Sitting of 23 February 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Kent (Western Division), Charles Wykeham Martin, esq.
NEW WRIT.—For Glasgow,v. John MacGregor, esq., Manor of Northstead.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment.
3o Ionian Subjects' Commissions; Public Health
Supplemental (1857).

TESTAMENTARY COURTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, whether it was his intention to introduce during the present Session any measure for the reform of the Testamentary Courts in Ireland?
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, it was the intention of the Government to introduce, and if possible to carry, such a measure in the present Session.

  ARMY REGULATIONS—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SOMERSETsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. Under Secretary for War, whether by the warrant of the 6th day of October, 1854, a lieutenant-colonel in command of a regiment, being absent with leave from his command for a period less than one month, loses that time towards the three years of actual command necessary to entitle him to the rank of Colonel?
  MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the attainment of the rank of Colonel was regulated by a warrant dated October,

  1057
  1854, by which a lieutenant colonel was required to serve three years in command of a regiment, in order to qualify himself for the rank of colonel. The Horse Guards, to which belonged, rather than to the War Department, the regulation of matters relating to the discipline of the army with regard to leave of absence, had allowed a relaxation of the rule, and permitted an officer to be absent from the command of his regiment for one month in a year without losing his time of service, and consequently if an officer had served three years in command of a regiment, and his absence did not exceed three months altogether, he would attain the rank of colonel; but if his absences were beyond that time, he must remain in command of the regiment for the period of the excess previous to his obtaining the rank of colonel.

  THE KURIA MURIA ISLANDS—QUESTION.
  MR. SCOTTsaid, he would beg to inquire of Her Majesty's Government the date of the treaty whereby the Imaum of Muscat ceded to Her Majesty the group of Kuria Muria Islands, valuable for their deposit of guano, and whether there was any objection to lay the treaty on the table of the House? The amount of guano on the islands in question had been estimated at no less than from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 tons, which at the present price would be of the value of £24,000,000 sterling. The question was, therefore, one of the highest possible importance to all persons connected with agriculture, the more especially as it had been stated that the lease of the island, with the sole privilege of trading in guano had been given by the Government to Captain Ord and other private persons; he wished to know whether that statement was true, and also whether there had not been a collision with the natives of those islands, and that Captain Ord and his party had been driven off.
  LORD NAASsaid, that he had also given notice of a question upon the subject. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, under what authority the Emigration Commissioners had granted to Captain Ord and others the exclusive right of raising and exporting guano from the islands of the Kuria Muria group; and, whether the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken as to the power of the Commissioners to grant such a licence?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, he had to state that there was no treaty with the Imnum of Muscat, but that there had been an instrument of cession with reference to the Kuria Muria Islands, which was dated the 14th of July, 1854, and which he had no objection to lay upon the table of the House. In answer to the question put by the noble Lord (Lord Naas), he had to state that the Emigration Commissioners had only acted as the agents of the Colonial Office. Two of those Commissioners were lawyers of distinction and eminence, and it had always been the habit of the Colonial Office to employ them as its agents. It was undoubtedly true that the Colonial Office had given a licence of exclusive trading with the islands, and exclusive property in the guano, for a limited period of years, to certain individuals, and had not thought it necessary to consult the law officers of the Crown in reference to its power in the matter, because they apprehended that it rested upon the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the Crown. As a proof of the propriety of the proceedings, he might also state that the noble Lord and his friends, when in office, acted upon precisely the same principles with regard to certain islands supposed to contain guano, on the coast of Australia, and proposed to give certain individuals an exclusive licence for a period of six years to export from them; that proceeding, however, did not come to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scott) had referred to the apprehensions which existed, if certain parties should have a monopoly of guano from these islands, and that if there should be a very large quantity guano, the public would not benefit to the extent which they had a right to expect. He thought any apprehensions on that score might easily be dispelled, because, in the first place, when the persons in question applied to Lord Clarendon for an exclusive licence, they offered voluntarily to submit to a condition that the whole of the guano should be publicly sold in open market by a broker at Liverpool, either in large quantities or in small lots to suit the convenience of purchasers, so as to provide against any monopoly. That circumstance, coupled with the short period of the lease, would assuredly secure to the public that the guano should be imported in large quantities. But in addition to that, a letter had been received from the persons holding the licence in

  1059
  which they had offered to allow any others to resort to the islands in question, to obtain guano therefrom on the stipulated payment of a royalty of £2 per ton.
  MR. SCOTTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether a collision had taken place between the natives of the islands and our people; who, it was alleged, had been beaten off to their ships.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he answered that question a few nights ago. They were disturbed and driven off, and the hope now is, that protection may be afforded them from Bombay.

  CUSTOMS RETURNS—QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury what were the reasons for an Order issued in August last by the Custom House authorities, enjoining all shippers of goods for exportation to make more accurate entries of goods exported, both as to quantity and value, and warning them that the suppression of such information was illegal; and what had been the result of that Order? On giving notice of the question, he (Mr. Newdegate) had stated that inquiries had been made at Liverpool with respect to the present mode of collecting the entries of goods exported, for the information of Parliament; and it was stated by Mr. Edwards, the Customs officer at that port, that previous to the issue of the order the system was extremely bad; in short, he went so far as to say that not more than three-fourths of the goods exported were entered. Now, when the House considered that at least one-half of the exports of this country passed through Liverpool, they would understand the importance of the question he now begged to put to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not given him notice of the question which he put upon the subject on Friday night. What he (Mr. Wilson) had said in reply, however, was strictly true, for there had not been any order on the subject proceeding from the Treasury. On making inquiry, however, he found that in the early part of August, 1855 and not in 1856, as the hon. Gentleman imagined, representations were made by the Chamber of Commerce at Hull to the Board of Trade to the effect that they believed there existed great laxity and carelessness in the entries of cotton yarn and cotton goods exported from that port, and asking the Board of Trade to take
  1060
  steps to correct the evil. The Board of Trade communicated the facts to the Custom House authorities, and the order alluded to was issued to the Custom House at Hull and other out-ports. The only object the Government had in view was, that the statistics of trade should be as accurately collected as possible. So far as the judgment of the head of that Department went, it was the opinion that although some of the details might not be correct, yet they did not affect the ultimate result, what was understated in the entries from carelessness being balanced by what was overstated from the same cause. Of course that was matter of opinion, but he was inclined to think that no material or substantial difference would be found.

THE NEUFCHATEL CONFERENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Conference on the Neufchatel question was to meet; and whether there was any hope of the unhappy differences which had arisen in consequence of the late aggression on Swiss independence being brought to a speedy and satisfactory termination?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, no specific time is yet fixed for the meeting of the Conference on the Neufchatel affair; but I think that all the Powers have expressed their willingness to be represented. With regard to the probable settlement, all I can say is, that the Swiss Government having evinced such a conciliatory spirit of moderation by releasing their prisoners, I think there can be little doubt that the King of Prussia, when the Conference opens, will be animated by the same conciliatory spirit in the conduct of the negotiations, and that the result will be satisfactory.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE BUDGET.
  COMMITTEE MOVED. AMENDMENT MOVED.

    RESUMED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th February], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "in the opinion of this House, it would be expedient, before sanctioning the financial arrangements for the ensuing year, to adjust the estimated

    1061
    Income and Expenditure in the manner which shall appear best calculated to secure the Country against the risk of a deficiency in the years 1858–9 and 1859–60, and to provide for such a balance of Revenue and Charge respectively, in the year 1860, as may place it in the power of Parliament at that period, without embarrassment to the Finances, altogether to remit the Income Tax," instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he would not trespass at any length on the time of the House in endeavouring to place his views on the question now at issue before them. What they had to consider was a financial matter, and not a party one, and therefore no party feeling, or anything of irritating character, should be allowed to find its way into the discussion. They had to consider what the country and the House required of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he might presume to give his opinion, he would say that the country required economy and efficiency in the administration of the national finances, and what the House wanted was a good balance sheet and no deficiency. The country had pronounced against the continuance of the income tax after 1860, and the House of Commons, taking its tone from the country, had done the same; and it was now, he thought, as much as it will be when that year arrives, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prepare a bed for the income tax to expire upon. If that was admitted, it was, he thought, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House now some idea of what his Estimates would he during the intervening period. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer got through the year 1857–8 by the help of £4,500,000 war taxation, and he then adjusted his finances by the imposition of a tax upon sugar and tea. He (Mr. MacGregor) had not the good fortune to be in the majority in the division upon the celebrated Resolution of November, 1852. He had always thought that what was called free trade must be its own experiment; he agreed with, and he was bound to recognize the political wisdom of those Gentlemen who removed the duty charged upon petty articles of trade, and supplied its place by taxing the great objects of our commerce; but he thought the terms of the Resolution of November, 1852, somewhat arrogant,
    1062
    and he was not willing to affirm a Resolution that claimed for that House the merit of blessing our fields with increase, and satisfying our poor with bread. The Resolutions had been carried by an overwhelming majority, but unfortunately the war brought about an expenditure which had not been anticipated; and the country; had gallantly met that expenditure by a war income tax, and by various taxes on commodities; and now that the war was over, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to avail himself in peace of a half year's war income tax, and to reverse the policy approved by so large a majority in November, 1852, to give cheap food to the people, by reimposing additional duties on tea and sugar, besides keeping on two pence in the pound of the war income tax. He felt himself wholly in doubt as to the ultimate intentions of the Government with respect to the final abolition of the income tax, but from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he saw strong reasons why the country might distrust the intentions of the Government. The country, however, was so opposed to its continuance, that he believed if it were attempted to be levied beyond the year 1860 it would be found to be worse even than oppressive, unjust, and inquisitorial, and that difficulties, yet unmentioned, would be found to stand in the way of its renewal—that its collection would become impossible. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had during the recess visited Manchester and Liverpool, where he delighted the people by the eloquence of his speech and the charms of his conversation; but he knew there was a day coming when something more would be required of him than an agreeable speech—when he would be required to tell then when the war taxes were to cease. The noble Lord took care to avoid that point, and it was only when the voice, of the country began to get louder and louder that an attempt was made by his Ministry, which would gladly have clung for another year to an income tax of sixteen pence in the pound, to patch up a new Budget; and the midnight oil was burned by the gentlemen employed in the different departments of the Government, as was notorious to the whole town, in the preparation of the papers now on the table. He thought those papers landed them in a deficiency after 1858, and while he thought the country, if polled from the Land's End to Johnny Groat's house,

    1063
    would all vote for economy, and at the same time all for efficiency. He thought efficiency could be found in a more economical Budget than this, and therefore he should vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks. He would not trouble the House with his calculations—the figures were patent enough. He had to learn why the camps of Aldershot, Colchester, and the Curragh of Kildare should be kept up in perpetuity. The Budget had not cut down these sums of large expenditure to the amount they might be fixed at. Then, again, with regard to the navy, he saw no reason why a smaller number of vessels would not be sufficient for all purposes of defence. In approving of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman below him, the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), he was delighted to find that the terms of his Resolution were so plain and so courteous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not find any fault with them. The Resolution expressed the wish that the right hon. Gentleman should review his Budget, and should produce another which should show the country that, while they would keep efficient the establishments of the country, the House paid due regard to economy.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid: Sir, I should have been satisfied with taking hut little part in this debate, or even with giving a silent Vote in favour of going into Committee of Ways and Means, had it not been for the speech which we heard on Friday night from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). I was one of the colleagues of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) when he brought forward his Budget of 1853; and I was not only passively acquiescent in, but I was a warm—I may say, an ardent—supporter of the plans which he then proposed. My right hon. Friend has said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has departed from the principles of that Budget, that he wishes to destroy so far as in him lies the principles upon which that Budget was founded, and to falsify the promise which was then in the most solemn manner held out—that in the year 1860 the income tax should cease. Now, Sir, I cannot but feel that these are grave charges, affecting not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but affecting every one of the Members of the Cabinet of which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was then the organ, so far as regarded finance, and I feel that, none of the Members of
    1064
    that Cabinet now remaining in office having risen to defend the Budget with the knowledge which they have of its details and its purpose, it is incumbent upon me, as one who was a firm supporter of those measures, to disclaim in the strongest possible manner and to disprove, so far as I am able, the charges which my right hon. Friend has made. In saying so I only go so far as this that I think it right to go at once into a Committee of Ways and Means without assenting to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli.) I concur generally in the principles upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has founded his Budget. Into the details of his propositions I am not bound to enter, still less am I called upon to discuss the particular Votes for Supply, because the question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now brought forward, and brought forward, as I believe, in conformity with the wish of the House, is this, that we should first take into consideration the ways and means—that we should endeavour to decide what are the prospects of our revenue and expenditure for the present year, and what are the taxes which we wish to retain or diminish. Now, it appears to me, and I think that the House and the country generally must concur in that opinion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this year had no ordinary difficulties to contend with. There was, in the first place, his obligation to check, so far as he was able, the inclination to extravagant expenditure which, under the name of keeping up "efficient establishments," is so strongly recommended by the military and naval departments with which he is connected, and on behalf of which he must speak. There was in the next place the general desire of the country, founded on what I think a fair and equitable interpretation of the Acts which were passed at the commencement of the war, that what is called the "war ninepence" should cease, not at the time at which the technical terms of an Act of Parliament had fixed its cessation, but on the 5th of April next after the termination of a year from the actual conclusion of the war. There was also the obligation, as far as possible, to place no obstacles in the way of the total abolition of the income tax in 1860. There was, besides, the obligation which, notwithstanding all that has been said, I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite willing to fulfil, so far as the situation of the finances would

    1065
    allow—the obligation not to press hardly upon articles of large consumption, and thus to cramp the industry or fetter the means of the poorer classes of the community. That was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, seeing that such was his position, I do not think that he has done ill in proposing that the "war ninepence" should be at once abolished—that, instead of 1s. 4d., 7d. should for a certain period be the limit of the income tax; and that other arrangements should be made for paying off the debts which the country and Parliament have contracted. But what says my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in this situation, that if he had proposed very considerable remission of taxes, such as have been granted in former years, it might have been said, "You are parting with the Ways and Means which furnish the revenue, and you will thereby make it impossible to provide for the cessation of the income tax at the end of three years." If, on the other hand, he had provided for the supply of the revenue at its present amount for three years by retaining in the hands of the Government the taxes which must furnish it, he would then obviously have been open to the opposite charge—that he had not followed in the track of his predecessors since the year 1842, who had so greatly relieved the trade and industry of the country. But what I should not have expected is, that these two charges, so opposite and so inconsistent, should come from the same person, and be uttered by the same voice and in the same speech in the course of our discussions. Well, Sir, with regard to that first question, which was one of the first charges, though I will not pretend to recite them in the order in which they were made—namely, that there are no great remissions of duties—I think it was obvious that you could hardly make those great remissions consistently with the purpose of keeping up the revenue, with a view to the cessation of the income tax in 1860. It was proclaimed in 1853, after a great deal of discussion had taken place in previous years, that there were two alternatives then open to the Government and to this House—namely, to endeavour to reconstruct the income tax, to make it more equal and more just; or, without pretending to amend a tax which Mr. Pitt and Lord Lansdowne had declared themselves unable
    1066
    to improve, to consider it a tax for extraordinary emergencies, and to provide for its cessation at a certain fixed period. Of these two alternatives Parliament in 1853, at the request of and entirely concurring with the Government, adopted the latter—namely, that of considering the tax for a time without attempting to amend it. But then, as you have adopted that alternative, you must take care to maintain the revenue, to prevent your resources being so injured that when you arrive at 1860 you will find a matter of positive necessity to keep up this tax. I remember that Sir Robert Peel in 1845 very fairly placed the alternative before us. He said—
    "The tax having now lasted three years, you have now the means, if you choose, of allowing it to expire. The halt-year's payment still due will furnish the necessary provision for the requirements of the year. But that is not the course which I should recommend. I propose that you should take off some duties and lower many others which I think prejudicial to the people of this country; but then if you do that you must preserve your income tax."
    In that state of the case this House preferred to maintain the income tax. I think that that is very much the alternative we have now before us. It would be utterly inconsistent in the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he would then expose himself to the accusation of having the insidious intention to break the faith pledged for the abolition of the income tax, if he came forward and said, "Here are duties on tea and sugar that I can part with at once; and there are many other taxes of an injurious kind on which I propose to make great reductions." That would have been inconsistent with the intention to keep faith with the public on the subject of the income tax. But it is not only alleged that he offers no great and unexpected remissions of taxation: there is another ground also taken, which is, that there is a departure from the policy adopted fifteen years ago, of reducing a vast number of small duties, simplifying the revenue, and collecting that revenue from much fewer articles. Now, I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) gave a very imperfect account of the policy begun in 1842. No doubt that account was more likely to be agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose ears my right hon. Friend seemed to be rather anxious to please, than a more accurate description would have been. No doubt there were proposals to simplify the revenue, and either to abolish, or reduce to a very low scale, a

    1067
    great number of small duties: but that was not the principal merit of Sir Robert Peel, nor was its chief feature; and, indeed, some parts of that policy, especially with regard to many small articles, were, I think, even of questionable expediency. But what I and others approved in that Budget—and I include the present Chancellor of the Exchequer among the number, because I know he always subscribed to the principles of the great philosophers who laid down the doctrines of free trade—was the great diminution it made in protective duties—the abolition to a great extent of differential duties, and the consequent throwing open of the road to much larger and more important changes. I remember that at that time many persons interested in the subject came to me from different parts of the country. The ropemakers in particular complained that their protection was taken away from them; the boot and shoe makers said that their industry was similarly treated; the manufacturers of straw plait in the midland counties, the fishermen in the north engaged in the herring fishery, and various other classes, all came to me to represent the injury done them by these measures. My answer to them—and it was an answer which Sir R. Peel himself in 1847 deemed a just one—was that all these questions hung together; that if protection was broken in upon in regard to the articles produced by these artisans, other protected interests would soon be forced to yield; that it might be a national policy in the eyes of many, though I might think it a mistaken one, to protect all interests—the shuttle as well as the loom, the fisherman along with the sugar planter; but that to apply the principles of free trade to a number of minor branches of industry would pave the way for the final downfall of the whole protective system. I therefore told the dealers in ropes and shoes not to complain that while they could no longer sell their articles at protection prices they had to pay an increased price for their corn, because they might depend upon it the day would soon arrive when, the minor monopolies being swept away, the producers of corn and sugar would be equally subjected to the principle of unrestricted competition. Well, this result came to pass; and this, I think, was the merit of the policy of 1842, that it firmly dealt with these questions, and led to the ultimate establishment of free trade, the principles of which we all acknowledge, or
    1068
    nearly all, for I believe there were still some fifty recalcitrants at the commencement of the present Parliament. Now, Sir, has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer departed from these principles? Having been a free-trader all his life, is he now about to betray them? Has he in any way inaugurated a new policy? Far from it. He has done nothing of the kind. I should certainly have been quite willing to have been spared good part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I did not concur in his observations with respect to the tax on fire insurance, which appears to me an excessive and oppressive impost. Neither did I agree with his remarks on the paper duty, because I hold that all these excise duties are in themselves most injurious. They stop, embarrass, and prevent manufactures; they also enhance price; and, it is no consolation to be told, when it is proved that the page of Shakspeare or of Milton has a tax upon it, that the wrapping paper enclosing an ounce of tea for some old woman in a cottage is affected, and injuriously affected, by the same impost. With regard, therefore, to insurance and paper, I shall be very glad to see those duties reduced to a very small amount. I quite concur in the policy, and almost the necessity, of not touching now on these large subjects of revenue, when the mind of the House, and I believe of the country, is fixed on the income tax. But I confess that I do not see the use (or, at least, if it is good in a Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is certainly not good in the mouth of any one else) of pronouncing panegyrics on these very odious taxes as though they were in themselves meritorious acts. [Sir C. WOOD was here understood to make a remark.] I do not know what my right hon. Friend says, but he was very anxious, I remember, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get rid of the tax on imported wool, and also to abolish the duty on bricks—and no doubt any Government would be very glad to get rid of all such duties—and as a Member of the present Government he will rejoice, I have no doubt, when the state of the revenue enables us to make further remissions of the same kind; but this is not immediately to the purpose, neither was it worth while for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to disinter the opinion of Arthur Young on direct and indirect taxation very pertinent to this discussion. I greatly agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the

    1069
    Member for Buckinghamshire, who said that we need not employ ourselves in disquisitions upon direct and indirect taxation, because, unhappily, both to a great extent, must still be imposed upon and paid by the people of this country. But my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) made another charge, not, as I have said, consistent with the former part of his accusation. He says the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really endeavouring to defeat what I will not call a compact, but the understanding come to in 1853, that in 1860 we should see the end of the income tax. Sir, I hold it to be a great point of public policy to adhere to the expectation we encouraged the country to cherish in 1853. I recollect how many Gentlemen there were who thought it would be possible to make a distinction between permanent and precarious incomes. I recollect how many more objected to the succession duty as an addition to the income tax, and I think, unless some overpowering necessity should require it, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860 would not be justified in interfering with the operation of the Act of Parliament which ordains that this tax shall cease at the end of that year. I agree in thinking that it is the most powerful financial weapon which we can possess for a time of war—the experience of the last war has shown us that as strongly as that of the French war. You collect by means of it an immense revenue. True, it is a species of confiscation, because you take from each man a portion of that which he possesses at the moment, without inquiring from what source he derives it, or how long he is likely to continue to enjoy it. You take it as a means of maintaining the national security, and in time of peril and war, and we are then justified in using that means; but when peace returns, I must say that it would be right either to abandon the tax, after taking advantage of it for a certain limited time, or else to attempt its reconstruction, so as to effect a distinction between precarious and permanent incomes, which I do not believe any financial abilities would enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer to accomplish. I am, therefore, most desirous that the tax should come to an end in 1860. I cannot see, I confess, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has interposed any obstacle in the way of that consummation. Not only has he not done so, but I should say that his proposed addition to the income tax of 2d. in the pound in the present and the
    1070
    two succeeding years, and his proposal that some further sums beyond those imposed by the Act of Parliament should be levied on the articles of tea and sugar, instead of being opposed to the Budget of 1853, are specially intended to carry it into effect. We have not had many figures laid before us, and I am sorry for it, because, after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his statement, it is the most convenient course to lay the figures before us, as has been done on some former occasions; but from returns which have been laid before us, showing the liabilities which we have incurred on account of the war, I find that during the years 1857–8–9 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to the arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, will have to pay off no less than £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds. The course which my right hon. Friend took in making this arrangement was by no means unusual, and was quite justifiable under the circumstances, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is following it up, because when we went into Committee of Supply the other night we agreed unanimously to a Vote of £2,000,000 for the payment of Exchequer bonds to that amount, which fall due in the present year. Besides these Exchequer bonds, we have in these three years to provide £9,250,000 for the payment of the principal of the debt which has been incurred in this war, and with the charge in each year for additional funded and unfunded debt we have altogether to pay in these three years no less a sum than £13,202,000. If we are to do this—and, I think, certainly we ought to do it—what means could the Chancellor of the Exchequer resort to except to keeping up the taxation somewhat higher than the Act of Parliament under which it is now levied provides? He will then obtain the means of doing that which has never yet been done, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford more particularly insists upon; he will be paying off a considerable portion of the debt incurred on account of the war within a short time after its termination. I maintain, therefore, that the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, far from being in opposition to the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, is in direct conformity with it. A heavy part of the charge made against the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that he showed an indifference upon this subject—

    1071
    that he was taxing those great articles of consumption of the poorer classes without necessity. I totally deny that; there was nothing said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which at all tended to show such an indication on his part. It was said, besides, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really mis-stated the whole case, and that what he did retain he seemed to retain as a right which belonged to the Treasury, while the taxes which he remitted he represented as being the free gift—amounting to about £11,000,000—of the Government to the people. It is obvious that the only fair manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can proceed is to lay before the Committees of Ways and Means and Supply the state of the country, to show what will be the operation of the Acts of Parliament bearing on the finances, and to propose to us the scheme which he thinks best. It is not for him to say, "I grant a remission of taxation amounting to £11,000,000." But was there anything of that kind of boasting in my right hon. Friend's statement the other night? You may make objections to that statement, you may say that it leads to a deficiency, you may dissent from its policy, but I defy any man to say that it contained anything like boasting or undue assumption. I come next to those duties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to keep up in regard to tea and sugar, and I must say, I think, he proposes to keep these duties up to much too large an amount. I find by the representations which have been made to me by persons largely interested in the tea trade, whose petition I presented the other night, that the right hon. Gentleman, according to his proposition, would obtain more than £1,000,000 in the present year of duty on that article beyond that which the present Act of Parliament gives him. I have been furnished with the exact figures, and I find that, if the proposed increase in the tea duty take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obtain in the first year £5,066,000, while the Act of Parliament would only give him £4,000,000; in 1858–9, he would obtain £4,500,000, while the Act of Parliament would only give him £3,200,000; and, in the whole three years, instead of £10,400,000, which the Act of Parliament gives him, he would take £13,616,000, being an increase in the tea duty of no less than £3,216,000 in the three years. Without objecting to the principle, which
    1072
    I think is a fair one, that the expenses of the war, and of the increased establishments rendered necessary by the war, should be defrayed, so far as regards these three years, not entirely by persons having incomes of more than £100, but partly by articles of general consumption, consumed as well by persons of lower incomes than £100 as by persons of income beyond that sum, it is obvious that, assuming this principle to be a fair one, it is too much to press upon an article of consumption so generally used as tea, such a large amount in the course of three years. I should be glad, therefore, if, either by adopting the plan of those persons engaged in that trade—that 1s. 4d. should be the duty for each of the three years, or by some similar scale, my right hon. Friend would consent somewhat to mitigate the pressure of his proposal. Upon this subject a statement has gone forth, apparently with the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary for the Treasury, which is altogether erroneous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was supposed to have stated that the stock of sugar was exceedingly low, and that the same was the fact as regarded tea.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not say that the stock of tea was low. What I said was, that owing to the late events at Canton the supply must be expected to fall short.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: There was an ambiguity in the expression which has led to the mistake; but, however, Sir, I do believe that the difficulties at Canton are quite in the hands of the Government, and need not last long; and this is certain, that there is an immense stock of tea just at present, amounting to about 87,000,0001b., of which about 10,000,0001b. will pay duty, probably in the first month after the 5th of April next. Such being the case, the assumption that the consumer would not derive any great benefit from a reduction of duty is not true with regard to tea. I believe that consumers would gain a great benefit from such a reduction as is contemplated by the Act of Parliament. I do not believe that the reduction of 2d.—from Is. 9d. to 1s. 7d. proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be much of a benefit to the consumer; the retail dealer, probably, would get the whole of it, and though I do not go the whole length of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford in desiring that the Act of Parliament should take its

