Sitting of 9 March 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Sussex (Eastern Division), Viscount Pevensey.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Customs' Duties; Portland Harbour; Indemnity; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Municipal Corporations Act Amendment.
2° Income Tax.

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, in the absence of the Lord Advocate, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether it was intended to take measures, either by arrangement for the division of the business, or by the creation of a new Court, to relieve the Court of Session of business which was unequally thrown upon one branch of it?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate was aware of the inconvenience arising out of the unequal division of business in the Court in question. Last year his right hon. and learned Friend had brought in a Bill on the subject, which, however, had not met with general favour. The subject had since been under his right hon. and learned Friend's consideration, and he believed that, had the Session continued in the ordinary course, it was his right hon. and learned Friend's intention to have re-introduced that measure.

THE NESTORIAN CHRISTIANS IN PERSIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLATTsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control whether, in the event of peace with Persia, any representations would be made to the Persian Government by the English Government in favour of the Nestorian Christians, who, since the withdrawal of the British Legation, had suffered severe persecution, had had fifty schools suppressed, the teaching of the English language prohibited, and people ordered, on pain of imprisonment or the bastinado, not to enter their own churches?
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that no information had been received at the Foreign Office relative to any persecution of the Nestorian Christians. Instructions, however, had been sent out to Mr. Murray,
  2052
  requesting him to use endeavours to ameliorate the condition of those Nestorian Christians. As soon as the treaty of peace was ratified, fresh instructions would be sent out on the subject.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he wished to know whether any influence hitherto exercised for the protection of native Christians in Persia would be in any way restricted or interfered with by the recent treaty? Was there any clause in the treaty binding the British Government to abstain from such protection for the future?
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he could not now go into the terms of the treaty, which would shortly be laid before Parliament.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the detailed Accounts of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance for the year ended March 31, 1856, would be laid on the table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said that the accounts for the navy had already been presented, and he believed that the detailed accounts would shortly appear. The time fixed by the law for the returns of the accounts of the army had not yet arrived. The abstracts would not be due until June next, when they would be laid on the table, together with the detailed returns.

THE SOUND AND TRANSIT DUES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. G. DUNDASsaid, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government, in negotiating the question of the settlement of the Sound Dues, to stipulate for the settlement of the Danish Transit Dues on the same basis?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, a treaty has been negotiated with Denmark for the remission of the Sound Dues by the principal Powers of Europe, including Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Hanover, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Netherlands, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Norway, and the Hanse Towns. It is anticipated that that treaty will be signed in the course of the present week. It contains stipulations not only with regard to the remission of the Sound Dues, but also for a remission of the transit dues; and, although I am not able to state

  2053
  the precise amount of the remission of transit dues, I believe it will be less than a reduction of four-fifths of their present amount.

NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MEAGHERsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could afford any information as to the present state of the river Danube, as far as its safe and proper navigation is concerned; and whether there be any reasonable hopes that the river now may be sufficiently clear to allow of spring shipments being made to and from the Danubian Provinces.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Two Commissions have been appointed with regard to the Danube—the one a permanent Commission, consisting of delegates from the river-bordering Powers, in accordance with the article of the Treaty of Vienna; the other a temporary European Commission, composed of members deputed by Powers which are not river-bordering, but whose duty it is to take measures to keep the mouths of the river open for navigation by removing obstructions. This last Commission has met, but it has not been able to settle any measures for clearing away the obstructions which now exist. Some of the sand-banks within the delta have been removed, but there is one material point now under consideration—namely, as to which branch of the Danube is the one best calculated to be useful for the navigation of the river. Many think that the Sulina branch is not the best, but that the St. George's branch might be rendered so. No time, however, will be lost in making the necessary investigations incidental to the attainment of the object in view.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MOTION.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that, with a view to facilitate the progress of public business, he should move that Orders of the day take precedence of Notices of Motion on Thursday.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he must complain of the hardship which the proposition of the noble Lord would inflict on private Members, who had very few opportunities for bringing forward important questions in which they were interested.
  Motion agreed to.

  MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.
  MR. SPEAKERaddressed the House as follows:—
  Before I call upon the Clerk to proceed with the Orders of the Day, I hope the House will permit me to occupy their attention for a very few moments.
  After the Statement made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the House on Thursday last, it is quite evident that a Dissolution of Parliament is rapidly approaching; and I feel it to be only consistent with that respect which is especially due from me to the House, that I should inform them that it is my intention to retire from Parliament at the close of the present Session.
  It is very nearly eighteen years since I first had the honour of being elected Speaker of this House, and I cannot contemplate the termination of my official career without great pain; nor can I allow it to close without offering to the House my sincere and grateful acknowledgments for that uniform confidence and support which I have received, not only from all parties in the House, but I may say, with perfect truth, from every individual Member of the House. I am quite aware that, in the discharge of the delicate, and very onerous duties of this chair, I have had great need of that kind indulgence which has always been extended to me; especially of late, when I have been too frequently reminded of my increasing inability to do full justice to the task which has devolved upon me.
  It has been my constant endeavour, as is well known to the House, to improve and simplify their forms of proceeding, but at the same time I have endeavoured to maintain unimpaired all those rights and privileges, and those rules and orders, sanctioned by ancient usage, which long experience has taught me to respect and venerate, and which I believe never can be relaxed, or materially altered, without prejudice to the freedom and independence of the House of Commons. And if I have been in the least degree instrumental in promoting objects so desirable, and so essential to the public interests, I am perfectly aware that I owe that success to the cordial co-operation I have always received from the House, and for which I never can be sufficiently grateful. [This announcement of Mr. SPEAKER was received with the strongest marks of feeling from every part of the House.]
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Mr. Speak-

  2055
  er, I am sure that I am the faithful organ of the feelings of every Member of this House when I assure you that it is with the deepest regret [loud cheers] that we have heard the announcement which has just fallen from you. It is no compliment to you, Mr. Speaker, no flattery, to say that I believe there never sat in that chair any man who combined in a greater degree all those various qualities which should constitute the Speaker of this House [cheers]; and that with the regret which I am sure every Member must feel at losing your services must be mingled a sentiment of deep gratitude for those services which you have rendered [cheers]. I trust the House will not on the present occasion enter into any expression of those feelings which every man among us must entertain; but I will now give notice that I shall deem it my duty to-morrow, before proceeding to public business, to move an expression of thanks to you, Sir, and also an appropriate Address to the Crown, bearing upon what we have just heard [continued cheers].

INCOME TAX BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the Income Tax Bill be now read a Second Time.
  MR. DISRAELI: It was my intention, Sir, to have offered to the House a proposal with respect to the income tax. But it appears from what I have read in the accredited organs of the day that we really are at war with China—at least I do not suppose that any one will now pretend that we are not at war, when we are told that 7000 troops are about to leave our shores for the scene of action. I think, therefore, we had better at once face our position and not indulge in those dreams which I had hoped might have been realised this year—dreams of economy and of administrative improvement. These, I am afraid, are passed; and I do not therefore feel myself justified in offering any opposition to the measure now before the House, because I consider it is absolutely necessary that the Ministers of the Crown, whatever party may form the Administration, should have sufficient supplies to carry on the struggle in which we are now actually embarked. There is, however, another reason why I feel some difficulty in pressing upon the House that modification in the income
  2056
  tax which I felt it my duty to announce. The House, I think unfortunately, agreed the other night to an increase in the indirect taxation of the country, and in the face of that I should be sorry to urge a diminution of our direct taxation. That, however, is a consideration of very secondary importance when connected with the position in which we are now placed with respect to our external relations. The policy pursued with respect to China, has, as I feared it would, involved this country in a war which may be of some length, and which must be necessarily attended with considerable expense. Now, I wish that our constituents, who are always pressing upon us the reduction of taxation, would carefully consider how the amount of our taxation must depend on the system which we adopt with reference to our external affairs. We have been at war with Persia without the knowledge of Parliament, and we have now the satisfaction of hearing that peace has been concluded. So far as we can attain information on the subject these are the facts. First, that the war with Persia was occasioned by a cause really too contemptible and too shameful to be mentioned. Now, either that cause was the real cause or it was not. If it was the genuine cause the House can at once draw the inevitable inference. But if it was merely a pretext, then I say this war is part of that general system which appears in every quarter of the globe, and which shows a general determination to distract the attention of the country from its domestic arrangements by a turbulent and aggressive diplomacy. Well, admitting it was a mere pretext, and that this shameful incident was not the absolute reason of our hostilities—what then has occurred? In consequence of our going to war with Persia, negotiations have taken place between the British and Persian Ambassadors at Constantinople, and certain terms were offered for our acceptance, which we refused. This refusal having put an end to the negotiations, these transactions in good time, Parliament being assembled, are brought under our notice, and the feeling of Parliament with respect to the Persian war, commenced without our knowledge, being evinced in a manner not to be mistaken, fresh negotiations then occur. These negotiations are successful. But by what means, and in what manner? As I am informed by our accepting at Paris the terms which we had rejected at Constanti-

  2057
  nople. What I want the country to consider is how much the rejection of these reasonable terms at Constantinople has cost us,—how much this quarrel with Persia has cost us in all. If we take this quarrel with Persia at £500,000—and from what I have heard we can scarcely take it at less—and if we have half-a-dozen of these difficulties every year and average them at £500,000 each, how is the remaining 7d. of the income tax ever to be taken off? Four difficulties at half-a-million each make up 2d. in the pound of the income tax, and not only will the tax remain at 7d., but we shall probably have the popular 9d. reintroduced to our notice in a very short time. After the Persian difficulty we have now the China difficulty, which may cost us no one knows how much—no one supposes it can be settled for 1d. in the pound of the income tax; indeed, if we get out of it for a million we may think ourselves very lucky. As we are going to the hustings, where we shall be asked to review expenditure and to reduce the burdens of taxation—when we find our constituents complaining of the increased duties upon tea and sugar, and desire to explain how it happens that the income tax, which was to have expired in 1860, appears likely to affect them for a longer period—let us ask them quietly to consider, before they complain of these burdens, whether they have sanctioned the turbulent and aggressive system of diplomacy which has drawn us into these quarrels, and which really is the cause of our not being able to reduce the income tax in the first instance to that more moderate assessment which the country expects. But, however we may disapprove of the policy, however we may lament the expenditure which it entails, we have a clear duty to perform. We have to support the Government, of whatever elements it may be formed, which has plunged the country into a difficulty of this kind. We are now at war with China, and, however we may lament the policy which has occasioned that war, we must pursue it until an opening is afforded of bringing these calamitous proceedings to a close more consonant with those principles which we have endeavoured to vindicate in the course of the late debate. Under these circumstances I no longer feel justified in opposing this Bill, nor, indeed, in supporting any Motion which can have the effect of reducing the resources which are at the disposal of the Government. I lament the necessity of
  2058
  the course which I have to pursue, and I indulge in the hope that the feeling of the country will at last force the Government to pursue a policy more conciliatory to foreign countries than that which it appears to me to adopt on every occasion—a policy which, while it maintains the honour, the dignity, and the true interests of the country, at the same time is not calculated to outrage the feelings of every foreign State which is brought into connexion with us. Then we may look for economy, for reduction of expenditure, and for reduction of taxation; but until a policy of that kind is adopted and sanctioned by this House and the country I am convinced that the expenditure of the country will increase, and its burdens also will increase in proportion.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman having made allusion to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, he must take the liberty of expressing his deep regret that they should go to the country without receiving an assurance that that policy should in some degree at least be changed. However, he principally rose now to put a question to the noble Lord relative to our policy towards Naples. When he put a question, to the noble Lord the other day relative to the same subject, the noble Lord answered him in a manner which he must say was not very courteous. Now he would put it to the House whether or not it would not be leaving our relations with Naples in a most dangerous condition if things were allowed to rest as at present. At that moment there was no British legation at Naples, and if any difficulties were to arise there this country might in consequence become seriously involved. In putting that question, let him explain that he had no sympathy or feeling whatever for the King of Naples, such as was implied by the noble Lord the other evening. He was influenced solely by a feeling that the policy which the noble Lord pursued towards Naples was attended with an aggravation of the sufferings of those poor prisoners instead of an alleviation of them. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would take an opportunity before the present Parliament was dissolved of assuring the House that there was some chance of the renewal of diplomatic relations between Her Majesty and the King of the Two Sicilies.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSregretted that the income tax was still to be levied upon incomes between £100 and £150 a year.

  2059
  The proposal was regarded as odious by every class of the community, and when they got into Committee he should endeavour to obtain its rejection.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to two evils connected with the income tax well deserving of consideration. The first was that in the case of a defaulting collector every person in his district had to pay the tax over again, those who could show receipts as well as those who could not. Several cases involving great hardship had come to his knowledge. Now, he thought that a clause ought to be introduced into the Bill, providing against the recurrence of so glaring an injustice. Another point to which his attention had been particularly directed was the very improper manner in which the income-tax returns were allowed to get abroad. He remembered Lord Brougham proposing, on the cessation of the great income tax in 1816, that all the papers connected with the income-tax returns should be burned. He (Mr. Cochrane) thought that at least more stringent instructions ought to be given to the Income Tax Commissioners, respecting the disposal of the assessment, and other papers connected with the tax. He himself had in his possession a lot of those papers which had got into public circulation through the shops; so that in various towns of the kingdom most respectable inhabitants had the pleasure of receiving their butter wrapped up in paper recording the details of their private affairs. He wished also to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the great injustice inflicted on a particular class of fundholders who at the present moment paid at least 30 per cent income tax. He alluded to persons who held what were formerly Long Annuities, but were now short annuities. Those Annuities would expire in 1860; but the public creditors holding such securities were taxed on incomes only worth three years' purchase equally with the possessors of perpetual annuities, worth thirty years' purchase. He thought the Government had done all they could with regard to the reduction of the war income tax, and that they were entitled on that ground to fair consideration on the part of the House and of the country.
  MAJOR REEDsaid, he had intended to submit a Motion to the House with reference to the more equitable assessment of the income tax, but under existing circum-
  2060
  stances he thought it would not be advisable to do so. He must say, however, as the chairman of an association which had taken up the question, that he considered it most unjust to levy the same rate of taxation upon incomes derived from fixed and funded property and upon those derived from such precarious sources as trades and professions—the value of the one kind being from twenty-eight to thirty years' purchase, and of the other from only two and a half to three. Again, the mode of assessment was grossly unjust. A man who had paid a tax on £500 one year was compelled to return himself at the same rate the next year, although he might in reality have earned only half that amount, otherwise he would be compelled to disclose the state of his affairs to his neighbours. The next year this man might become insolvent, and then, when the Court of Bankruptcy ascertained the fact, it would brand him as a swindler. Again, if a tradesman showed his books, and it should appear from them that he was making large profits from any particular branch of his business, the result might be that he would immediately see rivals springing up around him. The result was that tradesmen were compelled to submit to any injustice rather than appeal. He hoped that if the continuance of this iniquitous impost should be proposed to a new Parliament measures would be taken to relieve persons deriving incomes from trades and professions from the injustice to which they were at present subjected.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that any person who had hitherto listened to the discussion would have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was increasing or renewing the former rate of the income tax, whereas the question before the House was really one for its reduction. He believed that if the House was sincerely desirous of getting rid of the income tax the best plan would be to endeavour to reduce it whenever the opportunity occurred, and, in order to do that, Parliament should keep the tax continually under their control by only granting it for a year at a time. He had intended to propose the limitation of the tax to a year, but as by the present Bill the tax would only be continued for that period it was unnecessary to press his Motion.
  MR. MUNTZwished to caution the Government not to expect that the people would be satisfied simply with a reduction in the amount of this tax, which was op-

  2061
  posed rather on account of its inquisitorial nature than of its mere amount. In many instances the tax was accompanied with great injustice and discomfort, and in some cases it was levied in a mode which almost amounted to robbery. If the tax was imposed upon tolerably just principles it would be less objectionable. Nobody expected to be able to make it perfect; but an attempt might at least be made to approach perfection. An extraordinary case had occurred recently before the magistrates of a midland county, in which a man who had been assessor of income tax, and who had been surcharging right and left, had been called to account, and coolly alleged that he had burnt his books. The surveyor said it was usual to burn the books after the lapse of two years; but ought such laxity to be permitted in the administration of a law which worked so much injustice? Some time ago, when he brought forward a Motion on this subject, a leading article referring to it appeared in the leading journal. He had no right to find fault with that article, which intimated that if he had let the matter alone it was probable the tax would have been got rid of in three years. When the tax was imposed in 1842 it was on the understanding that it was to cease at the end of three years, but they had it now in prospect for three years, and he did not doubt it would be continued for three years more. If no attempt was made to render the operation of the tax more just and equitable they would always be told, "We can't get rid of this tax, and we must continue it as it is." He did not object to the tax per se, but he objected to the manner in which it was imposed and collected.
  SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDasked how the income tax was to be levied so as to render it just and equitable as proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham. The tax was an odious one in itself, and its unequal and inquisitorial character could never be got rid of. All great financiers, from Pitt down to Peel, had argued that it was impossible to make such a tax perfectly equitable. It was a tax suitable only for a state of war and a period of great emergency, when the people would pay it without reference to its inequalities; but it was not adapted for a time of peace.
  MR. MICHELLsaid that as he might not have the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, he should wish to make a few observations upon the subject of the income tax. To an income tax per se he had no
  2062
  objection—that is, to an income tax placed upon a fair footing, such as that of 1816. He objected, however, very much to the mode in which the present tax was sometimes assessed. As, for example, in the case of mines; there the proprietor paid not only upon income but upon capital; and, supposing that he had two mines, one a paying, the other a losing concern, he was not permitted to set off the losses upon one against the gains of the other, and thus reduce the balance. No; he was assessed upon each separately, and made to pay accordingly. On the other hand, bankers and large companies were comparatively relieved under the tax. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had complained of the want of secrecy with reference to details connected with the tax; that undoubtedly was a very serious grievance. He himself knew of a case where a young man having appealed against his assessment, on the ground that he was actually an insolvent, in proof, pulled out seven writs from his pocket, with which he had been served, and showed them to the commissioner; well, next morning it was known all over the town, not only that this young man had been served with seven writs, but likewise the names of those who had served him. The only tax which he should prefer to an income tax was a stamp tax upon all receipts. A stamp tax of 4d. in the pound upon all receipts would enable them to do away with all the other taxes, and thus get rid of the charge of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, which we paid as the cost of collection. It certainly had been his intention to have opposed the imposition of the income tax unless its anomalies had been made to disappear; but under the circumstances he would not oppose the vote.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I cannot avoid saying a few words in reply to the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire at the beginning of this discussion. I thank him for the vote he is about to give us on this occasion, though I cannot say that I thank him much for the reasons he gave in support of that vote; for he said he should vote for a continuous income tax, because the turbulent and aggressive foreign policy of the Government might render such a description of tax necessary. What he has said reminds one of what we have been told of a gentleman who was appointed Chief Justice of Canada, and who was not very learned in

