarter whence these Resolutions proceeded. He must confess that, between the Resolutions now proposed and those which were originally proposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he could trace a strong family resemblance, still there appeared to him to be a consi-

801
derable difference. He was not prepared at once, as a matter of course, to adopt the Resolutions which originally emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). In saying so, it was not because he did not admire the brilliant talent and eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, but he should certainly have had more confidence in any measure proceeding from that right hon. Gentleman if he could have placed more reliance on a remark which was made by him on a former memorable occasion. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was most sincere in the declaration he then made, startling as it was to he (Mr. Bentinck), when he heard the right hon. Gentleman declare to the House that his opinions were strictly of a Conservative character. He would not enter into any discussion as to how far the right hon. Gentleman was or was not able to make good that very singular statement. All he could say was, that when he heard the right hon. Gentleman make the statement, he could not help ejaculating a hope that men of his party might never be tinged or tainted by such conservatism as that which had been exhibited for some years past by the right hon. Gentleman. He could not agree with the opinion which had been expressed by several hon. Members, that the loss which was likely to accrue to the revenue in carrying out these Resolutions would be more than supplied by the transmission through the post of a new description of printed publications. He thought that the new description of publications which would be engendered by the adoption of the Resolutions would be so purely of a local character and possess so entirely a merely local interest that they would not obtain any distant circulation; therefore it; was very doubtful whether they would at all increase the revenue, as far as their circulation was concerned. With regard to the other portion of the measure, it was premature to give any opinion, He could not, however, conceive the possibility of a Bill of the description indicated by the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman being adopted by the House without leading to the commencement of a revolution of the present established order of things connected with the press of this country. It must be the means of producing publications of a cheap description, in large districts of the country, of a totally different and of very inferior character to those which were now in
802
circulation. The measure was most certainly divested of those guarantees against the improper use and the abuse of the press which at present existed. Therefore, he thought it incumbent upon the House, in passing the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, to take care that some efficient protection be provided against the abuses that must be engendered throughout the country by the circulation of publications that had no sort of check upon them, and that were liable to be made use of in all quarters without being subject to any of those restrictions which were now imposed upon newspapers at present circulating throughout the kingdom.
MR. KIRKsaid, he had repeated communications with newspaper editors and proprietors, and they unanimously condemned the Bill of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and were desirous that the present law should not be altered. He conceived that the existing law afforded as many advantages to the public as any measure could possibly give. He was not, however, disposed to offer any opposition to the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, but he had felt it his duty to state what had been the communications made to him on the subject by those who were the most deeply interested in it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to assure the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth that I have maturely considered the financial consequences involved in this measure, and I have no doubt that my predecessor had done the same; but it must be remembered that this is not merely a fiscal matter, because, as I have already stated to the Committee, the existing law respecting the stamp duty upon newspapers has been brought into a most inconsistent and anomalous state by a succession of indulgences which were made for the benefit of a certain class of newspaper publications. The consequence of those indulgences is, that the greatest difficulty exists in the administration of the present law. The Board of Inland Revenue are perplexed by different publications which are set up, as it were, in defiance of the existing law. Frequent correspondence takes place between Mr. Timm, the solicitor to the Board, and the proprietors of various newspapers. Some of that correspondence has been from time to time brought under the consideration of the House; it is made the subject of com-

803
plaint, and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is constantly embarrassed in the administration of the law. Now, I will give to the Committee an example of the cases which arise. There was a newspaper published in Ireland called the Commercial Journal and Family Herald: it was a publication for the most part of a literary character, but it did not wholly exclude matters of intelligence; and a prosecution for printing it upon unstamped paper was instituted in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland. The jury, however, returned a verdict against the Crown, thereby intimating their opinion that, notwithstanding that the paper did contain some news, it was not a newspaper, the general contents being of a different character. The Irish Attorney General, being consulted, stated that, in his opinion, the verdict was not justified by the law, since the case was clearly within the provision of the Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, he did not recommend a renewal of the prosecution, on account of the difficulty in procuring a verdict in such cases. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for England will be prepared, at a future stage of the Bill, to state to the House the practical difficulty which he finds in performing his duty in respect to the prosecution of newspapers, and the maintenance and administration of the existing law. If the House should decide that this revenue is not to be abandoned—and certainly it is not the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a moment when the expenditure exceeds the revenue, to press upon the House the abandonment of any source of revenue—then the Attorney General will be prepared to point out the difficulties which surround the execution of the present law; and it will be necessary to take proceedings against about 100 class publications, which, as they now publish literary, legal, medical, and other news which is interesting to various classes, but not political news, do strictly come within the terms of the Act of Parliament, although, by the indulgent interpretation which has been admitted, they have hitherto been exempted. I trust, also, if the House is pleased to reject this Bill, that it will be prepared to support the Attorney General in a rigid execution of the existing law, and, if necessary, to pass a declaratory Act or a subsidiary Act to remedy any defects in the law as it at present stands. I will now call your attention to another example of the difficulties
804
which incumber the administration of the existing law. The solicitor of the Board of Inland Revenue, being examined before a Committee upon the subject of class publications, was asked why class publications were not subjected to the compulsory stamp? Inadvertently, instead of saying that they were exempted because they were addressed to a particular class of the community, he said that it was because they related only to one subject. In giving that reason, he made a slight error of statement. That error has now been taken up in different parts of the country, and a number of periodicals have appeared, such as the War Telegraph and the War Times, containing intelligence relating exclusively to the war, which they say is "one subject," and, so saying, set the Board of Inland Revenue at defiance. I hold in my hand a publication of that nature, called the War Fly Sheet, which is printed upon half a sheet of paper, and is sold at the price of one halfpenny. There is a note under the heading to this effect, "The War Fly Sheet, published in accordance with Mr. Keogh's rule of 1851, that a paper confined to one subject is not a newspaper; and, in spite of Mr. Keogh's change of opinion in the year 1854; for the purpose of ascertaining whether a proclamation from Somerset House has the same validity as an Act of Parliament." That is one of the difficulties which the present state of the law engenders. No doubt that publication is a newspaper practically subject to the compulsory stamp. At present, however, the circulation of War Sheets is not considerable; and, in the unsettled state of the law respecting newspaper stamps, the Board of Inland Revenue, I think in the exercise of a wise discretion, have abstained from directing prosecutions against that class of periodicals. If the House of Commons decide that the law is to be upheld, it will be for the Attorney General immediately to prosecute that class of periodicals. I mention these facts to show that we are now placed in a situation of great difficulty in upholding and administering the present law. It is not simply a question of whether we shall retain or shall not retain a revenue of 200,000 l., but it is whether we shall enter upon a crusade against a large portion of the existing newspaper press for the sake of enforcing a law which can only be enforced by means of the verdicts of juries, which are somewhat doubtful in their result. These are the reasons which have

805
influenced the Government in the course which they have taken in bringing forward this measure, and it is for the Committee to determine whether they have exercised a sound discretion or the reverse.
MR. GLADSTONE: I feel, Sir, that the chief part of the financial responsibility of this measure can rest upon no other person than myself; and, therefore, after what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), I wish to add a word to what has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has pointed out, not only that the present state of the law is a theoretical absurdity, but that it contains practical difficulties which have reached such a pitch as to be entirely intolerable; that not only has it become utterly impossible for the gentlemen connected with the Board of Inland Revenue to discharge their duty to the public by enforcing the law, but that the cases which have occurred have been so glaring and so numerous as to bring all law into discredit. The very fact, also, of bringing the Government of the country into contact with persons under circumstances so disparaging, and of exposing them to questions in this House to which they are unable to make satisfactory replies, is a strong reason why Parliament should deal with this question. But, in defence of my right hon. Friend and myself, I must remind the Committee that it is the House of Commons which is principally responsible for the introduction of this measure. Last year, when I was absent, owing to indisposition, the discussion was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) and others, not upon the suggestion of the Government, because the Government adopted a dissuasive tone in the matter; and it was rather in deference to the strong and unanimous opinion of the House that the Government gave way, and not because they thought that the proposition was either a wise or a prudent one. Now, what did the House do under the pressure of circumstances—what did both sides of the House think fit to do? At a time when the country was engaged in a war, when every Member of this House must have known that the demand for the year would exceed the provision which was made—liberal as that was—a Resolution was agreed to to the effect that the law with regard to newspapers was imperfectly defined and partially enforced. I am not one of those
806
who think that a Member of this House, or a Member of the Government, should be compelled to do anything which the house might choose to require, and I may myself have on one occasion appeared to be contumacious in not at once acting in accordance with the expressed wishes of the House; but I may say that, greatly as I disapprove of the practice of passing abstract Resolutions, instead of dealing with practical plans, yet if the House chooses to adopt that course, and to lay down the opinion that a law should be altered, it is the duty of a Minister of the Crown to endeavour to give full effect to the expressed wish of the House, unless some obstacle of a serious nature should intervene; and therefore, to my mind, the question now is whether, under existing circumstances, the alteration proposed by the Government is for the good of the country. Now, I would ask the right hon. Member for Portsmouth whether he is able to suggest or to recommend any alteration of the law which is in principle different from the proposal made to-night by the Government, or from that which, a few weeks ago, I brought forward myself? Will any one stand up and say that he agreed to the Resolution which was passed by the House, but that in his opinion the law ought to be altered by enforcing the stringent definitions which at present exist or even by making them more stringent still? I have no doubt that any hon. Gentleman expressing an opinion on this subject will stand to the opinion he expresses; but if objection is to be taken to the present Resolutions on the ground that they refer to a financial and fiscal subject, whereas it is a measure in which the fiscal element is merely a secondary consideration, I must request those hon. Gentlemen who thus object on financial grounds not to shrink from declaring their opinions on the general policy of the proposal. I must ask them to point out to the Government what course they ought to have pursued in order best to give effect to the Resolutions agreed to by the House last year. It will not do for those persons who forced upon the Government the view that the law must be altered, to take financial objections to the measure now proposed, and to refrain from stating in what way they intended that an alteration should be made in the law when they voted in favour of the Resolution which was agreed to by the House.
MR. LAINGsaid, he felt considerable

807
apprehension at any proposition at the present time which had the effect of remitting taxation, to any extent, however slight. He could understand, under ordinary circumstances, a reduction like the present being proposed, and he should, under such circumstances, look upon it with favour. At the present day, however, there was one consideration which was paramount to all others, and it was the duty of a Government to avoid seeking popularity in that House or in the country by giving up any taxation when the country was, from the circumstances of the war, inevitably compelled to expend so many millions. He was willing to accept any blame which might attach to him for having voted in favour of the Resolution referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed them, but he would remind that right hon. Gentleman that at the time that Resolution was agreed to it had been stated that the amount of taxation existing would be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the public service, and that the Exchequer bonds which were issued were only in anticipation of the revenue. In such a state of affairs he considered that it was not improper to pass the Resolution referred to; but at the present time the case was widely different, for it was impossible for that House to conceal from itself that the expenditure of the country exceeded by many millions any sum which could reasonably be expected to be raised by taxation during the year; and, under these circumstances, it was, in his opinion, wrong to remit a tax which produced 200,000 l. At such a time it was not expedient to remit taxation in order to court popularity, however unpopular any tax might be. If it could be shown that by the introduction of a measure like that described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxation was being adjusted, and not remitted, the case would be different; but if such were not the case, he thought that to remit any tax at the present time might be attended with dangerous consequences.
MR. BRIGHT: I am afraid, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has created a difficulty which does not appear to me really to exist. This House is aware that when the Government was foolish enough or wicked enough to involve the country in war no limit to taxation could be expected. With regard to the sum of 200,000 l., I should have more faith in that objection if it were made by
808
those Gentlemen who have complained against wasting the public money; but it appears to me that so many millions are voted night after night with so little trouble, that I do not look upon that particular sum as an insuperable objection or difficulty in the way of adopting the course which the House is now advised to pursue. But the question is not one of 200,000 l. It is impossible to say what will be the loss to the Exchequer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to allow all printed matter to go through the post. That, no doubt, would make up for some portion of the loss, but that, however, is not the question. The real question is, whether a Resolution which has been unanimously agreed to by the House shall be adhered to or not; or there is the other question, whether the law which exists, whatever it may be, shall be fairly administered by your authorities out of this House. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has examined this subject in his official capacity most minutely, more so, perhaps, than any other Member of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has also examined it during the short time he has been in office, and both those right hon. Gentlemen have come to the same conclusion as that which he himself and the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), and other hon. Friends of his had arrived at long ago—that the law was in such a condition that it was impossible to be worked by the authorities at Somerset House. If the Government had now determined not to alter the law, but to give the Attorney General orders to prosecute every one who should break it, there would not be to-morrow an Attorney General at all. There was no man he believed in that town or in England, of the legal profession, who would under such circumstances be willing to hold the office of the highest legal adviser of the Crown, or who would take upon himself to prosecute not 100, but more than 200 persons who are engaged in publishing papers which, strictly speaking, come within the limits of the existing law. I think the question of the sum of 200,000 l. may be left out of view, or rather I am prepared to take it into view, because I think it is at once disposed of, for, when such large sums are nightly voted almost without any consideration whatever, I think that very little notice need be taken of such a sum as 200,000 l. With regard

809
to the question of pirating literary property, I should have no objection to any legislation which could equitably deal with the involved question of copyright, but I really think intervention on the subject is unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is of opinion that in the case of short paragraphs any legislation would he useless, as the news could be taken, and the wording of the paragraph entirely changed. With regard to leading articles, there might be some chance of their being pillaged, but, even according to the present law, they may be published without a stamp, and, indeed, a newspaper might be published every morning at ten o'clock and sold at 1d., giving all the articles of all the morning papers in London. I will undertake to say, however, that such a paper would not have any very great circulation, for the English people have an instinctive dislike of anything which bears meanness and dishonesty on the face of it. I am of opinion, too, that the leading articles are not the things which sell a newspaper, though we all of us read them of a morning with a devotion which I cannot account for, seeing the little information which we generally find we have obtained when we get to the end of them. With regard, however, to the securities against libel and the like, I will just read to the House a little paragraph which I cut the other day out of the Cambridge Press:—
"The good Time Coming: I hear, upon good authority, that at this moment a project is on foot among the men who have been most active in the movement against the newspaper stamp duty to start a penny or twopenny daily paper, to appear at ten or eleven o'clock in the day, and to be composed of the materials furnished (at great expense) by the respectable daily papers a tiny hours before! The very idea of such villany is revolting."
I do not know whether the worthy editor meant to apply these charges to my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. M. Gibson) and myself, but he certainly seems to forget that he has given all the securities which the law prescribes not to libel any one. This charge was copied into The Globe on the 12th of March, and the following morning it did duty in The Times. Now The Globe is a paper which, with the exception of a few advertisements which it gets from the Treasury, fills its columns entirely with intelligence which somebody with the help of a good pair of scissors has extracted from the morning papers. Now, I do not see exactly what mighty difference there is between coming out at ten o'clock in the
810
morning and three in the afternoon, but certainly I think the conduct which is revolting in the one case cannot be entirely without guilt in the other. One request I would make of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is, that he will bring in this Bill as soon as he can, and pass it as fast as ever the House will allow him; for I know that there are some hundreds of people in the country connected with newspapers—some of whom have opposed, and some supported the measure—who are in extreme difficulty to know what to do in their present state of suspense. They do not know exactly where they will be hit, and they are, in great perplexity to know what arrangements they will have to make for the future. I entirely disagree, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this measure will not produce a good crop of newspapers. I have here a paragraph from one of the Glasgow papers, I believe, from which I see that three new daily papers are about to be established in that city—the Daily News, the Morning Bulletin, at 1d., and the Evening Digest, at ½d. In Manchester, too, preparations are being made for starting daily papers as soon as ever this Bill has passed. Something has been said to-night about the opposition which many of the provincial papers have made to this proposal, but I am very glad to say that a great many papers, and among them some of the best and most influential of the provincial press, have all alone supported it. The Leeds Mercury for instance—a paper almost unexampled for the influence which it possesses in the distract in which it is published—has always written in favour of the abolition of the stamp duty, as a measure, among other reasons, necessary for the spread of education. The Manchester Examiner, too, has always, from its establishment, consistently supported the measure; and The Manchester Guardian, a paper of older date and larger circulation, has also taken the same course, and has very lately charged a London journal with having opposed the Government because the Government was about to propose the abolition of the stamp. It is certainly very unbecoming for one journal to make such a charge against another, nor do I believe that it has the least ground in truth. I am quite satisfied, from years of attention to this subject, that there never was so large a measure, involved in a small measure, so to speak, as is the case with re-

811
gard to this proposition for making the press free. I am willing to rest on the verdict of the future, and I am quite convinced that five or six years will show that all the votes of Parliament for educational purposes have been as mere trifles compared with the vast results which will flow from this measure, because, while the existing papers will retain all their powers of usefulness, it will call to their aid numbers of others not less useful, and while we continue to enjoy the advantage of having laid before us each morning a map of the events of the world, the same advantage will be extended to classes of society at present shut out from it. The Times newspaper has written rather strongly lately upon this subject, and in a manner which, if I had been asked for advice, I should scarcely have recommended—though, perhaps it is rather presumptuous in me to talk of giving advice to The Times. That journal generally says something good upon every subject, and only so far back as the 17th of May last it wrote an article on the subject, in which was the following paragraph—and I quote it to show that, however dangerous The Times may think any principle of legislation may be which is unfair to its own interests—and I am not at all prepared to say that the plan of Mr. Spring Rice, when he lowered the duties, was not unfair to that journal—yet on the subject of the stamp it can when it so pleases write as rationally and as powerfully as any one. This is the paragraph—
"With all our talk about knowledge, about the achievements of science, about education, schools, churches, enlightenment, and Heaven knows what not, there is something positively ridiculous in taxing that intelligence which really constitutes the great medium of a civilised country. We make a great stir about teaching everybody to read, and the State, that is the nation, pays a quarter of a million a year in teaching children to do little more than read. Then we proceed to tax the very first thing that everybody reads. In this way the newspapers pay for the education of the country, for they find their expenses aggravated and their circulation restricted by an impost about equal to the sum spent in educating the masses. But we have several times enlarged on the absurdity of a tax which, as it is a tax on news, is a tax on knowledge, and is thus a tax on light, a tax on education, a tax on truth, a tax on public opinion, a tax on good order and good government, a tax on society, a tax on the progress of human affairs, and on the working of human institutions."
Now I like authorities as well as anybody when they are on my own side, and The Times is a great authority, no doubt, on
812
such a matter as this. I am prepared to admit that there is no journal to which the people of this country are more indebted than to The Times. Though it is, I consider, wrong on many points, though it knocks us all about pretty roughly at times, and though it maltreats many questions, yet it is a free press, and, whatever may be its faults, nobody can deny that education, freedom, and progress of every kind are very much indebted to that great public instructor. I quote this paragraph therefore with the more confidence, though I am not quite sure that The Times may not to-morrow entirely deny it, or write in an opposite sense. When we see, then, great and influential journals, such as The Times and the provincial papers to which I have alluded, whose interests are so deeply involved, writing in favour of the abolition of this duty, not a single Member of this House should rise to oppose it. Two Chancellors of the Exchequer have to-night told us that they are in favour of its abolition, and I hope no man who looks forward to becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the boldness to dispute their opinion. This is the question of which there is no getting rid; you must decide it, and the only satisfactory way in which you can do so is to take the besom and make a clean sweep. I have done something towards bringing this question before the public and before the House, and, if this measure passes, I shall look back to the part which I have taken in this movement with as much pleasure as upon any part of my public career.
MR. PACKEsaid, that however much certain large towns might be enamoured of this measure, certainly in country districts, where people could only obtain their newspapers through the medium of the post, it was not at all palatable. He would not, however, object to the passing of the Resolutions now before the Committee, but he reserved to himself the right of opposing the measure at a future stage.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he could not regard one argument at least of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) as very conclusive, namely, that because the country was at war the present was to be the moment for getting rid of taxation. He quite agreed in the opinion that this was not exclusively a fiscal question; for, without doubt, it involved a great legal difficulty, and it was but right that the House of Commons should come to such a decision as would

813
relieve the law officers of the Crown from their present false and embarrassing position. Still he was at a loss to know why 500,000 l. of taxation could not be raised from newspapers published within a month after the occurrence of the events narrated. His belief was, however, that two thirds of any tax levied upon newspapers must be absorbed in the expense of transmitting them through the Post Office. But he wished, before he came to any conclusion as to the measure now under discussion, to have a clear explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the sources from which he intended to supply the consequent deficit of 200,000 l.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he considered the proposed alteration of the law was demanded with reference to the due administration of the law, from a regard for the education of the people, and out of respect for the House's own recorded Resolution.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that there was an inconsistency in having assented tacitly to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) last year, and now opposing the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, he (Mir. Bentinck) had not spoken on the occasion when the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gibson's) Motion was discussed, but certainly it would be a sweeping rule to lay down in that House that silence invariably gave consent. But, in fact, there was no real inconsistency between supporting the Resolutions of last year and opposing the present Motion. The right hon. Member for Manchester's Motion was—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the laws in reference to the periodical press and the newspaper stamp are ill-defined and unequally enforced, and it appears to this House that the subject demands the early consideration of Parliament."
Now, undoubtedly, the state of the law did demand early consideration; but he must entirely dissent from the particular manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told them that there are at this moment a great number of publications or newspapers the position of which was so doubtful that the highest legal authorities were at a loss whether they ought to tackle with them or not. Nothing could be worse than such an anomaly, and the state of the law ought to be dealt with as speedily as possible, if it were only to vindicate the rights of that
814
portion of the press winch was subjected to taxation.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to know whether, in the case of the Resolutions being agreed to, the Bill would be brought in to morrow?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Resolutions would be reported to-morrow, and the Bill would be then introduced.
Resolutions agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.