    1073
    course exactly as it is, I do hope that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to this part of his Budget he will endeavour to make it more palatable and more beneficial. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford was at all justified in his allegation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was treating the Members of the House of Commons like children. That part of my right hon. Friend's speech made me think that he was somewhat like an anxious mother who, having a favourite child in the cradle, has a vision in the night that it is falling over a precipice, and wakes screaming with fright, to find her babe safe in its bed. There was really so much pathos in my right hon. Friend's statement, that nothing but a feeling of that kind—some not maternal but paternal feeling as to his Budget of 1853—could have induced him to take what I conceive to be so discoloured and passionate a view of the financial project. But, Sir, as that mother, rising from her bed, and finding her child in the cradle safe and well, would go back to her rest reassured, so I trust that, after the division on this subject, even if it should be in opposition to his views, my right hon. Friend will awake from his delusion, and will find that his child is safe and has been in no danger. Having dealt with the allegations of my right hon. Friend, I now come to a very serious part of this question, upon which I do not think we can decide according to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, by our vote to-night, but with regard to which I confess I feel considerable apprehension and look to the future with much anxiety. I refer, not to the Committee of Ways and Means, but to the Committee of Supply, and the Votes to be taken in that Committee. I think that we cannot now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce an Estimate of the expenditure for 1858 and 1859. It would be most unreasonable to make such a demand; but at the same time a question was asked by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which I think was justified by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in introducing the Budget, told us what he proposed, and what would be the consequence of adopting those propositions with regard to the present year. We were to have about £65,000,000 of expenditure and £66,000,000 of revenue, leaving a surplus
    1074
    of about £900,000. But when my right hon. Friend came down on a subsequent day he told us, "Your income will be very much less in future years. It will be £62,300,000 next year, and £62,265,000 in the succeeding year. I will not give any Estimate of expenditure for those years, but if you will make a comparison with the Estimates and expenditure of 1853, I think you will see that we can provide for the public services after the rate of 1853, and we shall then have a probable margin of £3,000,000." "But," says the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, "if the establishments of 1853 were sufficient to provide for the honour and security of the country, how is it that we are not to imitate them till 1858? Why should we be careless—perhaps lavish—in 1857, and say that in 1858 we mean to be so wise, so frugal, and so economical as to balance our income and expenditure?" I will not revert to the Estimates for 1853, but I cannot help mentioning my own extravagant Estimates for 1848, which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. Those Estimates were very loudly objected to in this House, and several hon. Gentlemen—some of them high in office—complained of their extravagance. I at that time proposed an Estimate of £7,726,000 for the navy, £7,162,000 for the army, and £2,924,000 for the ordnance, making a total of £17,812,000. I also proposed £150,000 for the militia, making altogether £17,962,441. Taking the whole Estimates, including the debt, the Military and Naval Estimates, and the civil contingencies, the total amount was £53,496,541. If I add to that amount the expenditure for the collection of the revenue and superannuation fund, which did not then come into the financial Estimates of the year, and which would be about £4,710,000, the total expenditure would be £58,206,541. I find, however, that those extravagant Estimates, which I was obliged to abandon, in consequence of the general feeling of the House, were £5,018,000 below the Estimates of the present year. If this be the case, I cannot help thinking there may be some reduction in the Estimates of the present year. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know what trouble every Chancellor of the Exchequer must have in enforcing economy upon other departments. ["Hear, hear!"] My right hon. Friend near me (Sir Francis Baring)

    1075
    most naturally cheers that observation; but I cannot help thinking, that when we come to consider the Estimates in Committee of Supply, it will be our duty to look most carefully and vigilantly into the charges for the several public establishments. The Ministers of the various departments may have better reasons to assign for those Estimates than those which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We may find, on going into detail, that there are good grounds for some Estimates which at present seem unjustifiable. I trust, however, that this is a period of peace. I trust that we shall speedily conclude a peace with Persia, and that the foolish hostilities in China will not be continued. If that be the case—seeing that we have an alliance with France, which, when I produced my Estimates in 1848, was a matter of considerable difficulty and uncertainty—seeing that we have made peace with that great Power which was lately our enemy, and that we have accomplished all the objects of the war, I think we are entitled to ask for peace Estimates, and that those Estimates should form the foundation of our expenditure in future years. Ever since it was known that conditions of peace were under discussion at the Paris Conferences, it has been admitted on all sides that a considerable time—at least a year—was not too long a time to allow the Government for the reduction of the war establishments. As, however, the war is over, I do not see why arrangements, which will be good in 1858 and 1859, should not be adapted to 1857, and why we should not now come to a resolution as to what our peace Estimates shall be. I shall listen with great attention to the statements that may be made by the Ministers of the Crown with regard to the Estimates they propose. I believe, as those Estimates now stand, there is no doubt, as an arithmetical consequence, although some £200,000 or £300,000 may be in dispute, that if they were to be followed for the next two years, the calculation of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would prove substantially correct, and that we should have a deficiency of nearly £5,000,000 in those years. I do not think it is a reasonable thing to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Estimates for the next two years, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to give them. If, indeed, that right hon. Gentleman had been
    1076
    disposed to pursue an ambiguous and somewhat dishonest course upon this question, he might have said. "I mean to effect a reduction of £2,000,000 in the army, of £2,000,000in the navy, and of £1,000,000 in the civil service Estimates. That will give you the balance-sheet for 1858." Everybody would know that such an Estimate was not worth the paper on which it was written. There can be no doubt that, in ignorance of what may be the circumstances of the years 1858 and 1859—in ignorance of what may be our foreign relations or our domestic exigencies—it is impossible for any Minister of Finance to make anything like an exact prospective Estimate. I conceive, however, that before we go into a consideration of the Estimates, it is our duty to require from the Ministers of the Crown a statement of the position of the country with regard both to foreign and domestic affairs. Parliament has a right to know in what relation the country is placed with respect to those Powers with whom we are now engaged in hostilities before it consents to vote away the money of the people, and to assent to increased Estimates. I cannot accept altogether the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to those local burdens that have been placed upon the Estimates during late years, because by far the larger portion of those sums was placed upon the Estimates previously to 1853. I have, therefore, only to say, with regard to the question immediately before the House, that I shall be ready to go into the Committee of Ways and Means with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to admit that, keeping in view the policy of justice and good faith, and looking forward to the cessation of the income tax in 1860, I should not require any large concessions with respect to duties of customs, excise, or other taxes, in the year 1857. But I do not, therefore, give up the prospects of the future. When, in the course of the last century, some eminent scientific men were sent from Paris on an exploring expedition to Lapland, they reached an inhospitable sea, where they erected a stone with the inscription—"Sistimus hic tandem nobis ubi defuit orbis." That, Sir, is not, and cannot be our position. I trust that the extension of commerce and the adoption of right principles of finance will make continual progress. I trust, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be forced to confine his wishes for the moment

    1077
    to his present Budget, yet that the country will see that a policy which has already been productive of such glorious fruits, may in future years produce still more glorious results. I rejoice to hear from him—and I think that hon. Gentlemen, to whatever party they belong, must all rejoice to hear—such prosperous accounts of our trade, such prosperous accounts especially of British shipping at the present time. I trust that further measures of the same wise and liberal kind—measures founded on no selfish advantage, upon no restrictive policy, upon no envious jealousy of foreign nations, but upon a policy which, beginning in wisdom for yourselves, ends with liberality, justice, and bounty to all mankind—I trust that that policy which my right hon. Friend said was inaugurated fifteen years ago—I care not about the date, although I should have put it farther back, and think we ought not to forget the illustrious names of Huskisson and Poulett Thomson—I trust that that policy, thus inaugurated, has still greater triumphs to achieve, and will induce the nations of the world to follow our example, and thus unite us all in bonds of peace, commerce, and amity.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, it struck him there were some singular omissions in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). That right hon. Gentleman had been Finance Minister of the Government which allowed the country to drift into war, and a party to the war; when thus embarked in it he and his colleagues had so starved the war as to render necessary an expenditure of millions where thousands would otherwise have sufficed. They were thus the chief causes of the financial difficulty that the House had now to deal with. There were two objects which the House had in view—the repeal or reduction of the income tax—a tax he had always considered as the most onerous, most unpopular, and most mischievous of direct taxes, and no man would more heartily hail its extinction than himself; and secondly, to vote the Estimates with the utmost economy consistent with the honour and interests of the country. Having these two principles in view, he could neither support the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Resolution of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli). As to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) he was entirely consistent with himself, for he suggested a thousand difficulties without
    1078
    suggesting a single remedy. The House were asked to vote the money of the people before they were told to what objects it was to be devoted, and what sum was required by the necessities of the country. It appeared to him that the course now pursued was not only at variance with custom but with reason. There had been, until now, no departure for centuries from the practice of deciding upon the Estimates to be voted before they went into Committee of Ways and Means. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had talked of a reduction of £5,000,000 in the Estimates, but how could the House decide upon the amount to be extracted from the pockets of the people if they did not know within £5,000,000 what the Estimates ought to be? If they began first by considering the Estimates, they would be enabled to cut them down at their pleasure. He would support any economy that was consistent with the honour and interests of the country, but he would not lend himself to an unreasoning desire to cut down the Estimates and endanger the honour and safety of the country. The only mode of escape for the House was to revert to the usual course of proceeding. He should therefore move that the debate be now adjourned, with the ulterior object of moving at the proper period that the debate be adjourned until the House had agreed to the Report of the Committee of Supply on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bentinck) would not consider that he was guilty of any disrespect towards him if he addressed himself to the general question before the House rather than to the Motion which he had just made. He must say that during the long and able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, the other evening, there was one very predominant feeling in the House—namely, a strong desire that he should favour them with the alternative which he thought they should adopt in the event of their rejecting the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knew from historical experience in that House, that the right hon. Gentleman might say he ought not to be asked to advise till he was regularly and legitimately called on for that purpose, but that excuse was taken from him by the fact that the difficulties of the Chan-

    1079
    cellor of the Exchequer onward to 1860 were difficulties imposed on him by the right hon. Gentleman himself in his Budget of 1853. Those difficulties showed the impropriety of prospective Budgets, and taught us that, in doing his best for the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should confine himself very much to the time immediately before him. But, even supposing prospective Budgets were in themselves desirable, there had occurred since 1853 so many disturbing events, our expectations had been so completely baffled by the mysterious designs of Providence, and we had learnt such a lesson of humility, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been justified in saying he could not regard any part of the arrangement of 1853 as final; and he was sure that even the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) himself, had he in 1853 foreseen the circumstances that had since occurred, would at once have said that he only meant his arrangement to be carried out in accordance with the ordinary current of events. He would not enter into any analysis of our financial system, but would take the liberty to remark, that he saw with regret the change of opinion that had been manifested both in the House and the country with regard to the question of direct taxation. There was a time when the cry of direct taxation was the shibboleth of the Liberal party in this country, and when the advocacy of that question was regarded as a proof that a man belonged to a school of advanced politics. He regretted, however, to find that a change had taken place in some quarters, and certainly he did not think that that change had been made either wisely or advisedly. He had not been without his fears that the extravagant expenditure which characterized the Government during the war would have been continued by them in time of peace, but he had now reason to believe that the present feeling of the Government rather was to carry out reductions with vigour and energy. Indeed, he was afraid there was a tendency to abandon some of those improvements which had originated during the war. He regretted to hear that many measures for the comfort and improvement of private soldiers were likely to be arrested in their progress by the economy of Her Majesty's Government. In order to insure the real efficiency of the army and navy, a liberal expenditure would at first be necessary, for transitions were always expensive; but
    1080
    afterwards it would tend to greater economy in the administration of those services. He had observed with regret the attempt made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to cast a slur on the good faith of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It hardly became him, who was the sole author of the scheme of 1853, to find fault with his right hon. Friend, not for having, as he might legitimately have done, ignored that arrangement altogether, but for having done his very best to carry it out. He for one, would never forget the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman in 1853, The scheme of the succession duty he regarded as an especially wise measure, and it had the rare merit of being taken up in time. Indeed, there was no part of the plan of 1853 to which he would object as a plan to be carried out in connection with ordinary events; but considering what had occurred, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had done the Chancellor of the Exchequer injustice when he blamed him for departing unnecessarily from that arrangement. If the remission of the taxes on tea and sugar should in some degree be postponed, the people would recognize that this postponement arose not from deficiency of goodwill or ability, but solely from the occurrence of those awful circumstances through which the country had so gloriously passed within the last few years, humbly submitting to the decrees of Providence, and thankful that they had at last obtained a satisfactory peace.
    SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid: Sir, I can assure the House that it is not without considerable pain that I venture to address to it a few observations, scarcely wishing to content myself with a silent vote upon such an occasion. Because, now, for almost the first time in my Parliamentary life, I have the misfortune to differ from many hon. Gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House; and I can declare with sincerity, that since I have had the honour of a seat in this House—that is since 1830—I have never witnessed such a strange state of things as regards Parliamentary combinations in this House. At this moment I behold the extraordinary spectacle presented to the country of right hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the same benches holding the most opposite opinions; while those who are occupying opposite benches hold opinions in common. I see the noble Lord the Member for the City of London perched up behind the noble Lord the leader of the

    1081
    House. I see right hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting below the gangway who are great and powerful for their eloquence and official experience—I see others, too, on this side of the House—I behold the brilliant talents of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks—and the perseverance, the assiduity, and the determination of hon. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway—I see them all taking a common ground, all ready, seemingly, to pounce down upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government the very first moment they think he has made a mistake. Now, Sir, I, for one, have the misfortune—misfortune that is as regards hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House—to think that hitherto the noble Lord has not made any mistake. I will endeavour to show why I have come to this conclusion. Give me leave, Sir, to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford entered the House this Session in a most gladiatorial spirit; for he hardly permitted you, Sir, to take the chair, before he showed that by his great powers of eloquence he could make the worse appear the better cause. The right hon. Gentleman was panting to come in contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am one of those, Sir, who think that a gigantic fraud, in a Parliamentary sense, has been attempted upon many of the hon. Gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House. May I be permitted to observe, that it was with some surprise—and I certainly disagree with nearly every word of it—that I perused the Conservative article in the Quarterly Review, headed the "Prospects of the Country." That publication was delayed for a month, I suppose, to suit circumstances; but it has certain features which render its parentage unmistakeable. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, below the gangway, are lauded for their financial capacity; they are mentioned by name, and we are told they form a very powerful section by reason of their ability in this House. Fortunately, however—although, perhaps, unfortunately for themselves—the right hon. Gentlemen have no following in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has been hugging and embracing his pet Budget of 1853. But, although the right hon. Gentleman addressed us at great length, and although many have addressed us who may be considered eminent in public affairs, I believe of all who have spoken the noble Lord the
    1082
    Member for the City of London has most fairly dissected the proposal before us. To return, however, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. Although I cannot declare with any confidence that he is the author of that article in the Quarterly Review to which I have referred, nevertheless I must say it bears strong marks of his handwriting. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will favour us with his sentiments upon the point a little later; at all events, it falls in very remarkably with the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman. There was upon the first night of the debate such a strong coincidence of opinion between the writer in the Review, the right hon. Gentleman, the Peace Society, and the right hon. Gentlemen below me, that I confess I, as a Conservative, felt extremely alarmed. Now, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton has been accused by many able Gentlemen of being too fond of war, and of getting the country into many scrapes. I am surprised, however, that when the noble Lord went down to Manchester, the whole Peace Society, not excepting the Member for the borough himself, disappeared from the scene. I trust, that in the course of the debate, we shall hear from their own lips the reasons which prevented those hon. Gentlemen from taking any part in the glorification of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who, in my opinion, Sir, deserves the gratitude of the country, I think the sentiments which the then hon. Member for Salford (the late Mr. Brotherton), and whose loss we all so much deplore—the sentiments which he expressed with reference to the noble Lord are not unworthy of this discussion. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had been deserted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are now dispersed throughout the House. Nevertheless, he boldly faced the dangers which confronted him; and I believe there is scarcely an Englishman out of the House who did not share the sentiments expressed by the gallant General opposite, the defender of Kars, on his first return to this country, with reference to the noble Lord. I confess, therefore, I am not the man to stand by and lend my hand to the displacement of the noble Lord, after the services which he has rendered, and by a combination such as I have described. But let me read the sentiments of the late Member for Salford, upon the occasion of the noble Lord's visit to Manchester. He said—

    1083
    "I am well aware that there have been various attacks upon your Lordship with regard to your foreign policy, and I have heard people insinuate that you had a sort of desire to bring the country into conflict with other nations, and, in a word, that you were no friend of peace. But let me remind persons who would make such insinuations that as long as you held the seals of the Foreign Office you did preserve the peace of Europe, and that since you have had to assume the reins of Government under difficult circumstances in the responsible office of Prime Minister, you have, by the wisdom of your administration, brought to an honourable and satisfactory termination the war in existence."
    The last remark which I wish to make is this. It is well known to the colleagues of the noble Lord and to the House, that the noble Lord has been deserted at a most critical moment by many who ought to have stood by him. The Duke of Wellington, in the midst of one of his great battles, when told that he had been deserted by some one who had quailed in the presence of danger, said, "Oh, do not talk to me of running away, men will run away at times; many of them, too, never to return." Now, it appears to me that there are many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who, having run away, desire, on the contrary, to return to the noble Lord. I believe not only their appetite for debate, but also for the good things of office, is waxing warm at this moment. I confess, however, I for one should wish to see my way a little more clearly than I do, for the incomprehensible speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has left me in a very incomprehensible position. I confess that, prohac vice, my leader, as regards the question before us, ought to be the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. It may, perhaps, be owing to the dark clouds of electioneering electricity that are gathering over the House, but certainly the noble Lord has been the only one that has as yet fully explained my sentiments. In the presence, then, of such difficulties, although he may be left in a small minority, it is my intention to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck).
    MR. WILKINSONsaid, that as the hon. Member for Norfolk had proposed to adjourn the debate until after the Estimates had been voted, which was, perhaps, after all the proper course, it would be worth while to consider how it was that they had got into this anticipatory discussion. The House would remember that, just before the meeting of Parliament, rumours had got abroad that Ministers intended to take
    1084
    advantage of a technical reading of the Act of Parliament to keep up the war part of the income tax. The agitation upon the subject was extreme and was scarcely to be allayed by reason or argument. Here was too good an opportunity to be lost by those who were in opposition to the Government, and accordingly, two right hon. Gentlemen from opposite sides of the House prepared themselves to take advantage of the popular outcry to make an onslaught on the Government. Ministers, however, perhaps, as it was likewise rumoured, forseeing the coming storm, had taken the wind out of the sails of their adversaries by declaring their intention to abandon the whole of the war ninepence. Now this was sufficiently mortifying to the attacking parties, and accounted for their anger and alliance in the joint attack now made upon other grounds. He (Mr. Wilkinson) must say that this alliance seemed to him something like the alliance of the French and English armies before Sebastopol—where each was glad to avail itself of the assistance of the other—not without some little jealousy as to the part which each should take. There was, however, some difference between the two parties on this occasion; and he could not help thinking that the attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was by far the most legitimate. That right hon. Gentleman had been driven from office by a vote of that House, and it was not to be expected that other Chancellors of the Exchequer who had supported that vote, should find favour in his eyes. But with respect to the other right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, the case was different, and he (Mr. Wilkinson) had hoped that he would mistake the dignified course taken, the other day, by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Carlisle, who, when attacked, had declared that the place he occupied was of his own choosing, and that nobody had a right to impugn his motives in taking it: indeed, he (Mr. Wilkinson) could not imagine a more proper and dignified position for a statesman who had chosen, for his own reasons, to retire from office, and should continue to watch the proceedings of Parliament and offer his advice from time to time, to the Minister of the day, or to the House of Commons. But instead of this the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Oxford, had indulged in an attack, the drift of which it was difficult to understand, but the object of which was plain. He had fastened

    1085
    upon the Estimates, which the hon. Member for Wick had called the knot of the question. Now, he (Mr. Wilkinson) did not consider that the Estimates were before them. This was not the fault of the Ministers, but of those who had insisted upon having the financial statement before the Estimates could be voted. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the Estimates for the present year as being excessive; and then he insisted upon keeping these Estimates in their excessive state for the following years, in order to land the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the "enormous deficiency" which he the right hon. Gentleman had prepared for him. But these Estimates, which were not now before them, had been framed upon the responsibility of Ministers, and it would be for the House to consider whether it should pass them or not. If not, and the Ministers should still think them necessary for the service of the country, it would be for them to consider whether they still possessed so much of the confidence of the House and the country as to pretend to carry on the Government. But if the House should think that these Estimates were necessary for the requirements of the country, and whether our possible income should be £65,000,000 or £75,000,000, we had no right to spend a shilling more of the public money than was absolutely necessary: then if the House should pass these Estimates—as we had reason to presume it would, until it had refused to do so—we had a right to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how he proposed to meet the expenditure of the country. The right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the continuance of the income tax—he thought it was a tax only fit for an emergency—and that it should cease with the emergency for which it was created. In that, he (Mr. Wilkinson) entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Wilkinson) thought it was an odious tax, and although it might afford the means of lightening the pressure of taxation upon the labouring classes, he must admit that the tax-payers had a right to determine in what way they would be taxed, and they had pronounced unmistakeably against the income tax. But then the Right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had introduced, with a solemnity which he (Mr. Wilkinson) was sure the House had not forgotten, his protest against indirect taxation. The solemnity of this invocation was so great that
    1086
    it was an inexpressible relief to him (Mr. Wilkinson) when he found that the right hon. Gentleman was not about to accuse some of Her Majesty's Ministers of fraud, or misdemeanour. The right hon. Gentleman, however, contented himself on that "painful subject" with denouncing the proposed postponement of the reduction of the duties upon tea and sugar. Well, in his dislike to heavy duties upon articles of general consumption, he (Mr. Wilkinson) was of opinion that we were bound in matters of taxation, as in all others, more particularly to look after the interests of the great consuming classes, namely, the working-classes, because they were not represented in that House; and with that view, if he could have had his own way, he did not know but that he would rather have kept another penny upon the income tax in order to lighten the taxes upon articles of general consumption: at the same time he could not contest the right of the taxpaying class, who were represented, to determine that matter for themselves, and, as he had said, they had determined otherwise. But then, if they were to have no direct taxation, and no indirect taxation, or no postponement of relief from one or the other, what were we to do? The right hon. Gentleman had quoted preceding Chancellors of the Exchequer who had all preferred to avoid indirect taxation, except the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, had been constrained to resort to indirect taxes. But would not the right hon. Gentleman allow to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the same excuse, namely, that "his poverty and not his will"—consented. He (Mr. Wilkinson) was sorry, in common with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer speak so lightly of the taxes upon paper, and fire insurance, and he agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord upon the subject of the tea duties; indeed there was one point of that subject upon which the noble Lord had not touched, namely,— the desirableness of a uniform duty, instead of one varying from year to year, which ocasioned certain jerks in the trade which were extremely prejudicial to the interests of the dealers, and which ought to be identical with those of the consumers. However, taking all things together, and with the exceptions to which he had alluded he did not think there was much fault to be found with the

    1087
    financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he thought had been made the subject of much unfair objurgation.
    MR. LIDDELLsaid, he trusted that, after the remarkable rhapsody which had been delivered by the hon. Baronet sitting on that side of the House, and which had been received with so much pleasure on the Ministerial benches, he might be allowed to make a few observations upon a question of such general interest. He had listened on Friday night with much pleasure to the able and temperate address of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks; but there was a moment in that speech when he thought he detected a falter in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman felt he was treading upon rather delicate ground when, turning to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, he told them they seemed to tremble at the word reduction; for, listening as he always did to the addresses of the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest possible respect, he would, at the same time, confess that he did regard with feelings of much apprehension the prospects of reduction, unless he clearly understood the operation by which it was to be effected. However, further on, he would advert to the subject of reduction, as before doing so he wished to refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. Great and unequalled as that speech was for its eloquence, he must say that nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman had failed to convey to him (Mr. Liddell) his meaning. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the danger of a deficit in 1858–9; now let him point out an inconvenience arising from the arrangement made by the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1853, an inconvenience springing from the mode in which Chancellors of the Exchequer were in the habit of framing their Budgets. Merchants had been induced by the arrangements made in 1853 to send out extensive orders for tea, but it now appeared that circumstances prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day from fulfilling the prospective arrangement of 1853, and disappointment and failure were the result. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, at the same time that he denounced the threatening deficit, deprecated in equally strong terms the retention of the duty upon tea and sugar.
    1088
    In the strongest language which he (Mr. Liddell) had ever heard, the right hon. Gentleman had described the evil which would result to the poorer classes from retaining taxes which pressed upon articles of general consumption. That appeal had been responded to in many a far-off home, and there would be found great difficulty in removing the effects which it had produced. If, however, they were to lower the duties on these articles, how were they to raise their revenue? Could they increase the tax on spirits? Why, the war duty on spirits had never been lowered, and it would be dangerous to attempt to increase it further. Could they impose additional duties on malt? Why, under the existing arrangements, there would he a loss to the revenue of £2,000,000 this year from malt, and no one could dream of reimposing the war duty on that article. Again, the revenue derived from tobacco last year was upwards of £5,000,000, and it would be unsafe to tamper with so fertile a tax—so that no great increase of revenue could be looked for from taxes on articles of general consumption. Were they, then, to find relief in direct taxation? His belief was, that as the country would be relieved of £9,000,000 of income tax next year, they might fairly anticipate that trade would spring as a "giant refreshed" into fresh operations, and that our increase of the revenue might in consequence be looked for. He apprehended that it was to a reduction of the Estimates that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford looked, for a prevention of the deficit. The right hon. Gentleman had told them a great deal about the Estimates for 1853–4. Now he (Mr. Liddell) was very unwilling to rake up feelings which it was hoped were beginning to soften down, but there was a connection between the Budget of 1853–4 and the misfortunes and disasters of the late war which it was impossible to overlook. They would find that it was in consequence of that Budget that their army had gone forth without supplies, and that they had been subsequently compelled to as reckless an extravagance as ever a nation had witnessed in order to meet the deficiency. He would protest solemnly, then, against the Estimates of the year being framed on the basis of those for 1853–4. He did not mean to say that the circumstances of the country at present were such as they were then; there was now, happily, no Russian army