  2063
  the law. He asked a friend what he should do, and the answer was, "Give your decisions; you are a man of good sense, and they will probably be right; but take care not to give your reasons, for they will probably be wrong." I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he means exactly by the "turbulent and aggressive" foreign policy of the Government? Does he mean that the war in which we were lately engaged, with many allies, against Russia, and which was sanctioned and borne out by the deliberate opinion of the whole nation, was an instance of "turbulent and aggressive" policy on the part of the Government? Does he mean that the peace which was concluded at the termination of that war was an instance of "turbulent and aggressive" policy? Does he mean that the present state of our relations, by which we are on a friendly footing with France, with Austria, with Sardinia, and with the United States, are a proof of the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of the Government? Does he mean that the treaty which we have concluded with the United States, and which I trust will settle all points of difference between the two countries, is a proof of our "turbulent and aggressive" policy? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the war with Persia, and declared that it arose from what he called contemptible and shameful causes. Why, Sir, that war arose from the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Persia, which invaded and seized upon Herat in violation of a distinct and solemn engagement which had been made with England at a former period; and every one who knows anything of our Indian Empire and its interests must be aware that it was a matter of great importance to us to prevent Persia from acquiring dominion over Herat and the surrounding country. Am I to suppose, then, that the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Her Majesty's Government rests entirely upon what has been passing in China? Is it the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Her Majesty's Government which has been exemplified by the burnings, the poisonings, the assassinations, and all those crimes that have been committed by the Chinese against British residents? In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, we are about to meet our constituents, and no doubt his reference to the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Her Majesty's Government was made with a view to the hustings.
  2064
  But I beg to warn the right hon. Gentleman that the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Her Majesty's Government will not be a convenient or successful electionery for him or his friends. The people of England are too clear-sighted and too straightforward to be led away by any such declamation as that. They know what are the grounds upon which it will be their duty to exercise their franchise, and I have no doubt in my own mind that they will give an answer to the questions put to them which will not be altogether agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was not aware, Sir, that the discussion on the second reading of the Income Tax Bill was likely to embrace so wide a range. Many subjects of great importance have been introduced into it; and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, while replying to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, has addressed something like a general challenge to the House, I do not think it is the wish of any portion of the House that we should now enter upon the consideration of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, nor do I desire to lead to a renewal of those warm and keen debates in which we have been recently engaged. At the same time, as a challenge has been thrown out to the House, I cannot refrain from stating that—while allowing to everybody else the right of expressing his opinions freely—my own opinion is that there is a very material connection between the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government and tin excessive taxation and high expenditure of the country. The noble Viscount has put this question on the basis of the different branches of his foreign policy, and has triumphantly anticipated the reply to tin appeal that he is about to make to the country. He told us that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) had evidently been made with reference to the hustings, and I suppose it would not be a cruel, or an unwarrantable charge, to say that the reply of the noble Viscount had a similar object in view. It is not well to discuss these questions now With regard to Persia, I must say, I am sorry for the sake of all the parties con cerned—for the sake of fairness to Her Majesty's Government, and for the sake of the interests of the country—that Ministers have not shown a greater disposition for the thorough sifting and ventilation of

  2065
  that question in this House upon a proper opportunity. The noble Viscount, it is true, assures us that the war has arisen from the "turbulent and aggressive" policy of Persia; but he is aware that a very different opinion prevails among a great portion, if not a large majority, of this House; and my firm belief is that a very different sentiment as to the Persian war prevails among a large majority of the people of England. I think, then, it is to be regretted, for the sake of justice, that the question has not been discussed in the House of Commons. I am bound, also, to say that the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government, especially the withholding the estimates for the charge of the Persian war, involves a very great derogation from the rights and privileges of this House. To pass to another point, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. B. Cochrane) has expressed a great anxiety that there should be a speedy renewal of diplomatic relations with Naples. Considering the state of ignorance in which we remain after the production of what are called "Neapolitan papers,"—ignorance not much less than that which existed before the papers were produced,—I do not undertake to make any recommendation, or to join in any recommendation, upon that subject. For all the proceedings with respect to Naples Her Majesty's Government are responsible. I have not the smallest doubt of the humanity of the motives which have prompted their course, and regret very much the miscarriage of their measures. I am afraid they were founded upon an inadequate consideration of the difficulties with which they had to deal, and I have the deepest conviction, springing from authentic and most painful evidence, that those measures have led to no mitigation of the severest evils endured by sufferers in the kingdom of Naples. Perhaps there never was a moment when we had more cause to deplore, in the interests alike of humanity, of liberty, and of order, the undue and miserable afflictions that are endured by innocent persons in the dungeons of Naples. I deeply regret the failure of the efforts which have been made to lighten those afflictions. I think, acknowledging the goodness of the motives which prompted them, that they were undertaken with inadequate means and upon an ill-defined basis. There was apparently a want of adequate knowledge, on the part of those who interfered, of their own intentions, and of the length to which they
  2066
  were prepared to carry their interference; so that, in point of fact, as was stated by the noble Lord the Member for the City, either too much was done, or too little;—too little to make success in the particular instance certain; too much if we desired to guard against the great danger that attends all such acts of intervention: and that consequently affords the strongest of reasons against attempting them unless when the end is evident and its attainment can reasonably be expected. It is not my intention, Sir, to refer to China—I think that that and other questions had much better be avoided at the present moment. But when the noble Viscount makes an ironical reference to the treaty recently concluded with America, as if its wisdom and moderation vindicated the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in its American policy, I am bound respectfully to demur to the conclusion which he draws. I read that treaty when it appeared in the newspapers with the greatest satisfaction. I learnt that it had been rejected in America—or, at least, that assent had been withheld from it—with the deepest regret. At the same time I cannot say that the previous proceedings of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Central American question were such as might be supposed by those who derived from the treaty their whole acquaintance with the subject. In my opinion, nothing could be more unwise than the manner in which the whole controversy with regard to Ruatan, and several other points, was conducted. The treaty I heartily approve, because it gives up the matter in dispute by making over the island of Ruatan to Honduras; but the treaty and the previous policy of Her Majesty's Government are inconsistent with each other. Having thus referred to the points upon which the noble Viscount challenged the approbation of the House, I refrain from introducing aggressive matter into this discussion. We shall soon have opportunities of defending the part we have taken in the deliberations of this House, and I trust that we shall be prepared to perform that duty without shrinking from responsibility either for our words or for our acts. Let me now, Sir, make a few observations upon the Bill before the House. It was with satisfaction that I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire say that he did not intend to make any Motion for the purpose of obstructing the progress of this Bill.

  2067
  My own view is that which was stated on a former evening by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins). The hon. and learned Gentleman, addressing the Government, said, "All we protest against is your standing upon your legal advantage; do not levy a 16 d. income tax because the Act happens to be so worded; surrender that advantage gracefully and at once, tell us what the necessities of the public service are, and then we shall vote whatever taxes you may require." I think the hon. and learned Gentleman put the question upon the only true, solid, and substantial ground. I am sorry to say that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the House have taken his advice. We have not considered the wants of the country. They have been stated to us, no doubt, by the Government, but we have given no judgment upon them; and we are now—I know not for what reason or with what view of public convenience—certainly in opposition to all those rules and usages of Parliament upon which you, Sir, in your address from the chair this evening, have justly laid so much stress—about to vote the Ways and Means for the year before we have taken into our consideration any portion of the public expenditure. My own ideas on the course of financial proceedings in this House are entirely at variance with the present mode of conducting the affairs of that department; in truth, a system of contradictory arrangements upon almost every point seems now to be in vogue. I have no wish, however, to run counter to the views or decisions of the House, but merely desire to record the sentiments I entertain, and to protest, if I may use that term in an informal sense, on behalf of what I regard as sound, straightforward, and, if I may venture the expression without offence, honest modes of dealing with taxation and expenditure. The hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) says that the only way to keep the income tax under our control is to vote it from year to year. Now I beg leave to differ in opinion altogether from the hon. and learned Member. I believe that the transition from voting it for a term of years to that of voting it from year to year is the sign of another transition which we should endeavour by all means to shun—namely, a transition from a solid and steady system of finance to a vacillating and merely provisional system of finance. When did we take to this? In 1852, because we felt that we were justified by the
  2068
  circumstances, for it was eminently unsatisfactory to the country; and so far from finding that the control of the House of Commons was increased by the method of voting the income tax from year to year, on the contrary, that control was diminished; and the result was this—when you voted the income tax in 1842 for three years, and again in 1845 for three years, you voted it for three years in order that it might be made the instrument of great, wise, and beneficial changes. When you took to voting the income tax for one year you entirely dissociated it from any such public improvements, and you treated it merely as one of the ordinary means of meeting the regular and standing necessities of the country. On both these grounds—because the annual voting of the income tax tends to take away the solidity and stability of our finance, and because it cripples and maims the income tax with reference to those most useful temporary purposes for which it was originally proposed—I deeply regret that it should be proposed for one single year only. I make no objection to the arrangement at the present moment; I speak only in reference to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle, who appears to see a positive merit in this mode of treating the income tax. The Bill which we have before us I regard as a Bill proposed entirely and exclusively upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire gave notice at the commencement of the Session that he would move the repeal of the war income tax; but that notice, of course, does not remove the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. And this Bill is not in point of fact a repeal of the war income tax. We are going to repeal, from the 5th of April onwards, a sum of 9d. out of 16 d.; but the war income tax from the 5th of April onwards is 11 d., and not 9d. I am not finding fault with the Government for not repealing more than 9d. On the contrary, when I remember that they have made inadequate provision for the public service, I hold myself free to arraign Her Majesty's Government, hereafter for having dispensed with so much money from the public revenue. We are now voting Ways and Means before the House has given judgment upon the subject of Supply, and it is perfectly impossible for independent Members of Parliament to say what amount they ought to vote, because they have not at-

  2069
  tained a knowledge of the standard by which that amount ought to be adjusted. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) has adverted to a matter in which I know he takes a deep interest—namely, the reconstruction of the income tax. Ever since he has been in Parliament I think he has held the same doctrines. Ever since he has been in Parliament those doctrines have been most popular. The people, if I may say so, have been tickled and amused with the notion that some day or other the income tax would be reconstructed. Now, what I want to submit to the hon. Gentleman is this, that those speeches made in popular assemblages in favour of a reconstruction of the income tax, and of varying the rate according to the nature of the source from which the income proceeds, and made as I believe by him as well as by many others with perfectly honest intentions, have practically operated as a delusion upon the country; because we go on voting the income tax from year to year, or from three years to three years, on precisely the same principle and arrangement. No Government can be found that will propose its reconstruction; nor is there any Member of Parliament sufficiently confident in any plan that he may have to submit it to Parliament and bring the question to a positive issue; or, if there has been any such Member possessed of that extraordinary degree of confidence in his own plan, he has not received adequate encouragement from the House of Commons, because the House has always declined to entertain that question and has given an unfavourable reception to the proposal. I confess I think it would be well if, instead of following this will-o'-the wisp proposition for a reconstruction of the income tax, the people of this country would take another question into their hands. I do not want them to give up its reconstruction if it can be effected, though I believe it cannot; but I wish them to consider whether they wish to have a perpetual uniform income tax or not, whether reconstructed or pressing alike upon all incomes. I must confess that is the consummation to which, as it appears to me, we are rapidly approaching. In 1853 it appeared to be perfectly practicable to bring the income tax to a close. In 1857, although the circumstances have altered and are more unfavourable than in 1853, yet I, in my place in Parliament, declare that I am convinced that it is still
  2070
  practicable to bring the income tax to a close. But if we are really to bring the income tax to a close—which I presume is the wish of many on general grounds, and of many others who presume that it cannot be reconstructed—if we are to contemplate the attainment of that end at all, it is necessary undoubtedly that we should adopt new rules of proceeding. Yet I should scarcely say new rules of proceeding; but we should entertain the whole question of our public expenditure in a stricter temper of mind than we have evinced for some years past. I will not, however, enter upon a consideration of that subject now, but I venture to say that—with the state of the Estimates that are before the House, and above all with the tendencies of those Estimates and of the House, the Government, and the country with respect to expenditure, although it still remains possible—the moment at which the bringing of the income tax to a termination may be regarded as practicable is very rapidly passing away, and that, unless we bethink and bestir ourselves, in the course of two or three years it will be much too late and a sheer waste of time to entertain that question, because the relation between the demands of the public service and every provision for meeting them, independently of the income tax, will leave no room for maintaining the public credit and satisfying the wants of the country except through the means which that tax provides.
  MR. MALINS: The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford having correctly stated what he (Mr. Malins) had said on a former occasion upon this subject, and having stated what he conceived to be the duty of the Government in respect to the war income tax, he (Mr. Malins) thought he might be allowed to make a few observations. He thought it a fair matter for congratulation that the Government had not availed themselves of the accidental wording of the Act to continue the whole of that tax for another year, but had, on the contrary, freely abandoned all attempts to levy the additional portion of that tax. The right hon. Gentleman, while concurring in the views he (Mr. Malins) expressed in respect to this tax, said he was not always able to agree with him upon questions of finance. He was happy that he and the right hon. Gentleman could agree, at all events, in the anxious desire to get rid of this disagreeable and improper impost as soon as

  2071
  it was practicable; and consequently it would have been a gratifying circumstance to him if the Government had been able to carry out the repeal of the whole of the war tax, thereby reducing it not to 7d. but to 5d. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire say it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Bill; because, however anxious he might be to repeal the tax and to reduce the burdens of the country, there were duties imposed upon this House which they were bound, under all circumstances, faithfully to fulfil—namely, to keep the Government in a position that would enable them to meet all demands that might be made upon them in a manner consistent with the honour and greatness of the country. He therefore intended to give his vote in favour of the Bill as it now stood. He thought that during the present year they could scarcely consider themselves free from the war expenditure; but in supporting the proposition before them he wished it to be understood that he adhered to the opinion he had before expressed, that the tax should be at as early a period as possible brought to a termination, because he believed it to be a most burdensome tax to the people. It was of course not very burdensome to the rich, or to any man who could at once draw a cheque for the payment of the tax, and if it were confined to such a class of persons he believed it would be the best tax that could be imposed. But as society was composed mostly of a poorer class of persons, he did not think that they could impose anything more odious, more inconvenient, or more detrimental to the best interests of the country than any increase of direct taxation. An hon. Gentleman expressed his preference for direct taxation, over indirect taxation. He (Mr. Malins) confessed he had no great desire for either. But there was very little doubt that the admirers of both direct and indirect taxation would have their respective tastes fully gratified for many years to come. While the world was constituted as it was, taxes must be paid; so that the peculiar taste of each person in respect to the form of taxation would be perfectly gratified. He was determinedly opposed to any increase of direct taxation, and thought it wise that there should be such an adjustment made between direct and indirect taxation as would lighten the burdens of the country. As he might or might not
  2072
  have a seat in that House in the new Parliament he wished to say a word as to the inequalities of the income tax. He believed it to be impossible to provide against the inequalities and the injustice of this tax. They might argue in favour of a distinction being made between precarious and fixed property. Well, the great bulk of his income was of a precarious character, being derived from his profession. Now, an income derived from a profession was much more precarious than that arising from business, because in the latter the owner might employ a deputy, and even in the case of his death it might still be carried on; but a professional man's income was dependent on his ability to perform his daily personal duties, and no deputy could discharge them for him. He was, therefore, entitled to speak in respect to the taxation of precarious incomes. Now, he could not say it would be fair that he should be taxed only say 3d. in the pound, when another man whose income was derivable from real property, but which was not, perhaps, one-fourth as much in amount, was to be burdened with a rate of 7d. in the pound. The income tax was about one-tenth of the whole revenue, taking the excise duties and the house tax. Now, if they were to recognize the principle of a distinction between precarious and other incomes in regard to the income tax, being the one-tenth of the revenue, why should not the principle be extended to the other ninetenths? For example, why should those with precarious incomes pay as much as other incomes in the shape of house duties or tea duties? It was his opinion that no human sagacity could meet those cases of difficulty. They never could adapt a scale that would meet the justice of the case of every man who paid taxes. He had had numerous communications with parties desirous of remedying the injustice of the income tax, and he had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to remedy that injustice by any human sagacity. In the autumn of last year he was honoured by an interview with a body of gentlemen forming a deputation from a society of which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Major Reed) was president. They requested his co-operation to remedy the injustice of the income tax. He told that deputation that as far as the removal of the war 9d. was concerned he was heart and soul with them; but as to their efforts to remedy the in-