THE UNFUNDED DEBT.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the Unfunded Debt for 1855–56. He was anxious to obtain from Her Majesty's Government some explanations in reference to this subject, because a strong impression rested on his mind that this branch of the public debt stood at a much higher figure than Parliament had a right to expect, or even, he suspected, were aware of. Indeed, he should have directed attention to the matter during the passing of the Exchequer Bills Act; but it did so happen that at that time there was no responsible Finance Minister in the House, besides which the Bill was only a sessional one. The only occasion on which he had had an opportunity of stating his opinion on the subject was upon the occasion of the passing of the Bill—which was late upon a Wednesday—when he took what he might venture to term a flying shot at it, and expressed a hope that these Exchequer bills would not change their nature and he turned into funded debt securities. However, the hon. Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) seemed on that occasion to consider any such contingency quite impossible. It was, however, an indisputable fact that Exchequer bills were converted into funded debt in the months of June and October of the year 1853; and it was against that process that he wished strongly to protest. The unfunded debt of 1853 amounted to 17,742,000 l. By the 17 Vict. c. 25, it would be seen that the unfunded debt stood at 16,000,000 l. But what was the amount of the unfunded debt for 1855 as it now stood under the Bill which had gone through that House? The actual sum appeared to be 17,183,000 l.; but a certain amount

815
of bills had been exchanged for bonds to the amount of 591,000 l.; so that, practically, the unfunded debt for 1855 stood at the same amount as in 1853. He humbly submitted, therefore, that some explanation ought to be given as to why it was that the House had not been duly informed of the increase which had been made in the amount of the unfunded debt. Last year, on the occasion of his bringing forward his first Budget, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) stated that some Ways and Means would be required while his increased income tax was being realised; and, accordingly, he obtained a vote for the issue of 1,750,000 l. in Exchequer bills. Now, it was these very Exchequer bills which he wished the House would trace, and in regard of which he was desirous it would determine whether it had been duly advertised of their issue. For he held it to be the imperative duty of Parliament closely to criticise every variation in the public debt—whether funded or unfunded—a doctrine nowhere more fully recognised than in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, on the occasion to which he had just alluded, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the vote of 1,750,000 l. was in the nature of Supply Exchequer bills, while he carefully drew a distinction between the permanent and unfunded debt and the class of bills we were then advocating. He added that they were to be withdrawn as soon as the new income tax was realised, and that they were not to be confounded with the permanent Exchequer bills debt, but were to be taken per se, and were to be paid off out of the growing products of the revenue. Well, on the 21st of February the right hon. Gentleman ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer; and then, in the absence of all explanation—there being no one in office capable of rendering the necessary official statement—Her Majesty's Government did not hesitate to bring forward a measure actually rendering nugatory all their former professions, and incorporating this issue of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills of last year with the unfunded debt of the country. He certainly thought the House of Commons had a right to expect some explanation would be given relative to this occurrence, and he trusted that the course recently pursued would not be drawn into a precedent.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he had also given notice of a question to the same effect as the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby)—the terms of his question being, whether the Secretary of the Treasury could give any explanation of a renewal of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills, which was stated to have been made contrary to a pledge given to the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Session? There was a general impression abroad that there was an irregularity in the statement of the accounts, and some discrepancy between the theory and the practice of the finance of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amount of Exchequer bills which it was generally expected would have to be renewed this year was 15,433,000 l., whereas the actual amount was 17,183,000 l., which included the item of 1,750,000 l. referred to by the hon. Baronet. Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in his budget speech of 1854, stated that these were special bills raised for the purpose of meeting expenses which had been incurred before, that they would be paid off from the produce of the accruing taxation, and would not appear in the amount of Exchequer bills to be renewed this year. On the 6th of March, 1854, in bringing forward his budget, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he proposed to double the first half-yearly payment of the income tax, and to make provision, in the interval, before the tax could be actually levied by the issue of Exchequer bills within the amount of 1,750,000 l., which would be paid out of the growing produce of the revenue. In alluding to these bills, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said, they were, in reality, what other Exchequer bills falsely purported to be supply Exchequer bills, and that when the supplies came in the bills would be paid off from such supplies, and nothing more would be heard of them. He had read that day the correspondence to which the hon. Baronet had alluded; and in it the right hon. Gentleman seemed to make two pleas, which appeared to be totally inconsistent with each other. The first was, that although the right hon. Gentleman might have stated what he had quoted, he, on a subsequent occasion, declared that they were not to be paid off at all, but were to be renewed as ordinary Exchequer bills. The other plea was, that this sum of 1,750,000 l. was not renewed

817
without notice, because he (Mr. Gladstone) did actually make a statement on the subject in reply to the hon. Baronet opposite. Now, the question of the hon. Baronet did not refer to this particular matter at all, although the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that the bills to be renewed this year were ordinary Exchequer bills, to be renewed in the ordinary manner. This was on the 8th of May. He certainly could not find any modification in this of the previous statement; but even if there were, the right hon. Gentleman, on the 23rd of May, returned to his original statement, and declared that there was no change whatever in the intentions or the announcement of the Government, from the beginning, and that the bills were to be paid off from the accruing taxation. Now, no one could have expected to see such a sum of money mixed up—unintentionally, no doubt—with the whole amount of Exchequer bills. And were it not for the zeal and activity of the hon. Baronet opposite in these matters, who referred back to the returns of 1854, no one would have been likely to trace what were the real circumstances of the case. It was not his intention to assert that the right hon. Gentleman was not perfectly within the law in what he had done. But what he (Mr. Ricardo) maintained was this, that if the right hon. Gentleman intended these returns for the information of the House they were most clumsy and unbusiness-like. But if—what he could not believe—they were intended as a mystification, they could not be more efficient and successful. Who could suppose that the right hon. Gentleman intended to add to the debt in this manner? The right hon. Gentleman had denounced the raising of money by loan as a deliberate system of deception upon the public. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Where, or when?] He could not tell the exact line in which the expression occurred, but that the remark was made he would undertake to say. He had written it down from the speech as he had read it in Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman repudiated any idea of making a loan, and was indignant with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) for supposing that the 6,000,000 l. of Exchequer bonds might, by unfinancial minds, be interpreted into a loan. He (Mr. Ricardo) confessed that, for his part, he had very much the same idea as the hon. Member for Huntingdon. He thought, notwithstanding the presence of those unfortunate Long Annuities, which had been the prey
818
marked out for destruction by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and which were to fall out as the Exchequer bills fell in, that if, at least, there were not 6,000,000 l. added to the permanent debt of the country, they would be prevented from taking off a very large number of millions from the permanent debt of the country at the expiration of the Long Annuities. The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to be pleased at hearing these things mentioned; but he (Mr. Ricardo) felt bound to say that, if ever there was an amount of money added to the debt of the country without the country exactly understanding the process, it was the 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills which the right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer created last year. He did not think the present was the moment to discuss the abstract question of whether it was advisable to carry on war by means of taxation, or by means of loan. He was certainly very far from being one of those who objected to taxation, because it would render the war unpopular: he should be very glad to see war unpopular; but at the same time he believed that the attempt which was made last year—a very praiseworthy attempt, as he believed it to be—to raise the supplies, and to carry on the war by the taxation of the country, was an utter, unmixed, and irretrievable failure. That was plain from the result of the operations of last year. That being the case, would it not be better that the failure should be honestly, straightforwardly avowed? Why not let it be confessed that it was a failure? Of what use could it be to conceal that 1,750,000 l. had been added to the permanent debt of the country? The right hon. Gentleman could easily explain how the failure had taken place without having recourse to any subterfuge. He recollected the open and manly way in which the right hon. Gentleman avowed the abortion—as he was pleased to call it—of the conversion of the South Sea notes. He thought the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) was entitled to the thanks of the House for calling attention to the subject under consideration. It was a subject of great importance, and he trusted that the statements which had been made that night would have the effect of making the House more vigilant in such matters in future.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken rose to put a

819
question to him, and he would endeavour very briefly to give him a satisfactory answer. In the first place, however, he heartily concurred with the closing observation of the hon. Gentleman, that the House was indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) for even at the eleventh hour calling the attention of the House to a circumstance so interesting and so important, and he sympathised very much with him when he regretted that these discussions were to be carried on in another place, where there was an absence of persons intimately acquainted with the details. He wished the hon. Baronet would exercise his vigilance still more, so that no misrepresentations might hereafter take place in reference to such transactions. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ricardo) said that if there were one question more certain than another, it was that the 1,175,000 l. of Exchequer bills, which were now the subject of discussion, were as completely and as irretrievably added to the permanent debt of the country as any loan that was ever made. Now, on that point, he totally joined issue with the hon. Gentleman. He proposed not only to show that it formed no part of the permanent debt of the country, but still more to show that out of the taxation of the past year—out of the produce of the year—the whole expenditure had been paid, and that the country had not been debited with one single shilling on account of the expenses of the past year. It had been assumed that there was no question but that the Government had added to the national debt for the purpose of contributing to the necessary expenses of the war during the past year. Those assumptions were entirely unfounded, and he hoped he should succeed in convincing the House that upon the principles which were announced last year the Government had entirely fulfilled the promises which had been made. Perhaps the House would permit him to recur in the first place to the amount of Exchequer bills provided for the present year. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) was quite right in saying that the Exchequer bills ought to have been reduced by 591,000 l., and both the hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke were right in supposing that the 1,750,000 l. made part of the 17,183,000 l., the amount of the unfunded debt. When he introduced the Exchequer Bills Bill, and laid his statement on the table of the
820
House, the hon. Baronet asked him whether that amount of 1,750,000 l. would be reduced by the amount of Exchequer bills that had been funded in the preceding year. His reply was that the amount of Exchequer bills had been reduced, so there was no discussion on the subject, and the matter passed off without much observation. Having made these observations, perhaps the House would permit him to refer to the state of the unfunded debt as it now stood in relation to the previous year. In the previous year it amounted to 17,742,000 l.; in the present year it was 17,183,000 l., showing a reduction of 559,000 l. Perhaps he might be told by the hon. Baronet that in the meantime the Government had to a considerable amount converted Exchequer bills not only into stock but into Exchequer bonds. Well, if that were so, the House would of course find the amount figuring proportionally in the funded debt of the country; but, if they turned to the account of the funded debt, they would find that it amounted on the 5th of January, 1853, to 761,622,000 l., and to not more than 751,839,000 l. at present; so that, in that period, the floating debt had been reduced by 559,000 l., and the funded debt, instead of being increased by the suggested conversion of Exchequer bills, likewise had decreased to the extent of 9,783,000 l. The amount of Exchequer bonds forming a new species of debt on the 5th of January last was 1,043,000 l. If that sum were deducted from 9,783,000 l. being the amount of the funded debt, there would be still left a clear reduction of 8,740,000 l. as funded debt, and 559,000 l. as unfunded debt. Therefore, so far as the debt at the present period was concerned, it stood at least 9,200,000 l. less than at the commencement of the year 1853. He must ask hon. Gentlemen to go back to the Budget of the 6th of March, 1854. On that day his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced that Budget with this explanation: He said, "The country was not then at war, but it was very likely to be at war, for which very large preparations had been made. He, therefore," he said, "proposed to lay before the House a statement of finances independent of that consideration, reserving to himself the right of coming down for further expenses, which would be rendered necessary by the war, if it should unhappily take place." Now, on the 6th of March there was a deficiency upon the Estimates of 4,307,000 l.,

821
supposing no war took place. Now, how did the right hon. Gentleman propose to provide for that deficiency? He said that, in the first place, he should ask the House to double the income tax, and that the whole amount of the increase should be received by him in the first half year. The half year's income tax was estimated at 3,370,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite true that he lost an additional amount of taxation equal to the income tax of the half year, but inasmuch as the dividends would not come in until July, he must make immediate arrangements to meet demands, and he asked the House to give him 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer Bills Supply Bills, distinctly stating that they were different in their nature, though not in name, to the ordinary Exchequer bills of the year. The right hon. Gentleman intended paying those Exchequer bills from the growing produce of the taxes which he then proposed. He took the precaution also of saying that he could not foresee what would happen. If war took place he should be obliged to make a further provision, and he distinctly, time after time, referred to the impossibility of guaranteeing the House that he should not make further claims during the year. Suppose no declaration of war had taken place, let them see how the principle would have operated. His 3,000,000 l. of new taxes would have come into collection in October, and in April the whole of that amount would have been in the Exchequer, and his expenditure would have been paid as the year went on, and he would have been clearly in a position to have redeemed now every shilling of that 1,7,50,000 l. But he did not intend limiting the matter in that way. He would show to the House that under those unfavourable circumstances the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified, and that facts had since that time more than borne out his declaration. The right hon. Gentleman, after the war had been declared, came down with his second Budget on the 8th of May. The new deficiency he showed was 6,850,000 l., and he proposed to provide for it thus:—he proposed that the income tax for the second half year should be doubled, that 450,000 l. should be raised from spirit duties, 700,000 l. from sugar duties, and 2,450,000 l. from malt duties. Only a small portion of that amount could come in until this year; and how did the right hon. Gentleman propose to remedy that inconvenience? He proposed that
822
there should be issued Exchequer bonds to the extent of 6,000,000 l. in anticipation of those taxes. He ought at the same time to say that 625,000 l. of that amount was exchanged for Exchequer bills, and therefore the bonds were reduced to 5,375,000 l. Now, the House would have arrived at this fact, that the Government had 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills and 5,375,000 l. Exchequer bonds in aid of the expenditure of the year, independent of the income from the ordinary revenue. To show that his right hon. Friend took a correct view of the character of these Exchequer bills and Exchequer bonds, he, in the end of May, in showing what were his Ways and Means, included the Exchequer bonds and bills in his calculation; and in the course of the debate which ensued he combated the opinion that the issuing of these Exchequer bonds and Exchequer bills was the creation of debt. It was quite clear that, whatever category the bonds were placed in, the bills were placed in the same. Could hon. Gentlemen believe that bills that bad three, four, or six years to run were to be paid off in the year on which they were issued; or that, when the House sanctioned Exchequer bonds that had three, four, or six years to run, the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate that those bonds were to be paid off at a future time by means of the increased taxation which he then imposed? Let the House stop for a moment to inquire how the country was affected by these operations, and how this 1,750,000 l. bills and the Exchequer bonds stood against the public at the present moment. On the 8th of May, 1854, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) estimated the deficiency of the year at 11,157,000 l. That deficiency, on the 17th of the present month, instead of being 11,157,000 l., stood at 14,198,000 l.; that was, the expenditure of the year had exceeded the expectations of the Government by 3,041,000 l. The House had passed Bills sanctioning taxation to the extent of 3,000,000 l. on that amount. In addition to that, he ought to inform the House that the whole of that amount had been spent in ready money. All these additional supplies since the House met in the present year had been spent in ready money, thus contradistinguishing the present war from any of the wars which had preceded it. Not one single payment had been deferred more than it would have been in time of peace. When, therefore, he quoted these figures, he wished it to be understood that they represented the real

823
state of the expenditure in a time of peace. There was nothing behindhand which could ever come against the country as a future charge, and that, he took it, was a great distinction from all former wars. He would say, also, that not a single demand had ever been made by a single department which had been refused during the whole year. It was the duty of the Treasury to exercise a vigilant supervision in ordinary times; but the Government had felt that during the war the responsibility of expenditure rested on departments, and, except where there had been an extraordinary expenditure, it was their duty to see that it was not laid on as a basis of permanent expenditure. If he had taken credit for the present state of the finances, it was not that the Government had been niggardly in the expenditure of money, for without reserve they had sanctioned every expenditure every department had proposed. They had, up to the 17th of the present month, expended in Supply services alone, for the quarter, 9,579,000 l.; before the close of the quarter it would reach 11,000,000 l., whereas the ordinary amount was between 4,000,000 l. and 5,000,000 l. There was an important element which had been kept out of sight by the hon. Gentleman, who had taken exception to the financial operations of the Government. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) told the House last year that he should not receive his taxes within the year. The Government would have, on the 5th of April, due in uncollected taxes, not for ordinary revenue but for the war, no less than 5,120,000 l., being for income tax 3,320,000 l., and for malt duty 1,800,000 l. Well, then, if they were to balance accounts at the end of the year, when they put their whole expenditure which had been paid in ready money, they must give credit for that which was due, and which, if peace should come, would go to the payment of ordinary revenue. Again, he would state that every shilling incurred by the war had been paid out of the income of the year. The case was strong enough as it stood; but he would ask the House to recollect what was the state of matters on the 5th of April, 1854? Why, on the 5th of April last year, after his right hon. Friend had paid off nearly 10,000,000 l. of national debt, there were deficiency bills to the amount of 6,642,000 l. Upon the 5th of January of the present year that sum had been reduced to 1,598,000 l., so that there had been paid
824
off in nine months upwards of 5,000,000 l. of deficiency bills, and that out of the growing produce of the year. Now, he was compelled to say that he did not think we should stand so well on the 5th of April next, because the expenses of the present quarter had been very large. He should be very glad to leave the matter as it stood, because he believed that all the gratuitous assumptions that had been indulged in would be dispelled when it was ascertained that the Government had fulfilled all their obligations, and had placed the finances in a better state than they were in at the commencement of the war. But then he would be asked what became of the 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills. They had been renewed, but they were not a permanent debt. They were a mere floating debt, and there was a great difference between the two things. He had told the House that the Government had some 5,000,000 l. of taxes due, and that they had paid the expenditure of the war. Hon. Gentlemen must not expect that because in a time of war the Government raised money for the present half-year, they were going to allow the next half-year to starve. These anticipations of the revenue must be made from half-year to half-year as long as the necessity existed. A noble lord had told them in another place that the conduct of the Government in this matter was like that of a young spendthrift who borrowed money for four months and thought himself a paragon of prudence because he repaid the amount by fresh bills at the expiration of that time. Perhaps he (Mr. Wilson) might venture upon a more correct illustration. Suppose that any hon. gentleman possessed an estate of 5000 l. a year and contemplated making large improvements which would absorb his whole income. He began in April, and his dividends would not come in until six months afterwards. Did he take credit for what he would have to pay the contractor, or did he take the more prudent course of obtaining advances from his banker for the half-year? He would, in all probability, adopt the latter course; and he (Mr. Wilson), as well as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), thought that was a very sensible operation. Government anticipated to the extent of 7,125,000 l. the revenue of last year. There was 5,000,000 l. of it uncollected on the 5th of April; and they might go on anticipating it, and these securities might be kept afloat so long as the existing expenditure went on,

825
because they would still have the remaining six months taxes in arrear, which would be collected during the six months to follow; and then, with that amount of income in excess of expenditure, they might either liquidate these securities, or else by the operation of the sinking fund, pay off other securities, which would come to the same thing. That sum would be available at the conclusion of the period for paying off the debt which was created in anticipation of it. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willonghby) in a tone of complaint a few weeks ago, asked if it was the intention of the Government to convert Exchequer bills into funded debt? and he complained of savings-bank money being applied to that object. [Sir H. WILLOUGHBY: Without the consent of Parliament.] The consent of Parliament had been given, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to speak of savings-bank money, as if he had not a very accurate notion of the nature of the investments in which that money was laid out. The real fact of the case was, that Government took upon itself the enormous responsibility, and also the cost of holding that money; and, therefore, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intrusted to him the power of using the widest discretion as to the mode of conducting those funds, the sooner the management of them was given up the better. But with all the discretion that could be employed, the loss to the country was greater than was generally supposed. During ten years the loss upon the difference of interest paid to that which was received amounted to 434,000 l., and, taking into account friendly societies, to 660,000 l. These funds ought to be regarded as bankers' deposits; and what would any banker pay to a customer who should, after having deposited his money in the bank, attempt to control or find fault with the securities in which the banker chose to invest it? It was quite enough that the banker undertook the responsibility of holding that money and of paying the interest. It should be remembered, also, that it was during times of great prosperity that the largest amount was deposited in savings-banks, and in times of adversity that money was withdrawn; and as the Government were obliged, in the latter case, to convert stock into money to meet that demand, the result was that, taking an average of ten years, the price at which they bought in the funds with the savings-bank money was 97½, while the average price at which they had been compelled to
826
sell out was 87⅞ showing what a serious loss was imposed upon the Government by making it responsible for that money, which the Government ought, on the other hand, to be allowed to make use of. In conclusion, he must appeal to the House to place some confidence in the discretion of the Finance Minister.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as I was a party to those transactions to which the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) has called the attention of the House in a very brief statement, made in a spirit of great fairness and in a temper most unexceptionable, it may be that the House will expect me to say a few words on this very small question, which has, I think, most unduly been magnified into a great one. I stated, when I asked for the issue of these bills, that they might be redeemed by the first moiety of the income tax, and at that time I explained to the House, and I thought I was successful in explaining to the hon. Baronet, that I did not want both an issue of bills to the amount of 1,750,000 l. and also the first moiety of the income tax; but that what I asked for was, an issue of those bills in anticipation of the first moiety of the income tax. I did not at that time make a proposition for the finances of the year, and I will not now discuss the question as to whether it was prudent for the Government to come to this House and ask for the means of transporting a military expedition which it was intended to send out, but I will only say that the proposition then made was not made for means to carry on the war, it was only made for the purpose of sending out a military expedition, and, if no active operations should take place, of defraying the expense of its return. I made another statement on the 8th of May, in which I said the exact contrary to that which I had stated on the former occasion to which I have referred. On the 8th of May I said, that I should want both the doubled income tax and the issue of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills. I am unwilling to trouble the House by reading extracts from the report of that speech, but I may state that, after having brought forward what is commonly called a Budget, in my anxiety to make the subject under the complicated circumstances of the time clearly understood by the House, I took a course which I believe had never before been adopted by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and drew out what may be called a cash balance for the convenience of the House.