    1089
    on the Pruth, and Prince Menchik off was not at Constantinople; but then they had the expedition in the Persian Gulf and were at war with China. And, moreover, in Northern Asia Russia was advancing with stealthy steps, and with a success that formed a remarkable contrast between her progress in war and her progress in peace. He would venture to say that the state of things in that quarter rendered their liability to war anything but uncertain. The present, therefore, was not a time when they could safely reduce their Estimates. On the contrary, the present was the moment to remove the defects which the war had shown to exist throughout the length and breadth of our departments. They wanted an army thoroughly armed and equipped in every way, an artillery and engineer corps as perfect as education and science and modern appliances could make them. No doubt they had a fine navy, still they could not say that they had amongst all their vessels anything comparable to that prodigy of perfection, the American frigate the Merrimac, which had visited their shores only the other day; and was England to allow anything to sail on the sea superior to her own vessels in speed, lightness of draft, or power of armament? With regard to a reserve force, it certainly behoved them to maintain the militia in full efficiency, and to provide proper storehouses for the purpose. As regarded a reserve force for the navy, he felt that his humble tribute of respect was due to the Government for the plan now in operation for the organization of the coast-guard. By that plan, eventually no less than 12,000 able seamen would be available for the navy at any moment of sudden emergency; and yet a sufficient force remain at home for the preventive service and defence of the coast. He thought that the Government deserved the thanks of the country for the arrangements they had made in that department, and he should certainly give his humble support to them when they brought forward these Estimates. But those arrangements would require money to carry them out, and the question was where that money was to come from? The present was the time to consider judicious measures of reform in the various departments, and not to wait until another war broke out, when it would be too late to effect the necessary improvements. In accepting, therefore, the resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham, he accepted it
    1090
    upon the faith of the right hon. Gentleman's own words, and upon the clear understanding which they conveyed. Those words were, "I am for wise, but not wild, I reductions." Those words he thought furnished a good reason for its acceptance also by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great object in view was to provide against a deficit, and to enable the Government, if the circumstances of the time allowed, to repeal the income tax in 1860. An event which he did not, however, contemplate with much certainty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer be sincere in his calculations, and in those proposals which he founded upon those calculations, it was evident that he aimed precisely at the same object as that of the right hon. Gentleman. If, on the contrary, after a careful examination and consideration of the whole case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have reason to believe that his calculations were erroneous, he (Mr. Liddell) apprehended that the effect of the Resolution would be to induce him to reconsider his Budget, and to propose new arrangements to the House. Taking that view of the subject, he felt that no danger could either accrue to the finances of the country or to the stability of the Government by the acceptance of the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire.
    MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, that he had observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire in a speech of great ability had complained of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it was not so formed as to avoid the prospect of a possible future deficit. He (Mr. Phillimore) confessed, however, that the means by which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remedy those defects were quite beyond his understanding. The right hon. Gentleman surely knew that the surplus of any year was to be applied to the reduction of the national debt. He thought that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer presented them with a Budget which was satisfactory for the current year, he did quite as much as they had any reason to expect, and much more than several Chancellors of the Exchequer had been able to accomplish. He could not therefore vote for the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He had listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford which

    1091
    lasted four hours and suggested a long array of objections and difficulties, but at the close of that speech he had not been able to discover what it was which the right hon. Gentleman desired. He had listened to objection after objection, to difficulty after difficulty; but for the solution of those difficulties he had listened in vain. Surely that speech had been intended to lead to some practical conclusion—to enlighten the Senate of so great a nation! But it had ascribed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an intention to reverse the free-trade policy. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman himself whether he really thought in his conscience, to which he was so fond of appealing, there was any ground for such a charge. Did he not believe exactly the reverse to be the case? If he did not he was the only man in that House who entertained such a belief. He would venture to say it was impossible to urge a charge more contrary to the opinions, to the policy, to the general conduct, and to the bearings of the Budget itself of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman was also extremely angry because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid before the House a rough outline of future revenue, but had declined to enter into details of future expenditure. It was impossible that any one could calculate upon the thousand accidents which might happen to render such a calculation futile. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, "we did pretend in 1853 to calculate future expenditure." And what had been the result? Why that in less than a year those calculations had been entirely overthrown, and he was obliged to present a new Budget before the termination of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound by a measure of a Cabinet of which he was not a member, because the noble Lord now at the head of the Government had held office in that Cabinet. That was an extraordinary argument to come from the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of the Cabinet that got the country into a war, but who afterwards endeavoured to throw the responsibility upon another Government, and used his utmost energies to dishearten his countrymen, and make England bow down to a barbarous enemy. It was a curious argument to come from a man who voted as the right hon. Gentleman had done upon the question of the Turk-
    1092
    ish Contingent. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to humanity in relation to reducing the duty on tea and sugar. He (Mr. Phillimore) had listened with some astonishment to that appeal, because he recollected that in 1841 the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to humanity to retain the duty on slave-grown sugar. The right hon. Gentleman had re-considered his opinion on that point. He had, in fact, re-considered his opinion on most subjects. He (Mr. Phillimore) was therefore not without hope that if the right hon. Gentleman established the coalition to which he appeared to be aspiring, he would do the very thing for which he was now attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would speak with frankness. Whatever he might think of the equivocal character of the right hon. Gentleman's expressions, he was quite ready to admit the clearness of his purpose—he had endeavoured by every means in his power to scare the House into a panic which should induce them to fling themselves into his arms and those of his new confederates. But he thought the panic would be violent indeed which would induce the House to take such a resolution. He would venture to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that tenfold his abilities, tenfold his skill in debate, and his confidence, which was great, and his official experience, would not atone, in the eyes of the sound-judging people of this country, for the obliquity of his political conduct. Let him look around the House; if he looked to one side he would find himself regarded as an uncandid enemy; on the other he was looked upon by those who did not lightly change their opinions as a treacherous friend, and by the majority of his fellow-citizens, in spite of his frequent appeals to his own conscience and to their humanity, he was considered as an unsafe guide and a most unscrupulous partizan.
    MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in his opinion, the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so objectionable on the score of finance as it was defective in common honesty. A document had been sent to him (being a copy of one which had been sent to the Treasury), signed by sixty-seven of the most respectable merchants of Belfast, accompanied by a letter, in which occurred this statement:—
    "Not merely by a positive law, but by a statement of the Treasury a short time ago, they were

    1093
    led to believe that the law which prompted them to go on in trade would be let to take its course."
    Was it then, he asked, consistent with common honesty for the Government to frame a law with a view of inducing such men to embark their capital in a particular trade, and having entrapped them into the trade suddenly, and without reason, to reverse that policy to the ruin of our merchants? He thought that that was a fatal objection to their Budget. If hon. Members voted in affirmation of such a principle it would be a vote against the principle of common honesty between one man and another. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford assailed the policy of the Budget, he argued very elaborately in support of his views, and although the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last said he could not understand him, to him (Mr. Whiteside) the argument was perfectly intelligible. That right hon. Gentleman, on introducing his Budget, when he proposed to lay the income tax on Ireland, distinctly stated that it was originally computed to realize £460,000 per annum—a much greater tax than the interest of the charges Ireland was called upon to pay—that the Government were distinctly pledged to the policy that at a certain time, if Ireland bore its portion of the burden of the income tax, that burden would cease and determine, and that she should be thenceforward exempted from the payment of that tax. Now, he was not one of those who asked for any immunity from taxation for Ireland. He admitted that she ought to pay her fair proportion of taxation. The income tax on Ireland returned not £460,000 a year, but something like £1,200,000 or £1,300,000 a year. He contended that that tax, in its present shape, was vexatious and oppressive to every man from one end of Ireland to the other. He would give his vote in favour of the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, because he felt it was carrying out the pledge which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford when Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Government in reference to Ireland—namely, that the income tax would finally cease in 1860. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was simply one to extract from the Government a pledge that that tax should be got rid of in 1860. The Chancellor of the Ex-
    1094
    chequer refused to verify that pledge. He said that he would neither affirm or deny what was proposed, but would pass on to another question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Phillimore) made a severe attack upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. It was not his (Mr. Whiteside's) business to defend that right hon. Gentleman. He must, however, be permitted to say he had compared that right hon. Gentleman's speech the other night with his original statement of 1853, and the propositions he had made on both occasions were precisely similar. Was there any injustice in reference to a particular tax to hold the Government to a solemn pledge that had been given? But the hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had confined himself to the making of objections without proposing other and better measures. He (Mr. Whiteside) never knew that that was the duty of the Opposition. He remembered having heard the late Sir Robert Peel say, after he had made a series of objections to a bungling financier, when asked to point out a remedy, "When the party who makes objections to a measure is called into the Cabinet it will be then time enough for him to point out a remedy." The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, by adopting the figures of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks, has given the strongest possible proof of the necessity for such a Motion. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London was the last person who he (Mr. Whiteside) thought would take the dubious course of speaking one way and voting the other. He would adopt the noble Lord's views, but must decline meeting him in the same lobby. When they came to the discussion of the Chinese folly, as the noble Lord mildly characterized it, but which he (Mr. Whiteside) called the Chinese crime; and to the Persian war, upon which the noble Lord severely commented, he hoped that the noble Lord would give him the opportunity of tendering him his warm support. The hon. and learned Member for Leominster said he objected to a statesman because he was not consistent. He hoped then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly satisfied with the political character of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was everything by turns—at one time the decided Whig, at another the enthusiastic

    1095
    Tory. He (Mr. Whiteside) thought that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman came with a very ill grace from one who found it convenient to give a warm support to that most consistent of Premiers who now ruled the destinies of this country, and who had one policy for England, another for Ireland, and another more dangerous for foreign affairs.
    SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that in reference to the remarks which had been made that night on Mr. Gladstone's speech, he suspected the real truth was that the physicians wanted to be called in before they proposed their remedies. The anecdote which had been told by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down contained the real object of the Motion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not of course be at all answerable for the finances until they were called in, and then, no doubt, all difficulties would disappear and the finances of the country would be placed in a much better condition. He should give his cordial support to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was anxious to state why he should do so, and why he should not vote for the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There was a singular omission in the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution. He called on the Government to state their Budget, and he laid down the principles upon which that Budget was to be framed; but he had omitted one thing, a matter of no inconsiderable importance, both as to finances and fair dealing. The Resolution entirely omitted to state what he proposed to do with the war income tax. That was a most important point. Did they intend that it should be taken off or not? Unless they told the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the decision of the House on that question, it would be impossible for him or any man to form his financial arrangements. The omission was the more surprising, because early in the Session, while the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that the Government did not intend to take it off, he said it was necessary that the thing should be fairly and frankly stated, and that whatever were the rumours of the day, he could not allow that question to remain undecided. Then, how came it that he did not now state what were his intentions upon the matter? He (Sir F. Baring) entirely concurred in the statement that the people of England had borne heavy taxation, not only with patience, but with spirit; it was not fair
    1096
    that, owing to a misty or unintentional framing of the law, the income tax should be kept in operation longer than was intended. But why was not that opinion expressed in the Resolution? The same remark applied to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. After listening closely to that speech, he could not find that the right hon. Gentleman had anywhere stated whether or not he was prepared to take off the war income tax. On the contrary, his intention at the bottom appeared to be to continue it for at least another year. Well, if that were not also the intention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (and it was quite clear that it was not) why did he not state it in the Resolution? Was there some little difficulty between the two Gentlemen—the two stools between which the war income tax was to fall to the ground—coming to an understanding in respect to each other's views on that point. Was there some difficulty in getting the assent of the right hon. Gentleman on one side to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman on the other? If the House did not intend to affirm the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate their directions to the Ministers ought to be clear, frank, and explicit: they ought to let the country understand whether they were voting for the war tax to be taken off or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely ought to know whether a duty of £9,000,000 was to be continued or not. Before considering the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was worth while to call to mind what was his real position—in what state the national finances were. There would be a loss this year on malt of £2,200,000; on the war income tax of £9,000,000—for he did not suppose that any Gentleman on the other side would adhere to the technical reading of the Act, because they had said that an attorney making such a proposal would deserve to be struck off the rolls, and he must do something very bad indeed before that happened. £2,000,000 more would be lost by the reduction of the income tax from 7d. to 5d. On tea the loss would be nearly £1,600,000; on coffee, £135,000; on sugar, £755,000. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered himself bound to perform all the promises that had been made by his own and previous Governments, the total loss of revenue would be about £15,500,000. His income last year was about £73,000,000; deducting

    1097
    £15,500,000 it was brought down to £57,500,000. The expenditure for 1857–58 would be £65,000,000; therefore there was a deficiency staring them in the face of £8,000,000. That was not all; for, next year, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make no proposition whatever, the deficiency would rise to £9,000,000. This was no common case; and a finance Minister who had these difficulties to meet was entitled to fair consideration. These promises were not all made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The malt tax was not his promise. The war income tax was a matter which was obviously pressed upon him by the general desire of the country. The reduction of 7d. to 5d. of the income tax was an engagement made before the right hon. Gentleman came into office. The tea duty depended upon an engagement, partly his own and partly made before he came into office. Still, he was told that he must fulfil all these engagements, must take off the war income tax, and not touch tea, but must find money so as to keep up the balance in the Exchequer, and also take off the income tax altogether in 1860. The promises that had been made had vastly increased the difficulty of the finance Minister, but that difficulty he had fairly and manfully met. It was said that in his proposal he had entirely abandoned the principle of free trade; and in a mere rhetorical point of view, certainly Mr. Gladstone had given him a magnificent scolding. But, when they came to figures, was it correct, was it true? Was there any symptom whatever in the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned his opinions on free trade? He (Sir F. Baring) might not agree with all the obiter dicta of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he saw no reason to disapprove what he he had done. He had taken off the war income tax, and not even the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone would persuade the people of England to submit to it any longer. He refused to make the reduction from 7d. to 5d., but adopted the reductions on malt, coffee, tea, and sugar. So far from showing a love of indirect taxation, he took off the whole of the duty on coffee, and, with regard to tea and sugar, he went as far as the finances of the country would allow him. By 1861 he was prepared to do all that was promised. The whole of the reduction, so far as it was reduction, was in indirect taxation. It was said that the prospect
    1098
    was entirely sacrified of getting rid of the income tax in 1860. Whether there was a legal compact to that effect or not, they were bound, from political reasons as well as in good faith, to do their best to remit that tax in 1860–1. The reasons which induced the Government of the day—good and sound reasons—to propose the ultimate extinction of the income tax, because it was not a good tax for peace purposes, not a fair tax, not an equitable tax—were not to be set aside by any disquisitions about compacts. Those reasons ought to tell upon any Minister of Finance; and Parliament was bound upon every ground to do its best to take off that tax after a certain time. If they did not take it off in 1861 he feared there was no chance of its coming off at all. That was one of the difficulties they had to meet. Before pronouncing it to be utterly impossible, let them see how matters would stand in 1861. In 1860 they would have the half income tax. Including some small amount arising from reductions effected by Mr. Goulburn in the interest on the national debt, and also the annuities then felling in, there would be a saving of £2,270,000; he believed he was understating it. [Sir J. GRAHAM: You will only have £2,100,000.] That is the amount in respect to the annuities, but if you add Mr. Goulburn's reductions it will come to what I have stated. [Mr. CARDWELL: We have had that already.] He had taken the calculation from the papers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then in the same year there would cease payments on account of the war, as compared with 1857–8 of about £1,128,000, and as compared with 1858–9, of about £2,500,000, adding those sums together about £4,700,000 in round figures, of charges would not be chargeable in 1861. That sum went a long way towards seven millions, the amount of the income tax to be remitted that year. In addition, there was the anticipated increase in the succession duty, which had not yet reached its maximum; it was calculated that £600,000 or £700,000 would be derived from that. Adding those figures together, the amount might not be equal to the produce of the income tax. But the task to be performed in 1861 was not quite so formidable as had been represented. Besides, the revenue might be increasing from other sources, and the expenditure diminishing; and he was by no means prepared to say that the case was so hopeless as the right

    1099
    hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford would make it appear. If the Government kept the revenue in a fair state and avoided wars, he saw no reason to despair or to doubt that it was in the power of Government to take off the income tax at the period when Parliament had determined that it should expire by a little arrangement of the finances. He quite admitted that if the income tax were reduced as proposed, and if the expenditure of the present year were maintained with the additional charges of the civil service, there would be a deficit in the year after 1860. He did not think it an unfair statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that they were not yet on a permanent peace establishment, and that he looked forward to some reduction in the expenditure, and comparing the expenditure of the present year with the expenditure of former years in time of peace, he was of opinion it might be diminished. He was a disciple of those great men who held the opinion that it was good policy not to keep up large establishments in time of peace; and that, by this policy, they would be able to carry on war much better and more energetically when war unfortunately occurred. It was, on the whole, the best policy to keep up small but sufficient and efficient establishments in time of peace, and to rely on the spirit and activity of the people in time of war. Looking at the expense of former establishments, there were good grounds for supposing that a considerable reduction could be made in the present expenditure, though he was not prepared to say that the reduction could be effected in a moment. He knew from his own experience that it was a most difficult thing to make immediate reductions. Had they a right to say the Government neglected its duty in this respect? He did not think so. The estimate for the army, navy, and ordnance, in 1847–8, was only less by £1,000,000 than the estimate proposed by the present Government; and considering that they had only just come out of an expensive war, this was not extravagant. Everything could not be done in a day. The Government ought to get credit for the reductions made, and these reductions should be taken as an earnest of further reductions. But it might be said, why not effect these reductions now? He was willing to do so if it was found to be possible, but to ascertain this they should go into the Estimates. Let them act like
    1100
    men of business and see what reductions could be made. ["Hear!"] He was happy to hear a cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he should be happy to carry out every practicable economy, but let the economy be impartially carried out. A large number of men had been discharged from Portsmouth Dockyard, and representations had been made to him in consequence: he had nothing to say against the reduction if it was demanded by the exigencies of the public service, but can it be taken that what was saved with one hand was not unnecessarily spent with the other—if they reduced the Estimates at Portsmouth ought they not to stop on their way at Aldershot? It was a hard thing to turn honest workmen out of employment, but if there was no work for them, the Government had no alternative. But do not stop with the working men. Do not, under the proposed Superannuation Law, increase the salaries of some of the permanent and best-paid officers under the Crown. He was ready to go through, not only the Army and Navy Estimates, but through the Civil and Miscellaneous Estimates, in which reductions, he thought, could also be made. It was extremely difficult for Chancellors of the Exchequer at the same time to meet the benevolent aims or crotchets of individuals and to reduce expenditure. Last year £120,000 was charged on the public revenue on account of the county police. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should recollect these things when they called for a reduction of expenditure. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove obstinate in resisting claims of this kind, and that the House would stand by him. The question was between economy and taking off the income tax in 1860 on the one side, and—he would not say extravagance—but misdirected kindness and heavy taxation on the other. His choice was made; he was ready to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep expenditure down, so that he might be able to keep the promises made in 1853 and place the finances of the country in a better situation.
    MR. WALPOLEsaid: Sir, in common with the rest of the House, I have listened with unfeigned pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, on a subject with which it must be generally admitted he is so conversant as the financial arrangements of this country. I own, that after his speech, and those of three other Gen-

    1101
    tlemen—one of whom is, and two of whom have been, Chancellors of the Exchequer—I should consider myself presumptuous, indeed, did I enter upon a discussion with them of topics which they understand so much better than I do. Therefore, Sir, in the few observations which I shall make to the House I shall confine myself, strictly and properly, to the single proposition before us; and confining myself to that proposition, I am happy to say that I agree with the main object which the noble Lord the Member for the City appears to have in view in reference to this matter. I agree with him in some of the means—in most of the means—by which he proposes to effect that object; and I only differ with him—at least materially differ with him—as to the conclusion at which he has arrived. Agreeing, Sir, with the noble Lord in the main object which we ought to have in view—agreeing with him as to the means by which we ought to accomplish that object, I really find it difficult to imagine the reason which can have induced the noble Lord to arrive at the conclusion he has arrived at—namely, that we ought to go into Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before we receive that information which the noble Lord himself thinks essential for a decision on the question before it. The noble Lord agrees that the main object to be achieved is the abolition of the income tax in 1860; and he also takes the view which I do as to the way in which that abolition ought to be secured—namely, by a revision of our expenditure, to see that we shall not require more than the produce of our revenue in the intervening years. The noble Lord likewise wishes to see the object for which we are striving effected by wholesome reductions, but not by a niggardly economy. Under these circumstances I cannot understand how the noble Lord can now propose to go into Committee of Ways and Means, the effect of which would be to reimpose the income tax at 7d. in the pound for 1857, 1858, 1859, contrary to the existing law, which would reduce it to 5d., before any of us know what is to be our expenditure in those years. Now, I think, as implied in the Resolution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, that to propose taxes to meet the expenditure of future years without knowing what the expenditure will be, is the very reverse of the principles which we in the House of Commons ought to have recourse to. Now, Sir,
    1102
    the noble Lord said in the commencement of his speech that the mind of the people of this country is fixed on that which we are all anxious to achieve—namely, the remission of the income tax in 1860. Sir, I think that when Parliament met there were three impressions which the people of this country had formed on this subject. The first was that the war part of the income tax should cease with the termination of the war, for the purpose of which it had been imposed. The second was this, that since we are at peace we ought to enjoy the advantages of peace by as large a relief from the expenditure which war had occasioned as the exigencies of the public services would permit. The third expectation, if I may use the term, was this—and it is the one which you will go furthest in disappointing if you do not take strenuous measures to accomplish it this Session—namely, that the remainder of the income tax, after the war part had been done away with, should not be continued on any other way than as fixed by the agreement entered into in 1853, unless you could show an overwhelming necessity for continuing it—unless, in fact, you were prepared to show that you could not do without it. The first of these expectations was realized by the concession of the Government that the war portion of the income tax should not be continued. Whether that concession was made by the spontaneous will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whether it was forced upon him by the strong manifestation of public opinion without, and by the unanimous expression of feeling within this House, I shall not now stop to inquire; but this I now say, that I hope there will neither be an inclination nor a necessity for re-imposing that portion of the tax in any year to come. Now, the two other points—namely, a reduction of the expenditure and the ultimate abolition of the income tax, are those to which I shall address myself. Sir, when we find by the Estimates brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer such an increase of the expenditure of this year over the year 1853–4, I must say I think this House would grossly neglect its duty if it did not require a distinct reason for this increased expenditure with a view of seeing whether it is required. I quite agree with the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the transition from a state of war to peace leads to considerable difficulties, and possibly to many embarrassments. The reduction of expenditure is never a pleasant

    1103
    matter. There is, no doubt, a hardship in throwing out of employment those who have served the country faithfully and zealously, and no one would wish to carry out such a step except from a sense of imperative duty. Further, I must add, that there is the risk and danger of reducing establishments too low on the one hand, and of running into the other extreme, which, after the extravagances of war you are greatly tempted to do. Considerations such as these might make the heads of departments hesitate as to the exact point to which a reduction of expenditure ought to be carried; but, at the same time, allow me to remind the Government that nearly a year has passed away since the war terminated; that they have had nearly twelve months' time to consider what the exigencies of the public service required, and to determine and inform the House upon the nature and character of our proposed peace establishment. Besides this, in the month of May last, my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire pointed out to the Government that as the excitement of war had passed away, they ought and must look to the means by which a rigid economy in the public expenditure could best be secured. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this debate, have alluded to the fact, that during the last few years the House has not practised the virtue of economy; they said, this House would call strongly on the Government to have recourse to those practices of economy which, last year, could not be carried out. Yet at this moment the House is altogether uninformed as to whether the peace establishment which we shall require for the coming year will involve an expenditure such as that provided by the Estimates of the present year, or whether the Estimates of the years 1853–4 may not be sufficient. We have nothing before, us to show us clearly how this is, and I really think we ought to require information on those points before we proceed to the imposition of taxation to meet those Estimates. No doubt many difficulties stand in the way, but they are not insuperable, and should be met. There is one matter that requires to be at once and carefully looked into, unless we mean to grossly neglect our duty, and that is the rapid advances of the Miscellaneous Estimates. As regards our military and naval establishments, I think our object should be to combine efficiency with economy. It
    1104
    has been stated out of Parliament, that the want of expenditure in those departments led to the disasters of 1853–4; but if we look to those disasters, I think we shall trace them not to want of men, not to want of material or of money, but rather to a want of foresight in those who planned the campaign, and to that want of experience which must attach to any army, however powerful that army may be, which has been for a long time living in peace. Why, Sir, the facts show this: when our army landed in the Crimea, it was more powerful in men than that of our gallant and faithful Ally; and when it left the seat of war—I speak in presence of one of the gallant and able Generals who was last in command—I believe the British army was in point of numbers, in point of spirit, and in point of efficiency, equal to that great army which was encamped on the plains of Waterloo in June, 1815. These are two remarkable facts. Our army was larger than the French army when it landed in the Crimea. What a proof that your peace establishment was not so immoderately low as is generally supposed. Then the other fact—that relating to the state of our army when it left the Crimea—proves this, that by husbanding your resources in time of peace, you are much better able to enter upon an arduous and long-protracted struggle than are nations which waste their strength on establishments unnecessarily large before the time of action arrives. What I think, therefore, that the country requires, is an efficient but not a superfluous force, as much efficiency with as little extravagance as possible. But, Sir, what is the state of our military establishments now as regards expenditure, compared with that of 1853–4 and the previous years? The increase in these Estimates is upwards of £3,000,000. I do not say that part of this is not necessary at this moment, when you have to get rid of the tail, as it were, of the war establishment; but I very much doubt whether this establishment will be better by the continuation of an expenditure to that amount. After you have provided a sufficient force for home duty, and a sufficient number of men to relieve your soldiers in the Colonies, all expenditure after that is so much waste. But we should not confine our consideration to the expenditure on the military and naval establishments; but have very good reason to turn our particular attention to the expenditure for the civil departments. I shall not go into the details of that ex-