  2073
  equalities of the tax, they were utterly useless. He must do those gentlemen the justice of saying that they discussed the question most reasonably with him; but the arguments which he advanced as to the impracticability of finding such a remedy, he believed, had due effect, inasmuch as they were not competent to answer them. He concurred with the hon. Member for Preston (Sir J. Strickland), as to the inquisitorial nature of the tax. He ventured to say that no one man out of ten could tell the profits of his trade. So distasteful was this tax in principle, so inconvenient and so burdensome was it to the people generally, that he believed a greater boon could scarcely be conferred upon the middle classes of England than its removal altogether. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had pressed strongly upon the attention of the House the necessity of the Government fulfilling the compact which was entered into in 1853. He (Mr. Malins) could never forget the discussion that took place in that House in 1853 on the Budget. He had agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, who was at that period Chancellor of the Exchequer, in respect to some of his propositions—but he dissented from others. The right hon. Gentleman in 1853 held out great expectations as to the result of his succession duty, which had since been disappointed. He quite agreed with him in thinking that if there had not been an absolute compact between the Parliament and the nation, there were at all events expectations held out that the income tax should cease in 1860, and that Parliament was, therefore, bound to make every effort to bring about that result. He would not, however, be a party to any measures that would tend to impair the efficiency of the public service, and he should be sorry, if the country again became engaged in war, if this House should be unprepared to meet the emergency with energy and spirit. In reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) to spare all incomes under £150. it should be recollected that the present Bill was only for one year; but after the present year, he should be very reluctant to assent to the continuance of the tax upon incomes below £150. In respect to the question of Naples, which had been touched upon in the course of this debate, he must say he was much struck by a speech made on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucking-
  2074
  hamshire in regard to the affairs of that country. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of that speech impressed upon the House the impropriety of interfering with Naples, or the Italian States generally, unless they interfered effectually; and remarked, "if you hold out expectations which you cannot realize, instead of benefiting the Italians you will be doing them positive injury." Well, it so happened that by an accidental circumstance he (Mr. Malins) was able to give personal testimony to the soundness of the opinion then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. He happened to be one of the very few Englishmen who were in Naples, in the month of October last. He was stopping for a few days at Sorrento in the Bay of Naples, when he read in Galignani the announcement that there would shortly arrive in the Bay of Naples an English and French squadron. He returned to Naples immediately after this announcement was made, and witnessed the effects which it had produced there. It would be impossible for him to describe the feelings of hope and expectation which were raised by the anticipated arrival of the squadron. The people were upon the tiptoe of expectation, and joy gladdened every countenance. He remained in Naples about eight days, during which time it transpired that those expectations were not likely to be realized. He witnessed the extraordinary revulsion of feeling that took place and the great injury that had been done to the people by the raising of expectations which were not to be realized. He was perfectly satisfied from his own personal observation, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire had laid down a sound principle while making the speech to which he had referred. He did hope, whatever Government might be in power, that they would pursue a policy of complete non-interference, or if they did interfere that it would be in a manner to give effect to their interference.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that it was very inconvenient that such subjects as the foreign policy of the Government should be unexpectedly introduced, and particularly into such a discussion as that upon the second reading of an income tax Bill; more especially at a time when some hon. Members made speeches in the hope that they might be sent back to that House, and others who did not expect to return

  2075
  made speeches in the nature of valedictory addresses. But he rose to reply to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) with regard to the Persian war. That right hon. Gentleman had rather unfairly attacked his noble Friend at the head of the Government for throwing out what he called a general challenge to the House to discuss his foreign policy, for the right hon. Gentleman, must have known that his noble Friend was but answering a challenge which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who had spoken of the foreign policy of the Government as being "turbulent and aggressive." Were those epithets which it would become a Prime Minister to listen to without repudiating them? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) also said that the Persian war had been undertaken for a shameful cause. Was not the noble Lord justified in getting up and asserting that this "shameful" cause was the "turbulent and aggressive" march of the Persians upon Herat? A juster cause of war he (Mr. Vernon Smith) believed had never existed; and he should not scruple to submit to any Oriental authority who might be named the question whether we could with safety or propriety have permitted the Persians to march upon and occupy Herat in defiance of a specific treaty by which they engaged to abstain from any such proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had also asserted or insinuated that the Government had in some manner shrunk from the discussion of this question. This was not the case. On the contrary, so far as he (Mr. Vernon Smith) was concerned, he was most anxious and most desirous that the question should be discussed. When Parliament met it was intended that the Persian papers should be presented, and they were mentioned in the Queen's Speech. The papers were being prepared when negotiations commenced at Paris, and there being some probability of a settlement Her Majesty's Government then wisely and prudently, as had been shown by the sanction which that course had received from the House, abstained from their production lest it should interfere with those negotiations. When the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) had last asked a question upon this subject, he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had informed him that, acting upon the ordinary, usual, and,
  2076
  he believed, constant practice of Parliament, the papers would not be produced until the treaty had been ratified. It was clear that it would be impossible to discuss this subject without going into details which might lead to charges and criminations against Persia, the result of which might be to irritate the Persian Government and prevent the ratification of the treaty; and it would, therefore, be most unwise to raise such a discussion so long as there was any possibility of the negotiations being broken off. Therefore in refusing to produce these papers the Government had followed a precedent which was a most proper one, as they thereby avoided further misunderstandings with the States with which we were in negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had also repeated, what had frequently been asserted, that in the declaration of this war the Government had not shown due deference to Parliament. He did not know at what moment the right hon. Gentleman would have had Parliament consulted, but he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had already stated that the orders for the Persian expedition were not sent out until the 26th of September, at which time Parliament was not sitting; and that the declaration of war was not published in India until the 1st of October, and was not received in this country until the middle of December, at which time Parliament had already been summoned for a particular day in February. To have called it together earlier would have been most inexpedient, because such a course would have not only produced great inconvenience to Members—a consideration which he would put aside—but also would have produced great alarm in the country. The funds would probably have fallen, and there would have been much more excitement in the country than could have been justified by such an event as a war with Persia. Neither did he believe that there was on record any instance in which, in the case of a war undertaken by armies sent exclusively from India, Parliament had been called together for the purpose of its declaration. The adoption of such a course would be most prejudicial to the public service. Had it been adopted in this instance, the Persians would have obtained telegraphic information of the declaration of war long before we could send any expedition against them. He, therefore, considered that it would be prejudicial to the public service to take such a

  2077
  course except in very aggravated or alarming cases; and surely the case of the Persian war could not be said to belong to that category. The other evening the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), after he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had replied to a question, and therefore could not speak again, said that he was surprised at his answer, because in the course of the debate upon the capture of Kars he had said that Persia was not in a state of commotion, and that there was no idea of an attack upon Herat. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) shook his head in denial; but, to his surprise, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was in vain to deny it, because it was recorded in the pages of Hansard. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) was at first dumbfounded by this assertion; but he had since referred to Hansard and had found that he had stated no such thing. He had stated, and to that he was prepared to adhere, that he did not believe the Russians could be successful in an expedition against Asia, and that India had nothing to fear from Russian aggressions. At the same time he added, with a caution with which he had since had reason to be well satisfied, that they should be watched with the greatest vigilance. That was anything but what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen. As regarded the discussion of this question of the Persian war, he for one should have been most glad that it should have taken place. He did not believe that a majority of that House would have declared that it had arisen from a "shameful" cause, or that a majority of the people of England would have considered it an unjust, a turbulent, and an aggressive war. On the contrary, he believed that when the circumstances were known, it would be seen that it was as just and as defensible a war as was ever undertaken by this country. He rejoiced at the conclusion of peace, but at the same time he was not sorry that this demonstration had been made, because it had shown to Persia how rapidly such an expedition as this to the Persian Gulf could be undertaken, planned, and executed by our authorities in India; and the energy they had displayed had, he believed, added very much to our prestige in the East. He, therefore, denied the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the production of papers, as though Government were unwilling to submit the subject to Parliament; and he would moreover say,
  2078
  that so far had the Government been from shirking the discussion of this question that they had gone further than any former Government, and had volunteered to ask Parliament to pay a portion of the expenses—the manner in which one could most certainly invite the attention of Parliament to any subject. The production of papers was by no means sure to lead to a discussion, for, although the papers relating to our difference with Naples had been laid upon the table, no hon. Member had taken up the subject, and there had been no debate upon it.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I certainly do not know that it is the most convenient course to discuss the state of foreign politics upon the second reading of the Income Tax Bill; but the House has now entered far into that discussion, and I shall therefore not refrain from making some observations on some of the topics that have been adverted to. In the first place, Sir, as to the proposal to vote the Ways and Means of the year before Supply. I quite agree that, as a general rule, it is contrary to practice and to what ought to be our mode of proceeding; but I think that in the present year there was such uneasiness in the public mind in regard of the income tax, that I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only done what was unavoidable in bringing forward his proposals. I believe we shall have an opportunity in another Parliament of discussing the financial arrangements for the next three years, and therefore I think it quite unnecessary to follow the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) through the statements which he has made upon that subject.
  With regard to foreign politics, I would first say a few words upon the question of Naples. We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman another testimony as to the inconvenience of the course which has been pursued. I think it is certainly more and more proved that it is not desirable, in dealing with a people who are suffering, who are impatient, and who look to foreign assistance, to raise hopes and then not to fulfil them; and I therefore regret that those two great ships, the Wellington and the Cressy, names which are redolent of ancient and modern glory, should have been sent to the Mediterranean merely to go to Malta and then back to Lisbon, without doing anything more. But to the proposal of an hon. Gentleman that

  2079
  we should now resume our diplomatic relations with Naples, I think there is this obvious objection, that the interruption of those communications is the only measure which has been taken by the Government, and it is understood as at least a moral protest against the conduct of the King of Naples with regard to his own subjects. The only reason for renewing diplomatic relations ought to be, that the King of Naples has changed his system of administration, and that, either by granting an amnesty, or by an exercise of clemency, he has indicated that there is an alteration in his course of proceeding. Now, there has been no such indication. The King of Naples has by no amnesty or acts of clemency shown a desire to improve his mode of Government. The Act for transporting a certain number of his political prisoners to Buenos Ayres is anything but an act of mercy. It is an act evincing, as I think, a determination to continue in the same policy. Therefore I should be very sorry to see a Minister sent to Naples, so as to give the colour or semblance of sanction on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the course which has been pursued there. I do not say whether or not you were right in withdrawing your Minister in the first instance; but, having so withdrawn him, it is quite a different thing to send your Minister there again when the special ground of his withdrawal has not yet been removed by a change in the policy of the King. As to the other subjects of foreign policy which have been touched upon, what happened last year and in the present one has confirmed me in the belief that no advantage to the public is to be derived from the discussion of matters which are still the subject of negotiation between our Government and the Governments of other countries. Last year there was something to be said both as to the proceedings of our Minister in America under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and with regard to the island of Ruatan, and I took the liberty of advising this House, if Mr. Dallas were not sent away from London when Mr. Crampton was sent away from Washington, not to express any opinion on that subject. The House entirely refrained from any expression of its opinion, the irritation consequent on angry discussion was avoided, and we have seen a treaty signed which we shall no doubt be ready to ratify, and which I think will be mutually advantageous to the two countries. This year, again, I ventured to recommend that we should ab-
  2080
  stain from discussing our relations with Persia while negotiations were going on on that question; and we have seen that, without any interruption on our part, those negotiations have resulted in the conclusion of a treaty between Her Majesty and the Shah. We have here another instance of the wisdom of this House in refraining from discussions on matters still the subject of negotiation. With respect to the merits of that war—while I do not implicitly subscribe to the opinion of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, I beg equally to withhold my assent from the assertions made from the Treasury Bench. I do not think it sufficient to say that Herat was attacked; because to justify the conduct of our authorities it would also be necessary to prove that the rulers of Herat did not give the Persian Government provocation which it was impossible to overlook; that those rulers did not without excuse assassinate the Persian Envoy; and, likewise, that no means short of hostilities—short of sending an expedition to the Persian Gulf—would have induced the Shah to agree to terms, so far as the city of Herat was concerned, which would have been, or ought to have been, satisfactory to our Government. Whenever the papers are produced, these two points should be borne in mind; because, I repeat, it is not enough to say that the city of Herat was assailed by the Persians. I am happy to find that one article given out by a periodical, supposed sometimes to speak with authority (the Edinburgh Review), as necessary for the restoration of peaceful relations with Persia—namely, the dismissal of the Shah's Prime Minister—has not been insisted upon. I trust that, on the contrary, the treaty which has obtained the signature of our Minister is in terms which, while they secure the chief objects which we sought, at the same time tend to satisfy the Persian Government that we have no wish to interfere with their internal affairs.
  In regard to another question which has been adverted to, we are not at all in the same position. I have said that, while negotiations are pending, it is not expedient for this House to interfere. But when those negotiations, such as they may be, have been carried to the point of hostilities, and when the papers giving an account of those hostilities are laid upon the table, I think it is impossible for this House not either to signify by its silence that it approves the course which has been

  2081
  adopted, or, if it disapproves that course, not to express its disapproval. I think this House would have abandoned its functions if, when papers were laid before it showing that hostilities had occurred such as those which lately took place in China, and when it was unfavourable to those hostilities, it had shrunk from declaring that opinion, because Her Majesty's Government had come to a different conclusion. What was proposed, and in very courteous terms, by the hon. Member for the West Riding, and is now adopted as the deliberate judgment of this House, is this—that our authorities at Canton were not justified in the measures to which they had recourse. The decision was not, as it has been attempted to represent it here, that Her Majesty's Government have been wrong in ordering hostilities of which they knew nothing. It was a decision of this House that those hostilities were not justified. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government had been expressed, indeed, in a different sense; but there would be a total end of the independence of this House, an entire end of our right of judgment, if on any measures, especially on measures which had gone the length of hostilities, and involving the lives of thousands of human beings, this House was absolutely and for ever precluded from expressing an opinion, because Her Majesty's Government had already pronounced theirs. I have no wish to discuss the merits of this question now, but I think the House was fully justified in the course it pursued. I certainly understood throughout the late debate that the despatch of the 10th of January, declaring that the proceedings of Sir John Bowring and our other authorities at Hong Kong and Canton were entirely approved contained the final decision of Her Majesty's Government. But when pressed the other day with respect to his intentions, my noble Friend at the head of the Government stated that the intention of the Government was to send out a person—not, indeed, to supersede the authority of Sir John Bowring, but certainly to have superior and, in fact, the chief authority at Canton—having the confidence and instructions of Her Majesty's Government, and intrusted with certain powers for entering into negotiations. Sir, I deem that a declaration of the utmost importance. I understood my noble Friend to state that this person, being, of course, a man of rank, character, and consideration, would have first to determine what orders should
  2082
  be given for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects. Any Government that possessed the confidence of Her Majesty would, no doubt, give such directions. His next business would, no doubt, be to obtain the fulfilment of rights which we have acquired by treaty. On that point I have only to repeat what I said in the former debate—that if it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is necessary to our relations with China that stipulations to which the Emperor gave his assent should be fulfilled, they have a fair right to pursue that object, and to insist on their being carried out. But they ought to do so in the usual diplomatic manner by communication—not with the Commissioner of Canton, but with the Supreme Government at Pekin. There is, however, a matter that should not be neglected. Treaties, like property, have their duties as well as their rights. If we insist that stipulations likely to be advantageous to us shall be executed, we ought at the same time to be ready to concede that the stipulations favourable to China and conformable with her policy shall be executed with reciprocal fidelity. That seems to me nothing but plain justice I am sorry to refer again to the word prestige, which has been used to-night by my right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith); but hold all prestige to be of no account which is not founded on truth and justice. I cannot conceive that it would be right to insist rigorously on treaty stipulations which you think useful and favourable to yourselves, and not to agree to the enforcement of stipulations favourable to others. Then there is the question of the improvement of our commercial relations with China by negotiation. My noble Friend laid great stress upon that, and I was glad to hear it. Nothing can be fairer or more desirable than such a proceeding. I have no doubt that proposals might be made that would be mutually beneficial. I greatly question whether the stipulations with regard to the opium trade are really advantageous to China. We are bound to carry them into effect if they are so; but other advantages might, perhaps, be given to China in lieu of these. It is a very great inconvenience that we should have to carry out a sort of custom house police for other nations; and therefore I should be happy to see attempts made by a person of character—by a dispassionate man, who should arrive out there without having had any part in the ill-blood and dissensions which have unfortu-