827
I told the House on that occasion that the total expenditure which I anticipated I should have to meet was 63,339,000 l., and I then proceeded to show how the money was to be forthcoming. The ordinary revenue of the year I estimated at 53,349,000 l., the proceeds of the first half-year's doubled income tax—3,307,000 l.—raised the revenue to 56,656,000 l.; and I took into my calculation also the vote of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills, which raised the whole revenue to 58,406,000 l. I stated as distinctly as possible that I should not only require the double income tax, but the 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills also which had been voted in March, and I think, therefore, the hon. Baronet must allow that the charge of having kept something back from the House entirely falls to the ground. But I have heard it said to-night that I ought to have told the House on the 8th of May that it was my intention to renew these Exchequer bills. Sir, I should have been guilty of the grossest folly if I had told the House any such thing, for at that time I was of necessity perfectly unable to form any judgment on the subject. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ricardo) went into the very much larger and more important question—of how the expenditure of the war is to be raised. He says, the attempt to raise the supplies for the year by the taxation of the year has turned out to be an utter, irretrievable, and unmixed failure. The hon. Gentleman did not condescend to support this statement by reasoning or facts—he delivered it oracularly, and I must say that his statement is, to me, an utter, irretrievable, and unmixed puzzle. I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman means, and I very much doubt whether he knows himself. The question, however, which the hon. Member has opened is one of the utmost importance. It deserves the most careful and deliberate consideration from this House, and I certainly am the last man to deprecate its discussion. For myself, I maintain that all attempts to forestall the expenditure of the year in a time of war are futile. I never attempted to submit to this House any war estimate which was, or ever could be, reliable in the same sense as a peace estimate is. All I could do was to urge upon my colleagues, in whose hands was the administration of the great military and naval departments, to present outside estimates; and then, in addition to providing for these estimates, it was my duty
828
to ask for a considerable vote of credit and the command of a large additional amount of cash. The Estimates have certainly been exceeded; but still, in the first year of the war, and with all the additional expense of a winter campaign, the forethought of this House has been very nearly equal to the entire expenditure. With respect to the question of the public debt, I find that it was somewhere about 2,000,000 l. less when I quitted office in January, 1855, than when I accepted office in January, 1853. The process by which I arrive at this result is this: I take the funded debt as it stood in January, 1853, I add to it the unfunded debt, and I deduct from it the balance in the Exchequer. I do the same with regard to January, 1855, and I find, as I said, that during the two years I held office the debt has been reduced by about 2,000,000 l. But, in the course of the year 1854 there had been an excess of 9,000,000 l. of expenditure connected with the immediate purposes of the war, a very small, in fact, I may say, an insignificant portion of which had been defrayed out of the proceeds of the taxes that year imposed by Parliament. Now, in answer to the question whether the effort made by the House last year, to provide for the expenditure of the war out of the taxes of the year was, or was not, an utter failure, I will offer a brief statement. It was not the effort of an individual, or of the Government, it was the solemn and formal decision of the House of Commons. The deliberate view they adopted was, not that they should register a vow against any resort to loans, nor that they should entangle themselves with any abstract resolution or distinct pledge, but that it was their duty to commence the war with a manful and resolute effort, after a liberal estimate of the expenses of that war, to provide for the liquidation of those expenses out of the taxes of the country. Now, how does the matter stand? The amount of provision which was made in May, 1854, from permanent sources, was, in round numbers, 12,000,000 l., and of that about 10,000,000 l. was taxes newly imposed, and 2,000,000 l. was handed over to us upon the estimate of the revenue, with the taxes as they stood in the previous year. The excess of expenditure was then estimated at something under 11,000,000 l., and out of the 12,000,000 l. permanent provision it was expected that within the year we should realise about 8,000,000 l. If we actually had got

829
8,000,000 l. in hand during the year, it follows that we should have had to draw upon the funds granted to us in expectation to the extent of about 4,000,000 l. We should have had so far to pledge the credit of the country—in fact, to create debt to that amount; but, as has been stated, against that 4,000,000 l., we were fully justified in setting that portion of the receipts of the extra taxation of the year which would have been received on the 5th of April, amounting to somewhere about 5,000,000 l.; and, therefore, if the expenditure of the war had been confined within the estimated limits, we should have an actual surplus of 1,000,000 l. from the revenue belonging to the year over and above the actual expenditure of the war. But the expenditure has gone beyond these hounds. I apprehend that if, instead of providing for the expenses of the year by means of taxes, we had taken a loan to the same amount, we should have been equally open to the risk of the expenditure going beyond the limits that were placed. The two subjects were entirely distinct. Some people seemed to think that money raised by taxes was not so good, and would not go so far, as money raised by loans. My impression is, and I shall be ready at the proper time to support it, that money raised by taxes will go quite as far, and even a little further; because the House would be disposed to keep a sharper watch upon expenditure raised by taxes, than it would do if that money were raised by loans. But the expenditure was gone beyond the estimate to the extent will now state. The excess for the year was estimated, in May, at a little under 11,000,000 l.; the actual excess, as we have now ascertained by experience, up to the present time, has passed 14,000,000 l. Therefore, there was a surplus of 3,000,000 l. of expenditure over and above the 11,000,000 l. which we estimated. But even there the House, in its forethought, did not leave us without resource, because, on the 8th of May, when we presented estimates showing that the expenditure of the year, including the vote of credit, might run up to 63,000,000 l., the House was pleased to sanction the provision of cash to an amount exceeding 66,000,000 l., or 3,000,000 l. beyond the estimates. The consequence of that 3,000,000 l. excess of expenditure has been that, instead of drawing to the extent of 4,000,000 l. upon the aids in anticipation of taxes, we have drawn 7,000,000 l. Against that sum of 7,000,000 l., you must
830
place 5,000,000 l. for taxes that have not yet come in; so that the result is that, with all the gigantic operations which you have been carrying on, the whole excess of expenditure over the sum to be raised by taxes is 2,000,000 l. Such an excess in time of peace would indicate gross want of care on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, or on that of the revenue departments; but surely, in time of war, an excess of 2,000,000 l. is not a discreditable account to present. What was the state of things at the commencement of the revolutionary war? There was then, at the end of the first year of the struggle, when the efforts made had been but trifling, an excess of expenditure more than doubling the provision made by Parliament. Parliament provided 4,000,000 l., and, in addition to spending that sum, the Government of the day contracted a debt of 5,000,000 l. It is inherent in the nature of the demands made by war that you cannot set limits to them; and I am sure that the House of Commons is prepared to make the most liberal allowance, not for the Government's neglect or failure of duty, but for those circumstances with which it is possible for human forethought and care to cope. I do not wish to push the matter too far—I will not pursue it further into detail. I do not seek to entrap the House into assenting to an abstract principle, nor to induce it to tie itself down to any foregone conclusion; but I say, as a matter of retrospect, and reverting to the extensive operations in which you have been engaged, that you have not cause to regret a failure or an abortion—for this House has made provision in a remarkable degree for the expenditure which has been incurred, and it has great reason to look back with satisfaction on the course which it thought fit—wisely, as I believe—to adopt.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, nothing can be more important than that at this period of the year we should be favoured with the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under the present circumstances in which the country is placed recognise additional reasons for our being furnished with such an exposition. I lament the causes which have deprived the House of that great advantage. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, placed as he has suddenly been in a position of great difficulty and responsibility, had a perfect right to throw himself on the indulgence of the House

831
while he refrains for a time from making that explanation; but, although it is our duty, no doubt, to show him that forbearance which he justly demands, still nothing can be more inconvenient than that, while the official statement of the condition of our finances from the responsible Minister of the Crown is withheld, these desultory debates should arise, circulating assertions, as they do, which I, for one, am not prepared to admit to be authentic, and which are certainly not made under circumstances that would justify their receiving that criticism which they might otherwise require. I do not mean for a moment to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) was not fully authorised in making the remarks which he did. They related to a very pertinent point, but one that is limited in its character. Yet the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury takes advantage of the inquiry which my hon. Friend made with regard to it, and in putting which he was followed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), to enter into a detailed exposition of the financial state of the country. With the exception of the future supplies which we may be called upon to grant, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) really concealed nothing from our knowledge. He has, indeed, communicated to us an amount of information which rather astonished me. "I wanted," he says, "so many millions and I obtained them, and having obtained them in such and such a way, I have spent so many millions"—"Ego et Rex meus." Whether "Rex meus" will be prepared to submit to the despotism of the Secretary of the Treasury is a point which, with our limited experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am unable to determine; but I hardly believe that the late occupant of his important office would have been so willing, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be, to yield to so severe a surveillance. All that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) said may be perfectly true; but I prefer having from the lips of the proper Minister and at the proper time the authentic account of the liabilities and resources of the country, and I decline to enter at the present moment into any discussion on the subject. The question which has been brought before our consideration is one of a much more circumscribed scope. It has been legitimately introduced, and, so far as I caught the purport of the hon. Member for Stoke
832
(Mr. Ricardo), with temper, and also, as I believe, with accuracy. Let us endeavour to recall the single point which is now before us, putting out of view the comparative merits of sustaining the expenditure of the country by sheer taxation—or by the aid of the national credit. Let us forget the admirable management of the Secretary to the Treasury, and pass by for a moment his panegyric upon himself. What is the real question that has been brought before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham and enforced by the hon. Member for Stoke? There is no doubt, notwithstanding the honied phrases and mellifluous sentences of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that in March last the House of Commons was under the clear impression that there was a vote of 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills of a temporary character, and which was to be defrayed from the accruing revenue of the year. This vote was past with the full understanding on the part of the House that it was a vote of Exchequer bills to be kept perfectly distinct from the usual vote of that character; and that, to use the language of the right hon. Gentleman, these bills were to be strictly and literally bills of Supply—(which is a term still preserved, though not observed)—and not to be mixed up with the ordinary votes for the year—that in fact they were to be a provision of a temporary nature. I believe that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will agree with me that there is no mistake on that point. But it is said that in May there was a great change, and a fresh statement was made. Now, I always thought that it was a very great error, considering the position in which the country stood—and I mentioned this opinion at the time—that we should have had a precipitate Budget in March, which was quite unnecessary. Under the difficulties of the period the right hon. Gentleman might have postponed his financial exposition, and need not have created that confusion which has since occurred, by reason of his rival statements of March and May. In May, however, you had a second statement from the right hon. Gentleman; and he tells us now that then virtually, although not in that distinct and formal manner which might have been wished, he intended to alter the plan which he had submitted to the House, and that that which was a temporary vote of Supply two months before for nearly

833
2,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills was, in fact, then changed in its character, although this House, and other persons beside this House, do not even now seem to be aware of it. The right hon. Gentleman has read passages—of course from authority—from his own speech, and, following those passages, as I heard them quoted, I am bound to say that I could not deduce from them that clear inference which he thinks they will bear. I have not now had an opportunity of referring to authority, but certainly my recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was to this effect:—"The Government proposes to do nothing more now (in May that was) than it proposed to do in March—we propose to increase the permanent revenue of the country, and likewise to establish some temporary supply which shall be defrayed out of the accruing revenue of the year." Well, what happens? The right hon. Gentleman himself admits, whatever were his own intentions, the House and the country did not share them. We did believe that the temporary loan of the month of March was really a temporary loan, and was actually to be discharged out of the accruing revenue of the year. Now, in this year the usual Exchequer Bills Bill is brought in, and we find an increase of 1,750,000 l. added to the ordinary amount of Exchequer bills. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury says, that this is not an increase of the permanent debt; technically it certainly is not so, but it is an increase of the permanent debt as compared with the temporary assistance that the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford at first projected. We are in this position—in March, 1854, a Vote for nearly 2,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills was taken, on the distinct understanding with this House, that the Vote was for the temporary aid of the public service, and that it was to be defrayed out of the accruing revenue of the year; but, early in the spring, the house of Commons finds that this sum is made a portion of what may he called the permanent debt of the country, and is any one to be surprised that an hon. Gentleman should come forward and call the attention of the House to what he considers a violation of faith on the part of the Ministry, or that he should come forward and ask for explanations with respect to this considerable sum, and should draw what appears to me to be the natural inference, that the principle on which the financial system of the Government was
834
established—namely, that the expenditure should be defrayed from the annual revenue—had been departed from, and had, in fact, broken down? I do not object to a Minister, placed in the difficult position in which the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford was, borrowing 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills; and I am sure if he had come forward and thrown himself on the country, and asked for 17,500,000 l. he would have been supported. It is not with regard to the amount that I object, nor will I say anything now as to extravagant expenditure, for until we have the formal statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer I decline to enter into that question. But I say that it is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have proposed a Vote of 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills as a temporary loan, to be defrayed out of the accruing revenue, and that this was to be a test and proof of the new financial principle on which the whole war expenditure was to be conducted, and that when a few months have elapsed we should find that this sum takes the shape not of a temporary loan, but really becomes a portion of the permanent debt. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford says, that there have been great misrepresentations, and rather complained of the perverted view which has been taken of the course of his conduct on this subject; but let me remind him that he distinctly impressed upon the House that these 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills were distinct from the other 16,000,000 l. Exchequer bills that were to be issued in the course of the year, and were entitled only to the name of Supply Bills in the strict sense of the term. I do think that after this statement had been made, if circumstances had altered in the interval—and I do not deny that such circumstances might not have occurred in conducting a war of such magnitude as that for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible—but if circumstances had occurred so as to change the course originally determined on, was it not incumbent on him to have come forward and distinctly to have said so, and to have fairly announced it to the House? Although the right hon. Gentleman had quitted office, the Secretary of the Treasury, remembering the declaration that was made with respect to this particular Vote, that it was the keynote, the corner-stone of the financial system on which the war should be conducted—ought

835
to have come forward and have said that, in consequence of the change of affairs and the difficulties that had arisen, the Government felt that it was no longer expedient to maintain this principle, and that they should recommend that this 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills should be placed with the rest of the Exchequer bills; but, as far as I can recollect, no statement of any kind was made. Under these circumstances, I do not think that there is anything that justifies what has been said by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford on this subject, or that they were justified in objecting to the course taken by the hon. Member for Evesham, to whose objections no satisfactory answer has yet been given.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: Sir, I must make a few observations—but, following the example of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat—not upon the present question, because I think, with him, it will be better to wait until we have the financial statement of the year before us previous to entering into that question. I will only say, that when that statement is made, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to present the same flattering picture which has been drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury. But there is a point to which a noble Friend of mine (Lord Monteagle) was the first to draw attention, and in which he is said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to have misrepresented his conduct, upon which I must say a few words in vindication of my noble Friend. It is the vigilance of my noble Friend that has shamed the House of Commons, and they were indebted to his attention that the circumstances with respect to these Exchequer bills, which had escaped the House of Commons, had been brought before them. The observations made by my noble Friend had no reference to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer individually, but to a sum of money voted for Exchequer bills under particular circumstances and under particular pledges. The point was—that a certain amount of Exchequer bills was voted by the right hon. Gentleman upon the distinct pledge that it was to be a temporary loan, and that afterwards this was departed from without any notice to the House, and the bills, which were to be temporary, were made part of the permanent debt of the country. The answer to
836
the charge is, that an announcement was made to the House that the intentions of the Government were altered. Now, I will show to the House that the statement, as made by my noble Friend, was quite correct, and justified by the only information to which he could resort. I need not recur to what took place in March last year, and the distinct and repeated explanations made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Exchequer bills in question were to be paid off out of the ordinary revenue of the year. The words were clear and distinct"—These bills will be paid off out of the current revenue of the year, and you will never hear anything more of them." This was a pledge most distinctly given, and it required an equally distinct and unequivocal withdrawal before these bills could properly be made part of the permanent debt. Let the House observe that the right hon. Gentleman himself drew a distinction between the mass of Exchequer bills which formed a part of the permanent debt and the Exchequer bills in question. But what took place on the 8th of May? The right hon. Gentleman stated that he then gave an explanation, announcing that he had altered his intention. What were his words?—
"You then voted 1,750,000 l. Exchequer bills (of which 1,250,000 l. have been since issued), which makes a total amount of 58,406,000 l."[3 Hansard, cxxxii. 1465.]
It is true that in that calculation he included these Exchequer bills, but he at the same time told the House that there were 3,500,000 l. applicable to any purpose Parliament might think proper. I must say I read over the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, with the view of finding out any announcement of an alteration of intention; but I could not find it out. Nay, more; I have read it over again, after the right hon. Gentleman referred to the passage in question as containing his explanation on the occasion, and I cannot see it even now. And I must say I think he would have acted better if he had distinctly stated his change of intention as to these bills.
MR. GLADSTONE: It was impossible.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: The right hon. Gentleman says it was impossible.
MR. GLADSTONE: Quite. Quite impossible.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that he had counted the bills in question as permanent

837
debt, and told the House he had done so; and now he says it was impossible for him to have told them so. Now I desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman says he did tell the House so, or that he did not? If he did, then he was certainly unfortunate in his manner of doing so, for no one understood him to have done so. If he did not, then how can his defence be that he did so? At one moment his defence is that he did tell the House so, and the next it is that it was "quite impossible" to do so. Nay, after the speech in question, in which he says he did do so, there was a debate on the subject, in which he was charged with having made a loan in an improper manner; and it was said, "You have charged 6,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills." But if the House had understood the statement which the right hon. Gentleman now says he had made, that this amount of 1,750,000 l. was to be added, hon. Members on that occasion would have charged him not with 6,000,000 l., but 7,750,000 l. Yet no one in that discussion had the least notion that this sum of 1,750,000 l. was to be deemed added to the permanent debt. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have made his case intelligible even to his late colleagues; for the defence they now make for him is not the defence he makes for himself. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have explained his defence to them, or they could not have understood him. And further, in the Queen's speech, at the close of the last Session, there was this passage—
"I fully recognise your Wisdom in sacrificing Considerations of present Convenience, and in providing for the immediate exigencies of the War without an Addition being made to the permanent Debt of the Country."
Now what is the permanent debt? The right hon. Gentleman, in his own speeches on the subject, drew the distinction between the Exchequer bills temporarily issued and these bills in question; and he said of the other bills (of which these now form a part), "they constitute a debt, permanent in itself, but renewable from year to year." In fact, then, the right hon. Gentleman converted 1,750,000 l. of bills voted as a temporary aid into permanent debt. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, oh!] Why, these are the right hon. Gentleman's own words, "A debt permanent in itself." Sir, under these circumstances no complaint can be more just than that the pledge which was given was not adhered
838
to; and I confess I retain that impression myself. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey the explanation which he says he did convey, but he is so quick himself, that he attributes to us more acuteness than we unfortunately possess in understanding his meaning. It is a misfortune that a measure of this kind should have been adopted without being sufficiently announced. I hope that in future it may not, be so, and that we shall not have explanations which we cannot understand.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry, Sir, that what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet renders it necessary for use to explain what I said in May. The right hon. Gentleman says that on the 6th of March, I expressed an expectation that these Exchequer bills would not be renewed, and that I did not explain in May that they would. My answer is, that it would have been impossible and absurd for me to do so, because I could not then have known of the intention to renew them. I said, in March, that, according to the plan then proposed, they would not be renewed; and I said, in May, that after making full provision for the estimated service of the country, it was necessary for me to have a further command of cash to the amount of about 3,500,000 l.; and in that 3,500,000 l. I expressly included the 1,750,000 l. of Exchequer bills, and yet the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, states that he did not understand me.
MR. LAINGsaid, he wished to make an observation upon a matter with respect to which much interest was felt in the City of London—namely, the money that had beets deposited in savings banks. The Secretary of the Treasury had laid down the doctrine that, inasmuch as the Government received as bankers the money deposited in those banks, they ought to have the same privileges as were possessed by ordinary bankers. But private bankers were at liberty to go into the market and sell or buy according to such information as they possessed relative to public matters. Would any one suggest that the Government ought to do that, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make use of the information he possessed as a member of the Government in order to buy or sell to advantage? If he did he was sure that the greatest possible dissatisfaction would be caused, and if he did not he must be prepared at times to incur a certain loss in savings-backs operations. The Govern-

839
ment could not conduct these transactions to any advantage, and he had no doubt that if all the operations relative to the savings-bank money were investigated, they would be found to entail a considerable loss. It was much more important for the Government to keep a high character in the City, and to put up with a small loss, than to seek to effect a profit upon such transactions. The best thing would be for the Government to deal with the subject by such an Act of Parliament as would remove the temptation to deal with this money.
Question again put.