    1105
    penditure; but when we have before us the fact that for this, the first year of peace, we have an expenditure of upwards of £10,000,000 more than the expenditure of the years previous to the war, it is impossible to deal with this subject unless we look carefully into the cause of this expenditure. I quite concur in the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, that this question must be discussed in a financial and not in a political sense; and I am willing to admit, that many of these items of expenditure are a necessary consequence of the war. The winding-up of the war expenses alone is a considerable item. Two millions sterling are for Exchequer bonds—a mode of borrowing which we have always objected to on this side of the House, because they have to be provided for at inconvenient times; and there is also provision for a sinking fund. These items will, perhaps, reduce the expenditure of £10,000,000, the excess over the expenditure of 1853, to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. Still with such an excess as this the House will, I am sure, feel that there is great ground for making considerable reductions; and unless we, in the first instance, proceed to make these reductions, we shall be unable to tell whether the re-imposition of the income tax and the additional duties on tea and sugar will or will not be necessary. So much, Sir, for the question of reduction; but the point on which I own I feel the strongest—the point to which I never can consent to the financial arrangements now proposed to us—is the manner in which you propose to deal with the property and income tax, because I am convinced that if you deal with them in the way proposed it will be practically impossible for you to get rid of it in 1860. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, thinks that it will be possible to abolish the tax in 1860, and has given us his reasons for arriving at that conclusion. I shall advert to those reasons with the permission of the House, before I have finished; but in the mean time, I wish to deal with one portion of the subject which has been often touched upon during this debate, and which I believe to be more important than any other, as far as the honour, faith, and character of Parliament are concerned. We are bound, Sir, to keep our engagement with the people. I regretted to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House that this en-
    1106
    gagement respecting the income tax was no compact, as if there could be no compact except that description of compact which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth has to-night called a legal compact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to intimate, at least by implication or by way of illustration, that there could be no compact made with the people short of such a compact as was entered into between England and Scotland at the time of the union between those two countries, or between England and Ireland at the time of the Union. My view of this matter is, that though in this case the compact may not be an actual legal compact, it is to all intents and purposes a virtual and moral compact from which you cannot with honour depart. I am of opinion, Sir, that unless this compact be kept, there is an end of Ministers of the Crown proposing measures of agreement with the people, and of the representatives of the people accepting them. I conceive that there are several ways by which a moral compact of this kind may exist. There may be a compact caused by a Minister of the Crown, in his place in Parliament, making an announcement to this House as the foundation for proposed measures, and this House accepting that announcement in the sense in which; it is made, and voting on it afterwards. Then there may be a compact formed on a general arrangement, and by which that arrangement, being taken as a whole, parts of it are consented to, in consequence of the existence of other portions. And there was also a moral, I had almost said a legal compact, when you embody this arrangement specifically in the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Now, every one of those circumstances were in operation in this case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1853, stated distinctly that he was making his announcement on the part of Her Majesty's Government, when he announced that the income tax would expire in 1860, and bound himself to make provision for that purpose. On that occasion the income tax was extended to Ireland and all over the kingdom to incomes between £100 and £150 a year, and you accompanied this extension with a promise that the tax should be remitted in 1860. The proposition was urged as a whole; it was submitted as a whole; it was accepted as a whole. We are bearing the burden which was then imposed; but not one item of the alleviation has yet been extended to

    1107
    us. I recollect, Sir, that when I practised at the Chancery bar, it was a maxim in equity that when an agreement was entered into between two parties, and that one party had fulfilled his part, the arrangement became irrevocable, unchangeable, and that it was impossible for the other party to recede from carrying out the other part of the compact. That is the equity upon which I wish this House to proceed. Talk not to me of legal compacts. No, Sir, here is a moral compact, which I am certain it concerns the honour of the House to see fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University has not put his case so strongly as he might have done. He has told you that the provisions contained in the Act of 1853 were of two kinds, both of which contemplated the gradual reduction and final extinction of the tax in 1860. The first facilitated the ultimate abolition of the tax by giving a gradually descending scale, and the second enacted the extinction of the tax in plain and express terms. What are the words of the Act? If hon. Gentlemen will have the goodness to refer to the debates in 1816, when this question was so prominently brought before the House, they will find that a great clamour was raised within the walls of Parliament, that very few arguments were listened to, that even Mr. Wilberforce could not obtain a hearing, that Lord (then Mr.) Brougham was overpowered by cries for a division, and that the only words to which the least attention was paid, were words similar to those which I am now going to read from the Act of 1853. The last clause in that Act runs in these words:—
    "This Act shall commence and take effect from and after the 5th day of April, 1853, and, together with the duties therein contained, shall continue in force until the 6th of April, 1860, and no longer."
    These are the words of the Act of Parliament, which bound and compelled you to the compact, and unless you can show an overwhelming necessity for the measure, you ought not to preserve this unequal and odious tax. Observe, this is not merely a pecuniary matter. I think, as I said before, that the honour of Parliament is at stake. I am sure that, if there is one thing that gives weight and stability to our legislation more than to the legislation of some other countries I could mention, it is this—that the people repose confidence in what is done in Parliament; and also, that Parliament itself reposes confidence
    1108
    in acts of previous legislation. It is that which makes our legislation certain and not fortuitous. Nay, more, it is that which makes you retain some part of your legislation which is even opposed to the wishes of the people. We had the other night an illustration of this. I do not see my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) in his place; but if there was one reason more than another why he cannot, without an equivalent, and probably will not, be able to repeal the Maynooth grant, it is because this House considers that, having embodied that grant in an Act of Parliament, there is something like a compact made with the Roman Catholics of Ireland that ought to be observed. I believe the noble Lord at the head of the Government agrees in that view of the case. But let me ask you, if you preserve a compact so entered into which is against the wishes of the people of Great Britain, will you not endeavour to keep a compact which is thus entered into when the wishes of the people, not only of Great Britain, but of the whole United Kingdom, are in its favour? What is good for one Act of Parliament is equally good for another. But only two answers are given to this; and I think that both of them have been referred to by the noble Lord the Member for London. The one answer is, that let a compact be ever so strong, it may be disturbed by many causes and circumstances over which you have no control. It is further met by the observation of the noble Lord, that the arrangement proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best means of facilitating the observance of this compact and getting rid of the tax in 1860. I agree that there are disturbing causes which interfere with this compact. The war was such a disturbing cause, and as long as the war lasted, or if the war had lasted till 1860, then your compact could not have been observed in the letter, because it would have been an impossibility to limit the expenditure. To that extent, therefore, you are perfectly justified in departing from the stipulation which was then entered into. You were justified, for instance—you could not do otherwise—in not remitting the duty down to 6d. in the pound in the year 1855, and letting it fall to 5d. in the pound in the year 1857. I quite agree, too, that you are even justified in keeping on the extra 2d., over and above what you would be entitled to do this year, according to the strict letter of the engagement, because

    1109
    there are many expenses which you have to meet with that extra 2d. in the pound. But what I want to know, and this is the argument which I press upon the noble Lord and upon those who follow him, is, why are we, in the year 1857, before we know what the expenditure of the country will be in the year 1858, to be called upon to reimpose a tax for that year 1858 which you are bound by Act of Parliament to take off? I do not say that circumstances may not justify you in the reimposition, but then, I say, that you ought to postpone until 1858 the consideration of that question, and that the principal proposition ought now to be to take off the war part of the tax which you proposed to do, and continue the 7d. simply for the year 1857–8. The other argument which is urged against us by the noble Lord for the non-observance of what I venture to call a compact is, that by the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is a much better chance of facilitating the departure of this tax, and the entire abolition of it, than there is by the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. What is the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is, that during the years 1858, '59, and '60, 7d. in the pound shall be levied instead of 5d.; in other words, that a tax shall be imposed amounting to £2,000,000 sterling. What do you do with the extra 2d.? Do you say it is wanted for the expenditure? If it be so, let us wait until we know and see that that expenditure really is required. Do you say that it is required for the remission of other taxes? I think the noble Lord himself admitted, that until you had fulfilled this engagement you were not justified in taking off other taxes? Do you keep it as a reserve fund in order to facilitate its own ultimate departure? I say you cannot do that better than by not requiring the people to pay it at all during the years 1857, '59, and '60. Take the proposition in whatever way you will, the reimposition of that 2d. cannot by possibility facilitate the extinction of the tax. Why can it not? What is the aggregate amount of the tax at 7d., and what at 5d.? At 5d. £5,000,000; at 7d. £7,000,000. Make such a large gap in your revenue as £7,000,000, and is there a man in this House who believes that in the year 1860 you will have the means of filling up that gap? The abolition of the tax by means of the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I
    1110
    am confident, practically impossible. Then comes the question what, under these circumstances, we ought to do. The noble Lord says, that possibly there may be a deficiency either in the present or the following year. If, Sir, it is likely that there should be a deficiency, then it would be unwarrantable in us to entail on those who come after us the difficulty of meeting that deficiency; but supposing that you go back to the reduced Estimates you had before the war, and there is no deficiency, then I say that you ought to inquire, and carefully inquire, into the extent to which those Estimates may be reduced before you proceed further. But whether you do the one or the other, I contend most confidently, that nothing can be so unwise and nothing so unjust as to reimpose this tax contrary to the engagement you had previously entered into. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) in his place; he has raised a question this evening, by the Amendment he has moved for the adjournment of the debate, which I think ought to be answered before the debate closes. He objects before going into Committee of Supply, to either affirming or denying a proposition like that which has been submitted to the House by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) on going into Committee of Ways and Means; and a further objection which I have heard or seen stated, though I do not think it has been repeated in this House, is, what practical good will come from my right hon. Friend's Motion? I will consider these two questions together. I concede to my hon. Friend that, as a general rule and an ordinary practice, it is not only the business of this House, but it is desirable that it should be the business of this House—first, to see what expenditure you will require, and then to provide for that expenditure by going into Committee of Ways and Means. That is unquestionably the general practice; but remember that it has been departed from by some of the highest and best authorities that ever sat within these walls. What are the circumstances under which it has been departed from? and are not similar circumstances now present with us? [Mr. BENTINCK: No!] My hon. Friend says "No" before he has heard my case. The general circumstances under which the rule has been departed from are these:—Where there is something unusual with reference to the expenditure and revenue

    1111
    of the country, the House may justly require that the whole state and condition of the national finances should be brought before its notice. In the year 1845, when Sir Robert Peel renewed the income tax, he went into Committee of Ways and Means early in February and before the Estimates were voted. When, in 1848, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) proposed a renewal of the tax, and an addition of 5d. in the pound, raising the income tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent, he considered that the whole of the Ways and Means of the country should be submitted to the House before the Supplies were demanded. These are two of the best authorities, not only of our own time, but of any time, for the proper guidance of the House, in matters of this description. I am not ashamed to follow in the wake of such authorities, and I ask the House whether the circumstances in which we now stand are not as peculiar as the circumstances in which we were placed at either of those periods? Observe how you stand. You have just terminated an arduous and expensive war. The Ministry must, I presume, have considered what, under the altered circumstances, ought to be the peace establishment of this country; but we have no information at the present moment as to what are their particular views with reference to that subject; and I contend, that if you go on with the Votes in Supply, and impose additional taxation upon tea and sugar, and upon the income of the people, not merely for this year, but for future years, before you know whether that taxation will be required for the purposes of revenue or not, you are violating the first principles upon which the House has always proceeded. I say it is right that this House should obtain information on these matters, before it actually proceeds to accept or reject the financial arrangements now submitted to us, and the obtaining of that information is the object of the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. And as to the practical good that has been done by the Motion of my right hon. Friend, I think I can see great practical good even since this debate has commenced. I can discover a materially altered tone with reference to the Estimates which were originally proposed, and also with reference to the taxation which was about to be placed upon the people. And it does not require any great sagacity to predict, as
    1112
    some of the good which is likely to flow from this discussion—first, that the tea duties will not be increased; secondly, that the Estimates will not stand as they are; and thirdly, I hope that the income tax will not be raised to 7d. in the pound until you know that the expenditure of the country indispensably requires that the addition should be made. Such is the practical good which I believe has resulted and will result from this discussion. There is something, too, in the mode in which the income tax has, from time to time, been renewed, that especially requires the attention of the House. The tax was first proposed in 1842. It was grounded on the necessity of the case, and the Duke of Wellington, the leader of the Government in the House of Lords, when asked bow long it was to continue, said, "as long as it is necessary, and not one moment longer." At the end of the first triennial period, namely, 1845, the tax was renewed. Sir Robert Peel laid the case before the House of Commons. He said the House was in a condition to do away with the tax if it chose; but that it would also be in a condition to go on with a remission of other taxes if that tax were continued for another triennial period. The House having its eyes thus opened, sanctioned the further imposition of the tax. But an alarming circumstance had occurred in the interval. A letter was written by Sir Robert Peel to the merchants at Elbing, which seemed to imply that the income tax, instead of being temporary, was likely to be permanent, inasmuch as it spoke of a "juster principle of taxation." Subsequently, however, Sir Robert Peel explained that his meaning was misunderstood, and that when he used the phrase "juster principle of taxation," he referred to those duties which were either prohibitory or protective duties upon raw materials, and duties upon small articles, which did not pay the cost of collection. Still alarm prevailed in the public mind before the expiration of the second trennial period. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) was at the head of the Government at the end of that period, and came down to this House and proposed a renewal of the tax, and an addition to its amount. The circumstances of the country were peculiar. There was a great pressure upon trade. A commercial crisis had happened, and the hearths of the people of Ireland had been desolated by a

    1113
    gigantic famine. What did the House say when that proposal was made? With one voice it declared that it would not have an addition to the tax. The proposal was, therefore, withdrawn; and although the noble Lord asserted that the addition was absolutely necessary, he was enabled to go on without it. But the alarm created in the public mind by the Elbing letter was greatly increased by this attempt to add to the tax, and the House determined upon reviewing the income tax by means of a Committee. The third triennial period expired in 1851, and so strongly convinced was the House of the necessity which existed for either modifying the tax so as to make it more equal, or abolishing it altogether, that you only continued it for one year. At the end of that year my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and two courses were open before him—one modification, the other abolition. He suggested modification; but the House rejected the Budget, and the Ministry with it. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) then succeeded to office. The same alternatives were before him—modification or abolition. He demonstrably showed that you could not make the tax equal by attempting to adjust the difference between precarious and fixed incomes; but that you must deal with the case by comparing net profits with gross receipts. He therefore proposed its renewal; but he accompanied that proposal by the compact or obligation to which I have referred, and from that time to this, or rather until Friday evening last, nobody ever dreamt that there was a chance of that compact not being strictly fulfilled to the letter. I heard then from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first time a statement which, if it had fallen from any other person, I should have thought had slipped out of the mouth in the warmth of debate. But there is no man in the House who is more thoughtful in his speeches than my right hon. Friend, and therefore it is that I attribute more weight to his words than I do to those who speak more hastily. He said, and this is the passage to which I desire to call the particular attention of the House, because it seems to intimate an opinion that he could not state whether there was a probability or even a possibility of getting rid of the tax in 1860:—
    "All persons must wish that any onerous tax, which the income tax is alleged to be, should, by the increasing prosperity of the country, be found
    1114
    unnecessary for the public service; but it seems to me that we cannot bind ourselves down to any sort of pledge, or to any formal confession of faith, as to the possibility or probability of Parliament being able to remit the income tax in 1860."
    Now, Sir, these are alarming words. They are so alarming that, if the House required at any time some mode of dispersing that alarm, I think it should take the earliest opportunity of doing so; and I know not how you could so well do it as by adopting the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. What, Sir, doubt entertained even by the Minister of the Crown, contrary to an express engagement to the compact as I have proved it to be—the moral compact—that this tax is to cease in 1860? Are we to be told by the highest authority in the House or the Government that he cannot form an opinion as to the probability, or even possibility, of the fulfilment of that engagement? Depend upon it, that it is for the honour of this House that the engagement which has been entered into should be strictly adhered to. The people of the country expect its fulfilment, and, unless adhered to, I feel sure that the confidence reposed in this House will be materially weakened. It is under these circumstances, and feeling strongly that we want an assurance from the Government with reference to financial arrangements that the compact of 1853 should be preserved, that I cordially support the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. I support that Resolution because it amounts, in fact, to an instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means, that no Budget will be satisfactory to us—that no Budget will be satisfactory to the country—unless it secures, by a proper adjustment of revenue and expenditure, the fulfilment of a pledge solemnly given, and which you cannot depart from without a breach of faith and a violation of all principle.
    MR. CARDWELL: I cannot help feeling, Sir, when I listen to the able speeches by which this Resolution is recommended to the House, that the Motion itself rests on two distinct grounds—the advocacy of one of which points to a line of action different from that implied by the advocacy which sustains the other branch of it. When I hear those able statements which point to the bottomless pit of deficiency in which we are told the present financial arrangements will leave the country, I naturally expect to hear the speaker close with a proposal for a higher scale of taxes;

    1115
    and when I hear eloquent speeches in favour of a reduction of expenditure, I naturally expect the conclusion to be that we shall go into the Committee of Ways and Means, where, assuming that our expenditure is diminished, we may afford to the people of this country that just remission of taxation on which their whole attention is centred, on which their opinion is made up, and which we, I think, on both sides of the House unanimously believe to be both expedient and just. I am confirmed in that opinion when I hear my right hon. Friend who last sat down, commence his able speech by proclaiming that in every material fact and argument, in every premise which should lead him to a conclusion, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Is it not strange, Sir, that men of such ability should be agreed on all these statements and all these premises, and be as wide as the poles asunder in the conclusions to which they have come? To me the inference is irresistible—that this Motion is not well devised for expressing on the part of the House of Commons one plain, intelligible, practical result. While we are debating here whether we have a deficiency in prospect or whether we have a surplus, is it not manifest that the solution of that question must depend upon the amount of expenditure you contemplate will be incurred in future years? Apply to future years the expenditure of the present year—namely, Estimates for the army and navy of £21,000,000 and for the civil service of £7,000,000, and no doubt you will find yourself in a deficiency, but apply to the Estimates of future years those calculations to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred us—I mean the last year in which we enjoyed the blessings of peace—and then you have a safe balance sheet. Does not this bring us at once to that which is the real point of controversy? Do we mean retrenchment of expenditure, or do we not? Those who mean retrenchment of expenditure have a right to go into Committee of Ways and Means for the remission of taxes. But those Gentlemen—I know not who they are, nor where they sit, though reference has frequently been made to them in the course of the debate—who do not intend reduction of expenditure, are not entitled to go into Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of remitting taxes. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) told us that the first object he
    1116
    had in view was the remission of the war 9d. Then to-night he may have an opportunity of accomplishing that object by assenting to the Motion to go into Committee for the purpose of removing the war 9d. That is the first practical question with the right hon. Gentleman. It is the first practical question with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. I believe it is the first practical question with all of us and with people out of doors. Therefore, instead of interposing a Motion, the meaning of which is not intelligible to us, we should take the practical step on which we are unanimously agreed, and I venture to submit to the House that those who are, as I am, sincere advocates of retrenchment will have gained a great step. When a Resolution shall have been passed in Committee of Ways and Means, and afterwards adopted by this House, when we have to that extent pledged ourselves to the country, it will be too late to adopt a policy inconsistent with our beginning. Having remitted war taxes, we must vigorously deal with war expenditure. Am I without precedent in this argument? My right hon. Friend who last addressed the House referred with approbation to the precedent of 1816. What was the conduct of this House—what was the conduct of the country gentlemen of England in 1816? As the right hon. Gentleman has told us—to demand the immediate abolition of those taxes which had been imposed for the purposes of war. Was the consequence of these remissions of taxation long in following in the reduction of expenditure? The expenditure which in 1815was upwards of £60,000,000 had in one year descended to £43,000,000; in another year it went down to £25,000,000; and in another to £17,000,000. That was the result of a policy which intending to remit taxes did not talk about it, but by a Resolution of this House, removing the taxes, rendered a necessary consequence the reduction of expenditure, by which alone a nation, like an individual, can be justified when parting with any portion of its income. We had another example in 1848. The House of Commons was then asked to raise the income tax from 7d. to 1s. in the pound. There was at that time already upon the balance-sheet a deficiency of £2,000,000. It was not a prospective, it was an actual deficiency. Did we concur in that demand? Unanimously we resisted it. Sir Robert Feel, the author of

    1117
    the income tax, stated in debate that 7d. was its maximum in ordinary times of peace. The House of Commons having refused to increase the income tax, what was the effect upon the Estimates? Let any man look at the gradual and not slow descent in their amount. Sir, the question of the balance sheet in future years turns upon this simple question,—Can you or can you not bring down your military Estimates to an amount between £17,000,000 and £18,000,000. I will not trouble the House with minute details, but it is idle to argue about deficiency or surplus, unless by a reference to some general amount we know what is the matter of which we are talking—if you can bring down your Estimates for the military services to between £17,000,000 and £1.8,000,000, you will have a balance in the Exchequer; if you cannot, you will be in a deficiency. Now, Sir, have we a fair prospect of accomplishing that object? I have examined what has been the expenditure for the military services during the whole time that I have been in public life. There have been five Prime Ministers, who have had to submit Estimates to four different Parliaments. The Ministries of Lord Melbourne and of Lord John Russell, in the last years of their existence, submitted Estimates amounting to £14,500,000. Sir Robert Peel, when our relations with France were critical, and when the Oregon question was the subject of the utmost anxiety, incurred an expenditure of £17,000,000. The Estimates of Lord Derby, adopted, I believe, from his predecessor, but still adopted, amounted to £16,000,000. The expenditure of Lord Aberdeen, in the last year of the peace, swelled already by the anticipation of the coming war, barely exceeded £16,000,000. Is it, then, hopeless that, in years of profound peace, we can reduce our military expenditure to a sum between £17,000,000 and £18,000,000? Let those who think it is—let those who have a faint heart for the work of judicious retrenchment and reduction vote for increased taxes; but for us who are determined to enforce all economy which is consistent with efficiency, I submit that the natural course is that we should not vote for a dilatory Amendment, but should at once go into Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of accomplishing the first object of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) by remitting that portion of the income tax which is generally regarded as having been added
    1118
    to meet the expenditure of the war. Then, Sir, what should be our second object? I listened with the utmost attention to every syllable which fell from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) upon the interesting question of those articles of great consumption from which we have recently removed taxes with such infinite advantage to the trade and industry of the country, and with so much benefit to the Exchequer. In the plans of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are included certain additions to the taxes upon tea and sugar. Are these increases necessary? If they are, that will no doubt be a great argument with the House in favour of their acceptance. But let me ask this question—a question which was pertinently put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), in bringing forward this Amendment, and which has been strongly repeated to-night by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—Are you justified in assuming that you can in the year 1858–9 return to a certain moderate scale of expenditure, and are you justified in making no attempt at meeting the same requirement in the year whose balance-sheet you are now considering, and whose expenditure you can now control? If you will reduce the latter half of this year only to what you yourselves say is to be the expenditure of the first half of the coming year—that is to say, if you will only anticipate by six months that very economy to which you have invited us to look, you may safely abstain from any retroactive effect upon those articles of general consumption which contribute so large a part of the trade of this country, and which contribute so much to the happiness and welfare of the people. When we get into Committee of Ways and Means, and are invited to consider the question of increasing in a time of peace the duties which the poorer classes of the community are required to pay upon tea and coffee, it will behove the House, before adopting that course, to know that there is some reason why we cannot accomplish in the latter half of 1857 the same economy to which we are invited to look forward in the first half of 1858. I have taken my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) step by step. His first point was that we should remove those taxes which were imposed for the purposes of the war. His second point was that we should vigilantly examine and considerably reduce unnecessary

    1119
    expenditure. His third point was that we should maintain inviolate that compact which he tells us was made in 1853 between us and the people of this country. Sir, I sincerely hope that the promises of that magnificent Budget of 1853 may, notwithstanding the misfortune which has happened to us in the interval, finally be realized and fulfilled. But when we talk so highly as my hon. Friend talked of a compact, when we speak of arrangements that are to be made three years hence, we ought to remember humbly that circumstances three years hence are not so completely within our control. This I will say to my right hon. Friend, if we are to keep that compact the best thing that we can do in the interval is to replenish the Exchequer. If, under the shelter of the large sum which in that year falls in from the national debt—a sum exceeding £2,000,000—we are to give the people the benefit of the entire abolition of the income tax, it is necessary that we should take care effectually to replenish the Exchequer during the interval by retrenchment of expenditure, and by omitting to impose upon great articles of consumption those taxes the imposition of which checks trade, fetters industry, and diminishes consumption. Then you may reasonably hope that in the year 1860 you will have a buoyant revenue and a flourishing people. This will be accomplished by providing in each year for the burdens which belong to it, and not, as I understood my right hon. Friend, availing ourselves of the first moment of diminished expenditure to operate upon other taxes, the remission of which would contribute less to the welfare and prosperity of the people. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech in which he introduced this debate, quoted to us divers authorities. If I might take the liberty of pointing out to a scholar like my hon. Friend an authority which was worthy of his notice, I would recommend to his notice an epigrammatic maxim of Say, who wrote:—"The best of all plans of finance is to spend little; and the best of all taxes is the smallest." I would venture to recommend to him also the example of our Ally, who, immediately upon the transition from war to peace, has proclaimed to his Chambers that the existing state of his people requires a vigilant supervision and careful retrenchment of his expenditure the reduction of the military establishments, and the postponement of works not
    1120
    of pressing necessity. We ourselves learned from the late war that it was not by military establishments only that a nation is made powerful. Russia had large establishments; France had large establishments; we had comparatively small ones; and yet when the crisis of that war arrived Russia was impoverished; France was suffering from pecuniary pressure; England, rising with the occasion, was ready to encounter the increased severities of continued warfare. What moral lesson do we learn from this? To what do we owe that gratifying circumstance? We owe it to the wisdom which had filled the Exchequer without distressing the nation, which had established trade upon a firm foundation, which had made our people prosperous in their industry, and by a wise economy avoided entailing upon them unnecessary burdens. Believing then, Sir, that by judicious economy we can accomplish the objects which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had in view. I object to this Amendment, because it keeps us from that practical stage of our proceedings where we can realize the first of these objects, and lay the foundation for the succeeding ones. I think that the adoption of that Amendment would be a doubtful, would be an impracticable course, and, therefore, I shall vote that you, Sir, leave the chair, and that we go into Committee for the purpose of removing those taxes, from which, as they were imposed in a time of war, the people now, on the return of the blessings of peace, justly and properly demand to be relieved.
    MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that like the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he had listened with attention to the speeches which had been delivered since the commencement of this debate, and they had brought to his mind a strong conviction of the importance of the issue on which the House had to decide. He believed also that they had enabled him to form a correct estimate of the meaning and value of the Vote which he should be called upon to give. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London had made a speech in which, so far as the general sentiments were concerned, he (Mr. Gibson) entirely, concurred, as that speech must be taken in the light of a friendly communication to Her Majesty's Government to induce them to alter their policy, but the noble Lord concluded by advising the House to vote for their policy. What, in fact, was the question which they were now called upon