  2083
  nately arisen—upon fair and moderate terms to improve our commercial relations with China. That this should be done in concert with the Government of the Emperor of the French and with the Government of the United States would be so much the more advantageous. I have another word to offer to the Committee. If Sir John Bowring's despatch of the 3rd of January had received from Her Majesty's Government a full and fair consideration, and if their answer, instead of saying that everything which had been done was approved, had been this,—"No doubt you have acted with the intention to defend the interests of Great Britain; but the matter is of so grave a nature that we desire you to suspend all further operations, and a person of eminence and character will be sent out immediately with a view to negotiation,"—if that had been done, and a despatch to that effect had been written with the usual ability of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and had been laid upon the table at the commencement of the Session, I believe there would not have been much difference of opinion in this House. I can only hope, whatever dissensions may have arisen—whatever differences of opinion among parties may have been occasioned—whatever accusations those who gave a conscientious vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding may be liable to—that the result of all these proceedings may be that, instead of carrying on a disgraceful and discreditable kind of hostilities in China, using our great power as a civilized State on the one side, and the Chinese resorting to the most barbarous modes of assassination and poisoning on the other, the questions in dispute will be taken up in a different tone and spirit and by different persons; and that thus ultimately the country will have no reason to regret the debates which have occurred, or that the hon. Member for the West Riding was successful in carrying his Resolution.
  I am now, Sir, going to refer to a different matter; yet so much of foreign policy has been introduced on the present occasion, that I think the subject to which I am about to allude is a fair matter of observation, more especially as we are going into the Navy Estimates. The House is aware that the naval superiority of this country has rested in a great degree upon a certain power which we made use of, in entire conformity, I believe, with the law
  2084
  of nations, upon which was based what was called in the last century the rule of 1756, and also during our tremendous contest with Napoleon those Orders in Council which, however severe upon neutrals, were absolutely destructive to the commerce of belligerents engaged in hostilities with us. During the late war, when we were acting in connection with France, which had always taken a different view of these subjects, we were naturally obliged to adopt the maxims of France, and the principles upon which we had usually acted were for a time abandoned. Her Majesty's Government, however, thought proper at the Conferences of Paris to enter into a general engagement, by which the views of France and Russia and the neutral Powers sharing in that Conference were confirmed, and the adverse views on which we had always acted were given up. That convention was not the subject of any discussion in this House. If there had been any such discussion I dare say the Government would have been able to show that the state of things was such that they had no other course than to agree to the proposal made to them. But, however that may be, it is to be observed that in all books upon this subject it is stated that the rules—"Free bottoms make free goods," and "The goods of a belligerent are safe in neutral vessels, and the goods of a neutral safe in belligerent vessels," have always been regarded as injurious to the interests of maritime countries, and especially to the maritime power of England. Every one who has looked at the arguments on this subject will see that the rules were laid down as a blow to the maritime supremacy of this country. Since that time the Secretary of State of the United States has proposed to go a step further than this treaty—that Great Britain should agree that all merchant vessels should be free from capture during time of war. It appears to me, I own, that, although this proposal carries with it an air of philanthropy, it is one which would not tend to prevent war, and which, if it did not tend to prevent war, would greatly cripple the energies of this country in time of war. It is obvious, in the first place, that one reason why foreign nations are unwilling to go to war with this country is that they feel that their commerce is sure to be seized, and that all the valuable property which they may have at sea is sure to fall into the hands of our cruisers

  2085
  as soon as war is declared. If, on the contrary, they were sure that all their merchant vessels would be allowed to pass in safety one great reason for remaining at peace would be taken away. But look also at the difference there would be in carrying on a war. Suppose the United States were to go to war with us. There would be no impediment in the way of their marching an army into Canada, but we should have no means of carrying on offensive operations against them by sea. They would have no fleet to send out, they would not attempt to send one out, and there would be no war, therefore, upon the high seas. We should have no means of hurting our enemy. But more than this—the Power which can send out a large commercial navy to sea must always have a great number of men fitted for the purposes of war, and ready to take their places in vessels of war. It is said that we should still retain the power of blockade; but that power of blockade has been much limited and restricted by the Convention of Paris. According to the terms of that treaty it must be an effective blockade,—that is to say it must be such a blockade that no merchant vessels could with safety attempt to pass through to any of the blockaded ports. This is so difficult to attain, that during the late war we were for some months without a blockade in the Black Sea in consequence of the necessity of conforming to the French rule. The effect, therefore, of your maritime law is to blockade one port and to leave other ports unblockaded,—that is to say, you might do great injury to New York or Boston, but all the other ports along the coast would be able to carry on their commercial operations as usual. I have thought it necessary to mention this subject for more reasons than one. I have heard that several persons, some of high authority, and among them, I believe, the hon. Member for the West Riding, were disposed to receive this proposal of the United States Government with favour; and I have also read a report, it may be an erroneous one, of a speech of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, at Liverpool, in which he seemed to lean to these views. I may be wrong, but my impression is, that if we were to agree to that proposal, our being a great naval power would be of no use to us in time of war. A stipulation not to use our naval force against a commercial ves-
  2086
  sel would be a great provocation to war. You would be exposed to more frequent wars; the cause of humanity would not be promoted; and in case of war you would be almost helpless upon the seas: so that the power of Great Britain would be very much weakened. Such being my opinion, Sir, I hope no Minister of Great Britain will set his seal to a treaty containing any stipulations of this kind without the most cautious deliberation, and after consulting with naval officers and others who have had practical experience in these matters.
  MR. DRUMMOND MR. DRUMMOND rose to state, in confirmation of what had fallen from the noble Lord, that during the debates which took place upon the Orders in Council during the French war, it was expressly stated that they were issued, not merely as measures of retaliation, but because they would have the effect of injuring the enemy's trade; and if they wished for an instance of their effect?, he would remind them of the seizure of the four Spanish frigates with immense treasures by Admiral Cornwallis, which, to a great extent, prevented that country from bringing her power to bear against us. If they were to carry the doctrine of not seizing the commercial ships of belligerents to its legitimate consequences they must not stop the conveyance of supplies into a besieged town, for both cases stood on exactly the same footing.
  MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he could not believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who had always shown such anxiety to protect the honour and the interests of England, could entertain the opinions upon this subject which had been attributed to him by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). The abandonment of our maritime rights would be the abandonment of a power which all the Continental States would continue to possess—the power of levying contributions on an enemy's country. Napoleon had advanced the maxim that a war should support itself, and in pursuance of that doctrine he had always levied contributions largely on the enemy. The only way in his (Mr. Phillimore's) opinion that a maritime Power could carry out that maxim and levy contributions, was by intercepting the property of its enemy on the high seas. The same great authority had said, that to deprive England of this power would be to strike the heaviest blow at her maritime supremacy. Humanity lay rather in crippling

  2087
  the resources of the enemy as soon as possible, than in making concessions which would enable the enemy to protract the contest to any extent.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERexpressed his hope that this country would not abandon her maritime rights by allowing other nations to carry on commerce without restriction during a period of war. What would the consequences of such a system be, supposing a war occurred between this country and France? France would be able to trade to any extent she might think proper, for to suppose that it would be possible to blockade all the ports of France or of any other nation, was simply absurd. The last war had proved what all practical seamen would tell them,—that it was impossible to maintain an effective blockade in the winter season. The application of steam to navigation had placed it in the power of an enemy to leave their ports when they pleased. Consequently, whilst we should have to maintain a large navy to blockade his ports, his fleets would lie snugly and safely in harbour, he would convert his men-of-war into merchantmen, and thus carry on his trade at a comparatively small expense, while England would be at a prodigious expense in maintaining an ineffectual blockade. What was it that prevented nations going to war with us but dread and fear of the British navy? Remove that feeling from their minds, and they would soon find that their commerce thrived better in war than in peace. He trusted, therefore, we should never see the day when England surrendered her maritime rights.
  MR. COBDENthought it would be generally admitted that it was somewhat inconvenient to launch into the discussion of such an important question without previous notice. He had supposed they were about to consider the income tax; but the noble Lord had introduced a very wide question, which would engage the attention of the House on a future occasion. He (Mr. Cobden) altogether differed in opinion from the noble Lord, and he merely rose to say so, that it might not be supposed there was a general acquiescence in the noble Lord's views. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phillimore) had treated the question on a ground which was altogether fallacious, because this country had already abandoned its belligerent rights by the treaty of Paris. The question they would hereafter have to discuss was whether, having
  2088
  taken that irrevocable step, it would be advisable to go a step further in the direction indicated by Mr. Marcy, and altogether to exempt private property from capture at sea in time of war. He did not intend to go into the question on that occasion, but he thought he would be able to urge arguments, based upon our present position, that were calculated to change the noble Lord's opinion. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. W. S. Lyndsay) had given notice of his intention to move for the papers relating to the treaty of Paris, and for Mr. Marcy's letter, and he (Mr. Cobden) hoped that when those papers were laid officially before the House the hon. Gentleman would found a Motion upon them which would afford an opportunity of fairly discussing the question.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my deep regret at the protocol consented to by the Government, and appended to the Treaty of Paris, which purports to debar us from exercising the power which this country has ever exercised in time of war by means of privateering and letters of marque. When the papers relating to the Conferences were laid upon the table of the House, I was induced to examine the returns which had been furnished to Parliament, with regard to the alleged misconduct of those who were in command of vessels to which letters of marque were issued during the last great European war. I have not those documents by me at this moment; but I must be permitted to say that, instead of finding that that power had been misused, there was direct evidence to show that the instances of the abuse of this power were few, that it had generally been used in the most legitimate manner; that it had fully accomplished the ends for which it was designed: that, in short, the service conducted under those letters of marque was in the highest degree creditable to those who had been entrusted with them. We have now, let me remind the House, revived our militia. We have, in fact, reverted to our ancient means of self-defence and internal preparation for great emergencies, which the country had most unwisely abandoned for several years. We have adopted those measures which render unnecessary the maintenance of enormous standing armies; and if we desire to exempt the country from the necessity of keeping up a large and expensive fleet—a fleet totally disproportioned to the requirements of peace—we must not

  2089
  abandon the right which, until recently, we have always hitherto exercised—that of arming our maritime citizens, in their own vessels, for the prosecution of any wars in which we may happen to be engaged. This is a question of expense: and depend upon it if this country may not arm her naval militia, she must continue to maintain naval establishments during peace at a cost altogether in excess of her real requirements. So far as the question of humanity is concerned in sparing the trade of an enemy, I say there is no means of curtailing warfare so legitimate as crippling the resources of your enemy, for it saves bloodshed, and brings those to reason who are insensible to anything but the dictates of self-interest. I am glad the noble Lord the Member for London has afforded me this opportunity of entering my protest against the provisions of the Treaty of Paris which purports to have deprived the country of the power to use those means for the defence of her shores and the protection of her commercial marine; the worst of this protocol is that it involves an agreement which will be broken. I do trust that what has been said to me in private will prove true:—"Let them make what agreement they choose, our descendants on the other side of the Atlantic will never be bound by those fatal provisions. Those provisions will be set aside. This attempt to abandon the great weapon which has ever been at our command will be in vain; rely upon it, when the hour arrives, England will free herself from these unworthy shackles."
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESthought it would be convenient to proceed as soon as possible to the Motion "that this Bill be committed," in order that an opportunity might be afforded to the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) of explaining the statements he was alleged to have made at Liverpool. The foreign policy of this country would be brought prominently before the people at the approaching elections, and it was the policy of the opponents of the Government to encourage the idea that the noble Lord was the real disturber of the peace of Europe. Hitherto it had been left to low journals on the Continent and to persons ignorant of the real progress of affairs to attack the motives and principles which animated the noble Lord's continental policy; but it now seemed that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought they could in that policy find a useful weapon
  2090
  against the Government. He (Mr. Monckton Milnes) was sure the good sense of the English people would prevent them from being deluded in such a manner. The country would see that the noble Lord had followed on this occasion the course he had always pursued—that, while maintaining the prescriptive rights of England, he had endeavoured by all just and honourable means to promote the cause of liberty throughout the world. It appeared a somewhat difficult matter to please the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) with regard to the affairs of Italy. The right hon. Gentleman had, in the first instance, by his admirable pamphlet, excited the public interest on that subject, and the good that had been effected was mainly attributable to his exertions. He (Mr. Monckton Milnes) thought, therefore, it was scarcely fair on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to turn upon the Government because, in prosecuting the same policy as he had virtually recommended—in carrying out the same principles of justice and humanity—they had not always been successful. It was no fault to have failed of success in dealing with such a man as the King of Naples; but he believed the people of England were of opinion that the Governments of France and England had been right in declaring that the conduct of that monarch had excluded him from European comity, and that, without proceeding to actual hostilities, they were justified in saying to him, "We will not hold intercourse with you on common grounds, because we regard you as a disturber of the peace of nations." Although the immediate consequences of this step might be to increase the sufferings of the victims of his tyranny, the ultimate result must be to promote the greatest moral advantages.
  MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, with regard to the foreign policy of the noble Viscount, he would be glad to know how the conduct of his Minister at the Paris Conferences, in, respect to Belgium, could be reconciled with the conduct he had pursued towards Naples. It was his (Mr. Whiteside's) lot to spend a portion of last autumn in Belgium, where he had an opportunity of hearing from persons not incompetent to form an opinion the surprise with which the course taken by the Minister of England at Paris, in reference to the freedom of the press in Belgium, was viewed in that country. He likewise found that a speech

  2091
  which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) upon that subject had been translated, generally read, and universally admired there. He really must say that the policy which interfered with a free Government because it was free, and with a despotic Government because it was despotic, was altogether beyond his comprehension. He should like to hear the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) reconcile his general observations upon foreign policy with the events that had occurred. If we had a right to interfere with the bad Government of Naples, what was to be done with the Pope of Rome? The King of Naples did not meddle in the affairs of other States; the Pope of Rome did. If, therefore, the Government of Naples were bad, and ought to be condemned, so ought the Government of the Papacy. But no, we did not attempt to do that because it would be somewhat inconvenient. On the same ground that we interfered with Naples, however, we might interfere with the Papal States, with Switzerland, and indeed any other country in Europe. He believed, however, that the noble Lord had no desire to make his policy triumphant in Europe, but that the real object of our interference with Naples was to make political capital. Did any one suppose that if the United States of America were to renew the slave trade we should venture to interfere with them, simply because the traffic was contrary to the principles of humanity and Christianity? No such thing. We should be perfectly civil with them. In order to entitle themselves to the panegyric pronounced upon them by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milnes), the Government of the noble Lord should abate the nuisance of despotic government wherever it was found. But, in that event, what would they do with their warm friend the Emperor of Austria, whose government was not the most highly relished in the Italian Peninsula; and what with the Emperor of Russia? He contended that this policy of interfering with foreign States was alike incomprehensible and impracticable, and one which the noble Lord had no intention of carrying out. If they really meant to give assistance to the Italians, why had they not landed an army on their shores, not have instigated the people of Naples to kill a tyrant, and then left the poor fellow who had made the attempt to the mercy of the tyrant? He thought the despotic Govern-
  2092
  ments of the world should be left to the slow operation of events; for much as he objected to arbitrary power, his belief was that the English Minister who attempted to remove it would not only perpetuate the income tax—that was a trifle in comparison—but aggravavate the evil, and make matters worse than before.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he had observed with some alarm that no member of the Government had thought fit to address a word to the House on a subject the most important perhaps that could be brought under its attention. True, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had already spoken in this debate; but he must say he thought some other member of the Government should, without the delay of a single moment, relieve the apprehensions of the House by saying something on the important question to which their attention had been drawn by the noble Lord the Member for London—the question of our maritime supremacy. He (Sir F. Kelly) entertained the opinion which was common to the great majority of the public, that if Ministers were ever induced to enter into a treaty with any state in the world for carrying into effect the views which were indirectly imputed to the noble Lord as having been developed by him in his recent speech at Liverpool, a fatal blow would be given to our naval supremacy and to our power throughout the world. The noble Lord, he hoped, would take the earliest opportunity afforded him of addressing the House on this subject; and, if necessary, he would move the adjournment of the debate to enable him to do so, for he considered it of essential importance that the House should know what were the intentions of the Government on this question before any step was taken that, like the Convention of Paris or the late proceedings in China, would be found to be irrevocable. Before resuming his seat he begged to make an observation with regard to the Bill before the House. To the second reading of that Bill he was not disposed to object, and for this reason chiefly, that if they did not assent to some Bill relating to the income tax, the war tax of 16 d. would be continued throughout the ensuing year. Although no man was less inclined than he to impair the resources of the Government, or leave them without ample means in providing for the exigencies of the state under circumstances like the present, he for one should certainly,

  2093
  before the Bill passed, take the sense of the House upon the question whether they were or were not to understand that the arrangement made between the Government and the country by the Act of 1853 was to be deemed a permanent arrangement and compact. He did not mean to say that the word compact was used by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced that Bill, or any other member of the Government; but certainly the general tenor and effect of the debates which took place in 1853 were to satisfy the country that, if they assented to the Bill continuing the income tax for the period of seven years then to come, that arrangement was to be a final one. Now it was among the subjects of complaint which might not be unreasonably addressed to the Government, that no statement had yet been made from which they could judge whether the exigencies of the country were such as to justify the addition of 2d. to the amount which would have been levied under the Act of 1853. If the Government would submit enough at least of the Estimates to enable the House to judge whether or not there really existed a necessity for the increase of the income tax from 5d. to 7d., before the Bill went into Committee, he did not say that he and others would not be satisfied that such an exigency did exist, and that for one year at least they ought to agree to the increased sum of 7d. If, however, Government persisted in going into Committee on the Bill before the Estimates were laid upon the table, or the House had been placed in a situation to judge of the extent of that exigency, he should take the sense of the Committee on the question that the income tax be 5d. in the pound, according to the terms of the Act of 1853.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before referring to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said on the subject of the income tax, I will answer his question with respect to the point which has been raised by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In consequence of the convention that was entered into at Paris with regard to neutral rights, a communication was made to the Government of the United States, asking them to accede to the convention. The answer made by that Government was that, provided a certain ulterior change was added, they would be prepared to become a party to the arrangement. That ulterior change consisted in making the
  2094
  goods of an enemy carried in merchant vessels free from seizure in time of war. No answer has been made to this proposition. It is under the serious consideration of the Government, who are fully aware of its importance, and they will not come to any conclusion on the matter without a full consideration of all the interests involved in it. The hon. and learned Gentleman made some remarks on the subject of the income tax, and said he would take the sense of the Committee as to the fulfilment of a contract which he says was entered into by the Act of 1853. I am not quite sure that I understand what is the nature of the contract that that Act is supposed to have established; but if there was a contract, the first departure from that contract took place in 1854, when the income tax of 7d. in the pound was doubled on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford himself; and, therefore, if any alteration of the original terms of the Act is to be counted as a deviation from the contract, he must be considered as having been the first to pull the keystone from his own arch. But I cannot consider that the right hon. Gentleman in any way violated the contract when in obedience to the necessities of the time we made an alteration which was deemed to be advantageous, and, indeed, necessary for the conduct of public affairs. In the present year the Act, if enforced, would enable the Government to levy an income tax of 1s. 4d. in the pound; and, therefore, by that enactment the Act of Parliament is violated, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman. But, if that be a violation of the Act, it is a violation which will take place by Act of Parliament, for it seems to me that one Act of Parliament can constitute just as valid a contract as a previous one. I cannot distinguish between the validity of the two Acts. All I ask the House to do is to repeal so much of the existing Act as relates to the current year. For the ensuing year I propose no alteration, but leave the matter entirely open to the consideration of another Parliament.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he did not consider it any departure from the contract to increase the income tax for the purposes of a war. It was only now that the war was over that he considered there was a breach of contract.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he was glad to find that there was very little disposition to offer any serious opposition to