SICK AND WOUNDED SOLDIERS IN THE EAST.
MR. A. STAFFORDsaid, that he rose in no hostility to the Government to call attention to the medical arrangements for the sick and wounded soldiers in the East. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had succeeded to the possession of an office associated in the public mind with the extinction of more hope and the infliction of more misery than time permitted to describe, and, therefore, he must be prepared to admit that distrust and doubt attached to the discharge of the duties of his office at present. Not only was the appointment of the Committee upstairs a proof of that distrust, but the whole country had, during the winter, resolved itself as it were into a Committee to assist the War Office and to save the remnant of that army which had left this country with hopes so bright and had been reduced to a condition so "horrible and heartrending." They had been recommended by a noble Lord in the other House to assist in raising more troops to be sent forth, and the best way to assist in the performance of that duty was to elicit from the Government such information as would show that our fellow subjects would be properly cared for in the East. According to the accounts received and the opinions of those acquainted with the country, with the appearance of early spring and summer a new class of diseases would be developed, and a new chapter of horrors would be revealed, unless the Government had taken means to remedy the causes. He hoped he should be told that the unspeakable horrors of the hospital at Balaklava had been remedied, and that it was no longer a disgrace to any civilised country, as it undoubtedly was when he saw it. If the waters of the
840
Black Sea were clear enough, it was his belief that a vessel might be steered from Balaklava to the Bosphorus simply by following the track of the skeletons of those thrown over from the transports conveying the sick and wounded. He hoped to hear that the sick and wounded were not now kept so long in Balaklava Harbour; that an adequate medical staff was provided for the transport service; that the orderlies were no longer invalided soldiers or boys, incapable of attending to the sick, and only increasing the sum of disease and death; that the debarkation of the sick at Scutari was more satisfactory than it had been, and that due provision was made for the removal of the sick and wounded soldiers from the quay at Scutari to the various hospitals. The tendencies to typhoid fever and other diseases might shortly be expected to develope themselves in these hospitals, and he hoped that, unless the Government were prepared with arrangements for the purification of those enormous buildings, no consideration of trouble or expense would prevent abandonment of them altogether. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) would be aware that the late Government had established what he (Mr. Stafford) might call an experimental hospital at Abydos, and it depended upon circumstances whether that hospital would be abandoned or be permanently enlarged. The advantages of this hospital were its being on the highway of the Dardanelles, its absence from any large town, and its being placed under the superintence of one of the best public servants the Government had, Mr. Calvert. On the 6th of November last he wrote a letter to the War Office from Smyrna, calling attention to the fact that the French authorities had opened a hospital there, stating that he had visited it, and recommending the War Office to open a similar establishment in the same place. He pressed the same subject upon the attention of the authorities at Constantinople, but, meeting with no success, he was compelled to abandon it altogether. From communications which he had had with the residents there, he found that for three or four months in the year the climate of Smyrna was considered somewhat unhealthy, but that during the winter the temperature was not nearly so variable or severe as at Constantinople. Now, however, that the unhealthy weather was approaching, he understood that the Government had opened a large hospital at Smyrna. He did not blame them

841
for having opened it, better late than never, and he believed that when they received information of the success which had attended the experiment at Smyrna, the result, as compared with Scutari, in regard to the health of the troops would be found to be most satisfactory. It appeared that the Government were about to adopt the plan of sending out wooden huts for the invalids, and during the time these huts were preparing the Government could receive information as to the most advantageous situations in the whole of the Levant upon which to erect them. He believed that well-ventilated wooden huts were better suited to warm weather, and more capable of being purified from contagion, than stone walls. It would therefore be false economy upon the part of the Government to stint the number of huts to be sent out, and they would not be discharging their duty to our brave troops in the East if they fixed the number for whom accommodation was to be found in these huts at less than 5,000 men. With regard to the propriety of imitating the French, and sending home as soon as possible all the invalids who were capable of bearing the journey, he believed, if they were sent home, the prospect of returning together with the change of climate would have a beneficial effect upon the spirits of the men, and numbers of transports now returning home empty might be employed thus at a comparatively small expense. He was bound, however, to state that, having spoken to several men who had come home invalided in Government vessels, the information which he had received had not been altogether of a satisfactory character, and unless the Government made better arrangements for the transport ships, it would be dangerous to encourage the removal of the men further than it had gone as yet. They must be prepared to view the comfort of the human cargo they placed on board as the chief and main object of the voyage; they must select as physicians and officers men in whom they had confidence, and they must place in the hands of the officers they appointed full power with regard to the internal arrangements of the vessels. Otherwise a far grater risk would be run in sending home invalids in transports than if they were kept in the hospitals. He understood that a medical staff was to be sent to Eupatoria, and he, for the sake of the Turkish contingent, hoped that such was the fact. With regard to the hospital at Smyrna, he
842
believed that the principle of employing civil surgeons had been adopted. Hitherto surgeons connected with the civil service had been very unfairly treated. The most noble and disinterested offers had been made upon the part of certain members of the medical profession to the late occupants of the War Office, but answers had been received to those offers which, far from expressing any feelings of gratefulness for the patriotism displayed by those Gentlemen, had excited the strongest feelings of indignation throughout the whole body. The War Office did not avail themselves of the services of civil surgeons until they were urged to adopt such a course by public clamour. As there was now a civil hospital at Smyrna, besides the military hospital at Scutari, it was not impossible that a feeling of rivalry might spring up between the medical officers of the two establishments. If all the serious cases were sent to Smyrna the civil doctors might complain, and if the worst cases were kept at Scutari the military doctors would be dissatisfied. It was, therefore, of great importance that an officer should be appointed at Balaklava or Scutari, or at both those places, who, in the apportionment of the patients between the hospitals at Smyrna and Scutari, would do justice to the civil and military services. He (Mr. Stafford) wished it to be distinctly understood that in putting these questions he was not actuated by any feeling of hostility to the Government, and that any information he could give to the War Office or to any other department he would most willingly afford. He had been sorry to learn that it was not the intention of the Government to remove the invalid soldiers who had returned from the Crimea from the casemated barracks at St. Mary's, Brompton, in which they had been placed. He had lately paid another visit to those barracks, and he was bound to say that everything had been done to promote the comfort of their inmates. He must say, however, that the ventilation of the barracks was exceedingly defective, and the atmosphere at night must be so unwholesome that it would be most satisfactory to him if he could receive an assurance that it was intended to remove the invalids to some more salubrious quarters. He was satisfied that all those persons who had friends in the Crimea would feel great interest in this subject, and it would be satisfactory to them, as well as to the public at large, to learn in what

843
manner the Government intended to provide for the remnant of our army.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to disclaim being actuated by any spirit of hostility towards the Government, and from the attention he had bestowed upon the state of the military hospitals, both in this country and in the East, any suggestions which he might offer on the subject could not fail to be treated with respect and to receive attentive consideration. He agreed with the opinions which had been expressed in that House and in another place, that with the view of obtaining recruits for our military forces it was most desirable that the Government should be able to show that they neglected no means which either medical science, or the mechanical appliances at their command, rendered available, in order to enable invalid soldiers to regain their strength as speedily as possible and to rejoin the ranks of their regiments. He was not sorry that some delay had occurred since the hon. Gentleman gave notice of his questions, because in the interval the Government had received the Report of the Commissioners who had been sent out by the Duke of Newcastle to inquire into the state of the hospitals in the East, and during the last two days he had received authentic reports from Smyrna which enabled him to speak upon the climate of that place with some confidence. Before replying to the questions of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the hospital at Balaklava, he wished to say a word or two with reference to the regimental hospitals in the camp before Sebastopol. There had been in those hospitals a very large number of sick—at times, indeed, as many as 20 per cent. of the whole force under Lord Raglan's command. The numbers of sick and wounded men in those hospitals at this moment were not so large, but still they were very considerable. Although the Commissioners who had reported upon the state of these hospitals were in the Crimea during the first three weeks of January, when the cases were, he believed, of the most malignant character, and when the resources at the command of the medical officers were the smallest, it was plain that much suffering had been endured which a clearer insight into the amount of sickness likely to prevail during a winter campaign might possibly have obviated. The great defects with regard to the hospitals, it appeared, had not arisen from any deficiency
844
in the number of medical men, for be believed there had been no deficiency in the number of surgeons attached to the different regiments, but from the want of means of housing the sick soldiers. Since the Report had been made, however, he under-stood that wooden hospital-huts had been provided for every regiment under the command of Lord Raglan. It was quite true that the general hospital at Balaklava had been in a state of great confusion, and that much which was necessary for the proper treatment of the sick had not been provided in that establishment. He believed the chief cause of the disorder which prevailed in that and in other hospitals was the overcrowding, which arose in the case of the hospital at Balaklava, not only from the number of sick sent down there, but also from that establishment having been made a depôt for the reception of the invalid soldiers sent down from the camp, who were to have been conveyed to the hospitals on the shores of the Bosphorus, but for whose transport no immediate preparation had been made. With respect to the hospital at Balaklava, it appeared from a letter written by Dr. Hall in January that wooden huts had been erected in the town in a most excellent situation, and that steps were being taken to erect from twenty to twenty-five huts, which would provide accommodation for some 500 patients. The next point to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention was the state of the transports carrying the sick from Balaklava to Scutari. It was quite true, as he had stated, that there had been in very many instances a great delay between the first embarkation of the sick and the date of the transport leaving the harbour of Balaklava. A few sick being placed on board at first, the vessel remained in the harbour until it was loaded, and thus for several days those who were first placed on board were obliged to remain for some time in the confined atmosphere between decks. It was also true that the nurses on board in the transports were often unfit for their duty, and insufficient in number. But arrangements had now been made, according to which four or five vessels had been fitted up as hospital ships, to which were attached soldiers as orderlies qualified for the duty, and these vessels, exclusively appropriated for the conveyance of the sick, would run between Balaklava and Scutari. According to the statement of the Commissioners who had an opportunity

845
of inspecting one of these ships, which no doubt was a fair specimen of the rest—five in number, he believed—they appeared to possess all the substantial requirements for the service in which they were engaged. The supply of hospital utensils was sufficient, and there was an abundance of medical comforts on board. He therefore trusted that the passage between Balaklava and the neighbourhood of Scutari would be conducted with as little suffering as possible, under the circumstances, to the sick soldier. The hon. Gentleman also complained of the delay in the disembarkation of the sick at Scutari, and he (Mr. Peel) believed that delays of that sort had occurred partly from the want of small boats to ply between the vessels and the shore, and partly also from there being no accommodation in the hospitals themselves at the moment. He thought the cause of that complaint would be remedied by the measures taken to relieve the hospitals at Scutari. The hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a great number of different buildings appropriated to the reception of the sick at Scutari. The Commissioners had gone very patiently into the consideration of the whole administration of those hospitals; and he anticipated from their Reports, and the measures taken by the Government, that great improvements would be effected in all the different branches of administration. Some time since a gentleman was sent out from the War Office with a view to place the purveyor's establishment on a fit footing, and he believed that there would be no reason to complain of that for the future. The hon. Gentleman had observed that it was important that some means should be taken to relieve these hospitals as the warm season approached. He believed that they were at present overcrowded, and in connection with this subject he had to state the Government had made arrangements by private contract with Mr. Brunel, the civil engineer, to provide wooden huts without delay for the reception of 1,000 persons, and huts for a further number of 4,000 persons would be provided by public competition with as little delay as possible. Whether they would be erected on the Asiatic or European side of the Straits would depend on the advice of the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman had made some inquiry respecting the hospital at Abydos, but he (Mr. Peel) knew but little of that establishment, and he was not able to say whether
846
it ought to be enlarged in the way suggested by the hon. Member. With respect to the hospital at Smyrna, an impression prevailed that the Government had selected for it a place which was unhealthy and where fevers were very prevalent; but he believed that impression to be entirely erroneous, and unfounded. He had collected several documents bearing on this subject, but he would dispense with reading them, because he was in possession of the Reports of the Commandant and the principal medical officer, which had been received so late as Saturday last. The Government had not established the hospital at Smyrna without making some previous inquiry with respect to the salubrity of the place. Dr. Morehead was sent to report on the place, and the information he supplied to the Government was very favourable. That gentleman stated:
"There are tanks in the barrack square containing water, which is of good quality; and the Pasha of Smyrna, himself a medical man, states that the supply can be increased to any amount, it being conveyed by means of aqueducts from the neighbouring hills; he states that the convalescents from wounds recover very rapidly here, and that the situation is most healthy."
He had also a letter from a gentleman who had resided thirty years in Turkey, his head-quarters being Smyrna, and who stated:—
"My experience tells me that Smyrna, instead of being the most unhealthy climate in the Levant, is without exception the most healthy of all the large towns in that country. Indeed, although I have travelled a good deal, I do not think I ever met with any place, situated in a hot climate, more so."
He would now read an extract from the Report of Dr. Macleod, dated the 3rd of March:—
"I have put myself in communication since my arrival, not only with Drs. Wood and M'Raith, two intelligent and respectable medical men, who have long practised in Smyrna, but also with the consul and many of the chief merchants, with a view of obtaining their opinion of Smyrna in a hygienic point of view. All express their most unreserved conviction, that, except during certain visitations of plague, which fortunately of late years has become very rare, Smyrna will be found to be one of the most healthy places of the Mediterranean. Nay, many do not hesitate to assert, that if its inhabitants take only certain easy precautions, to be afterwards referred to, it may be accounted equal in this respect to the salubrious parts of England. Malaria is the chief and almost sole source of disease."
Colonel Storks, the commandant of the hospital, stated that Smyrna was a most

847
desirable place to occupy, and as far as their limited experience went in the conveyance of sick, the voyage, though a long one, had not produced so had an effect as was anticipated. This, however, he added, must depend in a great measure upon the transport-ships not being overcrowded. He believed the building in which the sick were placed at Smyrna was one of the most considerable, for a hospital, which was to be found in that country, but the number of sick there (about 750) was certainly more than that building could well accommodate. It had been suggested, therefore, that the Government should obtain from the Turkish authorities the loan of the lazaretto and other buildings more to the south; and wooden huts would also be erected in a large open space within the hospital walls. A letter from a gentleman who went out from the War Office, dated March 5, stated that the best results had been obtained from the hospital at Smyrna, and that the greater part of a batch of invalids arriving there on the 14th of February were then on their way back to head-quarters as convalescents. This gentleman stated that the air of that place was excellent and invigorating, which was not the case at Scutari, where the men lingered but did not rally. The greatest credit was due to Colonel Powell, who was sent out by Lord Raglan to organise this hospital, and who had been relieved by Colonel Storks, the present commandant. He believed he had already stated that the hospital at Smyrna was a civil hospital. About twenty-five physicians and surgeons had been sent out there, and the rates of pay which those gentlemen were receiving, though not fabulous in their amount, as had been hinted at by some, were very liberal. He was quite unable to account for the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Stafford) as to the treatment which certain civil practitioners received from the War Office when they offered their services to the Government. He was quite sure that no intentional slight was offered to those gentlemen; on the contrary there was every disposition on the part of the Government to avail themselves of such offers. He would now say a few words with regard to the convalescent stations which the Government had established. At present the only two places assigned for the reception of convalescents were the two ships in the Bosphorus. It was, however, absolutely necessary that the soldiers should be received at some conva-
848
lescent station previously to their return to camp. It had been represented with great truth, that the confinement of persons between decks in hospital ships was very prejudicial, and the Government had therefore given directions that convalescent stations, capable of accommodating 1,000 persons each, should be established on the island of Gozo, near Malta, and also at Corfu. With regard to the transports for the conveyance of invalids home to this country, it was very possible that, as they were now fitted up, they were not suitable for the reception of sick and wounded; but the Government had arranged for the fitting out of two steamers, which were now preparing at Liverpool, and they would be provided with surgeons and with proper fittings, and would, it was believed, by the month of June, bring some 4,000 sick from the hospitals in the East. In that way great relief would be afforded to those establishments. With regard to the army under Omar Pasha at Eupatoria, the Government had sent out twenty medical men, placed under the charge of Dr. Fuller, and those gentlemen had already left this country. As to the casemates at St. Mary's, Brompton, he had understood that those barracks were not appropriated to the reception of soldiers under medical treatment, but that those who were waiting for their discharges were placed there temporarily. He had now, he believed, answered the different questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member, and it only remained for him to repeat, in conclusion, that Government would be always anxious to give the fullest information on this subject, while they were equally resolved that no unwillingness to owe improvements to the suggestions of private persons should deter them from accepting any recommendations that might come from the hon. Member, or any other Member, which were calculated to mitigate the sufferings of the sick and wounded.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I trust the House will rest assured that Her Majesty's Government will take effectual measures for the recovery, the cure, and the treatment of those brave and gallant men who have either suffered in conflict with the enemy or whose constitutions have been impaired by exposure incidental to the service. I can assure the House that my noble Friend at the head of the War Department feels that to be one of the most incumbent duties which he has to perform. Besides those different measures which

849
have just been stated by my hon. Friend—I think it has already been stated to the House, but I wish to repeat it—there were not long ago sent out three distinguished civilians to examine into the state of the hospitals in the Levant. They were men who had made it their study to investigate all the circumstances connected with sanitary arrangements, and they have been sent out to the Crimea to look into such matters there. They are—Dr. Sutherland, Dr. Gavin, who was employed on a similar service in the West Indies; and Mr. Rawlinson, a civil engineer. These are gentlemen of the highest attainments in regard to the matters on which their attention is to be turned. The specific object they will have in view is precisely that to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) has adverted, namely, to ascertain if those arrangements have been made in the hospitals, in the barracks, and in the transports, upon which mainly depend the question of sickness or of health. The immediate purpose, indeed, for which they were sent out was to examine all the hospitals at Scutari, at Constantinople, at Balaklava, and at the camp, and to suggest those measures which they might deem essential for placing these buildings in such a condition as to be healthy and perfectly consistent with the purpose to which they are devoted. I wrote myself to Lord Stratford de Radcliffe, to Lord William Paulett, and to Lord Raglan, recommending those gentlemen to their particular care and protection, and requesting that whatever arrangements—whatever improvements—these gentlemen might point out as necessary for the health of the sick or the comfort of the soldiers, should be carried into effect immediately, without reference to any professional jealousy, or any professional obstacles that might be thrown in their way. What they recommended was forthwith to be done; and whether the carrying out of their suggestions depended upon any communication with the Turkish Government, or upon the report of the medical officers in the service or not, I requested that no impediment whatever should be placed in the way of effecting such arrangements and such changes as these gentlemen might recommend. I cannot, then, but hope that when these very distinguished men have arrived at their destination, and have examined these places and pointed out the changes they think necessary, that a very rapid and great improvement will take place in the
850
health of the persons laid up in the hospitals.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he wished to call attention to one point connected with the arrival of wounded soldiers home from the war. It was the system of the service upon an officer returning home from the field of action, when he had been reported as having been dangerously, seriously, or slightly wounded, to require him to go again before a medical board. It often happened that when a man was blessed with a good constitution, though reported dangerously or seriously wounded, he was able to recover in a short space of time. In such case a great act of injustice was frequently committed by the medical board, who perhaps said to him, "You are looking remarkably well, we will not give you so much as we would give to others." On the other hand, a general returning home but slightly wounded, and not blessed with so good a constitution, on presenting himself to the board, might be accosted thus—"You are looking very ill;" and they would give him a higher rate. Now he (Colonel Knox) wished that some plan should be laid down by which the report made by the medical authorities upon the field of action as to the wounds of those persons would be considered final. There was great discontent felt upon this subject, and he hoped the Government would cause an inquiry into the matter so as to prevent any injustice being done to these parties. A circumstance had come under his own knowledge at that moment which exposed the injustice of this system. A most distinguished officer of the Guards was shot through the lungs at the battle of Inkerman; but he was allowed no compensation, because it was said that he had recovered very well, and that the wound did not signify. He held that gentlemen wounded in the service of their country, and sent home, should not be exposed to the caprice of those medical men, who were not very nice as to how they ought to assess the damage. He also thought that some arrangement should be made for granting pensions for wounds to non-commissioned officers.
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought he understood the hon. Under Secretary of War to say that in the hospital ships the berths were placed at right angles amidships. Now, he hoped that they were placed fore and aft, as being more healthy and convenient for the men themselves. With regard to the hospital at Smyrna, he