    1121
    to decide? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his financial statement, and had invited the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means—to impose 7d. in the pound upon income for the next three years, and to increase the duties upon tea and sugar, in order to provide funds to defray the expenditure necessary for the public service of the current year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) objected to follow that course, and had submitted a Resolution to the House which hon. Members could read upon the paper; but before they could discuss the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution they must first give an opinion aye or no; were they favourable upon the whole to the financial scheme propounded by the Government? If the House should decide that they were not favourable to that scheme, they would then be called upon to give their approval of the substitute proposed by the right hon. Member for Bucks. He (Mr. Gibson) would briefly state his own view of the matter. He conceived that those Gentlemen who were willing to add £4,000,000 to the Estimates for the Army and Navy in excess of the Estimates of the year preceding the war—who were in favour of an increase in the duties upon tea and sugar, and for levying 7d. in the pound upon incomes for the next three years—must vote for going into Committee. Those who, on the contrary, thought the Estimates were too high, who considered that the duties upon tea and sugar ought not to be increased, that a tax of 7d. should not be placed upon incomes—those Members would vote against going into Committee. By adopting that course they would be taking the obvious Parliamentary course of expressing their opinion of the financial scheme of the Government, as a whole. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) said, "Do not oppose the Committee of Ways and Means, allow the Government to proceed, and take your chance in a Committee of Supply of opposing the particular duties upon tea and sugar, to which you object." He (Mr. Gibson) doubted whether that was good advice for hon. Members who were desirous of a practical result. No doubt the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) would be gratified by finding among his small minorities the names of the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, and, perhaps, with great exertions, he
    1122
    might succeed in reducing the salary of a chaplain in the Bahamas or of knocking off the odd shilling upon some other particular Vote. But if the House was in earnest, if it wanted to obtain a practical result, it must take its stand at once. During his experience in Parliament he had never known a successful effort made to bring about a reduction of expenditure in any other way than by leaving to the Government the responsibility of proposing the reductions by informing them generally that the scale of expenditure and taxation which they proposed did not meet the approval of Parliament. Then came the question, was he so opposed to the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was justified in recording his vote against it? That plan must be taken in connection with the explanatory speech which introduced it. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be taken as an indication of the fiscal and general financial policy of the Government. Regarding it in that light, he frankly owned that, as a whole, he conscientiously believed that that speech had a retrograde and reactionary complexion about it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them of the prosperity of the country—of the increased exports and imports, with a view, no doubt, to inspire them with a confidence that the burdens he was about to propose could not be borne without much pressure upon the country. But, although the right hon. Gentleman had told them about the foreign trade, he had not said one word about the condition of the home trade. He spoke of the prosperous classes, but did not say anything of the condition at that moment of the great body of the labouring classes of the country. That was a most remarkable omission, because in his financial scheme it was from the labouring classes that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to draw a considerable portion of his increased revenue. He proposed to add to the duties upon tea and sugar, articles of consumption next to the very necessaries of life, but he did not say whether the labouring classes were now in a condition to bear the increased burden. Although, no doubt, the resources of the country were vast, and although, no doubt, we had been able to bear £76,000,000 of taxation during the last war with less suffering than any other country would have felt had it been called upon to support so great a burden, still he was informed and believed

    1123
    that at the present moment the great body of agricultural labourers and mechanics in this country had little means left, after procuring the bare necessaries of life, to expend in articles bearing Custom duties. He was informed of an agricultural labourer in Suffolk who, with a wife and five children, was not able, with his present wages, to purchase more than one ounce of tea per week. Were they going to add to the price of that ounce of tea? If he took the case of a skilled mechanic earning £1 a week, expending his income as men of that class usually did, he found that the taxes paid in the shape of indirect duties upon articles of consumption amounted to no less than 3s., if not 4s., out of that £1, so that if an income tax were to be levied instead of indirect duties such a man would, according to the present scale of duties, have to pay 3s. or 4s. in the pound. Surely that was not a class upon which fresh burdens should be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer omitted in his speech all reference to that class from whom he intended to draw his revenue, but at the same time introduced matters totally irrelevant to the question—the paper duty, the tax upon insurances, and the duties upon wine. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had volunteered statements respecting the paper duty, he (Mr. Gibson) would make one or two observations in reply. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to take a mere exciseman's view of that question. He had told the House that the repeal of the duty upon paper (thinking no doubt of three volume novels, or M'Culloch's Dictionary) would not have an appreciable effect upon printed books. Dull people made the same remark when Sir Robert Peel brought forward the repeal of the glass duties, that it would not have an appreciable effect upon the price of their decanters and wine glasses. But that was not the view taken of the matter by those who advocated a repeal of the excise duty on paper. They believed that the duty impeded the expansion of an important manufacture, stood in the way of our exports, restricted employment, and therefore produced an increase of pauperism and crime. The right hon. Gentleman might sneer at the idea of the paper duty being a tax upon knowledge, but he (Mr. Gibson) thought that a duty which amounted to 30 per cent upon the cost of ordinary school books and copy books used by the humbler classes was a tax upon
    1124
    knowledge, and was inconsistent with the efforts now being made by Parliament to promote the spread of education throughout the country. He now came to the question of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution. He wished to disentangle himself from the merits of that Resolution. He went some way with the right hon. Gentleman, thinking that to sanction the proposed expenditure for the present year would be to lay the foundation for a deficiency in future years; and that it was absolutely certain that next year an appeal would be made to Parliament for increased taxation. We were now, after a great war, settling what should be our peace expenditure; and he must do the Government the justice to say that they had not for a moment held out the hope of any material reduction in the military expenditure. The very items they had adduced as constituting the cause of the existing increase were such as clearly showed that they did not contemplate the probability of any large reduction. It had always been the practice after every war to make a permanent addition to the naval and military expenditure of the country; and it only accorded with what had been seen in modern times to find the attempt now made by keeping up large establishments, to perpetuate a portion of the war expenditure. Budgets, no doubt, ought to be made only for one year; and to bring forward specific plans of income and expenditure for three or four years in advance was wholly futile. Indeed, the compacts dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) were equally futile. They could not bind the discretion of future Parliaments; and even now, if they were to make the most solemn promises relative to the income or any other tax, they had so entirely lost their character by breaking previous pledges of that kind that the public would put no faith in them. Their duty was to decide, first, what the exigences of the country were, and then raise the supplies to meet them in the way which they believed at the time to be least injurious to the interests of the country. But, without making Budgets for future years, it was impossible, in settling their scale of expenditure, not to look forward a little. If they agreed to the present scale of expenditure, their sanction of it would be quoted against them hereafter; and the same arguments regarding the difficulty of making reductions would be reproduced. No one had yet answered the query put by

    1125
    the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing)—namely, "If you can make these reductions in 1858–9, why cannot you make them now?" In 1816 the great Whig party did not wait for two or three years before they enforced the principle of reduction on the Government. The present Prime Minister, who was Secretary at War in 1816, was urged by the noble Lord the Member for London, by Lord Brougham, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Sir J. Mackintosh, and all the Whig leaders of that day, to lower the expenditure and revert to peace establishments in the very first year after the French war. The excuse that this could not be done at once was given then as now, but it was not accepted as sufficient, neither did he for one now accept it. The expenditure found adequate for the security of the country previous to the Russian war would be equally adequate now. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had clearly made out his case with respect to a deficiency, for if the scale of expenditure now proposed was to be adhered to in future years, it would be necessary to vote increased taxes in 1858–9; and, as the right hon. Member for Oxford had said, they would then see a gradual reversal of that policy which was commenced in 1842 by the late Sir Robert Peel. Such must be the effect of sanctioning the proposed scale of expenditure for future years. A few words on the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution to show that he should vote, not in reference to its merits, but in reference to the preceding question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the House should place it in the power of Parliament by arrangements to be now made to remit the income tax, if it thought fit, in 1860. His (Mr. Gibson's) decided conviction was, that they would not be able to remit that tax in 1860, nor did he believe that any arrangements which could be devised for that object between this time and 1860 would promote the true interests of the country. The income tax might be readjusted, and made more acceptable; but it would be a great financial blunder wholly to part with that portion of our taxation which was no more than what the affluent classes ought to contribute. A fair and moderate income tax ought to be maintained as a part of our ordinary revenue, and as the keystone of a free commercial policy, calculated to benefit the possessors of property as well
    1126
    as the working classes. If he were a Member of Parliament in 1860, and his choice lay between remitting the income tax and remitting an equivalent amount of indirect taxation, coupled with the remodelling of the income tax, he should prefer the latter alternative. Therefore, to speak plainly, he made a clean breast of it, wishing to practise no concealment, and, above all, to hold out no expectations to the country which he felt in his conscience would never be fulfilled. Though he should vote with the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire against the Speaker leaving the chair, he could not go with him in the other proposition. There was nothing inconsistent in this, for there were in fact two distinct propositions involved, and holding the opinions he did, what other course could he take than to vote against the Speaker leaving the chair, and afterwards, when the right hon. Gentleman's Motion was put as a substantive Motion, voting against it? Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench might think this a peculiar course, but a Member was often under the necessity of separating himself from his political Friends. The noble Lord at the head of the Government the other night led thirteen or fourteen of his devoted adherents to vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite against the extension of the franchise. It would be of great service to the country that the progress of this Budget should be arrested, and he, for one, should not shrink from the consequences of his vote. He believed in his conscience, however, that the Budget would be taken back. He heard some talk of the dissolution of Parliament, and of the resignation of Ministers; but he had the greatest confidence in the pliancy of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. That noble Lord was like one of those trees which weathered the greatest gales by bending to the storm, and if the House only showed itself in earnest the Government would, no doubt, reconsider their proposals, and, by further reducing the expenditure, and omitting the increase of the duties on tea and sugar, submit to Parliament and the country a financial scheme better calculated to meet with general acceptance.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwondered that the right hon. Gentleman should vote against the Resolution of which the Government had given notice. But the House was placed in a totally false position, by being asked to go into Committee of Ways and

    1127
    Means before going into Committee of Supply. It was not the duty of the House to vote taxes as matter of speculation or amusement. They should first see what the expenditure ought to be, and afterwards, according to the almost invariable practice of Parliament, decide how that expenditure should be met. The precedents which had been cited in favour of the violation of this wholesome rule were not at all in point, as the circumstances were not analogous. Thus in 1816 the House was determined to get rid at once of the property tax, after the peace of 1815—a tax necessary for the purposes of war, but odious in its nature, and oppressive in its operation, and unnecessary in a time of peace. The Government sternly refused at that time to remit this war taxation. The House were justified on that occasion in taking the course then proposed. But were the circumstances now existing at all analogous? Had the House any doubt that the "war 9d." would be repealed? Not one single Member doubted it would be abandoned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, instead of at once proposing a Resolution to that effect only, which was all that could be requisite, proposed a scheme of finance extending over three years, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks proposed a similar course by his Resolution. He (Mr. Newdegate) objected to these propositions on the same ground, that they both involved the voting of taxation for this year, as well as for the two next years, without the opportunity having been afforded to the House of testing the proposals for the expenditure of this year. The next precedent mentioned in favour for this departure from the proper course of proceeding was that of 1845. But it was not at all applicable. In 1845 Sir R. Peel was about to propose the remission of an immense amount of customs' duties, and he acknowledged that the course he proposed, of going into Committee of Ways and Means before Committee of Supply, was irregular and unusual, and he justified it only for the sake of avoiding great mischief to the different trades interested. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London on that occasion expressed his objections to departure from the rule and practice of Parliament, by taking the Committee of Ways and Means before the Committee of Supply, in the strongest terms, and Sir Robert Peel pledged himself, agreeing with the noble
    1128
    Lord, that his then departure from what he admitted to be the wise rule of Parliament should not recur, but he held by him an exception. Unhappily, however, in 1846 a similar state of things occurred, and a similar reason was assigned, against which the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) remonstrated. In 1848 again the circumstances were special. The country was then recovering from the effects of a visitation of Providence in the Irish famine, and from the effect of the commercial crisis of 1847. There was a deficiency in the revenue, and, from the state of our relations with Prance, our Estimates were increased; but the increased Estimates were withdrawn by the Government, and money was needed, not for prospective expenditure, but to meet an actual deficiency. There was no deficiency now. There was an abundant revenue. It was true that the Government had pro posed Estimates which in the opinion of many were not justified, even for the current year. Now he wished to do his duty to his constituents and reduce the taxes to the utmost possible extent consistent with the safety of the country. But he asked the House to consider the experience of the late war, when it was stated that our establishments had not been previously in a proper state; and, considering that, he asked the House whether there might not be grounds for the increase of Estimates submitted by Government. Still he would not sanction them by voting the corresponding revenue which was demanded by the Government until he had the opportunity of sifting them and testing what was really required. It was vain to debate on the income of 1858–9 without any gauge or data as to the expenditure for the present year. What gauge could the House have? How would they arrive at the Estimates for future years before they had settled those for the current year? In consequence of the false position in which the House was thus placed the debate had been misty and murky as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. The House was in darkness as to the expenditure for future years, because it knew not what amount of expenditure it would sanction for this year. Various grounds of increased expenditure had been mentioned, and among others the charge for the rural police on the Miscellaneous Estimates, which he (Mr. Newdegate) regretted should ever have been taken from the local rates,

    1129
    because he foresaw that the control of the police would cease to be a matter of local self-government entrusted to the Corporate and County Magistrates. If the money was voted in the first instance there would be no chance of a revision of the Estimates. His hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, and those who were about to vote with him, were merely adhering to the practice of Parliament in endeavouring to obtain a consideration of the Estimates before the money was voted for meeting any of the public charges. The Estimates, as proposed, were held by the noble Lord the Member for London, and many others, to be excessive. What control over questions of war and peace, over the departments, or the appropriation of the revenue to the several services could the House exercise, if they had, in the first instance, voted the money for the purposes? Let not the House abandon its own duties and peculiar privileges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford ought, upon his own showing, to support the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, for he had given notice of objection to the Estimates. But that right hon. Gentleman had completely puzzled the House by his speech on Friday night. One thing, however, was clear, and that was that he was fiercely opposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But what was the cause of his irritation in that case? The cause of it seemed to be that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dared to think that there were limits to direct as well as to indirect taxation; and that circumstances might arise under which it would be desirable to increase or to maintain our present indirect taxes, and not to have recourse to any increase to direct taxation. And what was the remedy which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford suggested for that future deficiency which he so confidently predicted? Why, it was an increase in the succession duty—that tax which must be so eminently popular among the Members of that House.
    MR. GLADSTONEbegged leave to set the hon. Gentleman right upon that point. He was sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean to make a mis-statement; but the fact was that he had not said a single syllable about an addition to the succession duty, and that nothing had fallen from him
    1130
    which could in any way countenance the assertion that he wished to see any such measure adopted.
    MR. NEWDEGATEcontinued: If he had misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman he was very sorry for it: but he would read the passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which had led him to form that conclusion. That passage was as follows—
    "There is, however, an item with respect to which I admit the balance is against us. I estimated the succession tax at £2,000,000, but we are now told by the right hon. Gentleman that £1,300,000 is the more probable sum, and, therefore, we must deduct £700,000 from my estimates as the result of our altered position since 1853. But as the person upon whom the promises made to you may be said to rest, I say the changes that have since occurred do not absolve me in honour and in conscience from the duty of straining every nerve still to maintain and realize those promises and expectations, of the benefit and fruit of which my colleagues and myself availed ourselves at the time."—[See page 1995.]
    That statement involved, as he (Mr. Newdegate) thought, a determination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain a larger amount from the succession duty than that which had actually been realized, and a larger amount prospectively than the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, had been mistaken in his calculations, and what right had they to suppose that future events would prove that he had been better informed in other instances? For his (Mr. Newdegate's) part he would rather see at once whether the expenditure might not be so reduced as to render it unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman, if he should hereafter be Chancellor of the Exchequer, to raise money by any addition to our existing taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might console himself in reference to one passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, by remembering that he and Arthur Young, whom he had quoted, were not the only financial authorities at whom that right hon. Gentleman had sneered. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not forget the sneer which he had in the spring of 1854 directed against Mr. Pitt, in alluding to the title given him of the "heaven-born Minister." The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that Mr. Pitt had earned that appellation by the countenance he had given to City jobbers, in the loan he proposed in 792, to meet the necessary

    1131
    expenses of an army which was about to quit the shores of England on foreign service. That was the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the memory of one of the greatest and most patriotic statesmen who had ever served any country, because he had been compelled to raise money by loan in a period of revolutionary excitement to meet the expenses necessary for the provisions and outfit of an English army. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that before Christmas, 1854, the right hon. Member for Oxford must, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have repented those expressions directed against the memory of Mr. Pitt, when the news reached this country of the lamentable condition to which the English army was reduced on the inhospitable shores of the Crimea, and that thousands were perishing for want of adequate provision and foresight on the part of their Government. But he repeated that he objected to their going into a Committee of Ways and Means until they should have first gone into a Committee of Supply. To do so would in reality be nothing else than putting the revenue of this country for reduction up to auction, and knocking it down to the highest bidder, in Parliamentary and popular support, without due regard for the exigencies of, and expenditure necessary for, the safety, honour, and credit of this mighty country.
    SIR CHARLES WOOD: It is impossible to deny, what my hon. Friend has stated, that the practice of examining the, estimated expenditure of the country, before proceeding to fix the manner in which it shall be defrayed, is the ordinary usage of Parliament, and it was the course which Her Majesty's Government originally intended to pursue in this instance. It was not by their own free will, however, that they adopted the course which has been pursued, but in deference to the general wish of the House, expressed on all sides. [Mr. DISRAELI: No, no!] I am certainly much mistaken if the right hon. Gentleman himself did not say that it was indispensable that there should be a financial statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer before we proceeded to consider the Estimates.
    MR. DISRAELI: I am quite sure that I never expressed any wish of the sort. I am quite astonished at the Government for having taken this course. The recommendations which they received to adopt
    1132
    it proceeded from a noble Lord and a right hon. Gentleman behind them, not from me. I am not aware that any Gentleman on this side of the House recommended this course. It is one of which I entirely disapprove, and I am certain that I never at any time suggested it to the Government.
    SIR CHARLES WOOD: Well, then, it was pressed on us by my noble Friend the Member for London and by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman to except me. I never pressed upon the Government any such course.
    SIR CHARLES WOOD: My ears then have very much deceived me, for I thought that if I had heard anything it was a strong recommendation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, supported by the noble Lord the Member for London, that a financial statement should be made before going into Supply. At any rate, nobody expressed the slightest dissent from the recommendations to do so, which were made from several quarters, and there seemed to be a general concurrence of opinion in the House upon the subject. It was not the opinion of the Government, but they deferred to the general feeling, and having adopted this course we are bound to persevere in it. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Norfolk any more than we can that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. When such an Amendment as that of the right hon. Gentleman is moved against a Government, they have no choice but to resist both these Motions, and to call upon the House to come to a decision on the main question. I must say, having listened with great attention to the whole of this debate, that I never heard any Motion supported so feebly as the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been supported in this debate. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the support he is to receive from the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), who says that he shall vote in favour of his Resolution, entirely disentangling himself from the merits of it, and expressing his entire dissent from the views of taxation put forward by the right hon. Gentleman; nor can I, any more than other Members who have preceded me, see what practical conclusion can possibly be aimed at by this Reso-

    1133
    lution. If its object is to bring the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) into office together, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Essex, that is indeed a practical conclusion. But it seems to me that no other result can possibly ensue from this Motion, except a hindrance to business, the House being prevented from going into a Committee of Ways and Means and Committee of Supply, and there, in the only manner in which it can be done, adjusting the national income and expenditure. Instead, however, of allowing the House to do this we have a Motion of an abstract character proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; when that is disposed of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has given notice of another, which he might just as well move in Committee of Ways and Means as before the Speaker leaves the chair; and if that fails he threatens us with a third Motion about reduction of Estimates, instead of going into Committee of Supply, and there proposing a reduction of such items of expenditure as he considers susceptible of it. Sir, we boast of being a practical people, but I must say that if any impartial person were to look at the intimations which have been given of the course intended to be pursued here he would be likely to come to a contrary conclusion. In Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways and Means the expenditure might be settled and the supplies voted; but instead of this we are wasting time in discussing abstract resolutions which can lead to no practical result. I agree with those who think the House ought to know what the expenditure of the country is, and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) tells us that one practical result of this Motion has already been shown in the altered tone of the Government upon this subject. Now, I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. We have never been allowed to express an opinion on the Estimates. Let us go into Committee of Supply and we will endeavour to justify the Votes we ask for; but we cannot be said to have altered our tone regarding a subject upon which we have never had the opportunity of expressing an opinion. The only difference of Estimates has been between those which were volunteered on the first night of the Session by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who on that occasion kindly undertook to perform the duty of
    1134
    Secretary for War, First Lord of the Admiralty, and Chancellor of the Exchequer—and those which the Government really proposed. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I confess I was astonished at so strange a proceeding on the part of my right hon. Friend. I could not understand it. The language which he has latterly held seems to afford some explanation of his motives. He was determined to fix upon us the crime of extravagant and wasteful Estimates. If we did not bring forward such Estimates of ourselves he was determined to do it for us; and then when he found his expectations disappointed, inasmuch as our Estimates were not his Estimates, he insinuates that we have altered our plans, and that the Estimates now submitted are not the Estimates alluded to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. Sir, I am sorry to destroy the right hon. Gentleman s theory, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Estimates were fixed at their present amount a week before Parliament met. My own Estimates were laid upon the table the first day on which the forms of the House allowed; they were delivered in print the morning following, and, had the forms of the House permitted, they might have been distributed two or three days before. We framed our Estimates, as the right hon. Gentleman said we should, conscientiously believing that they were required for the service of the country; we reduced them as far as we thought they could be reduced consistently with the requirements of the year; and I trust when the time comes and we are allowed to go into Committee of Supply that we shall be able to justify our Estimates, and convince the House that we have faithfully performed our duty in this respect, attempting to combine economy with efficiency, but yet not cutting down the expenditure below what we thought was fairly demanded for the service of the country. I confess I was also a little astonished at the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) for supporting the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I was astonished, too, at the state of excitement in which he seemed to be. He used language towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly becoming for one Gentleman to use towards another; he lectured his old colleagues in a tone the justice of which I may by and by allude to; and he told the House he would not permit them to go into Committee of Supply

    1135
    and perform their constitutional functions unless they were fettered and bound by a Resolution which he and the right hon. Gentleman opposite were to rivet upon the House for adjusting the income and expenditure. Now, I hope the House will resist an attempt of that kind—will vindicate its own independence, and will proceed to discharge its duty faithfully and honestly, without allowing itself to be bound by any such Motion. So far as the mere Resolution itself goes, I do not know that I need say much more, but in the course of the debate attacks have been made upon the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, I think, call upon us for some explanation and defence. We are told that we have deserted the principles of the Budget of 1853. We are reminded that we, too, were parties to that Budget. I entirely admit the truth and justice of this latter statement. I entirely approved both of the taxation which was imposed and of that which was taken off in 1853; and I fully admit—indeed, I am glad to admit—that by the plan of taxation then agreed upon a reasonable prospect was afforded that in 1860 the income tax would cease. I must, however, be permitted to deny the notion of a compact or engagement binding either in the sense in which it seems to be used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite or by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone). The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) overthrew his own argument. If a compact made by a Minister in 1853 to bind a possible successor and a future Parliament, in 1860, seven years afterwards, is not binding under altered circumstances, such as in the case of a war and its accompanying expenditure, what becomes of the obligation of a compact? No compact, as indeed is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, can be binding under altered circumstances, and nobody can foresee seven years beforehand in what situation the country may be; all that can be done at the time by the Minister and the Parliament is to place the finances in such a condition, so far as depends upon them, that the expectations held out shall be fulfilled; but it must be necessarily left to the discretion of the Minister and the Parliament of the day to say whether the circumstances are such as to enable them to execute the intention of the former Government. It is impossible that any engagement entered into by Parliament can be stronger than that. It is impossible for a Parliament to bind
    1136
    its successors. I confess that after what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on this subject I looked with some anxiety to see whether any such positive engagement had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, Of course, as a Member of the then existing Cabinet, I hold myself responsible for the system of taxation then imposed: but I was a little alarmed at the language of the right hon. Gentleman as to the compact in question, and I took occasion to refer to the words made use of by my right hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone) in bringing forward the Budget of 1853. On that occasion he said—
    "I think it also most desirable that effectual measures should be taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. By this I do not mean merely, or chiefly, that I would commit the Government to an abstract opinion to be acted upon in future years. My own opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the tax as a permanent ordinary portion of our finances. But while I state the wish of the Government to propose it as a temporary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their words to bind them or yourselves, irrespectively of what may occur in the interim, as to what you will do, under all circumstances, at the expiration of the term which we propose to fix for its continuance now. I propose, by positive enactment, by the measures which I shall invite you to adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament in such a position that at a given period it may, if it think fit, part with that tax."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 1385.]
    Well, Sir, I agree with every syllable of that explanation. I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now. My right hon. Friend said that he could not expect to bind the Government or Parliament, but he would endeavour to put Parliament in such a position that it might, if it thought fit, take off the tax in 1860. Now, so say I and so says my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at the present moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot bind Parliament in 1860, but he does nothing inconsistent with the remission of the tax in that year, and if there be a difficulty in this respect it will arise not out of the proposal of my right hon. Friend, but from circumstances over which we have no control. The right hon. Gentleman says that by the proposal we are making we do nothing towards taking off the income tax in 1860. Now, Sir, the proposal which we are about to make is one to enable us to provide for the payment of Treasury bonds which fall due in this and the following years; and surely every obligation which we discharge and every portion of debt which we pay off place us in a better position to dispense