  2095
  that part of the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would reduce the income tax nearly to the level it had stood at before the war. He considered that every augmentation of indirect taxation pressed especially on the poor. Now, it was a principle which, in his opinion, ought always to be carried out, that the extra burden of the war should be borne by every portion of the taxation of the country, and should not be thrown entirely on that part which fell more heavily on the humbler classes of society. The arrangements which had been made for the exigencies of the war had appeared to him to be perfectly fair, but he should have regretted to have been a party to an act which would have pressed more than was originally intended on the working classes. It was too much, however, to expect that the expenditure should return to its former comparatively restricted amount. He trusted that on future occasions means would be found to reduce the expenditure, so that at the end of the year the Government would be able to dispense with the extra 2d. in the pound. It did not appear to him that there had been any violation of the compact referred to; but he trusted that the expenditure of the country would as shortly as was consistent with the public service be so revised and ordered that this tax might be dispensed with in its entirety, and the expenditure be brought within the compass of the ordinary revenue.
  Bill read 2° and committed.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE,who had given notice of his intention of moving, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, that in order to secure to the Country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of the House, to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State, said, that owing to his attention having been called away at the moment by the noble Lord the Member for London, he had accidentally allowed the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to escape him. He wished to know whether it was competent for him to make the Motion of which he had given notice?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the right
  2096
  hon. Gentleman's notice was upon going into Committee of Supply. That question had been put, and the House had gone into Committee. It would be better, therefore, to proceed with the business of the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANremarked that the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was one that could not be proposed in Committee of Supply.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move a Committee of Supply and he had done so, and was, he believed, entitled to proceed.
  MR. GLADSTONEexplained that he had omitted to move his Resolution at the proper moment in consequence of his attention having been engaged by the noble Lord. Three Motions which stood before his own had been withdrawn. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) would waive his privilege and allow the House to resume, in order that he (Mr. Gladstone) might make his statement. He had no disposition to interfere unnecessarily with the progress of public business, and therefore trusted that his request would be acceded to; but if the right hon. Gentleman stood upon his privilege it could not be helped.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas sorry to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, but did not think it was desirable to delay the progress of public business. The right hon. Gentleman had already that evening addressed the House at some length, and he (Sir C. Wood) hoped he should not be considered discourteous in. proceeding with his statement.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLbore witness that it was by no fault of the right hon. Member for the University that he had allowed the Motion for going into Committee to escape him. He (Lord J. Russell) had gone to the right hon. Gentleman to inquire whether it was his intention to bring forward his Motion, and it was while his right hon. Friend was replying to that inquiry that the Motion for going into Committee was made. Under those circumstances the First Lord of the Admiralty could, of course, take his own course; but as a matter of courtesy, perhaps, he would give way to the right hon. Gentleman's request.
  SIR CHARLES WOODimputed no blame to the right hon. Gentleman for not making his Motion at the proper time, but thought it for the convenience of the House

  2097
  and the public that he should proceed with his own statement.
  I do not, Sir, propose to detain the House at any length upon the present occasion. I believe it is the wish of the House to grant Votes on account and no more, therefore any lengthened statement from me at present is unnecessary. When the whole Votes are taken and the whole Estimates are before the new Parliament will be the proper time for a full and complete statement. I propose now only to take sums on account of each Vote, equal to about one third of the whole amount of each item. That will cover a sufficient time after the probable meeting of the new Parliament to allow ample and complete discussion of the whole estimates. If the House wishes me now to make any lengthened statement I will do so, but otherwise I will proceed at once to the various items. There is only one point which I wish to mention specifically, and that is in regard to the number of men required for the public service. I have not been able to reduce the number of men employed to as great an extent as I desired; but that has mainly arisen from unwillingness of the seamen to leave the service. A large proportion of the men in our navy consists of continuous service men who cannot be discharged when the ship is paid off; and, although we have paid off every ship which has served her time, the number of men is still higher than I had wished it to be. Only the other day the Dauntless was paid off, and every man on board was a continuous service man, and, although the whole ship's company was paid off, not a man left the service. More than that, a privilege has long been conceded to the old seamen when their ships are paid off, before taking the leave to which they are entitled, to enter their names upon the books of the flag-ship, and still continue in the service. Considering that these are old men-of-war's men, I think that the House will agree that we did right in not depriving them of this privilege when they desire still to remain in their country's service. This must be a gratifying circumstance to the nation; but, at the same time, it will explain why so large a reduction as was intended has not been made. No ships have been commissioned except for the necessary relief of others whose time of service has expired, and every means has been taken to reduce the number of men employed as far as practicable, having due regard to the valuable old sea-
  2098
  men whom I have mentioned. Under these circumstances, I trust the House will be as indulgent to us as we have been indulgent to the old seamen. I have no other point to mention now, but am ready to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to put to me.
  1. 53,700 men and boys for the sea and coast-guard services for four months ending on the 31st day of July, 1857, including 15,000 Royal Marines.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to call the attention of the Committee to two or three points connected with these Estimates, with a view of having them explained by the right hon. Baronet. He found that in the expenditure of last year there had been several deviations from the Votes of the House—those on some items being greatly extended, on others curtailed. Several items, too, were jumbled up in one Vote, so that it was impossible to know the sum required to be spent on any one of them in particular. He had thought that it would be better to refer the Estimates to a Select Committee, as it was only by such means they would be able to unravel the intricacies with which they abounded. It did not come within the province of the Auditor to correct any over expenditure, and thus Government was enabled to apply the public money without the sanction of Parliament. Under existing circumstances, however, he would not propose a Committee. In one return the Auditor stated that on each one of nineteen items there had been more expended than had been voted, and that on five others the expenditure had been less than that authorised by Parliament, the balance against the nation amounting to £.323.000. That indicated a state of things which ought to be inquired into by a Committee. They were now called on to vote 33,000 seamen and 15.000 marines, while during the war they voted 60,000 seamen and 16,000 marines. In 1841, too, the year of peace, in which they had voted the greatest number of men, the seamen numbered 32,500, and the marines 10,500. From a comparison of these figures he was led to think it very extraordinary that in proportion to the number of seamen they should want so many marines. They had now thirty two Generals of Marines, whereas formerly they used to have only two, one of whom, was also an Admiral and the other a military officer, and he had never yet heard of a General of Marines taking the command of a division. It was now proposed to

  2099
  vote £1,395,000 upon naval stores, and £578,000 upon new works in the dockyards. During the last four years they had expended on stores no less a sum than £9,800,000, and upon new works £1,395,000, so that the amount now proposed appeared to him extravagant. They had, since the French war, expended £12,000,000 upon their dock-yards, and here was a proposal for half a million in addition. The expenditure upon labourers was very disproportionate to the amount asked for stores and new works. Another point was, that they had now seventeen Admirals in commission, three or four of whom were Commissioners in the Dockyards, and 270 idle. The total number of ships in commission was 297, so that they had, within ten, an admiral for every ship.
  SIR, HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was not prepared to say that the Estimates, with one exception, were extravagant, or could be much reduced, and as the right hon. Baronet intended to take only one-third of the vote for the year, he should not offer any opposition. He wished to know, however, whether they intended to take a vote for the excess of £211,000 in the expenditure of last year? No less a sum than £828,000 had been expended without the authority of a vote of that House, but solely on the authority of the Treasury. That was a variation which surely ought to have received the confirmation of the House. It was true a larger sum was taken for men than was spent in the wages of men, and there was a saving in that and other respects. There was, under the head of naval stores, £620,000 which had not been spent as appropriated by the House. The authority of the House would be completely set aside in these matters unless some change took place. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of placing such; enormous departures from the votes of the House as he had mentioned under some proper check, for otherwise it was perfectly idle to vote Estimates in the ordinary way. Then, with respect to the audit of these accounts, how did the House stand? The Auditor explained the authority he had over the accounts, and in so doing made a most remarkable declaration. He stated that, supposing he found that a sum of money had been spent against the provisions of an Act of Parliament, or against an order of the Treasury or an order in Council, or supposing he discovered that a sum of money had been expended twice,
  2100
  no error of that kind, however palpable, came within the scope of his powers. The supposed audit would, in point of fact, appear to be no audit at all, inasmuch as the Auditors had not the power to correct the most manifest blunders.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he did not think, considering we were likely to have a Chinese war, that 53,700 was an extravagant number of men to vote. On the contrary, he should have been glad to see the vote a little larger, because 5,700 of those men were to be employed in the coastguard service, and could not, therefore, be said to increase the efficiency of the navy. That left them 48,000 men—namely, 33,000 seamen and 15,000 marines. He should like to know, however, how many of the 33,000 seamen were what was called "continous-service men," and how many were "novices,"—which was a new term, but a very suitable one? He might further observe, that there was now no "Reserve" provided for, and therefore he concluded that these 5,700 men were intended to form a reserve. With respect to the 15,000 marines, to whom the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had referred, he (Sir C. Napier) should like to see a greater number of marines than we had at the present moment, for in times of peace they would form efficient garrisons in seaport towns, and in the event of war might be marched on board ship, while the militia might be sent to replace them in garrison. The hon. Member for Lambeth had complained that there were so many Generals of Marines, not one of whom was employed. He (Sir C. Napier) regretted it was not the custom to employ them, as some of them were young enough for service, and they might be usefully employed in commanding garrisons in seaports manned by marines. With regard to the continuous - service men, he understood they were not always quite so fit for service as they ought to be. They were entered for ten years, and it was proper the Government should keep faith with them; but it often happened that they were not a good class of men, and not likely to be useful to the service hereafter. He should therefore suggest that before a man was entered for ten years he should be submitted to a probationary service for one year. He also begged to draw the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the circumstance that when an "able-bodied"seaman became a petty officer he lost the additional

  2101
  pay which he had been previously receiving, which he (Sir C. Napier) thought was a hardship. He (Sir C. Napier) would again draw the attention of the Government and the House to the fact that we were now in the fortieth year of peace (with the exception of the Russian war), and had as yet no regular system of manning the navy. Some time ago a rule was established that men should be called out by proclamation, and then receive a bounty—a system which entailed great expense and inconvenience on the country; but whether that rule were altered or not he (Sir C. Napier) was not aware. It was of the utmost importance that some regular system should be established of manning the navy, and if they wished to have that great branch of the public service efficient when war broke out they must commence in time of peace. In Russia, France, Holland, and other countries there were well-organized methods of manning the navy, and unless England also adopted something like a system in the matter the day would come when she would reap the evil consequences of her neglect. The Channel, which was formerly a great protection to us, was now so completely bridged over by steam, that the state of insecurity was alarming, and unworthy a great nation. They might depend upon it that we were not safe in leaving so important a subject to chance, and he urged upon the Government that, taking warning by what occurred during the last war, they should adopt measures which would enable them to fit out a fleet with the greatest alacrity; and he should be very happy to give all the assistance in his power towards carrying out so desirable an object. He had given notice of his intention to bring under the notice of the House the speeches of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) at Stafford and elsewhere relative to Cronstadt; but, as he believed that it was the general desire that a dissolution should take place with as little delay as possible, he would not occupy the House with matters personal to himself, and would leave the hon. Baronet to play out his vagaries before his constituents.
  MR. W. S. LINDSAYcomplained of the large amount which appeared in the Estimates under the head of new works; but he said that the fact was that every succeeding Board of Admiralty had notions of its own to carry out, and that what one Board recommended another countermanded. He had met with a ludicrous example of this the other day at one of
  2102
  Her Majesty's dockyards, where he saw some men engaged in pulling down a magnificent pile of buildings. He inquired of a person who appeared to be the head of a department what was the meaning of the proceeding, and the man's reply was, that he didn't exactly know, unless it was that the last Lords liked the Elizabethan style, and the present preferred the Corinthian. The man might have intended this for a joke, but there was a good deal of truth in the observation, for it set forth the system to which he had alluded. There was as much difference between the Lords of the Admiralty as to their ships. The iron Lords built a fleet of iron ships, and the wooden Lords came and condemned all the iron Lords had done. The iron ships were then sold for a very small price. He hoped that next year a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the navy, and that the result would be the appointment of one responsible, permanent head, in lien of Boards changing with the Administration. Manning the navy was undoubtedly an important and a difficult question, but he was persuaded that they must never depart from the voluntary system.
  SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he fully agreed with the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir C. Napier) that unless some thorough system were established for manning the navy, in any emergency we should always be at a loss for seamen. He regretted much the discouragement which, he feared, was to be offered to the Naval Coast Volunteers. He had on a former occasion proposed that the force should be considered as a naval militia, to serve, as the general militia served the army, as a nucleus for the navy. Last year there was a provision for 5,000 Naval Coast Volunteers; but they had disappeared from the present Votes; and altogether there was a great reduction in the efficiency of the naval force. He thought that if economy were to be practised it should be in some other part of the public service; for the country had strong proof, in a recent case, that the naval service was not in so efficient a state as it should be; and he, therefore, could not approve of the reductions which it was proposed to make in that force. He thought that some system of manning the navy ought to be adopted, so that an adequate number might be obtained upon any occasion of emergency. He believed that making over the Coastguard service to the Admiralty was a great

  2103
  improvement, and he trusted that the number of cruisers attached to the Admiral's flag ships on the const would be increased so as to afford an inducement to youth to enter the service. As regarded the number of boys, he should be disposed to increase rather than lessen it; and he hoped that they would be readily received on board the receiving ships. He regretted the reduction of £6,000 on the vote for the Coast Volunteers for the reasons he had already stated, and he trusted the Government would give the subject that attention which he thought its importance deserved.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD,in reply, said, his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had adverted to the number of marines kept up. The answer of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) to those remarks was just that which he should be inclined to give. The Admiralty hoped to establish before long a large reserve of good and trained seamen, and there must, at the same time, be a corresponding number of marines ready to serve afloat. When this system was brought into full operation they would be prepared, at any emergency, to man a larger number of men-of-war than they had at any time heretofore been enabled to do. As to the Generals of Marines, their retirement was settled by an Order in Council some time ago, and it was not a matter over which the Board of Admiralty had any authority. Then the hon. Gentleman complained that the vote of stores was very large. So it was, in consequence of one or two items only introduced into the Estimates of late years. For example, the substitution of steam for a sailing navy had entailed an enormous expenditure (£200.000) for coals. Another large item was the purchase of steam machinery. Hon. Gentlemen were hardly aware of the enormous increase of expenditure entailed on these and other heads. We were, in point of fact, creating a steam navy, and he hoped before long England would be in the same relative position with regard to her steam navy as she had always been heretofore with regard to her sailing navy. At the present moment we were not in that position in which so great a maritime Power as England ought to be placed, though he would not now go into details on the subject—but we did not possess that superiority which as the first maritime nation in the world we ought to have, and therefore a considerable expenditure must be looked
  2104
  for some time to come under the head he had last mentioned. So with regard to works. The greater size of ships at present created the necessity for considerable alterations in our docks. Thus, there not being a dock in the Queen's yards which would take in the Himalaya, one of the finest vessels in the service for the transport of troops, it was found necessary, in the course of last summer, to take down the head of the newest dock they had in order to prepare accommodation for this vessel. A large American frigate, the Merrimac, came to this country the other day, and had doubtless been seen by many hon. Members. Well, there was only one dock in the kingdom which could take in that vessel. His hon. Friend would see that, if the navy were to be maintained in an efficient state, they must have the power of docking ships of this class. The hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had asked how many continuous-service men there were, and how many "novices?" The number of continuous service men was, in round numbers, 23,500. As to the other class alluded to, although the men were entered as novices, and were regarded as such as long as they were kept in the training ships, they were not sent afloat until they could be rated as ordinary seamen. There was no intention to diminish the number of boys; on the contrary, the Admiralty felt it most desirable to keep up a full number of youths, whose early training afloat rendered them afterwards highly efficient and valuable. The hon. and gallant Admiral had alluded to compulsory service. No doubt the French and Russians in this respect possessed means of sending men afloat which we did not possess. He believed, however, that, with the reserve of seamen and marines, combined with the number of men to be drawn from the merchant service, we should be able in future in time of war to man a larger number of vessels than we had ever been able to send out heretofore. He should be very sorry to be driven to impressment; nothing but extreme necessity and danger would justify resort to such a system; but it must be remembered that, if compulsory service were surrendered, a substitute must be provided, which would naturally be attended with expense. The country must pay for giving up the forced service, and the system of reserves now adopted was, he believed, as cheap a one as could be devised, whilst, at the same time, it would place this country on such