851
had some experience of the climate there, and instead of its being the unhealthy place as noticed by the public papers, he did not think it was at all deserving of that character. He would recommend the erection of an auxiliary hospital at Buona Beshi, a healthy spot on the hills near that town.
MR. PERCYsaid, he would beg to point out that unless the landing pier at Scutari was repaired the boats of which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had spoken would be of little use. If the Spring Palace at Scutari was to be taken as a hospital, he hoped the Government would take care not to retain it for that purpose after the month of May, as it would then become unhealthy. If wooden huts were erected within the hospital walls at Smyrna most injurious consequences would assuredly follow. He believed this plan was attempted at Scutari, but had to be abandoned. These places were all built in the form of a court, and the erection of huts greatly interfered with and impeded the ventilation. Another point to which he was most anxious to direct attention was the ventilation of transport and hospital ships, to which he recommended that Dr. Arnott's plan should he applied. It was at present most defective, from its being impossible to keep the hatchways open in a gale.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, there had been hospital huts erected in the yard of the infantry barracks at Scutari; but the moment the Government were made aware of it, their removal was directed. The huts proposed to be erected at Smyrna were to be on a parade ground adjoining the hospital, but not within its precincts.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to know if it were the intention of Government to provide an increased number of chaplains, and also to send out additional nurses to the hospitals?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, it appeared that the number of chaplains was not sufficient at Scutari; the Government had it under consideration whether any addition should be made to the number. He was not aware that any arrangement was in contemplation at present for sending out an additional number of nurses.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—POST OFFICE SERVICES.
House in Committee; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
1,638,861 l., Post Office Services.
MR. WILSONsaid, he wished to ex-
852
plain that in consequence of the late hour of the night he agreed to postpone the first two Votes—namely, for the Customs and for Inland Revenue. He proposed, therefore, only to take a Vote for the Post Office.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that that was the very Vote which he wished to have postponed, as he was anxious to bring before the House the many abuses that existed in the Irish Post Office system. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 72: Majority 53.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he could not at that hour enter into a discussion of the abuses connected with the Post Office in Ireland. The management was as bad as could be. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that numerous representations had been made from all quarters on the subject of the Irish mails. After the decision that had just been come to, he would merely content himself with protesting against the system, reserving further remarks till a better opportunity.
MR. WILSONsaid, he willingly admitted that reformation was required as regarded the postal arrangements for Ireland. Numerous representations, which he believed well founded, had been made on the subject. He knew that the Postmaster General was of opinion that a searching inquiry ought to made into the subject. At the same time, no part of the postal arrangements of the United Kingdom had a larger share of attention than those relating to Ireland. He could state that every attention would be paid to any representations on the subject.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman had just stated fully justified him in the course he had taken.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to know why the superannuation allowances were placed in a separate Vote, and not included in the present Vote.
MR. WILSONsaid, that it was in consequence of the alteration made in the schedule of the Bill last year by the House of Lords.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to call attention to the conveyance of mails by coaches and cars over districts where they might be carried by the railway. He had no doubt that the railways were partly to

853
blame, but there was no point in the reforms of the Post Office in Ireland which more required redress than this.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he could confirm this statement, for he knew that in some parts the mails were carried, not by coaches or cars, but by men, and that valuable letters were in consequence often lost.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must express a wish that the accounts should be simplified, and those of England and Ireland kept distinct. He trusted that means would be taken to compel the railways to carry the mails at a reasonable rate, for he believed that it was owing to their high demands that the mails were not carried by them at present. He hoped that some statement would be made of the reforms intended.
MR. KIRKsaid, he could not avoid complaining of the arrangements by which the mails were sent from London to Dublin. The correspondence of merchants and others was, in consequence, unnecessarily delayed. He thought it was quite practicable to obviate these delays by a very easy alteration in the hours of their departure.
MR. GROGANsaid, the anomalies of the Post Office were general all over Ireland, and should be taken into immediate consideration, with a view to their removal.
MR. VANCEsaid, a great many complaints had been made that the Report of the Commissioners intrusted, some time ago, with investigating the condition of the Dublin and Edinburgh Post Offices, had not as yet been acted upon, and the public were consequently the sufferers. Another matter calling loudly for complaint was the paltry sum allowed for salaries to provincial postmasters in Ireland. In some instances he could state these persons were paid as little as 4l. or 5l. per annum; while they were permitted to supply the deficiency by charging private individuals so much for depositing letters in their bags. He wished to know when the Report of the Commissioners would be laid upon the table of the House?
MR. COWANsaid, he begged to be allowed to ask whether there was any likelihood of the promised revision taking place in the salaries of the Edinburgh Post Office officials, or whether there was any immediate prospect of their being increased?
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, that without reference to the comparative merits of the
854
complaints coming from Scotch and Irish Members, he could not help stating that, at all events, the estimate for Scotland was much less than that for Ireland. [Cries of "No, no!" from the Irish Members.]
MR. VANCE: For example, if the hon. Member will look to the printed statement, he will find that whereas the secretary in Scotland receives 1,000 l. a year, the Irish secretary gets but 800 l.
MR. MICHELLsaid, be wished to ask how it came to pass that the salaries of all the higher officials in the London Post Office had been raised, while such paltry sums were paid to country postmasters and letter-carriers? The whole establishment, in his opinion, required revision.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he could only describe the Irish Post Office arrangements as a "Heaven-born mull;" and he must complain that, although steps had been taken to accelerate the mails in England, no similar steps had been taken in Ireland, and it was actually a fact that in some districts the towns were further apart than they were 100 years ago. This was perfectly disgraceful to the Government. Things were done in Ireland which would not be tolerated by the most contemptible constituency of the meanest district in England or Scotland.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that even if the cost of the Irish establishment was greater than that for Scotland, there was sufficient reason for it in the fact, that the population of Ireland, and the business transacted by the Post Office in the latter country, were much greater than in the former. But in reality the fact was not as had been asserted. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the inadequate remuneration of the provincial letter-carriers, both in England and Ireland. They were actually often paid less than ordinary field labourers. It was really holding out a premium for dishonesty, to pay men, intrusted often with registered letters containing money, some 9s. or 10 s. per week. These wages were obviously very insufficient for men who had frequently to travel ten or twelve, or in some cases as much as twenty, miles a day.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the whole Post Office system was so ordered as to cut down the public accommodation in order to swell the public revenue. He wished to call attention to the necessity of some measure for sending the mails by

855
railways, satisfactory to the railway companies and to the public.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, if he, as an English Member, put a finger on a grievance, whether it referred to Ireland or England, he should not be deterred from pointing it out by disapproval of Irish Members.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the most important point upon the subject of the Post Office which had been discussed that night was with reference to the conveyance of mails by railways. Last year a great many discussions arose upon the matter, and a Committee was appointed to investigate the whole question on the broadest basis. The Report of that Committee had been for many months upon the table of the House, and doubtless many hon. Gentlemen had seen it. One of the recommendations advanced by the Committee was, that some general basis should be laid down by a Commission of scientific men to serve as a guide to the referees appointed by the railways and the Post Office to determine the rate of payment to the railways. The duty of that Commission which had been recently appointed would be to examine the case with reference to the postal communications, and to lay down as clearly as possible some general rule of charge for the employment of railway carriages under three or four circumstances: first, carrying the mails by the ordinary passenger trains; secondly, by trains appointed specially for Post Office purposes, but carrying passengers; and thirdly, for carrying letters by railways without any passenger communication whatever. When the Government had obtained the Report of that Commission, he thought the House would be disposed to pass some Bill which should render it more compulsory and more easy than at present on the part of the railways to give their services upon reasonable terms to the public. There could be no doubt, as he had already stated, that there was some inconvenience attending the arrangements respecting the transmission of mails from London to Dublin, but the Government had made repeated efforts to effect improvements, many of which had worked well, and at the present moment there was under the consideration of the Government a plan for accelerating the mails by a more rapid transit from Holyhead to Kingstown. It would, however, be attended with considerable expense. The Government was most anxious that
856
the Post Office service in all parts of the United Kingdom should be made as efficient as possible, and there was no practical suggestion for that purpose which they did not adopt without delay. With respect to the salaries of letter-carriers in country districts, they were, no doubt, small, but the men had important emoluments, and the places were eagerly looked after.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Portarlington.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Despatch of Business, Court of Chancery.
Reported—Commons Inclosure.

RECALL OF THE EARL OF LUCAN—
REPORT OF THE BATTLE OF BALAKLAVA.
Copy of a Letter from Major General The Earl of Lucan (dated 5th March, 1855), to the Adjutant General, repeating his Application for a Court-martial on his Conduct on the Day of the Action of Bala-

731
klava on the 25th October last; and the Adjutant General's Answer to Major General The Earl of Lucan, dated 12th March 1855—Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of Monday last).
THE EARL OF LUCAN:* I rise, my Lords, in pursuance of notice, to move for a copy of Lord Raglan's report of the Battle of Balaklava. I consider it due to your Lordships and to myself not to forego this, the first opportunity which has occurred to me, to make a statement of what was my conduct on the day of that battle, and at the same time to show what has happened since in reference to it. Up to the present moment I have most scrupulously abstained from saying one word in this House upon this subject in my own vindication, however prejudicial to me such silence was likely to be, as it has proved. Having applied for a court martial, considering such a court the most competent from its composition to entertain and dispose satisfactorily of charges of so exclusively a professional character, as long as I could hope to have such a tribunal I considered it best became me to be silent in this House; but my applications for such a trial, however earnestly made, have been as resolutely refused. I have, therefore, I feel, no other course open to me than to present myself before your Lordships, confidently hoping that you will kindly indulge me with your attention, and give to my statement a fair and impartial consideration.
I am assured that a military investigation has been so refused, on the ground of there being no precedent. My Lords, I believe that it is equally unprecedented that an officer of high rank should be summarily recalled from an army in the field, and that charges should for the first time, at the end of four months, be brought against him (he being left in the meantime in the command of his division) without his being allowed an opportunity of meeting and refuting them. When I seek to clear my character by a statement here, this House is warned by the Minister of War not to allow itself to be made an arena for the discussion of military discipline, and your Lordships are told to be cautious not to trench on the prerogative. There is no noble Peer in this House more inclined than myself to respect the prerogative. I freely admit that Her Majesty has, and should have, the power to call to and recall from the army any officer she shall think fit. But, I tell the Minister of War, that where he, as the adviser of the
732
Crown, advises the exercise of the prerogative, he must not allow himself to found a recall on charges professionally disparaging and disgraceful without giving the party an opportunity of denying them. As, in the case of a private individual, any one of your Lordships might dismiss from your employment any person you thought fit, but you would not be allowed to make charges of a disgraceful nature against him without his having the opportunity of disproving them. I cannot suppose that in this House, however much your Lordships may be disposed to respect precedent, or however much your Lordships may be again disposed to hold the prerogative sacred, you will prefer either precedent or prerogative to justice.
It will be necessary, I fear, to trouble your Lordships at some length, and in the statement I am about to make it shall be my endeavour, as it is my wish, whilst exculpating myself, not to inculpate others. It is my wish to make my statement as clear as possible, and to do so I shall have to take your Lordships to the Battle of Balaklava.
At about eleven o'clock of the 24th of October that excellent soldier, Sir Colin Campbell, I cannot allow myself to mention in this House the name of that officer with whom I was acting in concert for four months without stating that a more gallant or useful soldier there is not in the army, informed me that a spy, had come in, and that he wished me to see him. Having examined this spy together, we considered his news so important that Sir Colin Campbell at once wrote a report to Lord Raglan, and I had it conveyed to his Lordship by my aide-de-camp, who happened on that day to be my son. The spy had stated that 20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry were marching against our position at Balaklava from the east and south-east. My aide-de-camp told me that he had delivered the letter to General Airey, who made no reply; and that he subsequently met Lord Raglan, who only said that if there was anything new it was to be reported to him.
It was the habit of the cavalry at this time to be always mounted an hour before daylight. I proceeded to fort No. 3 on the plan, a copy of which is in the hands of many of your Lordships. This was the extreme fort of the position. At dawn I perceived that heavy columns of infantry were advancing from the direction of the Tchernaya River and Kamara Range. I immediately placed my cavalry in position,

733
and posted my horse-battery on the right of No. 3 fort. The Russians immediately opened fire, and attacked Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 forts, occupied by Turks. No. 1 was only taken after a very respectable resistance. I am anxious to say so, because I consider that they got less credit than they deserved. The other three were all evacuated, and with the forts the enemy took nine English guns.
After the evacuation of these forts by the Turks (having previously arranged with Sir Colin Campbell to do so), I threw my cavalry back to give his guns in position clear range, and took post in line facing to the east, between forts 4 and 5. My cavalry were then well placed to take in flank any Russian forces marching against Balaklava, when, to my great discomfiture, I received from Lord Raglan an order which I shall number 1. It was as follows—
"Cavalry to take ground to left of second line of redoubts occupied by Turks."
This order was immediately obeyed, and the cavalry were placed en masse facing the north, looking into Inkerman valley. Very shortly after order No. 2 reached me, desiring that eight squadrons of heavy dragoons should move towards Balaklava to support the Turks, who were said to be wavering. The heavy dragoons had already proceeded some distance, when I perceived through the orchard that a body of Russian cavalry was cooling over the hill. I rode at speed, and just succeeded in joining the leading squadrons of Greys and Enniskillen dragoons as they were rounding the orchard, and had only time to wheel them into line, and to order an immediate charge under General Scarlett. The enemy was advancing in a dense column, with their flanks protected by two wings; these, so soon as they found that they outflanked my four squadrons, wheeled about inwards and totally enveloped them; on which I attacked them with the 5th Dragoon Guards in the rear and in flank with the 4th Dragoon Guards, when the whole mass of the enemy, amounting to at least 3,500 men, was repulsed and routed by eight small squadrons of about 700 men—only one-fifth of their number.
I should do little justice to this gallant heavy brigade and their gallant general if I did not take this opportunity of stating how much I considered they had distinguished themselves. I believe there never was an action in which English cavalry distinguished themselves more, and I do
734
not think that there is a disposition in this country to attribute sufficient importance to this heavy dragoon charge and to do it full justice. The French, than whom there are certainly no better soldiers, nor officers who more perfectly understand the art of war, do full justice to it, and pronounce it a brilliant feat of arms, and one adding lustre to our British cavalry. I know it has been imputed to me that I did not pursue the routed enemy with my light cavalry as I should have done. To this I will not allow myself to say any more than that they had been placed in a position by Lord Raglan, that they were altogether out of my reach, and that to me they were unavailable.
After this charge the cavalry were dismounted, and the wounded and prisoners were being removed, when an aide-de-camp of the Commander in Chief brought me order No. 3. I wish your Lordships to observe that the heavy cavalry were at this moment standing on the ground occupied by the Russian cavalry in the plan. No. 3 order was to this effect—
"Cavalry to advance and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the heights. They will be supported by the infantry, which have been ordered. Advance on two fronts."
It is necessary here to observe that the copy given in Lord Raglan's letter of the 6th of December is incorrect, and materially so. In the original, which I hold in my hand, and which your Lordships can see, there is a full stop after the word "ordered," and the word "Advance" is written with a large A, therefore making two distinct sentences. In Lord Raglan's copy the two sentences are made one by the omission of the stop, and by a small a being substituted for a large one. Therefore, whilst in the original, the order was for the cavalry to advance, in the copy it applied to the infantry. I do not wish to impute anything to Lord Raglan on account of this difference, as it is possible that the error was in the copy with which I furnished his Lordship. The cavalry were in consequence immediately mounted, and moved to the positions in the centre valley and on the ridge, as shown in the plan. No infantry had at this time arrived from the heights of Sebastopol. I remained myself between my two brigades, anxiously waiting their arrival. When they did arrive, instead of being formed for an attack, or to support an attack, they were, the greater part of them, sitting or lying down with their arms piled.

735
From thirty to forty minutes had elapsed and the whole of the infantry had not arrived, when Captain Nolan galloped up to me with No. 4 order, in my opinion a fresh order, quite independent of any previous order, and having no connection with No. 3 or any other order. Indeed, I do positively affirm, that neither by my Lord Raglan, or General Airey, or any other person whatsoever, did I ever hear or suppose that any connection whatever existed, or was intended to exist, between this new order No. 4 and No. 3 the preceding one, or that they had the slightest reference to each other. No. 4 order is as follows—
"Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop of horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate."
Your Lordships should be told, that when Lord Raglan gave this order, he was upon very high ground, and a quarter of a mile to my rear, from whence he could well see the whole position of the enemy; and you should be again told, that his Lordship at this time fancied, and he was not the only man who laboured under the same false impression (for I could produce half a dozen persons to testify to it), that the enemy were carrying away our guns from numbers 1, 2, and 3 redoubts, and therefore sent this order. I had, perhaps, better read from my letter to Lord Raglan of the 30th November how I acted on the receipt of number 4 order.
The extract is as follows—
" After carefully reading this order, I hesitated and urged the uselessness of such an attack, and the dangers attending it. The aide-de-camp, in a most authoritative tone, stated that they were Lord Raglan's orders that the cavalry should attack immediately. I asked, 'Where, and what to do?' neither enemy nor guns being in sight. He replied in a most disrespectful but significant manner, pointing to the further end of the valley, 'There, my Lord, is your enemy; there are your guns!' So distinct, in my opinion, was your written instruction, and so positive and urgent were the orders delivered by the aide-de-camp, that I felt it was imperative on me to obey, and I informed Lord Cardigan that he was to advance, and to the objections he made, and in which I entirely agreed, I replied that the order was from your Lordship. Having decided, against my conviction, to make the movement, I did all in my power to render it as little perilous as possible. I formed the brigade in two lines, and led to its support two regiments of heavy cavalry, the Scots Grey and Royals, and only halted them when they had reached the point from which they could protect the retreat of the light cavalry in the event of their being pursued by the enemy, and when, having already lost many officers and men by the
736
fire from the batteries and fort, any further advance would have exposed them to destruction."
My Lords, this I think is the time to show your Lordships what an aide-de-camp is. In page 59 of the Queen's Regulations, which cannot be violated with impunity, under the head of aides-de-camp, it is ordered, "all orders sent by aides-de-camp are to be delivered in the plainest terms, and are to be obeyed with the same readiness as if delivered personally by the general officers to whom such aides-de-camp are attached." I ask any military man, I ask the noble Duke near me (the Duke of Richmond), who was aide-de-camp to that great man, the late Duke of Wellington, whether an aide-de-camp is not the organ of his general? And whether a general officer who took upon himself to disobey an order brought by an aide-de-camp, verbal or written, would not risk the loss of his commission? If this were not so, why could not an orderly dragoon convey orders as well as an aide-de-camp? An aide-de-camp is chosen because he is an officer of education and intelligence, he is, therefore, supposed to deliver an order more correctly, and is considered as being in the confidence of his general. Shall I be told that Captain Nolan was not in General Airey's confidence? Why, he told me himself that he had given to Captain Nolan his instructions verbally, and it was only when that officer was turning his horse away, that he detained him, and committed the instructions to writing. I would ask any reasonable man, after this, whether any mistake was or could be committed by Captain Nolan? And how could I, at the time, or can now, doubt but that Captain Nolan was instructed to deliver to me the positive order to attack which he did?
My Lords, I must direct your attention to this. In the order it is stated, "French cavalry is on your left," evidently for the purpose of informing me where the French cavalry were, an admission that they were out of my sight if not out of my reach, and again informing me that it was a combined movement in which they were to join and assist me. I felt, ordered as I was to advance immediately without an opportunity of sending to ask for further instructions, that I could not fail to perform my part of this combined movement, and so leave the brunt of the affair to be borne by the French cavalry alone.
Under these circumstances my course was clear to me; and I considered it a positive duty to order Lord Cardigan to

737
advance with the light cavalry brigade, and to lead the heavy cavalry brigade to its support.
Your Lordships are so well acquainted with the details of this charge, and so fully appreciate the extraordinary valour and gallantry displayed by the light cavalry on that occasion, and also the steadiness and bravery of the heavy brigade, more particularly the Scots Grey and Royals, the two regiments most exposed, that I would only add, that the brilliancy of the charge and the gallantry displayed by the whole of the cavalry, were never surpassed at any former period. Your Lordships should be told that the infantry, which I was informed was coming to support me, was composed of two divisions, the 1st commanded by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, mid the 4th by an officer whose death the army and the country so much deplore, both my seniors, and therefore both my commanding officers. In the evening of the action, I saw Lord Raglan; his first remark to me was, "You have lost the light brigade." I at once denied that I had lost the light brigade, as I had only carried out the orders conveyed to me, written and verbal, by Captain Nolan. He then said that I was a lieutenant general, and should, therefore, have exercised my discretion, and not approving of the charge, should not have made it. He subsequently said that I had not moved sufficiently in advance in the previous movement; but he never attempted to show then, or has he ever allowed me to suppose since, until the present time, that he ever intended that. No. 4 order was at all to be connected with the preceding order.
The day but one after the battle of Balaklava, General Airey called upon me in my tent. The moment he entered, I said, "General Airey, this is a most serious matter. You may depend upon it, it will create a great deal of talk and dissatisfaction at home." He replied, "These sort of things will happen in war; it is nothing to Chillianwallah." I said, "I know nothing about Chillianwallah; but I tell you, General Airey, that this is a most serious affair; and, what is more, I tell you that I do not intend to bear the smallest particle of responsibility. I gave the order to charge under what I considered a most imperious necessity, and I will not bear the blame." General Airey then tried to convince me that the order was not imperative; and after some conversation
738
with him upon other matters, and when he was leaving my tent, I said to him, "Now be careful, General Airey, that no responsibility is placed upon me in this light cavalry affair, as I will not bear any." His reply was, "You may rest satisfied, Lord Lucan, you will be pleased with Lord Raglan's report."
Perhaps I had better here call your Lordships' attention to the fact, that throughout the whole of this conversation General Airey, though he had signed the two orders numbers 3 and 4, which I received from Lord Raglan, never gave me any reason whatever to suppose that there was any connection between the two. Had the last order had any reference to the preceding one, would he not naturally have said so? But he did no such thing on this the first occasion, nor has he ever on any subsequent occasion.
Now, my Lords, I could not anticipate that so much injustice would be done me by Lord Raglan; or, that all the injustice which I have experienced at home would have been done me. In my simplicity, I even omitted to send a copy of the order to England for my justification before my friends and the public,—who, let me observe, do not appear always to deal very fairly with the absent. There is a French saying—"Que les absens ont toujours tort:" it would, perhaps, be more properly said—"Que ceux qui se taisent ont toujours tort." I did nothing until Lord Raglan's report of the battle of Balaklava reached the Crimea on the 28th November. The mention made that I had acted under a misconception of orders, from its injustice as I felt, exceedingly hurt and grieved me. Articles in newspapers, and letters from my friends, calling for explanations, impressed upon me the necessity of a public explanation of my conduct and of facts. I, in consequence, on the following day after the arrival of the mail, called upon Lord Burghersh. I said to him," I come to you more as the nephew of Lord Raglan than as his aide-de-camp, as it is my wish to make a communication to his Lordship, and I do not wish to give him the least pain or offence." I expatiated at some length on Lord Raglan's charging me with a misconception of orders, and said that the British public, as shown by the newspapers, and my friends in their letters, were calling upon me for a justification, which I could not withhold. I then asked Lord Burghersh to propose to Lord Raglan to receive me, that I might talk