    1137
    with the income tax in 1860. Therefore it is not only incorrect to say that what we are doing tends in the slightest possible degree to perpetuate the income tax, but, on the other hand, it is perfectly true that what we are doing tends, as far as it goes, to render it possible for Parliament to repeal that tax in the year 1860. Now, Sir, let us look a little to the past. In the year 1854 came the war; no one was more unwillingly convinced of the necessity of that war than myself, but when the necessity for it was clearly established it became necessary to provide for the expenses connected with it. Well, Sir, my right hon. Friend in his statement the other evening—referred to the economy of former and the extravagance of later years. He said that in the twelve years ending in 1853 there had been little or no increase in the expenditure of the country, but that since that period there had been a considerable increase. I should have thought myself that the twelve years preceding 1854 being years of peace, and the years since then having been years of war, would have been sufficient to account for that circumstance, even if the statement were entirely correct. In point of fact, however, my right hon. Friend was not correct in that statement, for there was a considerable increase of expenditure in the services voted by Parliament; and that is the only test of the economy of the Government and of the House of Commons, between 1842 and 1854—an increase of no less than £3,366,000. Well, Sir, in the year 1854 it became the duty of my right hon. Friend, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to provide for a war expenditure; and he did so, partly by a loan and partly by taxation, that taxation being partly direct and partly indirect. And what were the taxes which he increased? Why, Sir, they were the income tax and the duties upon malt, sugar, spirits, and tea. He did not do what one might expect from his speech on Friday last that he would have done—namely, place all the increase upon one species of article; but he took one great item of direct and four items of indirect taxation, two of those items being the very ones with which my right hon. Friend now proposes to deal. I quite concur in the course adopted by my right hon. Friend in 1854, and think that it would have been impolitic to have acted otherwise; but that was precisely the same course which is now adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
    1138
    quer. The right hon. Gentleman says because my right hon. Friend proposes to increase the tax upon more than one article, it may be inferred that he is going to impose taxes upon more articles than he cares to enumerate of those from which taxes have been taken away in past years. Now, nothing can be more absurd than such a charge based on such a foundation. Why, the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1854 imposed taxes upon more articles than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, even to a greater extent than my right hon. Friend, carried out the principles of Arthur Young, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and condemned by my right hon. Friend; and yet he now turns upon my right hon. Friend and tells him that his policy is a retrograde policy, that he is departing from those principles which have been acted upon for fifteen years, and all because he adopts, although in a less degree, the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1854. Well, Sir, last year the war came to an end, and, as regards the war taxes, the war tax on malt ceased in July last, and the additional duties on coffee, sugar, and tea would cease on the 5th of April next. The income tax would by law have continued at the increased rate of 16 d. for a year longer, but I need, perhaps, hardly say that the Government never entertained the slightest intention of availing themselves of a technicality to continue that impost. There has been a great deal of quibbling as to whether we are reducing or imposing taxes, but they are mere quibbles upon words. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford put the case of the income tax very fairly. He said, do not seek to avail yourselves of the technical language of the Act, but throw yourselves upon the House of Commons, and we shall be quite ready to vote the necessary Supplies. I am quite content to take that position, and to deal with the question as if all war taxes had ceased. Then how should we stand? We should have come back to the peace income calculated in 1853. Now, in the first place, there has been a considerable falling off in the estimated sum which would be produced by the succession duty. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), in 1853, calculated that before now that tax would produce £2,000,000. It has, however, produced only about £500,000. Therefore, the estimated income has suffered a loss of £1,500,000—that loss has been, however, nearly made

    1139
    up for by the duty upon spirits. Well, if the arrangement of 1853 be so binding, there is already one failure in it, and the principle, now so loudly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, of resorting to taxes upon property instead of taxes on consumption largely departed from. Well, Sir, I come now to the expenditure of the country. The expenditure, according to the Estimates laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, falls short of the income, on the basis of the settlement of 1853, by a sum of £2,500,000. How does the deficiency estimated by my right hon. Friend for next year occur? Why it is, in point of fact, strictly war expenditure. It is caused by having to pay Treasury bonds and other charges to the extent of £3,500,000, which were rendered necessary by the war, and whether a charge occasioned by the war be paid in 1855, or by the discharge of the temporary Treasury bonds due in 1857, the expenditure is equally a war expenditure. Now, can it be said that the scheme proposed by my right hon. Friend for defraying that expenditure, in 1857, is one jot more a departure from the settlement of 1853 than was the plan of the right hon. Gentleman in 1854? If it were consistent with the settlement of 1853 to impose taxes upon tea and sugar in 1854, how can it be inconsistent to do so when now, as then, there is a war expenditure to be met? The expenditure now is of the same description as it was then; why should not the taxation be the same? Whether the right hon. Gentleman did or did not depart from sound principles in 1854, he cannot now blame my right hon. Friend, who has only followed in his steps, without blaming himself. I was astonished that he could rise in his place and upbraid my right hon. Friend for adopting precisely the same course as he himself adopted three years ago. Well, Sir, how stands the case as to imposing or taking off taxation? My right hon. Friend has selected the articles for taxation so that the consumer will be relieved, although the revenue will be increased. He takes the two articles in which the consumer has not received the benefit of the reduction intended in 1853; but still the consumer will receive some, though, of course, a less benefit by a reduction of duty. I think the course will be one which the country will approve. If, when you go into Committee of Supply, you consider the Estimates too high, it will be your duty to reduce them. If, on the
    1140
    contrary, you find that they are justified by the proposals we have made, then you may be satisfied that we have provided ways and means for defraying the proposed expenditure, and leaving a reasonable but not a large surplus. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) thought fit to lecture the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to lecture the Government for the course they have pursued. The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for protesting against his right to lecture us in such a manner. I admit the superiority of my right hon. Friend's talent and ability. I admit that he is a more able advocate of the doctrines of free trade than I can pretend to be; but I am at least an older free trader than my right hon. Friend, and I think myself quite as well qualified to judge whether a particular course is or is not a departure from the principles of free trade. I think I am as little likely as the right hon. Gentleman to desert the principles upon which I have acted ever since I came into Parliament. I supported those principles in adverse circumstances. I voted against the corn laws twenty-five years ago, and the first act I had to do as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to put an end to the last monopoly but one of the most mischievous monopolies that ever existed—that on sugar. I therefore do not regard myself as open to the censure of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. I think that he acted in 1854 without injuring the principles of free trade; he is fairly entitled to acquittal of any such charge; but his acquittal carries with it that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for their course is identically the same. I cannot, however, acquit him of the language which he was pleased to hold with regard to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed the course of proceeding is in itself unfair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is right enough that general principles should be discussed in this House. It is proper that every Member of the Government should be prepared to take a part in general political discussions, but it is impossible for all the Ministers to be so fully acquainted with the details of other departments than their own as to be enabled to answer off hand the various questions that may be put as to the business of those departments. It is, therefore, not only for the advantage of the Ministers, but of the House, that all matters of detail of that kind should

    1141
    be discussed in Committees of the House. The Estimates are moved in Committee of Supply, in order that the Ministers may be able to answer the various questions that are addressed to them. The taxes are proposed in Committee of Ways and Means, where the opportunity of full inquiry is afforded. A Resolution has now been moved. Sir, on your leaving the chair, no Member can speak twice. My right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not reply to the unjustifiable attack that was made upon him the other night, and in that respect he was placed in an unfair position. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a degree of acrimony and violence which I greatly regretted, and which was not justified by anything that had fallen from my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said—and I was surprised to hear such expressions applied by one Gentleman in this House to another—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misrepresented what he was doing, that he had deceived the House, and that his assertions, not as to matters of argument, but as to matters of fact—were untrue. The right hon. Gentleman imputed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had stated that the effect of the Resolutions he was about to propose would be to relieve the country in this year from burdens amounting to upwards of £11,000,000. Such an assertion would no doubt have been untrue, but it so happens that it was never made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The misrepresentation was, indeed, on the part of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and not on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend distinctly said that the malt tax ceased on the 5th of July last. He stated what the amount of loss had been, and he said that the greater part of that loss resulted from the repayment of a drawback, which of course could not have been the case if the tax was only to be repealed by Resolutions now to be voted. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford said the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to the country the expectation of relief from the income tax to the extent of £9,000,000 in consequence of his propositions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made no such statement. He said, on the contrary, that the Committee must recollect that owing to arrears now due a considerable amount of the high rate
    1142
    of income tax would be receivable in the present year, and that the full effect of the reduction would not be felt until the ensuing year. It was, I think, impossible for any one to guard himself more carefully than my right hon. Friend in stating to the House the truth and the whole truth upon these points, and it is not true that he represented in any way that the grace and virtue of these remissions were to be attributed to the Resolution he was about to place in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means. That was the assertion of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, charging the Chancellor of the Exchequer with misrepresentation and falsehood. I say that it is a charge utterly unjustified by the facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made no such statement; what he said was directly the reverse. Be it observed, too, that the speech of my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not made on the same evening as the attack of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. It was made on the previous Friday, and a whole week had elapsed between the statement and its misrepresentation. I must say I never was more surprised or more pained than to hear such language as that to which I have referred, and which I think ought not to have been addressed by one Gentleman to another, reproaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer for statements he had never made. [Some ironical shouts of "Hear!"] I am sorry that any hon. Gentlemen who may have listened to the attack seem to think it a matter of no importance that the character of a public man, when unjustly assailed, should be vindicated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) then turned upon me and told me that I had stated, not as matter of prophecy, but as matter of opinion, that the income tax ought to be a perpetual tax. I certainly do not remember ever having expressed such an opinion. I have referred to the Parliamentary debates, and I find much that I said in a totally different sense. I cannot, however, find a word indicating an opinion on my part that the income tax ought to be perpetual. I will give the right hon. Gentleman the full advantage of one passage, which is the only one I can find that affords the slightest ground for his statement. I said in 1851, when I proposed the renewal of the income tax,—
    "With the common concurrence of the House of Commons for some years past, with the general

    1143
    approbation of the country, and certainly to its great advantage, we have been repealing and reducing the taxes which press either upon the industry or the consuming power of the country, and I do not believe that it will be possible to re-impose those taxes. I believe further that there are many taxes still remaining on the Statute-book which it would be most desirable to reduce, taxes which, either in their amount or in the mode of their levy, are far more objectionable, far more oppressive, and far more unjust than the income tax. Sir, when those taxes have been so reduced and repealed, when the duties upon the raw material have been taken off, when those duties which interfere with the process of manufacture have been reduced, when the inequalities, the anomalies, and the injustice which prevail in some portions of our taxation are removed, when the duties on imports and the excise are so reduced that the consumer can no longer be said to be hardly pressed upon, then I think the question will fairly arise whether it is expedient further to relieve the consumer or remove a portion of the burdens from the property of the country. But until that is done, until we have removed the imperfections of our fiscal system, until we have carried out and completed that course of commercial policy which we have been pursuing for some years past, and the happy results of which have been felt by the country at large, as I stated only three or four nights ago, both financially, politically, and socially,—until that has been done I hope that neither this nor any other House of Commons will refuse to continue that tax, under the cover of which, as an hon. Gentleman truly said the other night, those changes which have proved so beneficial to the country have been accomplished."—[3 Hansard, cxiv. 711.]
    I cannot see how this declaration can be construed into an opinion that the income tax should be perpetual. It is in truth the very doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman has been claiming as his exclusive property, and which he advocated the other evening. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) agreed with me when I made that declaration, as I agreed with him in 1853; but that declaration is in no respect inconsistent with the hope and expectation that, as soon as those changes were effected, this House might and would repeal that tax, which I have been anxious to see removed as soon as it was possible to dispense with it. The further charge now made against the Government is the possibility of a deficiency of revenue in 1858–9. We cannot in the year 1857 deal with the Estimates of 1858, or determine what the expenditure of that or future years shall be. All that we can do now is, to deal with taxation, and the only course which can now be taken in order to avoid a deficiency, is to impose a larger amount of taxes than the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. Is that what hon. Gentle-
    1144
    men mean by voting for the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? I did not catch very distinctly what was the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford intended to make; and I own that after hearing him I left the House very much puzzled, because he seemed to object to everything and to propose nothing, while every succeeding argument which he used appeared to be in direct contradiction of that which had gone before. He complained of the excess of our Estimates, and at the same time he found fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for adopting as the basis of expenditure the establishments of 1853, and then stated that in his opinion the real wants of the country were more likely to increase than to diminish. But it seemed to me, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether I am correct or not, that there was this one proposition contained in his speech:—He stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was running a risk and pursuing a course which was unjustifiable, and for which he would not be responsible, in voting away the war 9d. at the end of this year. If that meant anything it meant, I presume, that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition would be to continue the war 9d. for a year longer. Would that be the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? Was that his meaning? If it were not, he leaves us in the happy situation of having had no suggestion to make to us—no course to indicate which could by any possibility meet the deficiency which he contemplated as so threatening in future years. The only other proposal, then, which has been suggested is that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not to impose any additional tax beyond the ensuing year; and the way in which we are to provide for taking off the income tax in 1860 is—with little prospect, according to his view, of a diminished expenditure—to provide a fund of taxation less than that which was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What will the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford say to this proposal? I leave the House to judge what prospect it affords of removing the income tax in 1860. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in one respect, goes even further, for he would refuse to suspend the decrease in the tea and sugar duty, and he threatens also to repeal the duties upon

    1145
    fire insurance and on paper, and to reduce the duty on wine. Where do hon. Gentlemen think, then, that the means of making up for the loss of the income tax, if it be taken off, are to come from? The Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to pledge himself to the certainty of removing the income tax in 1860, but he at least proposes a course which tends, so far as it goes, to render it possible, while those who vote for the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as they have indicated any course at all, propose to adopt plans which will render it more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain that repeal which I believe to be the great object of the House and of the country [Cheers, and cries of "Divide!"]. I will not trouble the House much longer, but I must say a word or two with reference to the comments of the hon. Member for Wick upon the Estimates of the year. We have reduced the Navy and Army Estimates by one-half as compared with last year's reduced Estimates, and I do not believe that it is possible to reduce them further in the course of the present year. Hon. Gentlemen have referred to the many difficulties which beset a Minister who has to effect reductions, and I will not dwell, therefore, upon that part of the subject. It is, however, as the House may well believe, a painful thing to discharge men who have served well, or to reduce the wages of men who have faithfully served their country in time of war, and to carry the necessary retrenchments into effect; and I can assure the House that, as it is impossible to bring up establishments to a war footing in a single year, so it is impossible at once to reduce them. If peace continue, no doubt the Estimates next year may be lower than those of the present year, though to what extent they may be reduced I cannot now pretend to pledge myself. The Estimates of each year depend upon the circumstances of the year. If we go into Supply, we shall endeavour to justify the Estimates of the present year as they stand for this year, and whoever may be the Ministers at this time next year will have the same duty as to the Estimates which they may propose. With regard to the income tax, I repudiate any compact or engagement; all that we can promise is, to do nothing which shall render it less possible—on the contrary, to do all that we can to render it more easy—to remove the income tax in 1860 than it
    1146
    would otherwise be. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will not even continue that impost beyond this year; but if he does not he will be unable next year to repay the Treasury bonds, which will thus run into future years, and will render it more impossible than ever to take off the income tax. We, on the other hand, provide an adequate income for the expenditure of the year, leaving a reasonable surplus in the Exchequer at its termination, and we provide also means for ensuing years, so far as taxation goes; but the expenditure of those years we cannot now undertake to determine. In conclusion, I earnestly call upon the House to reject now the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope that on future opportunities you will reject also those other Motions, the effect of which, if carried, will be simply to impede our going into Committee without attaining any practical benefit of any kind.
    MR. GLADSTONE:—Sir, after the speech of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down I have no option but to address a few words to the House; but they shall be offered in explanation only, and not with the intention of making use of the privilege which technically and formally I should have acquired in consequence of the Motion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. My right hon. Friend twice told me that in speaking upon this subject on Friday night I applied language to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which it is hardly decent for one Gentleman to apply to another. Hearing my right hon. Friend make that severe charge, I was in hopes that he would have quoted my exact words, and that he would not have been content with describing in general terms the language which I used; because neither I, nor, perhaps, any person, can feel entirely certain of what may have been the strict bearing of the observations which may have fallen from him in the heat of debate. But if I used any language which, when fairly construed, can be said to impute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the shadow of anything that is dishonourable or unbecoming his high character and position, it is not my duty only, but my pleasure, at once to apologise for language so unintentionally employed. But my right hon. Friend says that I charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having deceived the House, with misrepresentation, and with falsehood; and my right hon. Friend—there can be no

    1147
    mistake about that—charges me with misrepresentation in return. Of that I make no complaint; but I wish that he had quoted the words in which he thought that I charged misrepresentation and falsehood on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My desire was to make no such charge; but I said that, without the smallest intention on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, undoubtedly the statements which he made had conveyed erroneous impressions to the House, and that not merely with respect to a matter of argument, but with respect to a matter of fact; and particularly I stated that the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—although I do not doubt that it was accidentally he fell into the error—had distinctly conveyed to the country that, in virtue of his propositions, £11,970,000 of taxes were about to be remitted. That was the point on which I thought that the statement of my right hon. Friend had misled the country. Now, believe that I heard correctly and described correctly the language of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the public journals, too, of the next day, we saw that these £12,000,000 of taxes were going to be remitted; and, on referring to that paper which is considered to have contained the best report of our proceedings, I find the following put down as the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
    "The total amount of taxation which I propose to take off in the present year will be found in the following table:—Malt tax, loss in 1857–8 (in addition to £200,000 in 1856–7), £2,000,000; income tax (to be reduced to 7d. and5 d.), £9,l25,000; tea (to be reduced from 1s. 9d to 1s. 7d. per lb.), £369,000; coffee (to be reduced from 4d. to 3d. per lb.), £135,000; sugar (to be reduced from an average of 14 s. 4d. to 13 s. 4d.). £342,000; total reduction, £11,971,000.' Of this total of £11,971,000, about £7,600,000 will be a deduction from the Exchequer receipts for the ensuing year, 1857–8."—The Times, Feb. 14.
    That statement undoubtedly contains very serious errors in matters of fact, and is calculated to produce most erroneous conclusions. At the same time I beg, in the most public manner, to say that if any word fell from me which I ought not to have used, and which may have given pain to the right hon. Gentleman, I only wish to have it recalled to my recollection, in order that I may express my great sorrow for having used it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—Sir, I regret that my right hon. Friend should have supposed that anything which he said on a former evening
    1148
    has been interpreted as imputing intentional deceit or untruth. At the same time the language which he used did convey, in very distinct terms, to my mind the idea that I had, in order to support my argument, and to obtain undue advantage and credit to the Government, laid before the House a statement substantially deceptive and untrue. Now, on looking at the reports of the words which I used I can find nothing that is not consistent with the most exact truth and correctness, except one expression which I used, I presume, but which I must have used inadvertently. I said, "I propose to remit," instead of saying "the following taxes will be remitted." If I had used the expression "the following taxes will be remitted," nothing could be more exact than the statement I made. It meant the taxes that would he remitted in the ensuing year as compared with the whole taxation of the previous year. My object was to lay before the House a comparison between the war taxation of the previous year and the reduced peace taxation of the ensuing year. The House will remember that I had occasion to address them, unfortunately, at very great length. This statement occurred at the end of my speech, and I was anxious not to trespass on the House beyond what was absolutely necessary; therefore if I made an error it arose from brevity and the want of due explanation. But I feel satisfied that if anybody will examine the words which I used he will see that I stated with perfect distinctness the result of the proposition which I made. I stated the total amount of the taxes remitted. I showed how much would be received into the Exchequer in the following year, and how much would go over to the ensuing year, and indeed, those very words which my right hon. Friend read told against the assumption that the whole of that saving would be true within the limits of the year. The entire charge made against me of deliberate misrepresentation and of an attempt to deceive the House and the country turns out to be a question whether I represented the remission as for the year or in the year. What I wanted to say was that it was a remission of taxes for the ensuing year. My right hon. Friend charges me with having said it was a remission in the year. I certainly did not mean to make that statement; and if you compare the statements of former Finance Ministers with regard to remissions of taxation you will never find that a dis-

    1149
    tinetion is made between the remission of taxes for the ensuing year and that portion which, in regard to payment of arrears, accidentally occurs within the year. There is another important statement which I wish the House to understand: although it is true that with regard to the income tax and other taxes credit is given, and though part of the tax which is due in respect of one year does not become payable until the ensuing year, nevertheless from the time that the repeal takes place the tax entirely ceases. If, for example, the Resolutions which I hare given notice to move in a Committee of Ways and Means with regard to the income tax should receive the assent of the Committee, and a Bill founded on them should receive the assent of the House, the entire income tax in April next would be reduced to 7d. in the pound. No portion of income tax arising after the 5th of April next will be more than 7d. I call that the remission of the income tax for the year ending the 5th of April next. It is quite true that taxes upon income arising before the 5th of April next will be applicable after that day; but that does not prevent the repeal of the tax coming into operation from that day. For example, a mechanic receiving £2 a-week who will be liable to income tax, will cease to pay after the 5th of April. So, also, any person who compares the different parts of my statement will see that it is explained that the malt tax ceased on the 5th of July last. I stated the amount of drawback, and how much was raised within the preceding and the past year; and I cannot think that any one who will look through the details will suspect that I wished to take credit to myself for a remission of taxes already received. The very fact of my proposing Resolutions only relating to the income tax and those on tea and sugar would at once show that I did not wish to take credit for the remission of the malt tax. So far from there being any intention on my part to make a false impression, I made the fullest explanation in my power.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 477: Majority 452.
    Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 286; Noes 206; Majority 80.

    List of the AYES.

    Acton, J.

    Duke, Sir J.

    Adair, Col.

    Duncan, Visct.

    Agnew, Sir A.

    Duncan, G.

    Alcock, T.

    Duncombe, T.

    Anderson, Sir J.

    Dundas, F.

    Atherton, W.

    Dunlop, A. M.

    Bagwell, J.

    Dunne, M.

    Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

    East, Sir J. B.

    Ball, J.

    Ellice, rt. hon. E.

    Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

    Ellice, E.

    Bass, M. T.

    Elliot, hon. J. E.

    Baxter, W. E.

    Emlyn, Visct.

    Beamish, F. B.

    Esmonde, J.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Estcourt, T. H. S.

    Beckett, W.

    Euston, Earl of

    Berkeley, Sir M.

    Ewart, W.

    Berkeley, hon. H. F.

    Ewart, J. C.

    Berkeley, F. W. F.

    Fagan, W.

    Bethell, Sir R.

    Feilden, Major

    Biggs, J.

    Fen wick, H.

    Black, A.

    Fergus, J.

    Blakemore, T. W. B.

    Ferguson, Col.

    Bland, L. H.

    Ferguson, Sir R.

    Blandford, Marq. of

    Ferguson, J.

    Bonham-Carter, J.

    FitzGerald, Sir J.

    Bouverie, rt. hn. E. P.

    FitzGerald, rt. hon. J. D.

    Boyle, hon. W. G.

    FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

    Brady, J.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W

    Bramston, T. W.

    Forster, C.

    Brand, hon. H.

    Forster, J.

    Brocklehurst, J.

    Fortescue, C. S.

    Brockman, E. D.

    Fox, W. J.

    Brown, W.

    Freestun, Col.

    Bruce, Lord E.

    Gallwey, Sir W. P.

    Bruce, H. A.

    Gifford, Earl of

    Buckley, Gen.

    Glyn, G. C.

    Butler, C. S.

    Goderich, Visct.

    Byng, hon. G. H. C.

    Gower, hon. F. L.

    Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

    Grace, O. D. J.

    Castlerosse, Visct.

    Greene, J.

    Cavendish, hon. C. C.

    Greene, T.

    Cayley, E. S.

    Gregson, S.

    Challis, Mr. Ald.

    Grenfell, C. W.

    Chambers, M.

    Greville, Col. F.

    Chambers, T.

    Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

    Cholmondeley, Lord H.

    Grey, R. W.

    Clay, J.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Clay, Sir W.

    Gurney, J. H.

    Clive, G.

    Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

    Cobbett, J. M.

    Hankey, T.

    Codrington, Gen.

    Harcourt, G. G.

    Coffin, W.

    Hastie, Alex.

    Cogan, W. H. F.

    Hastie, Arch.

    Collier, R. P.

    Headlam, T. E.

    Colvile, C. R.

    Henchy, D. O'C.

    Coote, Sir C. H.

    Heneage, G. H. W

    Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

    Heneage, G. F

    Craufurd, E. H. J.

    Heyworth, L.

    Crossley, F.

    Higgins, Col

    Currie, R.

    Hindley, C.

    Dashwood, Sir G. H.

    Hogg, Sir J W

    Davie, Sir H. R. F.

    Holland, E.

    Davies, D. A. S.

    Horsman, rt. hon. E.

    Deasy, R.

    Howard, hon. C. W. G.

    Deedes, W.

    Howard, Lord E.

    Denison, E.

    Hughes, W. B.

    Denison, J. E.

    Hughes, H. G.

    Dent, J. D.

    Hutchins, E. J.

    Devereux, J. T.

    Hutt, W.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Ingham, R.

    Divett, E.

    Ingram, H.

    Duff, G. S.

    Johnstone, J.

    1151

    Johnstone, Sir J.

    Ramsden, Sir J. W.

    Keating, R.

    Raynham, Visct.

    Keating, H. S.

    Reed, Maj. J. H.

    Kendall, N.

    Ricardo, O.

    King, hon. P. J. L.

    Ricardo, S.

    King, J. K.

    Rice, E. R.

    Kingscote, R. N. F.

    Rich, H.

    Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

    Richardson, J. J.

    Kirk, W.

    Ridley, G.

    Knightley, R.

    Robarts, T. J. A.

    Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

    Russell, Lord J.

    Langston, J. H.

    Russell, F. C. H.

    Langton, H. G.

    Russell, F. W.

    Langworthy, E. R.

    Sandon, Visct.

    Laslett, W.

    Sawle, C. B. G.

    Layard, A. H.

    Scholefield, W.

    Legh, G. C.

    Scobell, Capt.

    Lewis, rt. hn. Sir G. C.

    Scrope, G. P.

    Lowe, rt. hon. R.

    Scully, F.

    Luce, T.

    Seymour, H. D.

    Mackie, J.

    Seymour, W. D.

    Mackinnon, W. A.

    Shafto, R. D.

    M'Cann, J.

    Shee, W.

    Mangles, R. D.

    Shelley Sir J. V.

    Manners, Lord G.

    Sheridan, R. B.

    Marjoribanks, D. C.

    Smith, J. A.

    Martin, J.

    Smith, M. T.

    Martin, P. W.

    Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

    Martin, C. W.

    Smith, W. M.

    Massey, W. N.

    Smyth, Col.

    Masterman, J.

    Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

    Matheson, Alex.

    Spooner, R.

    Millighan, R.

    Stafford, Marq. of

    Mills, T.

    Steel, J.

    Milner, Sir W. M. E.

    Strickland, Sir G.

    Milnes, R. M.

    Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

    Milton, Visct.

    Stuart, Capt.

    Mitchell, T. A.

    Sullivan, M.

    Moffatt, G.

    Sutton, J. H. M.

    Monck, Visct.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

    Thompson, G.

    Moody, C. A.

    Thornely, T.

    Morris, D.

    Thornhill, W. P.

    Mostyn, hon. T. E. M. L.

    Tite, W.

    Mowatt, F.

    Tollemache, J.

    Napier, Sir C.