  2105
  a footing that we need not be afraid of being caught unprepared on the breaking out of a war. The hon. and gallant Officer (Sir G. Tyler) appeared to think that the efficiency of the Naval Coast Volunteers was diminished in consequence of some proposal made by the Admiralty. He (Sir C. Wood) was not aware to what the hon. and gallant Officer alluded, because, so far from doing anything to diminish, they were taking measures which would increase that efficiency. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that the stationing of ships of war at different parts of the coast would be conducive to the popularity of he service, instead of distributing the Naval Coast Volunteers among six districts. the Admiralty now proposed to divide the coast into as many districts as there were coast-guard districts, and to take the Naval Coast Volunteers to those stations for the purpose of being drilled. The largest number of Naval Coast Volunteers raised was on the east coast of Scotland. Preparations had been made, and orders issued for drilling them, for the first time, in the course of next month, and Captain Fraser, who had been on that station for two years, expressed the greatest confidence in the success of that experiment. As to the story related by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) he agreed with him that it must be a joke. Where the occurrence happened he did not know; he was not aware that any great building had been pulled down for the purpose of substituting one style of architecture for another; and, for his own part, he certainly had not the slightest preference for the Corinthian over the Elizabethan order.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that his statement as to the appropriation of large sums without the consent of Parliament remained untouched. He considered that a more efficient audit ought to take place, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation on the subject, so that the House might have some assurance that these accounts were duly verified.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would not undertake to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question off-hand.
  MR. COWANcomplained of some transaction that had taken place in regard to these public works. A gentleman named Morton, who desired to tender for the machinery for the slip at Bermuda, had not had an opportunity given to him of ten-
  2106
  dering for the work. He should like to know who the fortunate individual was who obtained the contract, and also whether the work was certain to be efficiently and economically done. He very much approved of the rigid scrutiny which important Votes of money now underwent at the hands of hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby).
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLreferred to the slave squadron on the coast of Cuba, and its present non-efficiency, stating that the merchants of Jamaica complained that these vessels on the coast of Cuba and coast of Africa were employed in any and every other kind of business than that for which they were specially appointed. He thought the country had a right to expect a far larger result towards the extinction of the slave trade considering the immense sums of money that had been spent, than was the case; and he hoped the attention of Government would be directed to this subject, and more especially to the fresh complaints that had come from the West India stations. The hon. and gallant Officer was reading an extract from a Jamaica newspaper in confirmation of these statements, when,
  LORD LOVAINE LORD LOVAINE rose to order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether it was competent for an hon. Member to read a long extract from a newspaper.
  MR. CHAIRMANsaid, that the House had some time since overruled the decision of the Speaker, that a Member ought not to read from a newspaper.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLcontinued, and read the statement in question.
  MR. BOWYER,as a member of the Committee that sat last Session on Public Moneys, testified that the system of auditing the public accounts was very inefficient. The Board of Audit could merely take cognizance of the fact of certain payments having been made; but they ought to have the power of investigating their legality. He hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would give an answer to a question which the Liverpool Financial Reform Association had requested him to put with regard to the ship called the Royal Frederick, which was a three-decker, and had been on the stocks at Portsmouth for twenty years. That ship, which was kept on the stocks ten years after it was ready for launching, was about to be converted into a 120–gun steamship. The Committee

  2107
  ought to have some satisfactory explanation of the detention of a ship of that size so long in a state of idleness. He wished to know what was the total cost of the vessel, and also whether, when her keel was laid, petty officers were appointed to her in the usual manner, and had been kept on pay from that time till now.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved, that as the Navy Estimates had been reduced to the extent of £3,000,000, it became the duty of the Admiralty to take especial care that the number of ships in commission should be sufficiently large to enable us to maintain our position in the event of an outbreak. Efficient officers ought to be selected for those ships, and every encouragement given to, and good faith scrupulously kept with, the seamen. He was glad to hear from the First Lord of the Admiralty that the naval service was at present in so much favour, for he (Admiral Walcott) had endeavoured all his life so to improve the condition of the seamen as to make the service attractive. He suggested the desirableness of providing the navy with some sort of uniform—the more simple the better—and of extending to the naval cadets a system of training, similar to that which was practised on board the ship Illustrious with the most beneficial results, for young boys destined for the navy. He had been on board that ship—for the grant of which, for the purposes of training, the First Lord of the Admiralty deserved the gratitude of the country—and was highly gratified with the system. He trusted that the Admiralty would speedily adopt a training system for the better instruction of naval cadets in their profession.
  SIR MAURICE BERKELEYsaid, that there was a general uniform throughout the service, and naval cadets would be trained in ships such as the Illustrious before they were sent to sea. It was true that in the system of continual-service men there had been, as there would be in all new systems, some difficulty. Some of those who were entered as boys did not grow up sufficiently robust to make able seamen, and were complained of by some captains. The Admiralty were now endeavouring to devise a plan by which such boys should be got rid of. Had the Committee gone into these Estimates, and had any attempt been made to reduce the number of men, he should have felt it his duty to state in the most distinct terms that the reduction of the number of men now voted would be
  2108
  the greatest blow that could possibly be given to the British navy. He had taken the greatest possible pains to make himself acquainted with all the details of the manning of the navy, and he could assure the Committee that owing to the change of our maritime laws, and to there being another nation speaking the same language as ourselves, without any distinctive mark, it was and would always be difficult to man the navy properly. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had paid great attention to this subject, and many of his plans for manning the navy were now being acted upon. At one time he (Sir M. Berkeley) fancied that the Coast Volunteer scheme, a child of his own, would be a failure; but he was happy to be able to tell the Committee that he now had reason to believe that in any future war we should be able to draw a large body of men from the Naval Coast Volunteers.
  MR. C. W. MARTINcomplained of the high rate of wages given to the labourers in the dockyards. The effect had been to increase the value of labour on the coast of Kent, till labourers now got as much as £60 yearly. Of the three classes connected with the soil—the labourers, the farmers, and the landowners—the labourers were the best used and the landowners the worst. The right hon. Gentleman might think of that in carrying out the reduction.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that he had been quite prepared to hear that the alteration of the maritime laws had caused a difficulty in finding men for the navy; and he was glad that that difficulty was now surmounted. There was another subject to which he wished to draw attention, which was if any improvement was proposed for the more easy coaling of ships in Plymouth Sound?
  CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, that the captains of ships, in consequence of the introduction of steam, were gradually becoming coal-heavers and stokers. He wished to know if there were arrangements to lessen the use of steam and increase that of sails in the navy. At present there was a great deal of coal used when it was not required by the exigencies of the service, and where sailing would do just as well.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLconcurred with the hon. and gallant Captain that economy would be greatly promoted by the

  2109
  enforcement of a regulation restricting the use of steam to cases of urgency. He bore testimony to the activity and zeal displayed by the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty (Sir M. Berkeley) in manning the navy, and expressed his opinion that the crews of Her Majesty's ships were now so well off as to pay, provisions, and treatment (in all of which respects their condition had been much improved since he was on active service), that there was no danger of their deserting to foreign ships.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he quite agreed with all the observations which had been made as to the necessity of reducing to a minimum the use of steam in the navy. It was a source of great expense, and might be the means of deteriorating the skill of our officers. The subject had for some months engaged the attention of the Board of Admiralty, and very stringent orders had been sent to the commanders on foreign stations, requiring them to enforce upon the officers under their command to limit the use of steam to cases of necessity and emergency. In addition to this all officers in command of vessels were required to state in their logs, not only every occasion in which steam was got up, but the reasons for its use. As to the coaling in Plymouth harbour, and also in that of Portsmouth, nothing but the expense had prevented his asking the House to sanction some additional provision for that purpose. In Portland Roads some such provision had been made; but in the other cases he had been obliged to postpone until another year asking the House to vote any money for this purpose. As to the wages of the labourers in the dockyards he had to state that when the war began the artificers, such as shipwrights, &c., were put upon task and job work instead of daywork. The result of this was greatly to increase the amount of work which they performed and the efficiency of the yard. In order to enable the labourers to keep pace with the artificers and to remunerate them for their extra exertions, there was at the same time given to them a sum of money per week which was called "exertion money." The reduction in the dockyards would be effected by reducing the artificers from task and job work to day-work, which would take effect on the 31st of March; and then, as a result of that, the "exertion money" of the labourers would cease. He could not exactly tell the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) what had been the cost of
  2110
  the Royal Frederick; but there were several instances in which large sailing ships had been kept on the stocks, while the construction of steam ships which were more urgently wanted was proceeded with. The great item of the excess to which the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had alluded—namely, between £500,000 and £600,000 was almost entirely owing to the large number of gunboats which the Government had thought it necessary to construct in the previous year. He thought the Government were justified by the circumstances of the time in incurring this expenditure, and he threw himself with the greatest confidence on the judgment of the House.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYhad no doubt that this outlay was very judicious, but it was the constitutional question it involved that demanded attention. A sum of £691,000 having been expended as excess under one head alone, he contended that it ought to be brought constitutionally before the House for its sanction and authority.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLreminded the right hon. Gentleman of the question respecting the slave squadron. Mr. Cowan said that Mr. White had stated that he was now appointed slip engineer in Gosport Harbour. He wished to know if this was true, and if he might be allowed to move for copies of any correspondence which had passed between him and the Admiralty on the subject of tenders for the construction of ships.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that, as to the slave trade, it was more effectually checked by ships on the coast of Africa, where were its strongest holds. The ships in Cuba were not fit for the service. They were small vessels, and unless there was a, depot of coal at Cuba there was no means of making a proper use of them. As to Mr. White, there was a slip director at Gosport, but no slip engineer. As to the correspondence, if the hon. Gentleman would let him know exactly what he wanted, he would give him an answer. As to the slips, they were lengthened as large ships had to be built.
  MR. COWANread a letter from Mr. White, stating that he was appointed consulting engineer at Gosport.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that no such person was appointed to that office.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSrepeated his complaint as to the number of officers of marines appointed to do duty. He had

  2111
  no wish to interefere with the efficiency of the navy.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the greater part of the Generals of Marines were now retired officers.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that the hon. Member for Lambeth was always complaining of the large lists of Admirals. He had long ago replied to these objections. He himself was sixty-one years old, and only ten out of the list of Admirals were younger than himself.
  Vote agreed to; as were also the remaining Votes.

  (2.) £800,000, on account, Wages.

  (3.) £300,000, on account, Victuals.

  (4.) £50,000, on account, Admiralty Office.

  (5.) £80,000, on account, Coast Guard Service.

  (6.) £30,000, on account, Scientific Departments.

  (7.) £60,000, on account, Naval Establishments at Home.

  (8.) £10,000, on account, Naval Establishments Abroad.

  (9.) £300,000, on account, Wages to Artificers, &c. at Home.

  (10.) £20,000, on account, Wages to Artificers, &c. Abroad.

  (11.) £500,000, on account, Naval Stores.

  (12.) £200,000, on account, New Works and Repairs.

  (13.) £20,000, on account, Medicines and Medical Stores.

  (14.) £30,000, on account, Miscellaneous Services.

  (15.) £250,000, on account, Half Pay.

  (16.) £200,000, on account, Military Pensions.

  (17.) £60,000, on account, Civil Pensions.

  (18.) £80,000, on account, Freight.

  (19.) £400,000, on account, Packet Service.

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  The House resumed,

  FRAUDULENT BREACHES OF TRUST.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reference to his notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to make fraudulent breaches of trust and duty by trustees, directors, and agents criminally punishable, said it had been his particular desire to introduce the Bill; but as it would necessarily be subject to considerable discussion, and as the provisions were of an intricate nature,
  2112
  he thought it would be vain to attempt to pass the measure in the present Session. The Bill was prepared, and it would be one of the first measures, if he should have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, to which his attention would be directed, and he hoped to lay it before the ensuing Parliament in a few days after its meeting.
  The House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Commissioners of Supply (Scotland) Act, 1856, Amendment.
ROYAL ASSENT—Royal Marine Forces; Chief Constables; Public Health Supplemental (1867); Ionian Subjects' Commissions.

THE DIVORCE AND TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILLS—QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURSTasked the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack what course he meant to pursue with respect to the Divorce and Testamentary Jurisdiction Bills.
THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied, that in the present state of Parliament it was not the intention of the Government to proceed further with either of those Bills during the present Session; but they would be reintroduced, with some alterations, at the very earliest period after the reassembling of Parliament.

CHINA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEventured to hope that the noble Lord the Secretary for War would forgive him for following up the question he had asked him the other evening. The noble Lord stated that certain despatches would be speedily published; and he now wished to know when the noble Lord intended to give those despatches to the public—the more particu-

2027
larly as every hour seemed to thicken the plot in China. It appeared that our authorities had been compelled to receive assistance for the protection of English subjects at Hong Kong from a distinguished nation—the French—for whose assistance they must always feel grateful. It was certainly very painful for Englishmen to feel that they were obliged to seek the assistance of a foreign nation, however great and distinguished, for the protection of British subjects. He did not say that that statement was true, but he was anxious to know what the public had a right to know—whether at the present juncture of affairs the British subjects in that part of the world were in jeopardy, and whether the recent state of affairs in China was something like, he would not say defeat, but great difficulty; and whether the English had, to a certain extent, been obliged to receive assistance from a foreign nation.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that what he had stated the other evening was that he had received despatches from Colonel Dunlop, stating that certain operations had taken place in the neighbourhood of Canton, and that some casualties had occurred, a return of which had since appeared in the Gazette. He had also stated that he received a communication respecting the manner in which a company of infantry had acted in the performance of an important duty in which they were engaged.

OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA.

  MOTION FOR OPINION OF THE JUDGES.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that, as he had some reason to believe that the Government would accept the proposition that he was about to make with certain modifications, it would not be necessary to weary their Lordships with a long preliminary statement. His object was to draw attention to the evils arising from the opium trade, and to ascertain the state of the law on that subject; and, having ascertained what the law was, and whether the opium trade, as at present carried on, was legal or illegal, their Lordships would then be able to devise a remedy for the evil. Their Lordships must all have heard a great deal of the opium trade between India and China. He knew of nothing that had of late more occupied the public mind and more scandalized the public conscience than that most immoral system, which was one of the most flagitious in-
  2028
  stances of unscrupulousness in the pursuit of wealth that mankind had ever witnessed. So long as that trade existed it would be impossible that peace, honour, quiet, and good order should prevail between our territories in India and the Government of the Emperor of China. This trade was in every point of view scandalous and perilous. Commercially it was the greatest impediment to legitimate traffic with China; it imposed the most severe restrictions upon the export of manufactures from this country; it impoverished alike both China and India; while it deprived this country of one of the greatest sources and most profitable outlets that could be found for the products of our commercial industry. If their Lordships looked at the question financially, they would find that the opium trade inflicted a great and permanent injustice upon the revenue of India by the interruption it occasioned to her commerce with China, and that a better system would not only tend to the benefit and happiness of the ryot, but would also greatly increase the legitimate revenue of the East India Company. In a political point of view the opium trade was a source of perpetual irritation and conflict upon the south-eastern coast of China, and so long as it existed a state of constant war would be carried on between the opium smugglers and the Custom-house authorities of the coast of China. It could not be denied that it was a most immoral traffic; its existence was most disgraceful to the national character of England, and the testimony of those who knew China best was, that opium and Christianity could not enter China together. He sincerely believed that the existence of the opium traffic had done more to discredit Christianity in China than anything else could possibly do, while the existence of opium cultivation and the ravages it produced had a similar effect on the people of India. No one Government was more responsible for the existing state of things than another. The evil had existed for more than half a century, and it had been encouraged and connived at by successive Governments; yet no Parliament had ever ventured to give a legislative sanction and positive enactment authorizing the monopoly and the trade in opium. There had been a growing sentiment for many years past, both in this country and in India, that the whole of this traffic from beginning to end was illegal. If their Lordships examined the various petitions which

  2029
  had been presented from India on this subject they would find that every one of them asserted that the traffic was altogether illegal, and was not only inconsistent with statute law, but was in direct contravention of the law of the realm. The point to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention was that the connection between the Government and the monopoly and the trade in opium was inconsistent with the Act of 1833, which declared that the East India Company was to cease to be a commercial and trading company. When he first gave notice of his intention to bring this subject under the consideration of the House, he had intended to move an address to the Crown praying that a Commission of Inquiry should be issued. Upon further consideration he had determined to move a Resolution condemnatory of the traffic; but upon going still further into the question and examining the law he thought it better to ask their Lordships to refer the question for the opinion of the Judges. He had been charged in letters—some with names and some without—in articles in the newspapers and in private conversation—for taking the course he had adopted on this occasion, and it had been alleged that he had adopted this course for the purpose of giving facilities to the Government and causing delay. Now he declared upon the honour of a gentleman that there was not a shadow of truth in these charges, and that he had adopted this particular form of Motion, not to give facilities to the Government, but because he thought it would embarrass them the most. If he had proposed a Resolution he should be told, as he had been told by the late Sir Robert Peel, that these abstract Resolutions were very inconvenient and meant little or nothing. If, on the other hand, he had proposed an Address to the Crown for a Commission of Inquiry he should have been told that Commissions were very expensive, very long in their operation, and that it could not be expected in so important a matter that the Crown and Parliament would be bound by the appointment of such a Commission. Having been convinced that the whole system was illegal, he had determined to take his present course, and to move their Lordships to submit the question to the decision of the Judges. He believed that this course would be most likely to be successful. He assumed that the Government and the House would accept his proposition for a
  2030
  reference to the Judges, and he held that this was the best course for the question itself. If the Judges declared the monopoly and trade illegal, he should have carried his point, and it would then be for Parliament to devise a remedy and provide a substitute for any loss of revenue. If, on the contrary, the Judges declared the trade to be legal, he should have an entirely new starting point, and he could then appeal to the people of England to consider this great national sin, that had reduced our character and restricted our operations, and brought the name of the British people upon the south-east coast of China to a level in morals and conduct with the old detestable bucaneers of America. He could then make a ten times more forcible appeal to the public. It would then be declared that the East India Company carried on this traffic under Acts of Parliament, and that the nation alone was responsible for the sin. The doubts about the legality of the opium trade arose out of the Act of 1833, which gave the possession and government of India for a limited time to the East India Company. The passages out of which the doubt arose, were the preamble and the fourth section of the Act. Their Lordships would observe, that no question was raised upon the right of the East India Company to levy duties upon the growth or transit of opium growing on their own territory, or passing through their own territory. The question presented itself in two aspects—the territorial and the commercial. The territorial aspect was the levying a duty on all opium passing through the country. The commercial aspect was the Government of India being the manufacturers and vendors of opium: they prepared it in their factories, their mills, and boiling houses, and then carried it down to Calcutta, sold it by public auction, and went through the whole of these operations with as much zeal and activity as any shopkeeper. There was no more objection to the Government levying a duty on opium, than on spirits; but there was a great difference between levying a duty and preparing and selling the article, when, moreover, they knew its destination, and the use that would be made of it in the territories of a friendly empire. The Act of 1833 referred to the Act of 1813; the Act of 1813 referred to the Act of 1793, and that Act again referred to the Act of 1781; but in none of those Acts was any mention whatever made of opium. The