739
over with him in a friendly way, how I might act to do myself justice in a manner the least annoying and offensive to him. Lord Burghersh called on me the next day, and said, that if I desired it, Lord Raglan would, of course, see me; but that he was very much engaged with writing. I replied—
"I can believe that Lord Raglan would rather not have any conversation with me on this subject, and having thought the matter over, it has occurred to me that it would not be objectionable to Lord Raglan if I were to write a letter to him explaining facts, and to request him to send it to England, there to receive the same publicity as his report."
Lord Burghersh brightened up, and said—
"Lord Raglan can have no objection to that, if that is all you require. From what fell from you yesterday, I thought you would require more."
I answered—
"I require nothing more on earth than that the English public should know the facts of the case."
And I added—
"If in my letter there should be anything offensive or displeasing to Lord Raglan, if he will be good enough to point it out, I shall have much pleasure in altering it."
Now, my Lords, I don't think that this was an unfriendly or a disrespectful communication to make to my Commander in Chief. I wrote the letter that very night, as the post was leaving on the 1st or 2nd of December. I had it delivered early next morning, and really believed that it had been sent by that post; when, on the 4th of December, General Airey's aide-de-camp called upon me, as he said, to talk to me about the hutting of the cavalry, and concluded with the expression of a wish that I would call upon General Airey, who was ill, to talk upon the subject. I did so the following day. General Airey, after talking to me in a rambling manlier about the hutting of the cavalry, produced my letter, and said-
"The real object of my wishing to see you is with respect to this letter."
I replied—
"That letter! I believed it to have been half way on its road to England by this time."
He said—
"No, Lord Raglan thinks that the letter is very unnecessary. You have received the thanks of Her Majesty, and the thanks of the Minister of War (printed copies of which he held in his hand); surely you ought to be satisfied."
I answered—
"General Airey, I don't know why I am to be s o particularly grateful. I think that both Her
740
Majesty and the Minister of War have said quite as much as Lord Raglan's report would have warranted; but if you put the question to me, whether I am charmed with this report of Lord Raglan, I say, I think that his Lordship was exceedingly scanty in my praise. I wanted nothing more than justice; but when I recollect, that with seven hundred men I routed three or four thousand, and under the most disadvantageous circumstances repelled their attack, I do not see in that report anything with which to be much enamoured. I have only touched upon this subject in consequence of your having broached it, as, had you not done so, I never should have expressed my dissatisfaction to yourself or any soul living."
General Airey said—
"Lord Raglan is very much annoyed by this letter, and declares that no power on earth shall induce him to change his report."
I replied—
"I have not the least wish that he should change his report, nor have I in my letter expressed such a wish. It would, I consider, be unreasonable in me to ask him to do so; for I cannot but suppose that he made that report, believing it to be true. I have no right, therefore, to ask him to change it. I only ask him to carry out what I understood to be agreed upon, namely, that my statement of facts should be sent to England."
General Airey, no very unskilful diplomatist, then thought he would take a higher tone, and resort to menace. He said—
"Lord Raglan will be so much annoyed that he will send to England for another general officer to command the cavalry."
I replied, that I should much regret it, but that I could not help it. Further, that my letter had been written by agreement with Lord Burghersh, and that in that letter Lord Raglan was not asked to change his report.
Upon that General Airey again altogether altered his tone, saying—
"Oh! if you don't ask Lord Raglan to change his report, he can have no objection, I should think, to forward your statement."
And upon this we parted. On the 9th of the month, General Airey wrote to me, saying that Lord Raglan wished very much that I should have some conversation with him (General Airey). I went to him immediately. He began, with my letter in his hand, saying—
"Lord Raglan does not like this letter at all; he says that you have charged him with injustice, and he cannot allow any officer in the army to say such a thing of him."
I replied—
"I did not know that I had, and asked him to point it out to me."
After beating about for some time, he put

741
his finger on the word "unmerited." I said that really I considered that a very strained construction to put upon that word; moreover, that I had proposed to Lord Burghersh to remove or change anything that might be displeasing to Lord Raglan, and, that after ten days it was strange he should then make such an objection. General Airey, again, as on the former occasion, adopted the fortiter, and said that Lord Raglan was dissatisfied with the state of the cavalry. I said that I was not satisfied with it myself, but begged to know whether I was to consider this as the opinion of the Commander in Chief, communicated to me by the Quartermaster General of the army? And also, whether I was to consider that his Lordship was dissatisfied with me as their commander? He denied having intended to say this, and an angry discussion ensued, after which he reverted to the suaviter, and said—
"As you have expressed your readiness to Lord Burghersh to remove or alter anything Lord Raglan might dislike in the letter, and as he has not expressed any wish that you should do so, he cannot now object to forward it."
We then parted with the understanding, as I conceived, that the difficulty about the word "unmerited" was explained away, and that my statement was to go. My Lords, I heard no more of this letter, and supposed it had gone to England by the next post. It does not, however, appear to have been forwarded till the 18th of December, but to have been detained those eighteen clays in Lord Raglan's possession.
I must here observe that there has been nothing approaching to a quarrel between myself and Lord Raglan, and that all our communications were as friendly since, as they had been previously, and as much so as between his Lordship and the other divisional officers. My Lords, I consider that this is the time to call your attention to Lord Raglan's letter of the 16th of December, the existence of which I had no knowledge of till it was forwarded to me by the Minister of War, so lately as the 5th instant. I shall read it in extenso, and comment on it as I go on; and I will make this engagement with your Lordships, to refute every sentence, and every word that it contains. It commences—
"My Lord Duke—I regret to be under the necessity of forwarding to your Grace the copy of a letter which has been addressed to me by Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan. When I received it, I placed it in the hands of Brigadier General Airey, the Quartermaster General, and requested him to suggest to his Lordship to with
742
draw the communication, considering it would not lead to his advantage in the slightest degree."
My Lords, I have told your Lordships what did pass between me and General Airey. No doubt he did wish me to suppress my letter, and endeavoured to induce sue to do so; but that he did ask me to withdraw it, I boldly and solemnly assert not to be the fact. Lord Raglan continues—
"But Lord Lucan having declined to take the step I recommended, I have but one course to pursue, that of laying the letter before your Grace, and submitting to you such observations upon it as I am bound in justice to myself to put you in possession of. Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan complains that in my despatch to your Grace of the 28th of October, I stated that from some misconception of the instruction to advance the lieutenant general considered he was bound to attack at all hazards. His Lordship conceives this statement to be a grave charge, and an imputation reflecting seriously on his professional character, and he deems it incumbent upon him to state those facts which he cannot doubt must clear him from what he respectfully submits is altogether unmerited. I have referred to my despatch, and, far from being willing to recall one word of it, I am prepared to declare that not only did the lieutenant general misconceive the written instructions that were sent to him, but that there was nothing in that instruction which called upon him to attack at all hazards."
My Lords, Lord Raglan is endeavouring to fasten upon me an expression that I considered myself bound to attack at all hazards, words used exclusively by his Lordship, though undoubtedly the aide-de-camp did give me an order to attack immediately. Lord Raglan proceeds—
"There was nothing in that instruction which called upon him to attack at all hazards, or to undertake the operation which led to such a brilliant display of gallantry on the part of the light brigade, and, unhappily, at the same time occasioned such lamentable casualties in every regiment composing it. In his Lordship's letter he is wholly silent with respect to a previous order which had been sent him."
And for this reason. I received four orders totally distinct, having no reference to each other; and therefore why was I in the discussion of number 4, to discuss number 3, more than either of the other previous orders? And I defy any person to trace the least connection between the two last.
Again—
"The previous order was in the following words:—The cavalry to advance, and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the heights. They will be supported by infantry, which have been ordered to advance on two fronts."
I have already shown your Lordships this to be a misquotation of the order; and

743
that it was the cavalry and not the infantry that were ordered to advance on two fronts.
It was a fact, that the Duke of Cambridge, commanding the first division, received no order to give the cavalry any support. Nor did Sir George Cathcart, for that gallant officer told one of my aides-de-camp that he was unable to give any assistance, not having received any authority to do so. Under these circumstances I did all I could do. I placed my division in the position which Lord Raglan's aide-de-camp told me to take, and there waited for the co-operation of the infantry, but which was never given. From thirty to forty minutes elapsed between the receipt of the two orders. If the former order had been badly carried out, Lord Raglan was in a position to see it, and had only to send an aide-de-camp to point out my error. The cavalry were ordered to advance and take advantage of any opportunity to recover the heights. Did any opportunity occur, which I neglected? Was I to create the opportunity myself? Or, was I to do more than to profit by the opportunities created by others? As to recovering the heights, I declare that there was not a single Russian on the heights to the westward of No. 3 redoubt; for, after the heavy dragoon charge in the morning, the enemy evacuated 6, 5, and 4, forts. Indeed, No. 4 was subsequently occupied by Sir George Cathcart. If, as I contend, there were no Russians until you came to No. 3 fort, and they were all either in that fort or beyond it, I should wish to ask any military man how I was to execute this order. Is it to be supposed that Lord Raglan intended the cavalry to attack the fort? Or, is it not more reasonable to suppose that the infantry were to attack the fort, and that the cavalry were to wait for the opportunity of cutting off the retreat of the enemy when the assault had proved successful? I ask, will this order admit of any other construction? I am very certain that had I acted otherwise than I did, I should have been charged, and justly charged, with imprudence and incapacity.
In fine, as I have already said, there were no heights occupied by Russians to recover; but there were three forts, and I know that it was intended that the infantry should attack and retake them; and it was the wish of Sir George Cathcart to make the attempt; but it was not attempted, because it was considered that they could not be held, and that it was not
744
worth the loss of life that must necessarily attend their assault. I think I have shown that thus far there is not a single sentence in Lord Raglan's letter that I have not refuted and shivered. Lord Raglan proceeds—
"So little had he sought to do as he had been directed that he had no men in advance of his main body."
The fact is, Lord Cardigan's brigade was so much in advance that I received a communication from his Lordship through his aide-de-camp objecting to stand where he was, because the position was so much in advance, and he expected the batteries on the left to open upon him.
"He made no attempt to regain the heights."
I have already stated that firstly, there were no heights, but forts to regain, and secondly, that I had not the promised co-operation of the infantry. Lord Raglan continues—
"and was so little informed of the position of the enemy that be asked Captain Nolan what and where he was to attack, as neither enemy nor guns were in sight."
Now, if your Lordships will only read my letter, you will readily understand the tone and manner in which these questions were put. I was sensible of the absurdity and uselessness of the order; and when he persisted in his orders to attack, I said,
"Attack, Sir!—Attack what, and where? What guns are we to recover "
Captain Nolan painted to the further end of the valley, and said—
"There, my Lord, are your guns and your enemy."
I have already stated the erroneous impression which prevailed, that the Russians were at that moment taking our guns from forts 1, 2, and 3, and the spot pointed at by Captain Nolan was in the direction they would have been taken. Now, the guns were not moved at all that day, and to use a popular word just now, the whole was a misconception. The letter proceeds—
"This is the lieutenant general's own admission. The result of his inattention to the first order was, that it never occurred to him that the second was connected with and the repetition of the first. He viewed it only as a positive order to attack at all hazards. (The word 'attack,' be it observed, was not made use of in General Airey's note)."
But, my Lords, the order to attack the enemy immediately from Lord Raglan was delivered to me by Captain Nolan. And again, is it not trifling to pretend that there was no order to attack when I was

745
desired to advance rapidly to the front, to follow the enemy, and to try to prevent the enemy from carrying away the guns? I ask any military man, whether such an order means anything but attack? Could it be pretended that we were to advance slowly under a cross fire of batteries; and having reached the enemy were not to attack them, but to halt with our hands in our pockets? The idea is too puerile and absurd. But to proceed; I was told that in carrying out this operation, a troop of horse artillery may accompany. Your Lordships will observe, that the word "may" is here introduced. I therefore considered so much of the order discretionary, and did not take the troop. When I inform your Lordships that the artillery would have had to proceed up a long valley, much of it ploughed land, under a cross fire of batteries, and without a chance of ever bringing their guns usefully into action, your Lordships will, I think, consider that I exercised a wise discretion. Had the troop of horse artillery accompanied me, the horses must have been killed and the guns lost. The letter proceeds—
"He was informed that the French cavalry was on the left and he did not invite their co-operation."
This is a most extraordinary charge. They were out of sight on the other side of the ridge of the Inkerman valley, and much nearer to Lord Raglan and General Canrobert than to me. I knew not what was the force of French cavalry, how commanded or what orders they had received. Moreover, my advance was to be immediate, and I could not have communicated with the French cavalry in less than a quarter of an hour. My Lords, you might be inclined to suppose that we had not the co-operation of the French cavalry; when, on the contrary, we had it, and it was most useful to us. Three squadrons of French chasseurs most gallantly attacked a Russian battery in flank and reverse, silenced several of its guns, and thus rendered the greatest service to my heavy brigade. It is next said—
"He had the whole of the cavalry at his disposal; he mentions having brought up only two regiments in support."
It is true that in my letter of the 30th of November, I only mentioned two regiments; but it is equally true that the whole of the five regiments were brought up at proper intervals, and I am inclined to think that they had all casualties. Lord Raglan may well, after such a lapse of
746
time, have forgotten how the troops were employed, but from his position he must have known it at the time. The letter proceeds—
"He omits all other precautions form the want of due consideration, &c."
Now I cannot help thinking that I took every precaution in my power, and I should like to know what precautions Lord Raglan expected of me which I did not take. And it is added, "from want of due consideration." It must, I think, my Lords, be very evident that I did not jump into this business, but that, on the contrary, I gave it the fullest consideration. Then it is stated that I acted on the supposition that the enemy were not in such numbers as they really were. Now, my Lords, considering that I had been in the field since six o'clock in the morning, and always, more or less, in the face of the enemy, I should be glad to know why it was supposed that I did not know something of their force. My Lords, I believe I have now answered every charge contained in Lord Raglan's letter. I pledged myself to refute every accusation, I said that I would not leave a word unanswered. I believe I have fully fulfilled the undertaking I gave, have not left two words together, but have torn the letter to rags and tatters.
I must now notice the letter of the Commander in Chief. When I find myself obliged, in my own defence, to mention any communication from such a quarter, I shall not fail to show that respect which I have accorded to my Commander in Chief ever since I because connected with the service. I must premise that the letter placed on the table of your Lordships' House, contains a paragraphs more, and not an unimportant one, than the letter originally enclosed to me. This paragraphs states—
"It is to be regretted that the lieutenant general, acting upon a misconception of a written order, did not show that order to Lord Cardigan."
Of course, my Lords, if the Commander in Chief pronounces it to be the duty of a lieutenant general to show his orders to his two major generals, however novel such a doctrine is to me, it must be my guide in future. But I certainly never conceived it to be the duty of a divisional general to do so. And there was no more reason to show the order to Lord Cardigan, than to General Scarlett, because it was not intended to be an operation of one, but of both brigades; and for which reason I

747
placed myself in the rear of the one, and in advance of the other. I cannot understand how it could be possibly my duty to discuss an order with one of my major generals, unless it was to throw upon another a responsibility which ought solely to attach to myself. The noble Viscount proceeds—
"And that influenced by the authoritative tone and disrespectful manner of the aide-de-camp, he did not decide upon his own judgment."
With the greatest respect, I ask the Commander in Chief why he supposes that I allowed myself to be influenced in any way, except by a sense of duty, in carrying out the orders I received? I do not know where the noble Viscount has been informed, but I ask the noble Viscount to tell me how I showed myself to be influenced by the tone or conduct of the aide-de-camp? I altogether deny that I was influenced by anything said or done by that aide-de-camp. I was influenced by a sense of duty which imposed upon me the necessity of carrying out what I considered to be an imperative order; and, therefore, I say to impute to me that I allowed my feelings or temper to influence my conduct is not doing me justice. The letter proceeds—
"Supported by the concurrence of his major general, that the charge ought not to be made."
I deny that it was necessary to ask the concurrence of anybody, or that a divisional general should consult with his brigadier. I consider a lieutenant general to be unfit to be at the head of a division if he does not feel himself fully qualified and fully able to carry out the instructions of his Commander in Chief. I never could conceive it to be the duty of a divisional general to consult with his brigadier, and I should most reluctantly adopt such a course. I have since my return heard strange things in the way of private criticism. I have been told, "you should have had moral courage enough to disobey your general." I say to you, my Lords, I had not the moral courage to show myself insubordinate, and to hold my opinion as superior to, and overruling that of the Commander in Chief. Then I have been told, it is asked why I did not head the light cavalry charge? Because, had I done so, I could not have commanded the cavalry division. It seems to be imagined that I was unexposed in the affair. All I can say is, that my aide-de-camp was killed, I was myself wounded, my horse was hit by two balls, another staff officer
748
had his forage cap shot off his head, and another had a ball in his horse. Of five, four were either hit themselves or their horses.
The reason of my recall is stated by the late Minister of War to have been, that I placed myself towards my general in a position which made it most advisable that I should be recalled. I could only have placed myself in that position by my letter of the 30th of November. To the noble Duke that letter must latterly have appeared to have been very uncourteous and insubordinate. Perhaps the noble Duke did not always think it so. Perhaps at one time he thought it calm and temperate. If he did, I believe he only entertained what is at the present moment the universal opinion; and it is on account of that letter so considered, and so universally approved of, that I am, ostensibly at least, recalled from my command.
It has been thought that I had had a quarrel with Lord Raglan, when, in fact, I never had a word of difference with his Lordship. Lord Raglan never found fault with a single act of mine, or said that I could do anything better. Subsequently to my letter, he very kindly appointed officers to my staff at my nomination. I have not only been in communication with Lord Raglan in respect to my division, but on subjects quite foreign to my command, such as transport, ambulance, and other matters.
And I therefore think, that when the noble Duke conceived it to be expedient, or necessary to recall me from my command in consequence of any supposed bad feeling between Lord Raglan and myself, the noble Duke acted under a misconception.
Your Lordships will, I think, be surprised that this recall, unexpected as it was by me, came as unexpectedly on Lord Raglan. I have been assured that his Lordship has said that he never recommended it, that he could not account for it, and that he knew nothing about it. My authority is General Estcourt. He told me, when I was putting my foot on board the ship to come to England, that Lord Raglan was quite as much astonished as myself; for although he did not deny that he had made observations in support of his report; he had said or done nothing to occasion what had happened, and it was altogether unexpected by him.
Your Lordships should be told how I obtained my command. So soon as I

749
heard that troops would be embarked for active service in the East, I did, as I have done before, I wrote to the Commander in Chief, and offered my services. Not expecting much cavalry to be sent, I asked the Commander in Chief to appoint me to the command of a brigade of infantry, and stated that, having been in that branch of the service, I believed myself to be qualified; and that having served a campaign in Bulgaria, and being accustomed to foreign armies, and to live with foreign officers, I thought my services might be acceptable and useful. The noble Viscount, in the kindest manner, and, as I believed, of his own accord (for which I have always felt that I owed him personal obligation) wrote to say that the Government having decided upon sending out a division of cavalry, he offered sue the command of it. I very soon embarked, and I arrived in the East, previously to the arrival of any part of my division. Unlike many of my brother officers, I was blest with continued good health, and the consequence was, that from the time the cavalry landed, till the noble Duke so summarily recalled me, I was never absent one hour, one moment from my duties, and I believe I am not overstating it, when I say, that there was no divisional general in that army who studied the care and welfare of his division, and exerted himself more incessantly for those objects than I did.
If I can say that I was always at my post, and always zealous in the discharge of my duties, I can also say that I have not been altogether an unsuccessful general. During the time that I was at the head of the cavalry, our piquets and outposts were never surprised; the flanks and rear of our army were never disturbed by the enemy's cavalry; nor was our baggage, nor were our communications inconvenienced by attacks from the Cossacks. I assert boldly, that on every occasion all was done by the cavalry under my command that my orders justified and that my small numbers rendered possible; and I had the good fortune to command and carry out all the details of the heavy dragoon charge. I cannot, therefore, be told that I have proved myself an unsuccessful general. What did Sir Colin Campbell—in concert with whom, as I have already said, I had been serving for four months—say to me:—"I shall always remember this: that whilst others have been croaking, grumbling, and dissatisfied, you have always laughed at every diffi-
750
culty." This observation, my Lords, coming from a soldier like Sir Colin Campbell, is very flattering. I know, also, that the adjutant general of the army has said—"When they recall that officer they recall the man who, when others were skulking and running away, has never once flinched from his duty, but was always at his post."
It is contended by some that I need not have obeyed this order, that I ought to have had moral courage enough to have disobeyed it. Is this the opinion of military men, and of the highest authorities in the Crimea—English or French? I say, it is not; but that the order was imperative and absolute, leaving me no choice whatever how to act. There was not a commanding officer of the ten regiments of my division who did not consider the order one necessary to be obeyed. It is generally admitted that, had I disobeyed this order, I should for ever have been held responsible for the loss of the guns, which it was erroneously imagined were being removed. That such would have been the censure thrown upon me, that I could not have shown myself to my division; that my existence would have become intolerable, and I must have destroyed myself. These are the opinions of every officer in the army whose opinion is worth having. I have been giving you, my Lords, the opinions of living officers; I will now give you the opinion of an officer who, unfortunately for the army and for the country, is now lost to us. I mean Sir George Cathcart. I will read your Lordships his opinion of that cavalry charge, and of my conduct in respect to it.
It is well to observe that I never saw Sir George Cathcart from the time that the army reached Balaklava until his death. This is a letter which Sir George Cathcart never could have anticipated that I should see. I only became informed of its existence by accident. It was written to Lady Cathcart by her husband, and taken from his body after he fell; and the bullet which killed him had passed through this letter. It was written on the 2nd of November, three days before the battle of Inkerman, and eight after that of Balaklava. The extract to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention says—
"I have another opportunity of writing to you. You will read about the affair at Balaklava, in which the light cavalry brigade suffered so severely. It was a most gallant but unfortunate