    Tomline, G.

    Norreys, Sir D. J.

    Traill, G.

    O'Connell, Capt. D.

    Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

    O'Flaherty, A.

    Tyrell, Sir J. T.

    Oliveira, B.

    Uxbridge, Earl of

    Osborne, R.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    Otway, A. J.

    Vivian, H. H.

    Owen, Sir J.

    Walmsley, Sir J.

    Paget, C.

    Walter, J.

    Paget, Lord A.

    Watkins, Col. L.

    Paget, Lord G.

    Weguelin, T. M.

    Palmerston, Visct.

    Wells, W.

    Pechell, Sir G. B.

    Whatman, J.

    Peel, Sir R.

    Whitbread, S.

    Peel, F.

    Wickham, H. W.

    Pellatt, A.

    Wilkinson, W. A.

    Perry, Sir T. E.

    Willcox, B. M'G.

    Philipps, J. H.

    Williams, M.

    Phillimore, J. G.

    Williams, Sir W. F.

    Pigott, F.

    Wilson, J.

    Pilkington, J.

    Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

    Pinney, Col.

    Wortley, rt. hn. J. S.

    Pollard-Urquhart, W.

    Wrightson, W. B.

    Ponsonby, hon. A. G. J.

    Wyndham, W.

    Portman, hon. W. H. B.

    Powlett, Lord W.

    TELLERS.

    Price, W. P.

    Hayter, W. G.

    Pritchard, J.

    Mulgrave, Earl of

    1152

    List of the NOES.

    Adderley, C. B.

    Gordon, hon. A.

    Alexander, J.

    Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

    Annesley, Earl of

    Graham, Lord M. W.

    Archdall, Capt. M.

    Greenall, G.

    Baillie, C.

    Grogan, E.

    Baillie, H. J.

    Guernsey, Lord

    Baird, J.

    Guinness, R. S.

    Ball, E.

    Gwyn, H.

    Baring, T.

    Hadfield, G.

    Barnes, T.

    Hale, R. B.

    Barrington, Visct.

    Hall, Gen.

    Barrow, W. H.

    Hamilton, Lord C.

    Bective, Earl of

    Hamilton, G. A.

    Bell, J.

    Hamilton, J. H.

    Bellew, T. A.

    Hamilton, rt. hn. R. C. N.

    Bennet, P.

    Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.

    Bentinck, Lord H.

    Handcock, hon. Capt. H.

    Bignold, Sir S.

    Harcourt, Col.

    Boldero, Col.

    Hardy, G.

    Bowyer, G.

    Hayes, Sir E.

    Bramley-Moore, J.

    Heathcote, Sir W.

    Bruce, Major C.

    Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

    Buck, Col.

    Herbert, rt. hon. S.

    Bunbury, W. B. M'C.

    Herbert, Sir T.

    Burghley, Lord

    Herbert, hon. P. E.

    Butt, G. M.

    Hervey, Lord A.

    Cabbell, B. B.

    Holford, R. S.

    Cairns, H. M'C.

    Horsfall, T. B.

    Campbell, Sir A. I.

    Hume, W. F.

    Carnac, Sir J. R.

    Jermyn, Earl

    Cecil, Lord R.

    Johnstone, J. J. H.

    Cheetham, J.

    Jolliffe, H. H.

    Chelsea, Visct.

    Kelly, Sir F.

    Christy, S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Clinton, Lord C. P.

    Kerrison, Sir E. C.

    Clinton, Lord R.

    Kershaw, J.

    Cobbold, J. C.

    Knatchbull, W. F.

    Cobden, R.

    Knight, F. W.

    Cochrane, A. D. B.

    Knox, Col.

    Cocks, T. S.

    Knox, hon. W. S.

    Cole, hon. H. A.

    Lacon, Sir E.

    Coles, H. B.

    Laing, S.

    Compton, H. C.

    Langton, W. G.

    Conolly, T.

    Lennox, Lord A. F.

    Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

    Lennox, Lord H. G.

    Crook, J.

    Leslie, C. P.

    Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

    Liddel, hon. H. G.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lindsay, hon. Co.

    Davison, R.

    Lindsay, W. S.

    Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

    Locke, J.

    Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

    Lockhart, A. E.

    Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

    Lowther, hon. Col.

    Duncombe, hon. Col.

    Lowther, Capt.

    Dunne, Col.

    Lushington, C. M.

    Du Pre, C. G.

    Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.

    Egerton, E. C.

    MacEvoy, E.

    Elmley, Visct.

    MacGregor, Jas.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Maguire, J. F.

    Farnham, E. B.

    Malins, R.

    Fellowes, E.

    March, Earl of

    Fergusson, Sir J.

    Maxwell, hon. Col.

    Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

    Meagher, T.

    Floyer, J.

    Meux, Sir H.

    Follett, B. S.

    Miall, E.

    Forester, rt. hon. Col.

    Miles, W.

    Forster, Sir G.

    Michell, W.

    Galway, Visct.

    Montgomery, Sir G.

    Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

    Mowbray, J. R.

    Gilpin, Col.

    Mundy, W.

    Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

    Murrough, J. P.

    Gladstone, Capt.

    Naas, Lord

    1153

    Napier, rt. hon. J.

    Stanley, Lord

    Neeld, J.

    Stracey, Sir H. J.

    Newark, Visct.

    Sturt, C. N.

    Newport, Visct.

    Sturt, H. G.

    Noel, hon. G. J.

    Swift, R.

    North, Col.

    Tempest, Lord A. V.

    Northcote, Sir S. H.

    Thesiger, Sir F.

    Oakes, J. H. P.

    Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

    Packe, C. W.

    Tyler, Sir G.

    Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

    Vance, J.

    Palk, L.

    Verner, Sir W.

    Palmer, Robert

    Vernon, G. E. H.

    Palmer, Roundell

    Vernon, L. V.

    Parker, R. T.

    Vyse, Col.

    Paxton, Sir J.

    Waddington, H. S.

    Peacocke, G. M. W.

    Walcott, Adm.

    Peel, Gen.

    Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

    Pennant, hon. Col.

    Walsh, Sir J. B.

    Phillimore, R. J.

    Warren, S.

    Portal, M.

    Whiteside, J.

    Repton, G. W. J.

    Whitmore, H.

    Ricardo, J. L.

    Wigram, L. T.

    Robertson, P. F.

    Williams, T. P.

    Roebuck, J. A.

    Williams, W.

    Rust, J.

    Wyndham, Gen.

    Scott, hon. F.

    Wyndham, H.

    Seymer, H. K.

    Wynn, Lieut. Col.

    Shirley, E. P.

    Wynn, Sir W. W.

    Sibthorp, Maj.

    Wynne, W. W. E.

    Smith, J. B.

    Yorke, hon. E. T.

    Smith, A.

    Somerset, Col.

    TELLERS.

    Stafford, A.

    Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

    Stanhope, J. B.

    Taylor, Col.

    PAIRS.

    FOR.

    AGAINST.

    Dod, J. W.

    Clifford, Col.

    Egerton, Sir P.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Hildyard, R. C.

    M'Taggart, Sir J.

    Maunsell, Col.

    Tancred, H. W.

    Long, W.

    Heathcoat, J.

    Bailey, Sir J.

    Chaplin, W. J.

    Fuller, A. E.

    North, F.

    Percy, hon. J. W.

    Drummond, H.

    Vansittart, G. H.

    Wyvill, M.

    Berkeley, Sir G.

    Heard, J. L

    Freshfield, J. W.

    Duff, J.

    Buck, Col.

    Rumbold, C. E.

    Booth, Sir G.

    Matheson, Sir J.

    Montgomery, H. L.

    French, Col.

    Burrell, Sir C.

    Heywood, J.

    Wynne, J.

    Monsell, W.

    Burrowes, R.

    De Vere, S. E.

    Wood, B.

    Stanley, hon. W. O.

    George, J.

    O'Brien, Serj.

    Lisburne, Lord

    Biddulph, Col.

    Lovaine, Lord

    Acland, Sir T. D.

    Blackburn, P.

    Cowan, C.

    Waddington, D.

    Bagshaw, J.

    Moore, G. H.

    Burke, Sir T.

    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Ways and Means considered in Committee.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if any objection were made to proceeding with the two Resolutions on the income tax he should, of course, be ready to move that the Chair-
    1154
    man Report progress; but if there should be no objection on the part of the Committee to agree to those Resolutions, which would enable a Bill to be brought in to carry into effect the arrangement he had proposed, that the tax on income tax above £150 a year should be 7d. in the pound for the next three years, and on incomes below that amount 5d. in the pound, then he would beg leave to move the Resolutions.
    Moved to resolve—
    "That towards raising the supply granted to Her Majesty there shall be raised annually, during the term of three years from the 5th day of April, 1857, in lieu of the rates and duties chargeable during the same period, under several Acts now in force relating to the income tax, for and in respect of all property, profits, and gains, chargeable under the said Acts, the rate and duty of 7d. for every 20 s. of the annual value or amount of all such property, profits, and gains respectively."
    Resolution read.
    MR. DISRAELI MR. DISRAELI moved, that the Chairman report progress.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not object.
    House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

  BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS ACT.

    COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved to nominate the following Gentlemen to serve on the Select Committee—namely, Lord John RUSSELL, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. SOLICITOR, GENERAL, Mr. COBDEN, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. BARROW, Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. BERKELEY, Mr. DEEDES, Mr. George BUTT, Mr. George Alexander HAMILTON, Mr. INGHAM, Mr. Ker SEYMER, Sir William SOMERVILLE, and Mr. TITE.
    MR. P. O'BRIENcomplained of there being only one Irishman on the Committee, and hoped that the noble Lord would increase the number, in order that his country might be properly represented on it.
    MR. M'CANNsaid, he was sorry to see even one Irishman on that Committee, inasmuch as his country had nothing to do with bribery at elections.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the business to be transacted by the Committee was not of a local character. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee to be named, as it was a very good and fair one. The business turned, not upon local questions, but upon general principles.
    The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Carew, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2aProbates and Letters of Administration; Chief Constables.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD LYNDHURSTexpressed a wish that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would postpone the second reading of this Bill, which was fixed for Thursday next, until some day in the following week. He made that request because neither he himself, nor a right rev. Prelate, who took a great interest in the subject, could attend the House on Thursday.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was prepared to give his best support to the Bill as it had been originally framed upon the Report of a Committee over which he had the honour to preside; but he strongly disapproved of a change which had subsequently been introduced into it, by which all married persons, tired of being together, might obtain divorces without the intervention of any legal tribunal. He could not be in his place in the House next week on the day for which the second reading was appointed; but as he believed that the provision to which he had just referred was calculated to destroy the morality and the domestic happiness of the people of this country, he should feel it his duty to come to town from circuit for the purpose of moving its omission, on the occasion of the third reading, in case it should not have been previously expunged by their Lordships.
THE LORD CHANCELLORagreed that the second reading should be postponed.
Second Reading put off to Tuesday, the 3rd of March next.

THE KURIA MURIA ISLANDS—

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for any Papers or Correspondence relative to the Cession of the Islands of Haski Jibleea and Ghurzoad by the Imaum of Muscat to Her Majesty, and their erection into a Colony; and also to call the attention of the House to a Licence granted on the 20th of February, 1856, by the Commissioners of Emigration to John Ord and others, giving them the sole and exclusive Right to raise and take away Guano from these Islands during five years. The noble Lord made some remarks, which were imperfectly heard, upon the great importance of guano to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and to urge that the Government should encourage, as far as they could, the opening up of new sources from which an increased supply of guano could be obtained—and, consequently, deprecated any arrangement which, by giving a monopoly to private parties, should deprive this country of the benefit of the reduced price which enlarged supplies of this description of manure would otherwise secure. Not only in his opinion was this grant to Messrs. Ord liable to this objection, but he could not avoid expressing his surprise at finding that the
  1032
  Emigration Commissioners had the power of granting exclusive licences without giving notice to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that there could be no objection to give the papers asked for by the noble Lord, for the Government were desirous of laying before Parliament and the public the fullest information on the subject of any islands supposed to contain guano, and had the same feelings as animated the agricultural bodies with respect to the importance of taking measures to increase the supply. He had, at the request of the Agricultural Society and other bodies, directed a circular to be sent to our consuls in countries where either guano or nitrates useful for agricultural purposes were likely to be found, requesting them to give the earliest possible information if any supplies should be discovered. With respect to the particular islands referred to by the noble Lord, their history was this. Some time ago a Mr. Bell, of Edinburgh, informed him that Captain Ord had discovered in the course of one of his voyages some guano islands, the precise locality of which, of course, he wished to keep secret in order that no person should anticipate him in obtaining the advantage of the discovery. A good deal of correspondence took place on the subject; and at length Captain Ord having informed the Government where the islands were, it was arranged that he should accompany Captain Peel, who was then going out to that quarter, in order to point out the islands, to discover to whom they belonged, with the view of obtaining if possible their cession. Captain Peel accordingly, on his arrival out, communicated with our consul at the Court of the Imaum of Muscat, Mr. Freemantle, who was of opinion that they belonged to the Imaum. As the Imaum was then absent, Captain Peel went to the islands; the weather only permitted his landing on one, where he found no guano, but discovered some inhabitants, who told him they were the subjects of the Imaum of Muscat. He then returned and saw the Imaum, who expressed no doubt as to the islands being his, and said that he should have great pleasure in ceding them to Her Majesty. Captain Peel then again returned to the islands, which he inspected; and he reported that the quantity of guano was small in quantity and inferior in quality—in fact, that as guano islands they were valueless. He thought, however, that one

  1033
  of the islands was important as a coaling station, and it was offered to the East India Company for that purpose. They did not, however, think proper to accept the offer, and the islands then passed under the Colonial Office, and it was supposed that the question of obtaining guano from them had been set at rest. However, at the end of the year 1855, Mr. Ord said that he found that the guano, although not so good as Peruvian, was yet sufficiently good to make it worth getting, and he said that he was willing to undergo the expense and trouble of ascertaining the fact if the Government would grant him a lease for five years of the island. Well, considering that he was the original discoverer, that the report on the islands was not favourable, and that there was a great chance that no guano would be discovered, the lease was granted. However, the Government in doing so, expressed an opinion to Captain Ord that no monopoly ought to be created of so valuable an article; whereupon Captain Ord had written to him an undertaking that every cargo of guano obtained on those islands should, as it arrived at Liverpool, be sold by public auction in the open market in lots, suitable to all purchasers. That letter was written in 1855, and lately the Colonial Secretary, in communicating with the firm at Liverpool, who were acting for Captain Ord, and had applied for protection for him in his labours, had informed them that the Government considered the pledge as binding. He had also that morning received a letter from that firm informing him that Captain Ord was willing to allow any ships whatever to resort to the islands for the purpose of loading guano, provided he received a royalty of £2 per ton.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he considered a royalty of £2 a ton would be too much to give to Captain Ord and his party, and that it would have the effect of keeping up a high price to the consumer.
  LORD BERNERSalso thought the royalty too high, and objected that the arrangement made with Messrs. Ord and Co. was an infraction of the principle that colonial lands were public property. It was, he thought, somewhat contradictory that while the Government were endeavouring to put an end to the monopoly in regard to Peruvian guano, they should be actually encouraging monopoly in regard to the supply of the same article from
  1034
  another part of the world. He had understood that on one of these islands, when a thin crust had been cut through, there would be found underneath a deposit of guano amounting to from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 tons.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that as it appeared that Captain Ord and the gentlemen associated with him were at present applying for the protection of an armed force to enable them to conduct their operations, the Government would be perfectly justified in taking advantage of that application, with a view to make a better bargain for the public. The price of Peruvian guano in this country was at present £15 per ton, and those gentlemen would now find themselves placed in a better position in the English market than they could have expected at the time the grant of the licence had been made to them.
  Lord POLWARTH and the Earl of CLARENDONsaid a few words in reply to these observations, which were inaudible.
  Motion agreed to.

PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, on rising to move the second reading of the Probate and Letters of Administration Bill, said, that he knew no duty which must be more disagreeable to a Member of their Lordships' House than to have to direct their attention to a subject of a dry and technical character, and more especially when that subject was one which had been under discussion more or less for the last twenty years, and had occupied some portion of their Lordships time in almost every Session during that period. Their Lordships were aware that the object of this Bill was to remedy evils which had long been the subject of complaint, arising from the existence of numerous petty jurisdictions throughout the country, which, though in some few instances they were of a secular character, were for the most part ecclesiastical, with reference to the granting of probates of wills and letters of administration. They were aware that there existed about 100 different courts that exercised that jurisdiction. There was also a supreme court in each of the provinces of Canterbury and York, which had a jurisdiction in cases in which none was vested

  1035
  in the inferior courts. For instance, if a person died within a district subject to an inferior court, having property beyond that district, that court had not the right of granting probate, and resort must be had to the superior court of the province. Then again, those superior courts were themselves liable to a similar limitation in respect of their own provinces. There were, therefore, two Courts of Prerogative jurisdiction, and there were the local jurisdictions themselves. Now, one great evil which had existed from time immemorial in consequence of this state of things was, that the local court had only jurisdiction if a person dying within the jurisdiction had no goods anywhere else. In that case the local court could grant probates and letters of administration; but these would be altogether null and void if it turned out that the deceased had bona notabilia out of its jurisdiction. That was a state of things altogether anomalous and inconvenient, and was, in fact, a blot on our judicial system, which successive Parliaments had endeavoured to find some way of remedying. There was another grievous evil in the constitution of those courts. They had all of them what was called a contentious jurisdiction—that was to say, if in any diocese a dispute arose as to whether a will was a genuine or valid one or not, this question was to be decided by the diocesan or local courts—courts which whatever might be their other merits (and it was no reflection upon them to say this) were scarcely competent to deal with matters which even the Courts of Westminster had always considered most delicate and difficult—namely, as to the sanity of a testator and his capacity for making a will. The local courts had to deal with these questions; but practically he did not think that a very great grievance, because where difficult questions arose, such cases might be at once transferred to the Court which sat in Doctors' Commons, where they might be disposed of through the instrumentality of persons well skilled in dealing with such subjects. There existed, however, this evil—that the procedure of the Prerogative Court was of a most cumbrous, inconvenient, and unjustifiable character—unjustifiable, he meant, according to modern and improved notions of what the course of judicature ought to be. All the extremely difficult and delicate questions to which he had alluded were decided in that Court, not by examining, ore tenus, those persons who knew the facts, and whose evidence might
  1036
  lead a judge and jury to a satisfactory conclusion on the subject, but by written depositions, by a mass of papers which were flung down before the Judge, and through which he had to wade as he could. Now that was a most unsatisfactory mode of arriving at a conclusion on any point; but, if he had to select from the whole range of questions submitted for judicial decision those which were least likely to be satisfactorily decided upon written evidence, he should select the class of cases which usually came before the Prerogative Court for decision. He had been told that there were continually fifty depositions produced in that court in a single case, describing the testator as a person of sound mind, and fifty others on the opposite side describing him as totally incapable of making a will or of understanding anything about it. It was, indeed, a difficult matter at all times to arrive at the truth in such instances, even if witnesses cognisant of the facts were before the Court; but how much more difficult was it when the Court had no means of putting questions which might occur to it, and had to form a judgment upon conflicting depositions any one of which, perhaps, looked on paper as good as the other. There were a great number of other smaller matters which required remedying; but he would content himself for the present with those two which he had mentioned, and which he thought it most necessary to deal with; namely, the multiplication of small courts throughout the country, and the inconvenient practice adopted in the larger court at London. The object he had in view was to get rid of this mass of incompetent small courts and to improve the practice of superior courts in London. No one could doubt that this was a legitimate and a proper object, and the only question was, how far he had dealt satisfactorily with the matter in this Bill. In the course of the observations which had fallen from him in calling the attention of their Lordships a few nights ago to the subject of Ecclesiastical Courts generally, he had had the misfortune to be met with remarks I which had not given him much encouragement; but at the same time he trusted he should satisfy their Lordships that the present Bill had much to recommend it—more, in fact, than any other Bill which had yet been submitted to Parliament. In the first place, he proposed, (and to this he imagined there could be no objection) to abolish all the existing courts. Even sup-

  1037
  posing that the Prerogative Court were as perfect as its most ardent admirers could desire, he thought it was the universal opinion now that the constitution of such a court should rest with Her Majesty or Her Majesty's advisers, and not with any ecclesiastical functionaries, however high in position. The establishment of a Queen's Court of Probate had been recommended by a Commission as well as by Committees, and the propriety of this course he thought could not be disputed. He proposed, therefore, to abolish all the local jurisdictions, and to constitute one Queen's Court of Probate. Now, he was aware that the point on which he had the misfortune to differ from his noble and learned Friends, and on which he still had the misfortune to differ from them (though, if their Lordships should be of a contrary opinion, the measure might easily be altered in this particular) was as to who should be the Judge of this new court. On this point he would say nothing until he had gone through the other provisions of the Bill, because he believed there were delusions prevalent in respect to it which a close examination of the subject would be calculated to dispel. In constituting this new Court of Probate, he thought he should not be acting wrongly if he tried to make as little practical change as possible, and to preserve (where he could do it without damage) the existing rules and practice. He proposed, therefore, that subject to the exceptions as to the taking of evidence, which he had just indicated, the present practice of the Prerogative Court should be adhered to by the Probate Court. He proposed to give to the Judge of the new court the power to make rules from time to time, and to alter the existing practice to such extent, as should, upon consideration, seem expedient; but it would, he thought, be much better to start with that system, which from previous experience would be intelligible to the functionaries. Then in order to exclude the notion that there was any desire to create patronage, and to damage existing interests, he proposed that the Gentlemen who constituted the present staff of registrars and other officers in the Prerogative Court should continue to discharge their various duties in the new court except in the cases of those persons who should be found incompetent from age or other causes to perform the services that would be required at their hands. The present rules of practice would prevail until altered by the Judge of the Court, who would, to
  1038
  some extent, feel his way on the subject. He would now advert to what he considered the greatest change proposed by the Bill—namely, that instead of having disputed questions of fact tried in the imperfect mode which he had just pointed out, they would in future be decided by oral evidence taken before the Judge in open court. Those acquainted with the practice of the Court of Chancery knew that it would be hard not to allow parties occasionally to fortify some point by affidavit, and this privilege would be conceded, but its abuse would be guarded against, and it would be competent to the opposite party to require the oral examination of those who made an affidavit. With regard to the great questions, which would come before the Court, he proposed that they should be dealt with in the well-known constitutional mode in ordinary use for the trial of disputed facts,—namely, by an issue sent down to be tried before the Judges on circuit in whatever county the case arose. In a Bill which had passed through their Lordships' House for the further amendment of common law procedure there was a clause enabling parties, if they thought fit, to have disputed facts in a court of common law tried not by a jury, but by the Judge. To that proposal he had no objection whatever. He was not one of those who were absolutely and blindly enamoured of trial by jury; but he must say that an experience of some duration in courts of law and of equity had led him to the conclusion that there was no really satisfactory mode, or, at all events, no such satisfactory mode, of arriving at the truth as by a trial by jury. Undoubtedly, there would be great injustice often done if a jury were not very much guided by the Judge, and he was persuaded that unless the Judge felt it to be part of his duty to make a summing up, as it was called, of all the material facts detailed in evidence, pointing out to the jury their bearing upon each other, there would be no satisfactory security for the due investigation of the truth. It was not the mere fact that the trial was by jury, but the union of Judge and Jury, which afforded the greatest security for arriving at a just conclusion upon the case. For this reason he proposed that either party might always insist on the trial of a disputed fact by a jury, and not even by oral evidence before a Judge. As, however, it would be unjust to compel both parties, against their will, to embark in further litigation, and to go before a

  1039
  jury, he proposed that, where both parties agreed, disputed facts should be settled by the Judge alone—and as the clause was drawn that would he the effect. Questions, however, as to whether the testator was of sound mind, or as to whether he was at the time of executing the will under undue influence, or whether the will was executed with the due formalities, might properly be referred to a jury. The next enactment which he proposed was—and he begged to say that all these enactments were in the Bill when he introduced it the other evening—that unless a new trial were ordered the verdict of the jury should be taken as conclusive as to the question of sanity or the other questions referred to it, and also that all the common law rules of evidence should guide the Court in trying the issue which might be raised. That was the way in which he proposed that all great questions should be decided; but there were also a number of smaller questions which arose, not indeed de die in diem, but from week to week, in which the practice of the Court at present was to refer the matter to the decision of the Judge—questions such as the effect of an erasure or of mutilation of the document, or referring to matters of that kind. These were the two great branches of business conducted by the Prerogative Court; and with regard to the latter branch, he believed—and that belief was founded upon the evidence which had been given upon the inquiries which had taken place into this subject—that it had been most satisfactorily conducted at Doctors' Commons. He proposed, therefore, that all that branch of business which he would call the noncontentious business should be left where it was at present, and that it should be left in the hands of the proctors and advocates of Doctors' Commons, who should have the privilege of exclusive practice in all such matters. He was aware that the question had from time to time been much controverted as to whether an exclusive privilege should be reserved to any particular class of practitioners, and in the Bill of last year that course had not been proposed. There was some advantage, no doubt, in having nothing of the nature of a monopoly, and it had been proposed last year that the proctors should be abolished, but with a compensation. He had himself assented to that proposal; but he was bound to own that further consideration and reflec-
  1040
  tion had satisfied him that that would not be the wisest course to adopt. He believed that the compensation then proposed might have been arranged, and that it need not have entailed any charge upon the Consolidated Fund; but there would have been great difficulty in sustaining such an arrangement, because a new set of persons would come into existence, and would say, why should we compensate persons who formerly charged exorbitant fees? His noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Lyndhurst) had had the advantage of being able to effect great improvements in the practice of the Court of Chancery, and in doing so it had been necessary to compensate various officials, and, although the sums which had been paid were of a very large amount, he believed that, on the whole, those alterations had been the cause of diminished expenditure. He did not, however, think, when the matter came to be fully examined, that a proposal to compensate a whole profession could be sustained, and he therefore considered it to be his duty to consider what evil might result from the continuance of the present system. Now the sole evil was, that proctors had the power of charging an unreasonable fee; but surely that evil might be met by giving to some proper authority the power of diminishing those fees. On the other hand, both from the evidence taken before the Commission and from conversations he had held with persons well acquainted with the subject, he believed that the proctors operated as a useful intermediate check between the public and the Court, and that if they were done away with it would be necessary to appoint some official persons to sift the matter before it came before the Court, for the evil which might in many cases arise from hastily granting probate could not be exaggerated. The proctors were a small body, not exceeding 120 in all, of whom probably not more than 60 were in practice, all of whom were well known to the officers of the Court, and there was consequently a greater security afforded for the proper conduct of the matter at stake than there would be if 5,000 or 6,000 practitioners were admitted to practise in those Courts. For these reasons, he deemed it desirable, in the smaller and noncontentious business, to continue to them that monopoly which they now enjoyed, subject, however, to the provision for revision, and reduction of their fees. With regard, however, to the contentious busi-