  2031
  fourth section of the Act of 1834 declared that the East India Company should cease altogether to be a trading company. It said:—
  "And be it enacted, that the said Company shall, with all convenient speed after the said 22nd day of April, 1854, close their commercial business, and make sale of all the merchandise, stores, and effects, at home and abroad, distinguished in their account books as commercial assets, and all their warehouses, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and property whatsoever which may not be retained for the purposes of the Government of the said territories, and get in all debts due to them on account of the commercial branch of their affairs, and reduce their commercial establishments as the same shall become unnecessary, and discontinue and abstain from all commercial business."
  Could any one venture to contend that the whole system of the monopoly of opium in India, as carried on by the East India Company, was not, to all intents and purposes, a trading business? The poppy juice was purchased of the ryot by prepayment, the ryot was compelled to sell to the East India Company alone at a fixed rate; the Company manufactured the poppy juice into the drug for exportation, and so careful were they of pleasing their customers that, in the true style of shopkeeping, letters were sent from the seat of Government to the superintendents of factories, directing them to give the drug this or that flavour, to make it as racy and seductive as possible for the Chinese trade. Having manufactured the article, the Government had it carried down to Calcutta, and there put it up to auction in their own name. Could any one contend that it was not a commercial transaction simply because, when the opium was put on board the clippers, the Government had no share in the clippers? It was as clear a commercial business as dealing in tea, or anything else in which traders engaged. The section then went on to say:—
  "They shall discontinue and abstain from all commercial business which shall not be incident to the closing of their actual concerns, and to the conversion into money of the property hereinbefore directed to be sold, or which shall not be carried on for the purposes of the said Government."
  Those were the exceptional words on which the case for the Company rested; but if their Lordships gave to the words "commercial business" for the purposes of the said Government all the force claimed for them by the East India Company, the Company might undertake any commercial transaction, however extended, provided
  2032
  they could take on themselves to say it was for the purposes of the Government. The object of the Act of Parliament was to make them wind up their affairs as a trading company, and continue only what was indispensably necessary for a time, for the purposes of their Government. Could it be supposed that those words were sufficient to cover so great a grant as the monopolies of salt and opium, yielding a revenue of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year, or that the words "commercial business" thrust in at the end of a section were meant to have so wide a signification? He was very much inclined to think the Legislature never contemplated anything of the kind. Powers of monopoly were given by the Act of 1793, and what were those powers?—
  "Nor shall it be lawful for any of His Majesty's subjects to engage, intermeddle, or be in anywise concerned, directly or indirectly, in the inland trade—in salt, betel-nut, tobacco, &c., except on account of the said Company or with their permission."
  There was no mention of opium in this Act. The Company could not establish a monopoly; a monopoly could only be established by Act of Parliament. Here was an Act of Parliament giving the Company monopoly in salt, betel-nut, and tobacco, and opium was not mentioned. He defied any one to show any statute which gave the Company the monopoly of the trade in opium. In 1834 the House of Commons touched very delicately on the subject. All they said was, that it had existed so long they were not prepared to disturb it. But they did not venture to put into the Act continuing the government in the East India Company a clause authorizing the opium monopoly. The only words on which the Company claimed to exercise so mighty a power, which was productive of fearful results both in India and China, were the exceptional words he had already quoted; and he ventured to submit no grant of a monopoly could be implied from the words "commercial business which shall be carried on for the purposes of the said Government." As to the question of revenue, did anybody conceive that that could be extended into the right of trading? Many persons were convinced the whole system was illegal. It ought to be submitted to most searching inquiry, and with a view to have a more calm and deliberate inquiry than could be obtained by reference to a Commission or a Committee, he hoped their Lordships would adopt his proposition—that the questions

  2033
  he had laid on the table should be submitted to the Judges of the land. His own belief was, that the Judges would declare the traffic altogether unlawful; but should they declare such an abomination existed by Act of Parliament, he should then, if life were spared him, in the next Parliament bring the whole subject under the consideration of their Lordships. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "1st. Whether, having regard to the Fourth Section of an Act passed in a Session of Parliament holden in the Third and Fourth Years of the Reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled 'An Act for effecting an Arrangement with the East India Company, and for the better Government of His Majesty's Indian Territories 'till the Thirtieth Day of April One thousand eight hundred and fifty-four,' and other the Laws bearing on this Question, it is lawful for the East India Company to derive a Revenue from Opium by the following System; that is to say, by prohibiting and preventing the Growth of the Poppy, from which Opium is made, within their Territories, except as grown on their Account and under their Licence and Superintendency, Advances of Money being annually made by them to the Cultivators of the Poppy by way of Prepayment of the Price of all the Juice of the Poppy of a specified Consistence, to be produced from the Land in respect of which such Advances are made, such Price being estimated according to a Price fixed by the Company for the District in which the Land happens to be situated; the Cultivators delivering to the Company as much of such Juice as the Cultivators can produce, such Juice being afterwards sent by the Company to their Factories, and there manufactured by them into Opium; afterwards sent by them from those Factories to Calcutta, and there sold by them by Auction at their Sales; the Excess of the Sale Prices over and above the first Cost constituting the Revenue in question?
  2nd. Whether, having regard also to the Supplemental Treaty between Her Majesty and The Emperor of China, bearing Date the Eighth Day of October, 1843, which contains the following words:—'A fair and regular Tariff of Duties and other Dues having now been established, it is to be hoped that the System of Smuggling will entirely cease,' it is lawful for the East India Company to deal with such Opium in the Manner stated in the First Question, with the full Knowledge that it is so purchased at the above-mentioned Sales for the Purpose of being smuggled into China, in contravention of the Laws of that Empire; and so to cultivate and manufacture the same with a view principally to the China Market, and to its being so purchased for such Purposes as aforesaid; the Company with that view manufacturing the Opium into the Form which the Company consider best adapted to facilitate and promote that contraband Trade?"
  THE LORD CHANCELLORadmitted that the subject to which the noble Earl had called the attention of the House was one of deep importance; but he put it to his noble Friend and to the House whether the course which he asked them to pursue was
  2034
  one consistent with the ordinary principles of justice, and one, therefore, which their Lordships would sanction. His noble Friend poposed that it should be referred to the Judges to say, first, whether, according to the true construction of an Act of Parliament, the 3 & 4 Wm. IV., it was the opinion of the Judges that "it is lawful for the East India Company to derive a revenue from opium by the following system," that was to say, by the monopoly of the manufacture and sale of the drug. Now, the Judges were summoned to their Lordships' House to advise them in any matter on which they thought fit to ask their opinion; but he did not believe there was any case in which that opinion had been asked except with a view to some judicial business in which their Lordships had to decide, or to guide them in some pending or approaching legislation. The ordinary cases on which they were consulted every Session involved points of law, to assist their Lordships in cases submitted to that House as an ultimate court of appeal. Their Lordships also consulted them pending legislation, as to whether or not there was anything in the state of the law that could influence legislation on subjects then under the consideration of the House, or which would shortly be brought before them. The latter course was adopted in 1840 at the instance of a right rev. Prelate, who desired to ascertain from the Judges whether a proposed measure as to the appropriation of the Canada reserves would or not be consistent with existing Acts of Parliament. The question having been submitted to the Judges they gave their opinion upon it, and their Lordships' legislation was guided by that opinion. In such a state of circumstances it was perfectly right and proper to obtain the opinion of the Judges; but what would be the consequence of adopting a similar course upon the present occasion? The hypothesis of his noble Friend was, that for the last twenty years the East India Company, by their employés, had systematically gone on violating the law of the land, illegally obtaining revenue to the extent of millions in the year. If that were so, every one of the persons so engaged was liable to be tried and punished. It would be most inconvenient, therefore, that their Lordships should be called upon to prejudge the persons accused without giving them an opportunity of defending themselves, and that the Judges should be

  2035
  called upon behind their backs to say that the law had been habitually violated. So circumstanced, how could the Judges answer the questions? He could not help thinking that when his noble Friend saw the consequences which would result he would not persist in his Motion, nor would their Lordships, he thought, sanction it if he did. These matters, however, having been called to their attention, he was prepared to say on the part of the Government, that when they shall have ascertained clearly and distinctly what were the facts as to the manufacture of opium by the East India Company—how it was done, who were concerned in it, how it was disposed of—everything, in short, being distinctly stated as matter of fact, the Government would have no objection to submitting, though not in the terms in which his noble Friend had drawn them up, the question to the highest legal authorities whom they could properly consult, the law officers of the Crown; and that with respect to the second question, which related to the construction of the treaty concluded with China in 1843, he would say that they would consult the law officers of the Crown, with the addition of the Queen's Advocate, and their opinion the Government would communicate to their Lordships. Beyond that he had nothing to add. It was impossible to accede to the proposal that the legality or illegality of this question should be ascertained by a reference to the Judges. Without committing himself to the extent of saying that what had been done by the East India Company was or was not of an illegal character, he would remind the noble Earl that the object of the statute to which he referred was to discontinue commercial trading on the part of the East India Company, and it was so stated in express terms. Perhaps his noble Friend did not know so familiarly as noble Lords accustomed to legal questions, that by innumerable decisions, supported by the practice of two or three centuries, it had been held that dealing with the produce of one's own land, no matter to what extent, was not trading in the eye of the law. The very question of salt, to which the noble Earl had referred, had already been before the courts, and it had been decided that owners of salt pits, if they made the salt on their premises, were not traders. If the East India Company, in order to make the most of their land, raised and made opium
  2036
  or salt upon it, and sold it, the noble Earl must not suppose, in ignorance as they were of all the facts, that that was necessarily a violation of the statute of 1833. But the noble Earl assumed further, that in the cultivation of opium they exercised a monopoly, and had referred to previous Acts of Parliament with a view to show that they had no monopoly by statute. Whether the monopoly in opium, if it existed, was legal or not, he could not pretend to say without knowing the facts of the case, which at present he did not. It would materially depend upon what the course of dealing with the East India Company was. But he did not know how his noble Friend was to get out of the words at the end of the fourth section, cessation of commercial dealings except so far as relating to what should be carried on "for the purposes of the said Government." If he could not, then whether this manufacture was exercised by way of monopoly or not, or whether it was adopted as the best mode of raising the revenue, were questions not material—the question was, was it or not a dealing "for the purposes of the Government" within the meaning of the Act? He confessed it appeared to him to be hardly a matter worthy of being discussed. However, he had had too much experience in the profession not to know that difficulties often arose when least expected, and there might be difficulties here also. He should keep his mind suspended in reference to the question, though he could not anticipate that any ground could be stated upon which a decision would be made that this proceeding on the part of the Company was illegal. For these reasons he ventured to express a hope that the noble Earl would not embarrass—not the Government but rather their Lordships—by pressing his Motion. If, however, the noble Earl would rely on his (the Lord Chancellor's) word, he would undertake that the question should be referred to the law advisers of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had not intended to make a Motion which should have the effect of laying open to a criminal indictment the living and the dead for the last fifty years; and if it really involved such consequences he was ready to withdraw it upon an assurance that the whole subject should be submitted to the law officers of the Crown, and that their opinions should be given after a full

  2037
  investigation of all the facts. By that investigation his point would be really gained.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought the noble Earl had exercised a wise discretion in not pressing his Motion. He had heard with extreme astonishment the statement of the noble Earl that the Government acceded to his proposition with some modifications; but he found that the Government altogether objected to the Motion. He could not see that submitting a question to the law officers of the Crown was the same thing as taking the opinion of the Judges upon a matter which involved great political interests. He altogether objected to such a subject being sent to the law officers of the Crown, as it was a subject far beyond the reach of lawyers, and a decision upon it could not be obtained by mere special pleading and legal technicalities. The question was—and it was one of far too great importance to be adequately considered on this occasion—did their Lordships regard the system now pursued as being consistent with real justice and equity towards the Chinese and with our own treaty obligations? That was a question on which he was not at that moment prepared to express any opinion. Undoubtedly it was impossible not to feel painfully that the transactions in question were liable to some of the observations which his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had applied to them. It was impossible—considering that in 1842 and 1843 this country became solemnly bound to the Chinese Government to discourage smuggling of all descriptions—not painfully to feel that the East India Government had been mixed up in those transactions in a manner which it was difficult to justify by a reference to the ordinary principles of right and wrong. He acknowledged that; but at the same time he could not shut his eyes to the fact that it was not always quite clear that their Lordships could prevent the practice of vice by attempting to deal with it by direct legislation. There was, and had been for some time, a question of extreme difficulty in this country. There were many well-meaning, but, as he thought, ill-judging persons who thought the sale of intoxicating liquors ought to be altogether prohibited. He had always been persuaded that any legislation of that kind would be entirely ineffectual and unwise. It ought to be remembered that while opium was a drug liable to abuse it was also a medicine of the utmost importance to the welfare of
  2038
  mankind. Their Lordships could not altogether prohibit the production of it without inflicting the greatest possible evils, not only upon one part of the world but upon the whole world; and, if they were not to prohibit the production of it, he questioned whether it was in the power of any Government, when opium was produced and allowed to be sold, to regulate the manner in which it should be sold. When it once passed into the hands of the private consumer, he (Earl Grey) could not understand how by any machinery a Government could prevent it being applied to bad purposes instead of good, or how they could limit the use of it to what might be considered lawful purposes. For himself, he did not perceive that great difference which his noble Friend had endeavoured to establish between levying an export duty on opium and levying revenue by means of a monopoly. At the same time the question remained—had we, or had we not, after the opium had passed from the hands of the Indian Government, wilfully encouraged smuggling? Upon that point he had expected to hear some more remarks from his noble Friend. He (Earl Grey) used to think that they did not; but that opinion had been considerably shaken by an incidental observation of the British Resident at Hong Kong—he could not help reminding their Lordships that they had learnt from the papers laid before the House that the passing of the recent colonial ordinance had been of great advantage to the colony, because it had increased the coasting trade in that colony "in cotton, opium, and other products." He could not help thinking that that observation was pregnant with significance. He had always been under the impression that it was the manifest duty of the colonial authorities there, under the treaty, strictly to abstain from anything calculated to violate that treaty by encouraging the smuggling trade to which allusion had been made. If that was a correct impression, he entirely concurred with his noble Friend in the opinion that nothing could justify that smuggling trade. Our obligations under that treaty were clear and positive; and, when we were visiting the Chinese with punishment for what was a doubtful infraction of the treaty on their part, how should we stand if it turned out to be a fact that, while we were doing that, we ourselves, on a point of vital importance, and one in which the Chinese themselves took the deepest interest, had by means of

  2039
  our local authorities deliberately violated, not only the spirit, but the express terms of the treaty? He considered that was a matter of the greatest importance, and one which called for inquiry, but not inquiry of the kind suggested by his noble Friend—namely, by the law officers of the Crown, whose opinion on such a subject, when their Lordships got it, would not be worth the paper on which it was written. He could not help suggesting that the Government should now see that the time had come when this and other matters of a like kind ought to be most carefully considered. It had been announced that a negotiator was to be sent to China virtually to supersede Sir John Bowring, and to enter into negotiations with the Chinese Government with reference to the future conduct of our trade in that country. That announcement was a somewhat tardy one, and it had the appearance of having been extorted from the Government, as if those who had supported them during the recent discussions had intimated that they were not prepared to support them in retaining Sir John Bowring in the management of British affairs at Canton. But tardy as it was he (Earl Grey) hailed the announcement with great satisfaction, and he trusted that the name of the person to be selected would meet with the general approbation of the country and command the confidence both of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament. He trusted also such person would be sent out with the view to ascertain, not only upon the matters now in dispute, but also upon all other questions, what were the best means of establishing peaceful relations with the Chinese. He remained of the opinion which he had already expressed, that our proceedings at Canton had been utterly inconsistent with every principle of justice and humanity. But assuming the very reverse—assuming those proceedings had been as right as he believed them to have been wrong, and that the Government could justify every step they had taken—still he said the occurrence of this Chinese war was a fearful calamity to this country and to the world; and their Lordships ought to be most anxious to put an end to it. He hoped the Government in sending out their instructions on this subject were not going to be actuated by that spirit which he was afraid was somewhat too prevalent in the country—a spirit which he could not describe as otherwise than unreasoning, and characterized by animosity and revenge,
  2040
  and which had been fostered in a manner which he, for one, must strongly condemn. He repeated that the hostilities with China had been a fearful calamity to this country and the world. He must call on their Lordships to observe the results which those events had produced. On the 8th of October last, when this unhappy occurrence took place, we had for more than ten years been carrying on, without the slightest interruption of any kind, a most advantageous trade. There had been no difficulty whatever in carrying on that trade. The commercial facilities at the five ports were equal to the facilities we found at New York, or at any of the other great commercial emporia of the world. We had no disputes of any consequence on the one hand or on the other; the slight grievances we had experienced had every one been redressed; and the Chinese had gone much further towards producing a feeling of reconciliation than we had. Did their Lordships remember that not a great many years ago a distinguished Austrian general was most grievously insulted and assaulted by some disreputable persons in this metropolis of England? Urgent application was made by the Austrian authorities for redress; in reply to which it was stated that the English Government were very sorry, that they condemned this proceeding, but unfortunately they could not help it; that they could not discover who were the culprits, and that by the English law they could not punish any persons until proof of their complicity was forthcoming. When, however, similar occurrences took place in China, what had happened? In the blue-book lately published there was a correspondence regarding some gentlemen who, shooting beyond the bounds assigned by the treaty, were in danger of their lives from a mob, but were protected by a Mandarin at the risk of his own life, some of his soldiers being wounded in repelling the assault. The English authorities, however, would not on that occasion listen to any excuse offered by the Chinese Government, to the effect that they could not find the offenders. They said, "We must have redress, or else we will take it ourselves. Some people must be punished for what has been done." That was the spirit in which we had habitually dealt with the Chinese. Our only real grievance now was the exclusion of British subjects without the walls of Canton. Englishmen were allowed to go into the suburbs; they were allowed to go into the country, far beyond