751
affair. Neither Lord Lucan nor Lord Cardigan were to blame, but on the contrary, for they obeyed orders. But those who gave the orders are much to blame for ordering the impossible. I was sent for with my division to set matters to rights, and did so as soon as we could arrive, but we had six miles to march."
Without wishing, my Lords, de me faire trop valoir, I may, I believe, say, that so long as I held the command of the cavalry division I discharged my duty. I have, however, been summarily recalled, and in a way, and in language not to allow me to console myself with the idea that my recall was a fair exercise of the prerogative, but that it was a recall in disgrace. In the noble Duke's letters he does not allow himself to say one word in palliation of the recall. I defy your Lordships to put your fingers upon one sentence in the letter containing a word of comfort. You might have endeavoured to have softened this recall (to the Duke of Newcastle), but you were afraid to offer one word of consolation.
My Lords, with such letters of recall, and under the circumstances in which I unhappily find myself, it is impossible but that I should consider myself recalled in disgrace. I have positively felt my position to be such, that I have not been able to allow myself the honour and satisfaction of waiting upon the Queen at a levee, fearing that my presence might be embarrassing to Her Majesty, and I cannot be insensible, that whilst every officer of any rank, on his return from the Crimea, has been specially honoured by Her Majesty, I have been considered, and, in my opinion, most naturally so considered, as, under the circumstances, unfitted for such an honour.
I fear, my Lords, I have troubled your Lordships at too great length, but I felt, to do myself justice, that I could not compress more what I had to state. Before I conclude, to the Government I say: You have wronged, grievously wronged, as zealous a soldier as Her Majesty has in the army. If my statement has, as I cannot doubt it has, made any impression on you, give it your attention; and if you are in any way doubtful that you have done an injustice, I ask you this, and no more: reconsider my case, and give me a court-martial and a fair trial.
The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for a Copy of the Report of Field Marshal Lord Raglan of the Action of Balaklava, and also a Copy of the Report of Lieu-
752
tenant General the Earl of Lucan to Field Marshal Lord Raglan of that Action."
THE EARL OF CARDIGAN: My Lords, I regret that I feel myself called upon to address your Lordships on this occasion, because I came down with the firm determination and wish not to mix myself up in this question; and I deeply regret that I should be called upon to make any remark, or to take any part in the proceedings. My Lords, I only rise to correct a statement made with respect to myself. When the noble Earl, in his address, said that I sent my aide-de-camp to the lieutenant general, to state that the force of the enemy was so numerous in the front of the Light Brigade that I felt it difficult to hold my ground—["No!"]—yes, those were his very words, I sent no such message whatever. In the message I sent I said, that as I perceived a movement was going to be made, I begged to point out that the hills on both sides of the valley leading down to the valley at right angles with it, in which was the Russian battery, with the cavalry behind it,—that these hills were occupied by Russian riflemen and artillery. I sent this message; and when the lieutenant general came in front and ordered me to attack the battery in the valley, behind which was placed the large force of Russian cavalry—which had been perfectly perceptible to myself and to the whole of the Light Brigade for at least twenty minutes—my reply was, "Certainly, Sir; but before I go I must be allowed to point out that the hills on both sides of the valley leading to the battery are covered with Russian artillery and riflemen." The answer I received was, "I cannot help that, they are Lord Raglan's positive orders." I immediately obeyed orders; and so true was the report I had made with regard to the Russian artillery and riflemen that we had not advanced twenty yards before Captain Nolan, who was galloping about in front at about the distance of 100 yards from the Light Brigade, and in no way leading the charge, was killed by a shell from one of those flank batteries which I had pointed out. I have nothing further to say. I only wished to remove any misconception as to my having said that the Light Brigade was not safe in the position in which they were placed.
LORD PANMURE: I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that a more painful discussion than the present has never been brought before this House, and that you have never seen a

753
gallant officer, whose courage, be it remarked, has never been accused, placed in such a position as that in which we have witnessed the noble and gallant Earl placed to-night. The noble and gallant Earl has gone into detail as to his services in the East, and has given the history of certain great and gallant actions in which he was engaged with great minuteness, which may have been extremely interesting, but, at the same time, your Lordships will perceive this is a subject into which it is impossible for me, or for any Minister, to follow him; it is a subject upon which I cannot presume to have an opinion. I must say I am somewhat surprised at the course which the noble Earl has taken, not only in making statements which it is impossible for me to contradict or even in any way to modify, but also in making statements impugning the discretionary power of his Commander in Chief, and the orders and counter-orders given to him upon that eventful day in the valley of Balaklava. No one can regret more deeply than I do the issue of what has been called the "misconception" of an order by the noble and gallant Earl. The disastrous effects which attended that misconception were lamented throughout the length and breadth of England; but I cannot say that the charge of the Light Cavalry, which will never be effaced from the history of the British army, was altogether vain, because it has carried into the heart of the enemy a terror of the British cavalry that I am quite convinced will be of great and good service upon future occasions, for the very appearance of those squadrons in some future well-fought field may perhaps pnt to flight the squadrons of Russia even without the necessity of a collision. I had anticipated that the noble and gallant Earl—for gallant I admit him to be in every sense of the word—would have dwelt upon that part of his case upon which he has on former occasions laid so much stress—namely, his demand for inquiry at the hands of a court-martial. But the noble and gallant Earl has simply referred to that point in the latter part of his speech; he has contented himself with a vindication of his military conduct, and with laying before your Lordships what he terms the injustice of the report to which he has referred; but he has altogether omitted to touch upon any of the doubts which I am sure must have arisen in his mind as to the legality of his claim to a court-martial and the expediency and propriety
754
of granting such an inquiry. With reference to the recall of the noble and gallant Earl, I have simply to refer to the statement in your Lordships' hands. He states that it might have been more courteously worded, and expressed with more deference to his feelings as a soldier; but I refer you to the document itself, and I think it sufficiently sets forth that that recall was in no way connected with any doubt as to the gallantry of his conduct in the field. Differences had arisen between the noble and gallant Earl and his Commander in Chief with regard to the term used by the Commander in Chief in the despatch wherein he attributes the unfortunate result of the cavalry charge to a misconception of his orders by the noble and gallant Earl; and it was quite evident to Her Majesty's Government that, although personal civilities and courtesies might have continued, the confidence which ought to exist between the Commander in Chief and an officer commanding a division in his army had, to a certain extent, been shaken. It therefore appeared to the Government and to my noble Friend the Commander of the army—and I entirely coincide in that opinion—that it was for the benefit of the public service and for the advantage of the army itself that one or other of those officers should be recalled, and, with all deference, I think your Lordships will agree that the Lieutenant General commanding the cavalry was the person to whom the recall ought to have been directed. The noble and gallant Earl says that he is entitled to a military inquiry into his conduct upon this eventful occasion. Now, if this had been a question confined to the noble and gallant Earl, there might have been less difficulty in coming to a decision upon it; but your Lordships will perceive that in this, as in all other military matters, a precedent set in the case of the noble and gallant Earl must be followed throughout the army—what is law for him must also be law for the meanest private; and the question arises whether there are grounds in the complaint of the noble and gallant Earl which would justify him in calling for inquiry, any more than a man in the ranks who may have been censured by his superior officer, and who would claim a right to have that censure revised by a military court. There is no law which can guide this case, except that law by which all armies are governed—either the Mutiny Act, or the Articles of War, or the custom

755
of war. I have looked with care into the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War—I have reviewed under the most competent advice all the customs of war in cases similar to the present, and I cannot find in the one or in the other any ground whatever for granting the inquiry before a military court which the noble and gallant Earl has demanded. There are cases under the Mutiny Act in which a soldier has an option of being tried by a court-martial or of submitting to certain punishments, such as forfeiture of pay or imprisonment; but these cases are specifically laid down in the Act of Parliament, and they are specifically recorded in the Articles of War for the information of the soldier, and among none of them can the case of the noble and gallant Earl be ranked. But it may be said that the peculiar circumstances of this case ought to make it an exception to the gene-rule. I cannot see any ground for their so doing. And here let me draw a distinction with respect to a word which has been frequently used by the noble and gallant Earl. He says that certain charges have been brought against him by Lord Raglan in his despatch. Now, no charge, in the technical sense of the word, has been brought against him, and I will presently show your Lordships that, in the technical meaning of the phrase, no charge could be brought against him by Lord Raglan. His conduct has been described by Lord Raglan as a misconception of orders which led to unfortunate results. Has not such conduct as that been attributed to officers and general officers in former days over and over again? During the Peninsular campaign did the Duke of Wellington never say that, owing to the misconception of one order, or the non-fulfilment of another order by officers, certain great operations had miscarried? And did the Duke of Wellington ever dream of bringing those officers to a court-martial for such errors, or did those officers ever demand a court-martial in consequence of such observations having been made in his despatches by the Commander in Chief? If you are to recognise the right of every officer to be tried by a court-martial who may make the claim on the ground of his feelings having been injured by remarks made by his superior officer, there would be an end at once to all discipline in the army, to all the power of the Commander in Chief, and to all his control over his troops. But suppose we were to recognise the right of the noble and gallant Earl to an inquiry, by whom
756
are the charges against him to be framed? Are they to be framed by Lord Raglan himself? [The Earl of LUCAN: Hear!] The noble Lord who expresses his assent, knows little or nothing of military law—["Hear!"]—if the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) assents to that proposition he knows little or nothing of military law, or he would be perfectly aware that the first maxim of military law is, that any officer or soldier who shall have been guilty of any crime for which he may be brought to a court-martial, if he shall have been employed upon any duty before the court-martial takes place, such employment absolves him from the crime he has committed. The person who would have had to frame the charges against him has condoned his offence, and could not, therefore, proceed to make those charges against the individual whom he had so employed. While I admit that the noble and gallant Earl is competent to perform gallant and glorious actions in the field, I will not yield to him in the technicalities of military law, and I think he will find that I am putting a proper interpretation upon them. If then, my Lords, Lord Raglan cannot frame these charges, is the Judge Advocate General to frame them? If I am right I believe that that learned functionary, had he been ordered to frame them, would have said, at the very outset, "These charges will never hold water. The crime or act has been condoned by the general officer in command of the army. It is impossible, in such a case, that the sentence of the court-martial could be confirmed, or that the carrying out of any such sentence could be recommended." Upon these grounds, therefore, I say that even if it were expedient, it would be impossible to grant a court-martial in this case. But I rest the whole facts of the case with regard to a court-martial upon the question of discipline. I resisted the demand of the noble and gallant Earl on the question of discipline from the very beginning, for I believe that to grant a military inquiry in this case would be to strike at the root of the whole discipline of the army. My Lords, let us look at what happened last year. A military Commission sat upon the promotion of officers in the army. What can be so great an offence in the eyes of an officer as to see himself passed over in a promotion? That military Commission, however, recommended that promotions for merit should be made by selection, and that officers of noted and

757
general merit should be promoted out of their turns, and over the heads of other officers who were their seniors. This, too, was to be done without any other reason being given than the merit of the individual officers promoted. Now, if all the officers over whose heads other officers were promoted for merit were to complain of being passed over, and were to claim an inquiry into their merit as compared with those promoted out of their turns, I apprehend that it would be impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. I think that the more your Lordships look into the present case the more you will be convinced that, without imputing to the noble Earl anything whatever that could touch his reputation as a soldier, either in point of courage in person, or of conduct in the field, or upon any other matter except on those points of misunderstanding which have arisen between him and Lord Raglan, the Government could not have adopted any other course than that of recalling the noble and gallant Earl from his command in the Crimea; and that they can, without casting any reflection on the noble Earl, refuse the inquiry for which he asks. I am afraid I can hold out to the noble Earl no expectation of our reconsidering the determination to which we have arrived: and I am afraid I can give no answer to the ex parte statement which he has made of the events which have attended the campaign in which he has been engaged. I only hope and trust, after the appeal which the noble and gallant Earl has addressed to your Lordships—after the opportunity which your Lordships have kindly given him of stating, in his own vindication, all the acts of his public career—that here this unfortunate and unhappy controversy will rest; and I do hope that when this ex parte statement of the noble and gallant Earl goes forth to the Crimea, it will not add to the anxieties of the gallant general to whom we are all so deeply indebted for the exertions he is making for his country in the field of battle, nor render the position he occupies still more painful than it must have been from all that has passed in this country during the last few months.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: As the noble and gallant Earl alluded to me in the latter part of his address, I trust your Lordships will allow me a few words in explanation. I may say, first of all, that I perfectly concur in the remark of my noble Friend behind me, the Minister of War, that the
758
statements which we have heard from the noble and gallant Earl must be considered to have been made ex parte, inasmuch as we have heard from the noble Earl an account of conversations which have passed between himself, General Airey, Lord Burghersh, and Lord Raglan. It is perfectly impossible for me, or for any other Peer in this House, to be able to answer on the instant such statements as the noble and gallant Earl has made to the House. I have the highest confidence in the honour and integrity of my noble Friend (Lord Raglan), and I should be the last person to believe that my noble and gallant Friend (the Earl of Lucan) would wilfully misrepresent anything that has occurred. I am, therefore, placed in this painful position, that I am called upon to hear the explanation of the noble Earl of what has passed between him and Lord Raglan and General Airey; while at the same time it is impossible for me to suppose that Lord Raglan, upon those terms of friendship which the noble and gallant Earl has represented, could have sat down to pen such a despatch as that of the 16th of December, in which he states, respecting the noble Earl—
"I have referred to my despatch, and, far from being willing to alter one word of it, I am prepared to declare that not only did the lieutenant general misconceive the written instruction that was sent him, but that there was nothing in that instruction which called on him to attack at all hazards, or to undertake the operation which led to such a brilliant display of gallantry on the part of the Light Brigade, and, unhappily, at the same time, occasioned such lamentable casualties in every regiment composing it."
The despatch goes on in the same strain to state very minutely what the impressions of the noble Lord were. Lord Raglan says that—
"The noble Earl was so little informed of the position of the enemy that he asked Captain Nolan 'where and what he was to attack, as neither enemy nor guns were in sight. This, your Grace will observe, is the lieutenant general's own admission."
The noble and gallant Earl has stated in his explanation, that he obeyed the orders of Captain Nolan; but it was his duty to have obeyed the written order of Lord Raglan, and to have paid no attention to what Captain Nolan said. There can be no doubt from the following passage that Lord Raglan considered his order discretionary, and not imperative. Lord Raglan writes—and I believe it is an important point for the consideration of your Lordships—
"The noble Earl viewed it only as a positive order to attack at all hazards (the word 'attack,'

759
be it observed, was not made use of in General Airey's note) an unknown enemy, whose position, numbers, and composition he was wholly unacquainted with, and whom, in consequence of a previous order, he had taken no steps whatever to watch. I undoubtedly had no intention that he should make such an attack—there was nothing in the instruction to require it—and therefore I conceive I was fully justified in stating to your Grace what was the exact truth—that the charge arose from the misconception of an order for the advance, which Lord Lucan considered obliged him to attack at all hazards."
I trust your Lordships will pay particular attention to the words of this despatch, which was written some time after he had received the letter of the noble and gallant Earl. Is it likely that a man of the strict honour and veracity of Lord Raglan would have persisted in stating in such strong and unmistakable terms, that he never meant his order to be considered as an imperative order of attack, if the fact were not so? I am, therefore, of opinion that Lord Raglan is speaking the exact truth, and that he never meant that an attack should be made at all hazards. On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that he meant to place a discretionary power in the hands of the noble and gallant Earl, He says—
"I entertain no wish to disparage the Earl of Lucan in your opinion, or to cast a slur upon his professional reputation, but, having been accused by his Lordship of having stated of him what was unmerited in my despatch, I have felt obliged to enter into the subject, and trouble your Grace at more length than I could have wished in vindication of a report to your Grace in which I had strictly confined myself to that which I knew to be true. I had indulged in no observations whatever, or in any expressions which could be viewed either as harsh or in any way grating to the feelings of his Lordship."
I cannot say that I have read the private correspondence of Lord Raglan, either to the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) or to my noble Friend behind me (Lord Panmure), but this I can say, that, in all the correspondence of Lord Raglan which I have seen, upon no occasion has my noble Friend indulged in a single reflection in which the credit or honour of the noble and gallant Earl has been called in question. Now, what is the statement of the noble and gallant Earl? He says—
"After carefully reading this order, I hesitated and urged the uselessness of such an attack, and the dangers attending it. The aide-de-camp, in a most authoritative tone, stated that they were Lord Raglan's orders that the cavalry should attack immediately. I asked him 'where and what to do?' as neither enemy nor guns were within eight. He replied, in a most disrespectful but
760
significant manner, pointing to the further end of the valley, 'There, my Lord, is your enemy; there are your guns.'"
The noble Earl then says that he decided against his own conviction, he being a lieutenant general, upon making the attack, and he observes—
"I did all in my power to make it as little perilous as possible."
He then goes on to say—
"I considered at the time—I am still of the same opinion—that I followed the only course open to me. As a lieutenant general, doubtless, I have discretionary power; but to take upon myself to disobey an order written by my Commander in Chief; within a few minutes of its delivery, and given from an elevated position commanding an entire view of all the batteries and the position of the enemy, would have been nothing less than direct disobedience of orders, without any other reason than that I preferred my own opinion to that of my general, and, in this instance, must have exposed me and the cavalry to aspersions against which it might have been difficult to defend ourselves."
Surely, when the noble Earl talks of possible aspersions, it shows that his decision to attack was taken, not upon any impression which he had of Lord Raglan's order, but upon the fear which he entertained of aspersions from his officers and soldiers. He then goes on—
"I did not dare to disobey your Lordship, and it is the opinion of every officer of rank in this army, to whom I had shown the written order, that it was not possible for me to do so."
The noble Earl also referred to my letter, in which I state:—
"It is to be regretted that the lieutenant general, acting upon a misconception of a written order, did not show that order to Lord Cardigan, and that, influenced by the authoritative tone and disrespectful manner of the aide-de-camp, he did not decide upon his own judgment, supported by the concurrence of his major general, that the charge ought not to be made.
Surely, my Lords, I am justified in making that assertion, because at the time the letter was written I had seen Lord Cardigan, and had his opinion, and not only did he think the charge ought not to have been made—that it was useless and worse than useless—but that he had never read the order, that he had never been consulted, and when two men of the same age and of the rame rank—[The Earl of LUCAN: No, not the rame rank]—or nearly the same rank—I do not wish to hurt the feelings of the noble Earl with respect to his rank, but both are in the Army List as major generals; and when I asked Lord Cardigan, "If you had received an order