  1041
  ness, he could see no ground for maintaining a monopoly. It was well known, as regarded the proctors, that they did not look to large cases for remuneration, but to the multiplication of small cases; and it was only fair that in important cases the public should have a larger choice of advocates than was at present afforded to them by Doctors' Commons. He therefore, as regarded contentious business, proposed to throw open the practice to the whole profession. Having said thus much with regard to the practitioners, he would next state that, having abolished all the diocesan and district Courts, he was fully alive to the inconvenience which would result to the public if persons were compelled to come to London in all cases. He was aware that some persons held the opinion that under the improved system of communication that inconvenience would not be very considerable; but he did not wish to render himself in any way obnoxious to the charge of promoting a system of centralisation. What he proposed, therefore, was, to retain thirty-six district offices, solely for the registration and proof of uncontested wills, and he believed that that would be found quite sufficient for convenience of distribution. In these district Courts—as in the Prerogative Court—it was his intention to preserve as much as possible the persons who were at present engaged in them; and he mentioned this because he was not sure whether his intentions in this respect were clearly expressed in the Bill. He proposed that the district Courts should have no jurisdiction whatever in contentious cases, but that they should simply register wills and give probate where there was no dispute about them. Cases in which there was any contention must be brought up to be argued in the Court of Probate. He proposed that the original wills should be filed in the districts where they were made. This was a matter of dispute, he knew, and it had been urged that all original wills should be filed in London, and that copies only should be kept in the country. He thought, however, that this would be distasteful to people in the country, and he proposed, therefore, that the originals should be kept there, but that documents should be sent up every fortnight, giving in a popular form a list of all the wills proved, so that it might be known what wills were proved in the country, and that facilities might be given for examining them if necessary. He thought, however, that it would be de-
  1042
  sirable in extremely small cases that there should be some means of allowing contentious cases to be tried in the country; and he proposed, therefore, in cases where the personal estate was sworn under £200, and where there was real estate, when such real estate was under the value of £300, that the County Court Judges should decide the question. He now came to a part of the subject on which he had no doubt there might be some difference of opinion. Probates of wills, as their Lordships were aware, related exclusively to personal estate. In the recommendations of the last Commission it was proposed that the distinction which existed at present should be removed, and that probate should be granted both for real and for personal estate. That was a subject on which he had heard great differences of opinion; but the conclusion at which he had arrived was, that to insist upon probate in the former case would be to impose an unnecessary burden upon the devisees of real estate, who did not, like the legatees of personal estate, take what was devised to them through the instrumentality of an executor. In the case of a personal estate it was absolutely essential that there should be some person in the character of an executor to realize all the property, to discharge the obligations of the testator, and to account for the surplus; but if a man died seised of one or two real estates, and left them to John Smith and James Jones, there was no reason why those persons should not at once go in and take possession, and there was no necessity, for any intermediate person between him who died and those who succeeded to the property. He did not therefore propose, as a general rule, that real estate should require any probate. But there were two matters in which he did propose legislation on the subject of real estate. When this matter was discussed three years ago in their Lordships' House the anomaly was pointed out, that, inasmuch as probate did not extend to real estate, this strange and hardly creditable state of things might, and sometimes did, exist—namely, that a Judge who had jurisdiction over the personalty might be satisfied of the sanity of the testator and grant probate of a will, whereas a jury trying the question of the real estate might decide that at the time of making the will he was of unsound mind, or vice versâ; so that the same instrument might be decided by two different tribunals, having jurisdiction

  1043
  over two classes of property, to be the production of a sane man and of an insane man. He did not think that this was a grievance of a very practical nature, because it was one of rare occurrence. Two cases had happened since Lord Hard-wicke's time, and another was now pending before their Lordships' House in the shape of an appeal relating to a large property, which was heard at their Lordships' bar in July last, and in which no judgment had yet been given. That case was as follows:—A Gentleman, named Colclough, who had been formerly Member for the county of Wexford, died in the year 1842, having left a will by which he made his wife his sole executor and residuary legatee and devisee. His widow obtained possession of personal property under the will to the amount of nearly £150,000. Afterwards, the heir-at-law having contested her right to the real estate on the ground that the testator was of unsound mind, the jury decided at the Wexford Assizes in 1852 that the deceased was of unsound mind; and the case was now under appeal in the House of Lords. In order to meet such cases he proposed, where the question of sanity was legitimately raised upon a will affecting real estate, that the heir-at-law and other parties interested shall be cited and permitted to become a party, or to intervene for their respective interests, and that the question shall then be decided once for all. He proposed, further, for the convenience of the public generally, that in order to prove the passing of real estate, it should not be necessary to produce the original will from Doctors' Commons, but that the probate should be received as primâ facie evidence. He proposed, further, to give to the new Court the power, which, in truth, he thought they had now, although it was rarely exercised, of granting administration pendente lite, and of appointing an administration of real estate affected by the will, and of directing remuneration to such administrator or receiver. He also proposed to provide a place of safe custody where living persons might deposit their wills for safe custody. He proposed also that in case where a person had been appointed an executor and renounced, or where two persons had been appointed executors and one of them had renounced, I that the rights of the renouncing executor should cease as though he had not been named in the will. He now came to a point upon which he believed there was
  1044
  considerable difference of opinion—namely, the appointment of the Judge of this new Court. He proposed that that Judge should be one of the Vice Chancellors. He was quite aware that that proposal would raise a great storm of opposition, because nothing was so unpopular, whether deservedly or not, as the name of the Court of Chancery. But, supposing that to be a well-founded objection, he did not transfer the business of the Probate Court to the Court of Chancery; he simply said that one of the present Judges of the latter Court should exercise the functions of Judge of the Probate Court, just as, till the establishment of the Lords Justices, one of the Vice Chancellors was, by Act of Parliament, constituted the Judge of the Court of Review. He should have had a much easier task if he had thought fit to propose the appointment of a new Judge or the continuance of an old one with a large salary and a staff of officers. He had originally so framed the Bill, but he found, when he inquired what the duties of the proposed Judge would be, that he could not honestly ask their Lordships to pass such a Bill on the faith of his statement that a new Judge was necessary. The Judge of the Prerogative Court sat now upon non-contentious business about twenty-four times in the year, or, farthest, thirty. The number of hours on each of these days did not average more than two. During the rest of the time the Judge was occupied in hearing and trying those great contested questions of sanity or insanity and the like which the Bill proposed to sweep away, leaving the Judge nothing, or little else, to do than to dispose of those minor matters which might be brought before him almost in foro domestico, and to direct the trial of issues as to the validity of wills by the courts of common law. His only other duty would be to direct a new trial in the event of a verdict being unsatisfactory. Now, without considering the subject of a new trial, had he or had he not made out a case for saying that there ought not to be a new Judge, if a Judge could be got who was discharging judicial functions now in some other court, and who had time to spare for the performance of additional duties? He thought he had, for he was persuaded that the business which occupied only thirty days in the year and about two hours each day would not be considered a duty that would warrant any Minister of the Crown in proposing the establishment

  1045
  of a new or even the continuance of an old Judge. Where, then, could he find a Judge fulfilling all these conditions, except in the person of one of the Vice Chancellors, or—as had been suggested by a society which had made some very useful recommendations as to the amendment of the law—in one or more of the common law Judges? Now, he believed that, whatever other difference might exist between a common law Judge and a Vice Chancellor, there could not be the least doubt as to the superiority of the latter in all that respected the convenience of the public. The common law Judges were obliged twice every year to go circuit, while the Vice Chancellors were, comparatively speaking, always on the spot. He had heard it suggested, and the suggestion would probably be adopted by the Commissioners or the common law Judges, that there should be three circuits, which, of course, would increase the duties of the common law Judges. Moreover, the functions ordinarily exercised by a Vice Chancellor were infinitely more in analogy with those of the Judge of the new Probate Court than were the functions exercised by a common law Judge. He had no sort of antipathy to the common law Judges; on the contrary, he entertained the highest respect for them, it being his pride to recollect that, for eleven years, he had been one of their number; but he did not think that their habits or their practice would enable them to give the same satisfaction in non-contentious business as might be expected from a Vice Chancellor, who had been accustomed to deal with business similar to that which would come before him in the Probate Court. But it was said that his proposal to take away a Vice Chancellor would throw the proper business of Chancery into arrear. Upon that point he would refer to a return of the number of proceedings instituted in the Court of Chancery during the last six years. Their Lordships were aware that Lord Truro issued a Commission to inquire into the practice of the Court of Chancery, with a view to its amendment. The Commissioners made a Report, and a Bill, founded upon that Report, for simplifying and shortening proceedings in Chancery, was a few years ago passed into an Act. All those who wished well to the judicial establishments of the country would be glad to learn that the result of the change then introduced had been of the most beneficial
  1046
  description. He had before him a return of the number of proceedings instituted in the Court of Chancery during the last six years. Last year the number was 2,792, the year before it was 2,815, in 1854 it was 2,832. During the whole six years the number ranged from 2,500 to 3,000, the variation being so small that it might be accounted the result of accident. But what was the state of the Courts in the same period? Their Lordships must not imagine that he intended to attribute any merit to himself. His duty was not that of discharging the original business of the Court. That business was discharged entirely by the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice Chancellors, and he should be doing injustice to those very learned and able public officers if he did not mention the fact which he was now going to state to their Lordships. The state of the Courts was this:—Whereas, at the end of Hilary Term 1856, the causes which remained for hearing and disposal numbered 519, at the end of Hilary Term, 1857, they numbered only 245. Indeed, he should not be surprised if he were to find before Easter some one or more of the Courts having nothing to do. That was actually the case before Christmas, when, had it not been for the power vested in the Lord Chancellor to transfer causes from one Court to another, the whole business before one of the Courts would have been disposed of. He could not doubt, therefore, that there was ample time for one of the Vice Chancellors to take the work of the new Probate Court in addition to that which he now discharged. He did not propose to give any additional privilege or salary, and he was certain that if the Vice Chancellor to be appointed to the Probate Court should at any time be in want of assistance, the other Vice Chancellors would gladly relieve him of a portion of his other business. This brought him to the last point with which he would trouble their Lordships. He proposed that when a trial had taken place, if the verdict was unsatifactory to the Judge of the Probate Court, it should rest with him to direct a new trial. Such was now the case with regard to all wills of real estate when an issue was directed to he tried in the Court of Chancery; and although, if the question were whether or not there had been any misdirection of the Judge, a court of common law would be the better tribunal for deciding that point, yet

  1047
  the question whether or not there should be a new trial in cases of this sort did not ordinarily depend upon whether there had been a misdirection in point of law, but whether the verdict was satisfactory or the reverse. He appealed to his noble and learned Friend whether there had ever been any one function of the Court of Chancery more carefully or more satisfactorily discharged than that which related to such questions. He did not therefore see that there was any anomaly in trusting that discretion to the Vice Chancellor. He had now gone through the main portions of the Bill, and, although he had no right to ask their Lordships to look at it, as it were, ad misericordiam, he thought he was entitled to ask them to proceed with a friendly disposition towards the Bill, if he satisfied their Lordships that, whatever its demerits, it was far better calculated to the wants of the year 1857 than any measure which had preceded it. In 1842 or 1843 a Bill of Dr. Nichols on this subject was introduced, but that Bill fell to the ground. In 1844 his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) introduced another Bill, which proposed twenty-seven Diocesan Courts with contentious jurisdiction, although there were no practitioners, and two Archiepiscopal Courts—the Diocesan Courts having power to send these causes to be disposed of in the Prerogative Courts. The Diocesan Courts in the province of York might send causes to York, and if the Prerogative Court of York did not like them, that Court might send them to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. He thought the simple mode proposed by this Bill infinitely preferable to that of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend made no provision for taking of evidence vivâ voce. It was true he did provide that the Judge, if he thought fit, might, after the Commissions were returned, direct a witness to be summoned and examined, but he left the procedure as to evidence just as it was before. There was a power to direct trial of an issue; but his noble and learned Friend left the decision of the question whether the verdict was satisfactory, or whether there should be a new trial, to the Judge of the Court which directed the issue, who might be the Diocesan Judge, or the Judge of the Prerogative Court of York, or, the very good authority, the Judge of the Prerogative Court in London, The last thing he should ever wish to do was to attempt to raise the merit of his Bill by depreciating
  1048
  that of another. All he desired was, to satisfy their Lordships that this was a better measure than any which had preceded it. In the following year Lord Cottenham introduced a Bill, and Lord Cottenham's Bill was much more like the Bill he had now introduced. It constituted in the same way a Queen's Court of Probate; but he thought it gave to that tribunal unnecessary force and solemnity. He had not accurately examined what took place between that time and the time when he had the honour of receiving the Great Seal. He (the Lord Chancellor) introduced a Bill in 1854 which passed this House, but that Bill differed materially from the present, inasmuch as it did not constitute a Court of Probate at all, but gave the jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, to be exercised by the Chancellor directing from time to time which Judge should dispose of it. Although it was an observation against the present Bill, he believed in theory that was the most correct course. But their Lordships knew that they could not always attempt the best course—only the best course within their reach. He believed all multiplication of Courts, by giving them particular jurisdiction, to be wrong in principle. He believed the theory insisted on by jurists, that there should be a sufficient number of Courts which should have jurisdiction over all questions and in all parts of the empire, to be unimpeachable, and he thought it would have been better if that plan had in this instance been adopted. He had explained why he had receded from it. Although the Judge was the Vice Chancellor, it was not in his character as Vice Chancellor, but because he had sufficient time to discharge the duties of the Probate Court. The Bill of 1854 failed in the House of Commons. Since that time two Bills had been introduced. A Bill was introduced in the last Session with his full sanction, by which a new Court was constituted; but, as it was felt there would not be work enough, it was proposed to give to the new tribunal some of the functions of the Court of Chancery, such as the power of administering estates. That Bill also provided for compensation of the proctors. He did not know that they would not have been justified in constituting a new Court with a new Judge, if they could not have found a Judge to discharge the duties of the office; but since the introduction of that Bill the business of the

  1049
  Court of Chancery had sensibly and gradually diminished. Therefore, assuming that it was perfectly right to make such a proposal in the last Session, it was not right to propose it now. He therefore proposed, as he had already stated, that a new Court of Probate should be constituted, that one of the Vice Chancellors should be the Judge of it, that functionaries exercising duties in the Prerogative Court should be retained, and also functionaries in the country, as far as possible; that it should exercise contentious jurisdiction in all cases, except very small cases, which would be disposed of in the County Courts; that there should be thirty-six district Courts—whether there should be more or less was a matter of detail; that all non-contentious business should be there disposed of; that the original will should be deposited in the district Court if proved in the district, or in London if proved in London; and that there should be registers in London of all wills, and also in the districts, so as to give every facility of reference. With these explanations he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, they were necessarily embarrassed by the constant changes in the whole form of proceedings which distinguished Bills on this subject; and the present Bill differed in very material respects from those formerly introduced by the noble and learned Lord himself. In the first Bill which his noble and learned Friend introduced, the whole jurisdiction over the Court of Probate was given to the Court of Chancery. He (Lord St. Leonards) at the time endeavoured to persuade their Lordships to confine the jurisdiction to a particular Judge, and was supported by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), but he was entirely opposed by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, though now he had adopted it. In the next Bill, introduced with the approbation of his noble and learned Friend, Chancery had nothing to do with the matter. There was to be a new Judge, with a large salary, who was to have general superintendence of the law as regarded probates and wills. The noble and learned Lord then proposed, for the first time in this country, to subject real estate to probate. He (Lord St. Leonards) opposed the proposition, and with success, in a Select Committee upstairs, and he was glad to find that that idea was now abandoned. The
  1050
  next measure of the noble and learned Lord, creating a new Court of Probate with a new Judge, gave to that Court a general jurisdiction, and enabled it to assist in the administration of the laws relating to divorce and marriage. The present scheme, however, as he understood it, reverted to the first plan of his noble and learned Friend, and was to give to the Court of Chancery the whole administration of business relating to wills. It also adopted a suggestion which had been rejected, when he (Lord St. Leonards) proposed it, to give that particular duty to a single Judge. He was not very favourable to throwing that business into the Court of Chancery, although he was not a man to speak against that court. He knew that much abuse was levelled at that court by those who did not understand its working, but he believed in his conscience that it worked admirably and for the benefit of the public at large. He knew of no Judges who addressed themselves to their duties with more energy and ability than the learned Judges who now occupied seats upon the benches of the Court of Chancery. At the same time he was not inclined to increase the jurisdiction of the Court, and he entirely objected to casting any merely formal business upon a Judge of the court in addition to his present duties. If the figures quoted by his noble and learned Friend were correct, and there was not sufficient business to occupy all those learned Judges, the remedy was to abolish one of them. It was only in 1852 that the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors were called to perform chamber practice, the object being to abolish the Masters and to bring the Judges and their chief clerks into continual contact, so that instead of references to and reports from the Master, which involved delay and expense, the constant communication between the Judge and his chief clerk might allow the business to be disposed of at a far less cost than before. That system was found to work very well, and he hoped would not be disturbed, and especially that there would not be cast upon the Vice Chancellors additional duties, of a nature which, they were told, did not require any great powers of mind. To throw such business upon a Vice Chancellor, would be to impair his efficiency and unfit him for the discharge of the higher functions of his office. He believed there could not be a greater error committed than to throw upon the Vice Chancellor additional business of that description. His

  1051
  noble and learned Friend professed not to transfer the probate jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery; but if the particular Vice Chancellor to whom that business was delegated happened to be absent, as he must sometimes be, having the business of his own Court to attend to, then, under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, the probate business could be sent to be disposed of by the Master of the Rolls or one of the other Vice Chancellors. Surely that was nothing else than giving the business to the Court of Chancery under the directions of the Lord Chancellor? Then, again, appeals either of law or fact were to be made to the Court of Chancery, and thence to that House. It did certainly appear to him (Lord St. Leonards) that this was a Bill to hand over this particular jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery. Then, again, as to the Judge who was to be appointed, what was the course proposed? At present there was a Judge of the Prerogative Court thoroughly competent to decide upon any question that came before him, but who by the Bill would be relieved from much of the business which he now performed to the satisfaction of the public. If that were done, the Judge must be compensated or allowed to retain his present salary. A portion of the burden was wilfully and needlessly thrown on another person, and that person was the Vice Chancellor. This was, in his opinion, one of the most unnecessary changes ever attempted to be made in the law within his recollection. Why, he asked, should the people of England be called on to pay a Judge for doing nothing at a time when he was fully competent to discharge his duties? And why, being so competent, should those duties be transferred to other hands not so competent? Then there was another great difficulty in the Bill of his noble and learned Friend as regarded real estate. For the first time, and without any necessity, his noble and learned Friend proposed to take from every heir-at-law to an estate in this country the right—the established right, maintained at all times in Courts of Equity—of having the validity of a will adverse to his interests as heir-at-law tried by an issue. That was a right vested in every person in England, without distinction, whenever circumstances arose in which he might desire to exercise it, and he (Lord St. Leonards) trusted it might never be taken away. At present every heir-at-law was empowered to say, when his title was called in ques-
  1052
  tion, that he would not give up his right until a jury decided against him. [The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to dissent from the view of the operation of the Bill.] He (Lord St. Leonards) had read the Bill carefully, and that was the construction which he put upon it. Again, if his noble and learned Friend wished to have a probate on real estate, he (Lord St. Leonards) had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to the succession tax, would soon find it a sufficient reason for raising additional revenue by means of a probate duty in addition to the succession duty, notwithstanding that already real estate bore a greater amount of burden than personal estate. He certainly should have expected that the House would have been informed as to the amount of compensation to be paid to those who were displaced, and the amount of salaries of the new officers appointed under this Bill. How could their Lordships judge of the propriety of the measure unless they knew what the expense of it would be? It appeared that thirty-six Courts were to be established; those who presided over them having no contentious jurisdiction, but were simply to register wills in respect to which there was no dispute. Now, it constantly happened that instruments came before proctors which, though not contested, were, as their experience taught them, involved in some suspicion or of doubtful validity. In such cases—and they arose daily and hourly—they were obliged to submit the wills to the Judge, and take his opinion as to whether they should or should not be admitted to probate. It was precisely such points that were to come before the noncontentious Courts, and were, he supposed, to be decided by those Courts. Now, he wished to know whether the persons at the head of the new courts would be men of learning and experience, competent to deal with these questions, or whether they would be mere clerks or registers; and it was for this reason that he should be glad to hear what their salaries were to be. The professional character of these persons was of the utmost importance, because in the country they would stand in the place both of proctors and Judge, and upon them, therefore, would solely devolve the task to which he had alluded. In his opinion, the more these kinds of courts were multiplied throughout the country, the greater would be the confusion; and, so far as he could see, the expense. He was unwilling to

  1053
  detain their Lordships by any further observations at this stage of the Bill. When it came into Committee, he should propose those alterations which he thought would make the measure more likely to succeed than it was at present. At the same time, though he felt it impossible to agree with his noble and learned Friend as to the particular provisions of this measure, he should be ready in Committee to do everything in his power to render it effective.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of this Bill. It had been his intention, however, to make a few observations respecting some of its provisions, but on looking around the House just now he had made a calculation that there was just one-third of a Peer to each bench; and, as he did not care to address empty benches, he should postpone his observations to a future stage of the Bill. He hoped their Lordships would think that he was justified at this moment in not replying to the observations of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that like his noble and learned Friend, he was indisposed to address empty benches; but, as this would be his last appearance in the House before going circuit, he thought it necessary to say just a few words on the subject of this Bill. There could be no doubt at all as to the necessity of change, and his noble and learned Friend might have saved himself a great deal of labour on this point. All mankind were agreed here, and it was discreditable to the Legislature of this country that now, in the middle of the 19th century, there should exist all these Ecclesiastical Courts with separate jurisdictions, and with this doctrine of bona notabilia, nobody knowing whether a probate was good or bad. That a remedy was required no one disputed; the only question was, as to the manner of proceeding. Now, he had formerly opposed the Bill on this subject brought forward by his noble and learned Friend who had just addressed the House, and he confessed he was not at all satisfied with what his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack now called upon their Lordships to agree to. The sum and substance of his proposal was this—that wherever there was a contested probate, then to all intents and purposes it should become a Chancery suit. He disapproved of his noble and, learned Friend's plan for directing an issue. When a case came before the Vice Chancellor in the new
  1054
  Court of Probate, he must always see if there were ground upon which he ought to direct an issue to be tried. Should such ground exist he would direct an issue, just as in a Chancery suit. The case would then come before a jury, would go back to him, and he would have to say whether he were satisfied or not with the verdict. From his decision there will be an appeal to the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices, just as there now was with regard to a Chancery case, and afterwards there might be an appeal to this House. Now, were their Lordships of opinion that such a machinery would effect any advantageous change if substituted for the present mode of proceeding before a very learned Judge in the Prerogative Court, with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose judgment was final in the matter? He could not conceive why questions of sanity of the testator or undue influence exercised over him should go before the Court of Chancery. This Bill would arm death with a new terror, every man who has made a will having the prospect before him of his family being involved in a Chancery suit. His noble Friend on the woolsack, having ceased to be a common law Judge, and having become the head of Equity appeared to belong to that sect of persons who wished to see everything else absorbed by Chancery, who admitted that the Courts of Common Law might decide in a case of assault, or in a case of a cask of beer sold and delivered, but they should not be allowed any jurisdiction respecting the execution of a will or the construction of a deed. Now, he had a very high respect for the Court of Chancery and for those who presided in it, but he had no desire to be absorbed by it. His noble and learned Friend should remember that all persons did not regard the Court of Chancery with the same favourable eye as he did himself, and that, in point of fact, a great deal of jealousy existed in the Lower House of Parliament of this absorbing power of the Court of Chancery. In his opinion, the new court ought to be a Queen's Court of Probate, guided by common law procedure, and presided over by a common law Judge. Having entered his protest against this jurisdiction being added to that of the Court of Chancery, he would, upon the present occasion, confine himself to expressing the hope that the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, which he hoped would include his noble and learned Friend on the cross

  1055
  bench (Lord Wensleydale), and that it might come from that Committee in a form which would accomplish those objects which all had in view.
  LORD WYNFORDsaid, that although in this Bill the Lord Chancellor had got rid of many objections which had been urged against previous measures, there would be great difficulty in getting over the jealousy with which the House of Commons regarded the constant and silent encroachments of the Court of Chancery. In order to render a Bill of this sort advantageous, it was absolutely necessary that the rock of Chancery should be avoided. He was sure that the other House would require that any new Court of Probate should be a common law court, governed by common law procedure.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that although there might be some doubt of the propriety of referring probates to the Vice Chancellors, there were many of the details of the Bill which deserve consideration, especially that which made the appeal to the Court of Chancery. He saw no symptom of the Court of Chancery swamping the business of the common law courts by the operation of the Bill, nor could he see any cause for alarm in its provisions. The machinery in the country would be virtually the same, but in the thirty-six district courts the same persons would be appointed as were now in the register courts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it right to make one or two observations in reply to his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), who had not accurately represented the provisions of the Bill. Unless he (the Lord Chancellor) did not understand his own clauses, heirs-at-law would not be disinherited under this Bill without trial by jury. Objections had been made to the appeal provided by the Bill. Now the reason why the appeal lay to their Lordships instead of to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, was because real estate as well as personalty might be involved; and it had always hitherto been the habit on questions of real estate for the appeal to come before their Lordships, and he doubted whether questions relating to freeholds should be transferred to the Privy Council. All these things, however, were matters of detail which could be considered in Committee. Even the great question of who was to be the Judge could be there decided. The reason why he had not thought it right to propose a salaried Judge was that he was convinced that all the business of
  1056
  the Court might be done by the present Judges in Westminster Hall. He could not see the same objections as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), to the transaction of the business by the Court of Chancery; the Court of Chancery was no way concerned in the matter, except that one of the Judges of the Courts of Chancery was to exercise the functions of Judge of the new court, and as to the swamping of the common law courts, he saw no symptoms to justify the observation. Things had been laid to the account of the working of the Bill which in his wildest dreams he had never thought of.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a. accordingly.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.