  2041
  the limits fixed by the treaty; but the Chinese said they could not protect foreigners inside the town. With that single exception, everything was going on quietly at Canton. Trade had increased so rapidly than in less than ten years our imports had more than doubled, and a very large revenue had been produced to the country. What had been the result of our recent acts at Canton? He would not talk now of the sufferings of the Chinese, though he could not (as some persons did) treat with absolute unconcern the sufferings of many thousands of the people of any nation, however ignorant or however much in the wrong they might be. Passing over this point, however, be would pray their Lordships to observe what had been the result of the attack on Canton, even as regarded our own interests. In the first place a most valuable trade had been interrupted. It was stated that the exports of tea had already fallen off to an extent which would entail a loss of between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 to the revenue. Besides this, there had been a vast amount of British property destroyed, though he dared say the owners of this property would find compensation for this in the enhanced price of their tea. England was, moreover, embarked in a war—not against the Chinese Government in which, as in a former case, the population were inclined on our side, but one in which the people of China (whether with or without reason he did not stop to inquire) had been excited to so intense an animosity against us that in our own colony of Hong Kong the British residents were exposed to the utmost danger. The flame had even extended so far as Singapore, and the European inhabitants at that most valuable emporium of British trade were, as they were informed, in most serious alarm for their lives and property from the acts of the Chinese there. Already, too, the Government had been compelled to have recourse to measures which must be attended with so heavy an expense that, joined to the loss of revenue from the diminished imports of tea, it must inevitably disturb the whole financial arrangements of the year, and must compel Her Majesty's Government either to check that diminution in the expenditure to which the country confidently looked at the close of the Russian war, or to have recourse to that most improvident expedient, a loan. One or other of these measures must be resorted to, even now, at the commencement of the
  2042
  war. He maintained, then, that the Plenipotentiary sent out to China, whoever he might be, should receive instructions, drawn up in no vindictive spirit, but of such a nature as should lead him to make peace at the earliest moment consistent with the substantial interests of this country. That was the point to which he thought their Lordships ought to look, and he had made these remarks upon this occasion because he thought that Parliament was not likely to sit much longer, and because this was perhaps the only opportunity he should have of speaking upon this subject. Almost for the first time in our history, as he believed, we were engaged in a war which had not been formally made known to their Lordships by a Message from the Crown, and which Parliament had not been called upon to consider up to the moment when a large force was being despatched from this country. He very much doubted whether another instance would be found in which very considerable armaments had been sent out and a heavy expenditure incurred, and yet Parliament had not been called upon to support these measures; and every one knew that before their Lordships could meet again to discuss this subject the time would have passed by when they could do so with advantage. For these reasons he could not support any Motion for referring to the law advisers of the Crown a question which he thought far too high a one to be decided by mere technical law. Such a subject ought to be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and by those whom they employed in China, not as a technical point of law, but upon higher principles of policy and of equity, and as connected with the general state of our relations with China.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to recall the attention of the House to the subject under debate. It was not his duty to decide whether the conduct of the East India Company in regard to this trade was legal or illegal, though, if his noble Friend who had brought forward this question had spoken of the impolicy of a monopoly, he should have been inclined to agree with him that a more impolitic act could hardly be perpetrated. His noble Friend had used harsh terms towards those who might differ from himself; but he (the Earl of Albemarle) wished to offer a few observations upon this subject, more especially as he had addressed large meetings in the rural districts, setting forth the social and moral

  2043
  evils resulting from the immoderate use of spirituous liquors in this country, and he should not like to have it supposed that he would advocate another cause when it concerned a foreign country. And, first, a few words as to this very much abused commodity, opium. He contended that it was the abuse, not the use, of opium which was pernicious. In this respect it differed not at all from those other narcotics with which we were more familiar in England—namely, ardent spirits, wine, beer, or cider—all these commodities had been abused, and the abuse of them had been productive of vast mischief. Drunkenness was the great source of crime in this country; and yet no one seriously thought of suppressing the use of intoxicating drinks by legislative enactment. With regard to opium, the effects, whether beneficial or deleterious, were but little understood. He should like to draw a comparison, and he did not consider that it would be irrelevant to the subject, between the effects produced by opium and those produced by the narcotics which were used in this country. In the first place, the ardent spirits which were used for purposes of intoxication by the poorer classes of this country incited to crime, while opium incapacitated the person who used it for the commission of crime. As regarded the crime produced by intoxication in this country, he might cite all the addresses of the criminal Judges to grand juries in the course of their assizes. Mr. Justice Coleridge said, "There is scarcely a crime comes before me that is not directly or indirectly caused by strong drink." Then, again. Mr. Gurney testified that every crime had its origin more or less in drunkenness; and Mr. Clay, the chaplain to the Preston House of Correction, asserted that, "If every prisoner's habits and history were fully inquired into, it would be placed beyond all doubt that nine-tenths of the English crime requiring to be dealt with by the law arises from this English sin." He would beg their Lordships' attention while, on the other hand, he quoted the authority of Mr. John Crawfurd, who in his descriptive history of the Indian Islands said,—
  "The deleterious character of opium has been much insisted upon, but generally by parties who have had no experience of its effects. Like any other narcotic or stimulant, the habitual use of it is amenable to abuse, as being more seductive than other stimulants; but this is certainly the utmost that can be safely charged to it. Thousands consume it without any pernicious result,
  2044
  as thousands do wine and spirits without any evil consequences. I know no person of long experience who has not come to this common-sense conclusion."
  Another high authority, Dr. Oxley, said that—
  "The inordinate use or rather abuse of the drug most decidedly does bring on early decrepitude, loss of appetite, and a morbid state of all the secretions; but I have seen a man who had used the drug for fifty years in moderation without any evil effects; and one man I recollect in Malacca who had so used it was upwards of eighty. Several in the habit of smoking it have assured me that, in moderation, it neither impaired the functions nor shortened life; at the same time fully admitting the deleterious effects of too much."
  And finally, Sir Benjamin Brodie declared that—
  "The effect of opium when taken into the stomach is not to stimulate but to soothe the nervous system. It may be otherwise in some instances, but these are rare exceptions to the general rule. The opium-eater is in a passive state, satisfied with his own dreamy condition while under the influence of the drug. He is useless, but not mischievous. It is quite otherwise with alcoholic liquors."
  Now, what was the effect produced by the ardent spirits employed in this country? It appeared that in seventy-eight weeks there had been, arising from drunkenness, 252 serious accidents, or cases of striking bodily peril; 167 robberies of or by drunken persons, 1,153 brawls or violent assaults, and 337 cases of cruelty to wives or children, and 172 murders or manslaughters. Now, all the Chinese were dram drinkers, but they preferred the milder to the stronger spirit, and, certainly, if they could not get opium he believed that drunkenness, and the crimes attendant upon the drunkenness produced by ardent spirits, would increase, the one ten and the other a hundredfold. Much had been said about the opium being smuggled into China; but, even if it were, surely it was the duty of the Chinese, and not ours, to prevent that taking place, and not to give rise to it by their stupidity in attempting to prohibit that which it was impossible to put an end to, instead of attempting to regulate the traffic by the establishment of moderate duties. Now, was it really true that there was any actual smuggling? No doubt legally smuggling was prohibited, but virtually it was openly carried on. Sir John Davis, late Plenipotentiary in China during the war and since the peace of 1852, respecting legalizing the opium trade, had remarked to Commissioner Lin, that since the peace not a single edict had been

  2045
  issued against opium, which was openly carried about the streets and sold like any unprohibited article; but the Chinese Government appeared to think that it was less undignified to connive silently at the practice than directly contradict all its former principles, by openly legalizing it. He had also been informed by a gentleman, who had recently arrived from China, that it was a common thing to see labouring men in the purlieus of Canton playing with opium balls, which before the treaty would have cost them their heads. How was such a prohibition as the noble Earl wished for to be carried out? Was it intended to prohibit the growth of opium in our Indian territory? If that were proposed, it would be also necessary to put in practice the meddling principle which had of late unfortunately been frequently displayed, and to prohibit its growth in neighbouring States. Then, again, the opium question was not an isolated one. If the growth of a drug in itself comparatively innocuous was prohibited in India, their Lordships must be prepared to do away with the growth of that which produced the more crime-creating spirit called gin; and would they propose to do away with two of the staple products of this country—barley and oats—because people were in the habit of abusing the use of beer and gin? If so, were France, Italy, and Spain also to be asked to uproot their vines? and was the sugarcane likewise to be got rid of—for that produced rum? Here would be a loss of about £1,000,000 to the revenue, and with the sugarcane the sugar duties must go, which would involve another loss of £5,000,000 of revenue. But he presumed that their Lordships would not meddle with the English colonies nor with their neighbours' vines, but would be content to make unhappy India the subject of legislation. But India was not the only opium-growing country. Turkey grew opium also, a large quantity of which was consumed by the Chinese. China had also taken to growing opium. He had said nothing of the Indian revenue, which must be sacrificed if the views of the noble Earl were carried. In spite of every attempt which was made, there was a constantly decreasing revenue in India, and the subversion of the Indian revenue was connected with the success of the noble Earl's scheme. He believed it to be a complete hallucination to suppose that if the opium trade was done away the Chinese would take our manufactures instead; because,
  2046
  with respect to all the articles with which the British supplied them, they had similar articles of their own, and they took the British articles simply because they were in certain localities cheaper. They would only take as much of British articles as they needed, and no more. Whenever habit had induced a people to desire a certain commodity it was not in the power of a Government or a Legislature to prohibit the general use of that commodity. The only way to check the consumption of a deleterious article was by the diffusion of education or the imposition of moderate duties. It was now about 130 years since the feelings of the religious and benevolent portion of the community were outraged by the increase of drunkenness in consequence of the cheapness of ardent spirits. In an evil hour the Legislature was induced in 1736 to pass a prohibitory law in respect to ardent spirits. Great encouragement was held out by this to the common informer, who, with the revenue officers, was insulted and hunted down in the streets of London. Drunkenness and immorality increased to a fearful degree in consequence, and the Earl Cholmondeley of that day stated (the population of the metropolis being one-fifth of its present amount) that 7,000,000 gallons of ardent spirits were consumed at the very time when the Legislature declared its consumption illegal. In reference to Ireland, the Rev. Mr. Chichester said—
  "The calamities, of civilized warfare are in general inferior to those produced by the Irish distillery laws, and I doubt whether any nation of modern Europe, which is not in a state of actual revolution, can furnish instances of legal cruelty commensurate with those I have represented."
  Such was the result of prohibitory legislation on this subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought that the statements which had been made to their Lordships tended to show that, with respect to the subject under discussion, various considerations must be regarded before a final determination was come to, and he rose only to make a few observations on one or two points raised by the noble Earl who spoke the last but one (Earl Grey). The noble Earl objected to the course which the Government were about to take in referring this question to the law officers of the Crown. Now, considering that the noble Earl himself was not prepared to form any opinion on this important matter, and considering that the question had been brought forward by a noble Earl representing a strong

  2047
  opinion, whether right or wrong, in this country, he did not think that the Government was much to be blamed for referring the matter to the law officers of the Crown. Considering the frequent occasions upon which his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had had to consult the law officers of the Crown, he could not understand why, unless he meant to convey a personal insinuation against those Gentlemen, he should declare that he did not care twopence for their opinion upon this point.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had been misunderstood by his noble Friend. What he said was that he would give nothing for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon this subject, because it was nut a question of technicalities, but one involving higher and superior considerations, and not depending upon the words of an Act of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the opinion of the noble Earl who had brought forward this Motion, and who had for years taken a great interest in this question, and who represented the feelings of a very large and very worthy class of persons in this country, ought to go for something. That noble Earl thought it of the utmost importance that the technicalities connected with this question should be cleared up before their Lordships proceeded to the practical points involved in it, and it was not unreasonable that the Government should comply with such a wish, and should endeavour, before any other steps were taken in the case, to ascertain what was the precise nature of the existing law. He regretted to hear his noble Friend express an opinion that the British authorities in China were encouraging the opium trade.
  EARL GREYhad said that until lately he felt assured that the British officials in China had not encouraged the opium trade; but that some of the despatches recently published seemed to show that they now regarded it with a more favourable eye.
  EARL GRANVILLE: His noble Friend had not contradicted the impression he had derived from his noble Friend's speech, which was that the feeling of the British authorities in regard to the opium trade at present was different from that which existed when he (Earl Grey) was Colonial Secretary. That was, he thought, a most unfair assumption. The British officers in China thought the ordinance to which reference had been made useful to the coast-
  2048
  ing trade of China; but there were about sixty articles which formed the staple of that trade, of which opium was only one. He did not think his noble Friend's inference a just one, when opposed to the declaration that the object of this ordinance was to restrict smuggling and to assist the Chinese authorities in its detection and repression. The present Government had a right to believe, as the noble Earl believed when Colonial Secretary, that the smuggling trade was not encouraged by the British authorities in China. If it were so encouraged it was in direct opposition to the wishes and instructions of the Government. His noble Friend had deprecated a renewal of the China debate to-night, and had then proceeded to deliver a portion of his speech which he must have forgotten when he addressed the House on that occasion. It was always important to know the views of his noble Friend on questions of public policy, and if his noble Friend would bring forward a Motion to reverse the decision to which their Lordships had come, he would listen and endeavour to answer him. It was, therefore, from no want of respect that he did not follow his noble Friend into considerations wholly extraneous to the question before the House. With respect to the sending out a Plenipotentiary to China, he had to state that the noble Earl did not appear to be correctly informed as to the motives which had induced the Government to take the course they had adopted upon that subject. His noble Friend seemed to concur in the propriety of the course; and although it would not be right that he should then state what were the precise instructions which the Government would give to that Plenipotentiary, he could say that they did not in effect differ from the opinions of the noble Earl, and that they would have for their object to put on a satisfactory footing our relations with the Chinese Empire, and to maintain at the same time the substantial interests of this country.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the only point to which he would then allude was the sending out of a successor to Sir John Bowring. He took it for granted that Her Majesty's Government had considered that step inevitable after what had taken place in another assembly. But there was another point in connection with that matter to which he deemed it advisable to direct their attention. The treaty which regulated the relations of France with China was about to expire,

  2049
  and the French Government were about to send out a Plenipotentiary to that country for the re-establishment of their international engagements. Now, this country had a considerable interest in the negotiations which were thus about to be opened, as we should be entitled to any privileges which the Chinese might concede to the most favoured foreign nation. Under these circumstances he hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would take care that Great Britain should at once be represented in China by a man accustomed to diplomatic business, capable of acting discreetly, wisely, and temperately; and, in fact, a man differing in every respect as regarded experience and character from Sir John Bowring.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYreplied. He had never said one word in favour of a prohibition on the part of the East India Company against the growth of opium. Nothing, on the contrary, could be more useless than to endeavour to prohibit the growth of opium. What he had indicated was the necessity of disconnecting the Government from the traffic in opium. Other people might grow it if they liked, and the Government might impose duties either upon its growth or transit; but let not the Governor General stand behind the counter, with a brown-paper cap and white apron on, to deal in this article and see that it had the requisite consistency and colour. He had explained to their Lordships the reasons why he thought the technical legal question should be set at rest. If the answer of the law officers of the Crown was that the traffic was legal, he pledged himself, if life were spared him, to bring forward next Session the whole question in its largest and most ample latitude, and he would then appeal to their Lordships to wipe out such an abomination from the statute law of this country.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHunderstood now that the objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was not to the sale, but to the monopoly, that he particularly desired inquiry should be made into the legal point, and that he had entirely thrown over the moral part of the question. If the Government of India might place what tax they pleased on opium, and opium so taxed went from India to China, it was difficult to see what advantage the Chinese would reap from any alteration of the present system. He wished the Lord Chancellor would explain
  2050
  what he meant to submit to the law officers of the Crown.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought he had explained very clearly already that his noble Friend, having proposed certain questions to be submitted to the Judges, he asked his noble Friend to withdraw his Motion, upon a pledge being given to consult the law officers of the Crown as to the legality or illegality of the traffic, having regard to the facts and the Acts of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked how the law officers would ascertain the facts. Would they call witnesses?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was very easy to ascertain the facts, and he was not aware that they were erroneously stated in the paper laid on the table by the noble Earl for reference to the Judges.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Government had come to a private understanding with the noble Earl to put certain questions to the law officers, and obtain their opinion on the questions so put. He hoped the House of Lords would not be supposed to be responsible for the answers given, or for the manner in which the questions were proposed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing there had been any private understanding. He had told the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that if he withdrew his Motion, the Government would think it their duty to consult the law officers on the legality of the traffic, although it had never before been questioned. The noble Earl could not withdraw his Motion without the consent of the House, and if any noble Peer chose to insist upon it, they must vote upon the question. If the noble Earl was satisfied with the good faith of the Government that the opinion of the law officers would be taken, he could see no reasonable objection to that course.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the House might agree with the withdrawal of the Motion absolutely; but they had nothing whatever to do with the condition of referring any questions to the law officers of the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, this discussion showed very clearly how ignorant was the British Legislature, if not the British Government, regarding the state of our Indian Empire.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.