761
written by Lord Raglan, and signed by General Airey, should you not, before you made the attack, have considered you had discretion to send it to Lord Lucan," he answered, that he considered the order left the lieutenant general full discretion, and that he thought it the duty of an officer in command not to obey implicitly, on such an occasion as that, an order which would imperil his men, but to exercise his discretion. I must say that I think on all occasions a cavalry officer has a right to exercise his discretion much more than an officer of infantry, because cavalry have from the rapidity of their movements far more opportunities of making efforts and changing the disposition of their force as the occasion may suddenly arise. Under those circumstances, I conceive that the noble Earl had a perfect right, considering the wording of the order, to exercise his discretion upon it. That is my opinion, and I take it that it would be that of any man who saw the terms used by Lord Raglan in the despatch which the noble Earl has contravened. I do not mean to say the noble Earl may not be right in the disposition of his troops. I will not enter into a discussion upon that; but I say that the whole statement of the noble Earl is ex parte as far as it goes; and although I do not blame the noble Earl for anything that has been said, either in the course of this debate, or upon any former occasion, I say that, from the tone of Lord Raglan's despatch, there appeared to be a difference of opinion between him and the Earl of Lucan, upon professional grounds, so strong that it would not be advisable for them to continue in the same position, because they would not act well together. I was asked my opinion, and I said that it was not advisable that a commander in chief and an officer so high in rank as a lieutenant general commanding a division, should be upon such terms, and therefore I gave my advice to my noble Friend behind me (the Duke of Newcastle), who acted accordingly. I can only say, my Lords, with regard to the general merits of the question, I should be extremely happy if the noble Earl could have a court-martial by which his conduct might be examined; but I am bound to observe that, in the records of the army, there is no instance in which an officer in the position of the noble Earl has claimed a court-martial. I believe he cannot do so on legal grounds; as to doing so as a matter of favour, it is equally impossible on that ground. When the lieute-
762
nant general arrived in this country it was my duty to consult the Judge Advocate General, and the strongest opinion was given by that officer that it was impossible that the noble Earl could claim a court-martial; first, for the reason given by my noble Friend behind, that the acts which he was supposed to have committed were overlooked at the time; and, secondly, because it was impossible to frame any charge against the noble Earl. My noble Friend took the objection that the noble Earl had served since. I recollect the case of a soldier in the 40th Regiment, in the Peninsula; he was about to be punished, but while under sentence was allowed to go into action, and was afterwards, having performed his duty and been exposed to danger, most severely punished. Upon that occasion the officer was brought to a court-martial and cashiered, the charge against him being that he had, contrary to the Mutiny Act, used the services of a man and afterwards punished him for an offence committed before such service was rendered. I therefore concur with the Judge Advocate general that the subsequent services of the noble Earl would disqualify him from having his conduct investigated by a court-martial, and I do not believe there is any precedent for it. At the same time, I must say that, personally, I, for one, greatly lament the step taken of recalling the noble Earl, the more especially as I had a material part in recommending him to Her Majesty's Government for the appointment; but I believe Lord Raglan is perfectly incapable of making a statement in such strong terms as that which has been alluded to unless he believed every word of it.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I think your Lordships will concur with me in expressing great regret that the noble and gallant Earl should have brought this subject before the House. No doubt it is natural for my noble Friend to wish to stand well before the people of England, but I submit that my noble Friend ought not, because he is a peer, to be in a position to demand that which would not be granted to any one else. If your Lordships in this House interfere with the discipline of the army, there are men sitting not very far from you who will follow your example, and the consequence will be, the army will be placed under democratic power. My Lords, I am not going into the discussion of those points which have already been touched upon, but I regret to hear particular acts, accusations, and private conver-

763
sations brought forward in this House. I think my noble Friend ought not to have lent the weight of his high character to the attacks which have been so unjustly made upon Lord Raglan—the man who landed the British army in the Crimea, who stormed the heights of Alma, who fought the battles of Balaklava and Inkerman, and who has done, more than any other man, that for which every other man in this country who wishes for peace must feel deeply grateful—he has promoted and cemented more than any other man the firm alliance and brotherly feeling which is reciprocated between this country and our brave and gallant ally. My Lords, I know that my noble Friend did not wish to attack Lord Raglan, and no doubt he did not wish to attack Colonel Estcourt or Colonel Airey—officers with whom I have no personal acquaintance—but, I ask is it right or is it just to allow these men to be lowered in the opinion of the army by detailing those conversations? My noble Friend, with respect to Colonel Airey, said he began in a sort of threatening tone, and then assumed a more diplomatic manner. I say that telling such things is not the way to teach the officers or the men of the British army their duty, but it is the way to teach them to look down on men holding high and responsible situations. I go not into the question as to whether or not my noble Friend misunderstood the order. He appealed to me, and, reading from the Queen's regulations, asked whether an officer is not bound to obey the order of an aide-de-camp? No man can doubt for a moment that he is so bound to obey it, but I can tell my noble Friend what a most gallant general officer did in the Peninsular war—Major General Crawfurd, who commanded the Light Division. One of the aides-de-camp, who brought him a written order, behaved pretty much as I am afraid this officer did to the noble Earl —gave him his advice when to attack and where to attack. General Crawfurd's answer was,—"When General Crawfurd asks the opinion of Colonel A., he will have the goodness to give it, but not till then." Now, that is the way in which I should have acted in this instance. My noble Friend says that he received a further order from Captain Nolan, besides the written order. Now, if that is the case—if my noble Friend acted upon the verbal order—what, in Heaven's name, was the use of sending the written order at all? The written order ought to have
764
been the one attended to, and my noble Friend ought to have disregarded what the aide-de-camp said. Captain Nolan was no doubt a very brave and gallant officer, and it is far from my intention to say anything against him, but he was a man, who had written a book upon the capabilities of cavalry, which contained the most fantastic notions as to cavalry being always able to destroy formed infantry; and it was not to be supposed that he would shrink from the opportunity of proving them to be true. If I had been in the position of the noble and gallant Earl I should have said to that gentleman immediately, "When I ask for your advice, give it to me; in the meantime, go back to your general and report." As my noble Friend has appealed to me, I have no hesitation in saying, as far as I can understand the matter, I should have looked to the written order, and that in advancing the cavalry I should not have read that order as he did, as an order to attack at all hazards.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I should not have risen to address your Lordships on this occasion, but for the purpose of expressing a hope which I am sure is shared by many of your Lordships, that after this, in many respects painful, though perhaps unavoidable debate, we may be spared the continuance, or, at all events, a repetition of it. I am not at all prepared to say that there may not be, as the noble Lords the Minister for War and the Commander in Chief have stated, that there are legal and technical, as well as substantial difficulties arising out of the exigencies of the public service, which might render it impossible, or, at all events, inexpedient to grant the court-martial or the military inquiry for which my noble and gallant Friend asks. But, then, I cannot refrain from saying that if it were impossible so to grant that inquiry—if it were impossible to afford to my noble and gallant Friend an opportunity of vindicating himself from the charges (I do not use the term in the technical sense) made against him, and from the imputations cast on his professional character, and which seriously affect him in the opinion of the army—perhaps of his Sovereign—and in the opinion of the country at large—if it were impossible to do this, then, I think, it was most unfortunate that that second letter of Lord Raglan, containing these serious charges and imputations, was ever placed officially by a Minister of the Crown in the hands of your

765
Lordships, as indicating the reasons of my noble and gallant Friend's recall. If my noble and gallant Friend had merely complained of the expression as to his misconception of these orders, and if he had appealed to a Minister of the Crown for a court-martial, or an inquiry of any description, to investigate whether, in point of fact, he had misconceived those instructions or not, I should then say that my noble and gallant Friend, however hard his case might be, had no ground to stand upon. But when an officer high in command finds himself charged by his superior with the heavy crime of disobeying a positive order, and finds that that charge is officially declared by the Minister to be the reason why he is recalled and brought back to this country—I will not say in disgrace, but with his professional character to a certain degree affected—then I say that his case is one of extreme hardship; and it is one as to which I am quite sure every man in this House, military or non-military, must deeply sympathise with my noble and gallant Friend. Upon one point I differ from my noble and gallant Friend the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Richmond). I cannot blame my noble and gallant Friend for that, having urged, entreated, and besought for some means of vindicating his professional character before that which no doubt would be the fittest tribunal to investigate such a question—namely, a tribunal composed of military officers—he should have availed himself of his seat in this House to make that plain, straightforward, unvarnished, manly statement which your Lordships have heard to-night. I am not about to depart from the wish I expressed in the outset, and to set the example of neglecting the suggestion I then threw out, by entering upon any discussion as to the merits of the question, or the degree of responsibility resting on my noble and gallant Friend from the first or second order received by him. I must, however, be permitted to say that my noble and gallant Friend appears to me to have been placed in a most unfortunate dilemma, and I do not see what possible exercise of discretion, what possible judgment or knowledge of his profession could have saved him from one of the horns of that dilemma. The noble Viscount the Commander in Chief (Viscount Hardinge) has insisted a good deal upon this point—that, holding the high position of lieutenant general in the army, it was the duty of my noble and
766
gallant Friend to exercise a large discretion with regard to the order he had received, more especially as it concerned an advance of cavalry. Now, my noble and gallant Friend upon a previous occasion, when he received the first order to advance the cavalry and occupy the heights, did exercise a discretion so far as regarded the extent to which he should advance the force under his command; and then we find in a subsequent letter of Lord Raglan, that upon the fact of his having so exercised his discretion is founded a charge of disobedience to a positive order. In the second instance, my noble and gallant Friend, receiving (in consequence, as Lord Raglan says, of his having disobeyed the first order) a peremptory command from Lord Raglan, naturally conceives that no discretion is left to him, and executes that peremptory order, upon which he is told that he ought, as lieutenant general, to have exercised discretion, and to have disobeyed the order, although it was brought by Lord Raglan's own aide-de-camp. Now, I will not say whether my noble and gallant Friend was justified in the whole course he took upon the one occasion or the other; but I will ask, with the charge hanging over him of having unduly exercised his discretion in the first instance and of not obeying his orders, what would have been said of him if he had abstained from obeying a second order addressed to him consequent upon his non-compliance with the first order, and had again acted according to his discretion? I do not wish to say a single word which may be considered as disrespectful to Lord Raglan, or to express any opinion with respect to matters which seem to require a judgment peculiarly military; but it does appear to me that my noble and gallant Friend, by the opposite charges made against him, has been placed in a position of extraordinary difficulty; and, although there may be one man in 10,000—certainly not more—who would venture to incur the moral responsibility of such a double disobedience of orders, I think it cannot be made a charge against my noble and gallant Friend, that he conceived himself bound by such positive orders to take a certain course marked out, even though he might not think that course a judicious one. I may be permitted also to say, with regard to the responsibility attaching to my noble and gallant Friend as lieutenant general, that, on the one hand, he is charged with not having assumed a pro-

767
per degree of responsibility, and, on the other hand, the noble Viscount the Commander in chief says, my noble and gallant Friend ought to have consulted with the Earl of Cardigan as major general, because they were nearly of the same rank—forgetting that my noble and gallant Friend had the local rank of lieutenant general, commanding the division, and that Lord Cardigan, as well as Major General Scarlett, were major generals of brigades, acting under the orders, and, consequently, not approaching to the rank, of my noble and gallant Friend. I beg your Lordships' pardon for having gone so far into the question as I have gone; but I will repeat my hope that, after the defence of his conduct made by the noble and gallant Earl this evening—after a statement entered into by him which I am sure must have gone straight to the heart and the feelings of every man among your Lordships, as I think it will throughout the country generally—this will be the last occasion on which we shall hear in this House discussions upon questions which undoubtedly, if habitually brought before this House, cannot but give rise to much serious inconvenience. My noble and gallant Friend will have the satisfaction of knowing that, at all events, he has had the opportunity of making his own defence, clear and unequivocal as that statement was, before your Lordships and the country; and whatever opinions may be formed as to the responsibility attaching to him—if there be any responsibility—with regard to that brilliant but unfortunate charge of the Light Cavalry at Balaklava, he need be under no apprehension that his countrymen are likely to forget the important military services rendered by him or are likely to forget that on that day he had the merit of ordering another almost equally brilliant and more successful charge of the Heavy Brigade, under the command of my old and valued Friend Brigadier General Scarlett—a charge which covered with glory the troops engaged in it and which must reflect the utmost credit upon the general who directed it. My noble and gallant Friend has, besides, the satisfaction of knowing that he has come before your Lordships and the country with the full consciousness that he has a good case; that he is anxious to have his conduct investigated in the closest and most searching manner by military and professional men; that if he is deprived of such an inquiry it does
768
not rest at all with him, since he has sought, courted, and entreated the fullest investigation into every part of his conduct; and, satisfied with that knowledge, I trust he will from this time permit the subject to drop in this House, and will throw himself and his character (and I am sure he may safely do so) upon the justice and the good feeling of his countrymen.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I will not, any more than the noble Earl who has just sat down, enter into the merits of the question between the noble and gallant Earl and Lord Raglan, for I feel strongly that there is no Member of your Lordships' House who is in a position either to confirm or refute the assertions which have been made by the noble and gallant Earl in bringing his case under your consideration. I feel, my Lords, that if I were to attempt to make any vindication of the conduct of the Commander in Chief of the army in the Crimea, I am so imperfectly informed—as all your Lordships necessarily are—with regard to the facts now, for the first time, brought under our notice, that I should find myself most inadequate to the discharge of such a task, without doing injustice to that noble Lord. At the same time, I am bound to say that the noble Earl who has just spoken (the Earl of Derby) has done injustice to Lord Raglan on one point, for I do not understand his Lordship to make any complaint of his first order for the cavalry to advance not having been obeyed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan). All I understand Lord Raglan to say is, that he sent the subsequent order in consequence of seeing that the first had not been obeyed. I will not, however, enter upon that subject; and, as I am not about to discuss the case as between the noble and gallant Earl (the Earl of Lucan) and Lord Raglan, still less will I enter into the question whether or not there should be a court-martial. This point is one with regard to which I feel myself bound to defer to the military authorities, and to the legal authorities conversant with military law. I am bound to accept the decision on this part of the case as stated by my noble Friends near me, and to believe that they have advised the Crown in the course which has been taken on sufficient data—on data, let me add, which have been strengthened by the opinion of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond). At the same time, my Lords, I cannot help regretting, for the sake of the army, that

769
it is not thought advisable that such a court-martial should be granted, because undoubtedly it will go forth to the public that a general commanding a division, and having a seat in this House, has advantages over every other officer in the army which he ought not to possess. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has complained that my noble Friend the Secretary of War had furnished to Parliament the letter which contained the imputations against the noble and gallant Earl; and he went on to observe that the publication of that letter entirely changed the position in which he stood. But the noble Earl forgot how that came to pass. It occurred from the circumstance of the noble Earl (the Earl of Lucan) being a Member of this House, and coming down to the House and reading a letter which had been sent to him by Lord Raglan, containing the despatch written by me on the occasion. Undoubtedly when an ex parte statement was laid before the House by the noble and gallant Earl, then, and not till then, did my noble Friend (Lord Panmure), feeling that it gave an unfair advantage against the Commander in Chief in the Crimea, send to the noble and gallant Earl the despatch of Lord Raglan, stating his case, and leaving it to the noble and gallant Earl to produce that letter, if he thought fit, and thus put the House and the public in possession of the whole facts of the case. So far from this being a cause of complaint against my noble Friend, I think he acted in a fair and candid spirit towards the noble and gallant Earl, by enabling him to see what the case was against him before be brought it under the notice of the House, and that he did no more than was required by justice to the noble Earl at the head of the army in the Crimea in subsequently laying his Lordship's letter on the table of the House. I am ready to join the noble Earl opposite in expressing an earnest hope that this discussion may not be drawn into a precedent. I speak with all possible feeling towards the noble and gallant Earl. I sympathise with him, and can truly say I never took a more painful course in my life than in writing that despatch to which he has so often referred; but I cannot help thinking that the interference of this House in such matters is not likely to raise it in repute with the country. The noble and gallant Earl has stated that he did not know whether Lord Raglan had or had not addressed to me some documents of a charac-
770
ter different from that which had appeared respecting him. I can relieve his mind of any such suspicion. There are no public documents at the War Office except those that have been produced, and, as regards any private letters sent to me by Lord Raglan, the noble Earl is well aware that in the private letter which Lord Raglan addressed to me giving an account of the battle of Balaklava, he did not refer to him in unfavourable terms, and, on other occasions, when he did refer to him, he has always done so in the kindest possible spirit. The noble and gallant Earl says I at one time considered his letter calm and temperate. I undoubtedly did consider that letter calm and temperate, and I do so still. The noble and gallant Earl has made use of a private opinion which I expressed, and that opinion I have not altered; but did I not, when I expressed that opinion, accompany it by an expression of my belief that it was of such a character that, if it came before the public in any way whatever, it could not fail to be detrimental to the public service, and that on no account ought it to be published? A complaint has been made that the recall of the noble and gallant Earl was not accompanied with any expressions of sympathy. I can only say, that if the noble and gallant Earl's feelings were hurt by the mode of communication, I have to regret that such expressions of sympathy were not employed; but, at the same time, I think it will be admitted that expressions of sympathy in official despatches like these are rather out of place. Opposed as I am to the noble and gallant Earl, I must say that I never felt anything more personally painful to me than the duty of recalling him from the Crimea; but I was compelled to discharge that duty by a sense of what I owed to the service and the country. Though I do not complain of the course which has now been taken by the noble and gallant Earl, I must say I have listened to this discussion with the greatest regret, because I do not believe it is one upon which the House can with propriety enter, and because it cannot in any way conduce to the public interests.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEdeprecated the doctrine of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), that the privilege of the House should not be availed of by noble Lords, what the question at issue was a justification of the personal and professional character of a Member. He thought, on the contrary, it was a great

771
advantage that a Peer should have the opportunity, under such circmstances, of proving himself worthy to sit in that House. So far, therefore, from the noble and gallant Earl being wrong, he (the Earl of Hardwicke) thought he was perfectly right in vindicating his character; for no place was so proper to do so as that House. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) did not understand the sudden squeamishness that had been exhibited on that point. The same course was constantly taken in the other House of Parliament; and the country had just seen a gallant naval officer, who, not being himself in Parliament, had procured a friend to bring his character and conduct under the investigation of the House of Commons. Of course no light cases should be brought before Parliament, but when the case involved the honour and the fitness of a man who held a high command in the fleets or army of the Crown—when the professional character of that man was traduced, and when he was refused vindication elsewhere, then Parliament was the fitting and proper place to appeal to for justice.
THE MARQUESS OF BREADALBANEthought the noble Earl took quite a mistaken view of the privileges of their Lordships' House, which were only given them for useful public purposes. When a Peer became an officer in the army or navy he was as much amenable to military law as the meanest private in that service, and to take advantage of his privilege to bring before that House questions which ought only to be submitted to the military or naval authorities, or to be decided on according to military law and usage, was not, he thought, a use of those privileges which would tend to the public advantage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: It is not my intention to make any reply upon the general question; but I will make a reply to the noble Duke. The noble Duke has made a charge against me of betraying confidence, by referring to some private letter.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I have made no such charge.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Pardon me, but I heard you.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I did not say so. I said the noble Earl had asked a question whether I had not expressed my opinion that his letter was calm and temperate. I said I had expressed that opinion, and I adhered to it; but that, as he had quoted my opinion, I
772
would ask him a question whether I did not also express another opinion as to the publication of that letter.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My answer is, that the noble Duke expressed no other opinion. If the correspondence can be termed private, it is not private by my seeking. I made no private communication to the noble Duke. The noble Duke thought right to make me a private communication. I made a reply, not private again. If I recollect rightly what was written by the noble Duke was simply this: A gentleman called on my behalf on the noble Duke, and asked him when it was his intention to publish my letter of the 30th of November—a letter, which, as I have stated, was written by agreement, with and by consent of Lord Raglan; and the noble Duke, in writing to me, expressed his hope that the letter would not be published, and gave his reasons for it; but, if I mistake not, he told this gentleman that I should not publish this letter until my conduct was attacked before the public, and that when I was attacked it would be my duty to publish it.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: It is necessary I should enter now into further explanations with reference to this private communication, which the noble Earl says was none of his seeking. I say it was none of my seeking; but it does happen, very unfortunately, that the witness between us is no more. It so happened that the noble Earl and myself employed the same private solicitor; and while I held the office of Secretary for the War Department that gentleman called upon me and produced the letter, dated the 30th of November, some ten days before I received it from Lord Raglan. He desired me to read it. I asked Mr. Parkinson for what purpose he produced the letter to me, and I told him it placed me in a very difficult position. Mr. Parkinson then said he had been authorised, as the legal adviser of Lord Lucan, to publish the letter in The Times newspaper, and he felt that was not a wise or proper course to pursue; but, at the same time, he was placed in difficult circumstances—he was in the habit of endeavouring to act as the friend as well as the legal adviser of his clients, and he came to ask me what I thought of the matter. My answer was, "It is out of my power to give you any advice; if I were a private individual, being one of your clients, and on terms of friendly re-

773
lationship, both with yourself and Lord Lucan, I should have no objection, but I must decline to give any advice in the position in which I stand." Mr. Parkinson said Lord Lucan had desired him to ask me whether I had received that letter from Lord Raglan? I had no hesitation in saying I had received no such letter. He asked if I were likely to receive it soon; I said I was utterly unable to say, as I had no information of the existence of any such letter. Mr. Parkinson said, under the circumstances he would wait until the next mail. I said he would do very wisely, and, as far as that, I would give my opinion. Partly owing to the circumstances which have been explained this evening, and partly because two mails in succession missed, and three mails all arrived together, it was a long while before the letter from Lord Raglan, which was in the first mail, came to hand. At the last moment before it arrived Mr. Parkinson came to me about the publication of the letter, which he said he would not publish, and I certainly now regret that I went a point beyond my duty in saying to Mr. Parkinson I would endeavour to hold him harmless with Lord Lucan. I said to him, "I think you have acted most wisely as the friend of Lord Lucan; and, under the circumstances, I will comply with your request, and write a private letter to Lord Lucan, telling him I entirely concur in the course you have taken." That letter was written in great haste, and, to the best of my belief, I have no copy of it; but I have no objection whatever to the noble Earl producing it. It was in that letter I used the expression which the gallant Earl has quoted, that his letter was in itself calm and temperate; but I went on to state generally, that any military man acting under a Commander in Chief placed himself in an improper position by volunteering a controversy with him of that description. I do not pretend to give the words, but I am sure I give the general substance and purport of that letter. It contained a simple opinion that Mr. Parkinson had acted properly; secondly, that I considered the noble Earl's letter calm and temperate; and thirdly, though it will not bear the construction put upon it by the noble Earl, that to publish the letter before he was attacked would be acting imprudently and improperly.
Motion agreed to; and Ordered accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.