Sitting of 19 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What reply has been given by the Government to the Letter from the Roman Catholic Bishops,

1975
dated 18th March, 1860, with reference to National Education in Ireland?
MR. CARDWELLstated that no reply had been sent except an acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter.

On Motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply,
OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HORSMAN, in calling the attention of the House to the state of our relations with foreign Powers and to ask some explanations on the subject from the Government, said:—Sir, I believe it is generally acknowledged that at the present moment the Government and nations of central Europe are more disturbed and alarmed than they have been since the beginning of the century. Every Continental country exposed to incursions from France is trembling with fear. England also has her interests to protect, her responsibilities to discharge, and her solemn engagements under stringent treaties are thickening and pressing upon her. Many anxious eyes are turned to England from the menaced States, inquiring their fate, which they feel to hang upon the fidelity of England to her engagements. Such are the feelings which pervade Europe at this moment. The nations are trembling, time is progressing, events are marching; and the very Power which is attempting to alter the face of Europe is making all speed to anticipate and shut out every possible combination for a successful resistance. In these circumstances I feel anxious, as far as I can do so without discussing the past policy of the Cabinet, or embarrassing pending negotiations, to ask for some explanations, which I hope and believe will tend to show that the Parliament and the Government of this country are of one mind as to our present position and duties; and that they may cordially and heartily unite in a direct, clear, and unmistakeable announcement of that which the world has a right to know—the policy which England, from a regard to her own interests and honour, is now determined to pursue in the face of these grave and threatening events. Just before the adjournment for the Easter recess there was laid on the table the reply of M. Thouvenel to a Despatch written by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the 22nd of March. In that
  1976
  document the French Minister states that the Despatch of the English Cabinet to which he replies makes no change in the relations subsisting between the two Governments, and particularly that it conveys no protest against the annexation of Savoy. We have reason to believe that this interpretation of the Despatch of the 22nd of March is not acquiesced in by the British Cabinet; and the first question, therefore, which I wish to ask is whether the Despatch of M. Thouvenel has been replied to, and, if so, whether consistently with the public interest, a copy of the reply can be laid on the table? I would ask, further, what is the exact state now of the question of the annexation of Savoy? Is that question still in any way pending as a discussion between the two Governments, or do we leave it where M. Thouvenel in his last Despatch has placed it, and are we content to consider it a settled question, as to which nothing further can be said? My third and last question is one of still greater importance—one upon which not only have we to come to an understanding with our own Government, but upon which our Government should also come to an understanding with foreign Powers. It is this—what is the principle upon which our policy is to be conducted with reference to those treaty obligations which we have incurred in the general interest and for the common safety of Europe? Are we to set out by assuming that the aggressions of Prance in Savoy and Switzerland are mere accidental and exceptional occurrences, the adjustment of which will be followed by the re-establishment of peace, security, and confidence; or are we to take them, as we know they have been taken by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as indications and portions of a deliberate policy on the part of France, of which the logical consequences are to be looked for in the harassing and unsettling of other parts of Europe? This last question is important, because there has been an impression, produced by some of the earlier despatches and speeches of our Government, that the policy of England has alternated between these two views. When the Savoy difficulty first arose the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs addressed a Despatch, which was much approved and highly commended, to our Ambassador at Paris, in which he warned the Emperor of the French that the Savoy question was one interesting to the

  1977
  whole of Europe and calculated to create general alarm and apprehension. But from causes to which I need not now refer that question appears—perhaps only appears—to have subsided into a settlement in which Sardinia and France are the only Powers that are held to have an interest. The Swiss difficulty succeeded; and when it arose we felt there could be no doubt as to the consequences that would follow. The graver character of that aggression was announced authoritatively in this House. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with a fervour which could not be mistaken, reminded us that the independence of Switzerland was a matter of European guarantee, and, describing in firm and forcible language the restless and encroaching policy of France, he gave us to understand, amid the acclamations of the House, that our close and special alliance with that aggressive Power had come to an end. But in a short time rumours were set afloat by those to whom this change of policy was unpalatable, and who desired to do what was agreeable to France, perhaps to promote what had been designed by France, that the question of the independence of Switzerland had also subsided into a mere local quarrel; that the parties to that quarrel had settled it out of court, and that a compromise had been effected, by which France was to take only a portion of what she had determined to seize, and Switzerland was to be allowed to retain the remainder. We have happily had since a complete refutation of these sinister rumours. But it was natural to suppose that a small State, threatened by an overpowering neighbour, and abandoned by those on whose support she had a right to rely, should very gladly make a compromise by surrendering part of her dominions to retain the rest. In those who look at these things from a mere mercantile point of view, this was a pardonable supposition; but those who so judged the Swiss very much mistook the character of that people. They are a brave and patriotic, although they may appear rather a primitive race, because they are so uncivilized that love of country, love of liberty, with them is still a passion; and so benighted that they have not yet learnt to put freedom into one scale and bales of merchandise into another, and to sell the soul of their nation for improved trade returns. As they are not reigned over by a Prince who is ready to abandon them, or governed by an unscrupulous Minister willing to barter them
  1978
  away like sheep, they may still escape the degradation which was designed for them, and the Government of England may not be a patty to a second crime. But I have said that M. Thouvenel states that the despatch of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs did not amount to a protest. No one who reads the despatch can fail to see that the French Minister anxiously labours to establish that fact. He attaches great importance to it; but not more than it deserves, for it would be difficult to exaggerate the immense advantage which is given to the present policy and the future designs of France by the absence of a protest; and more difficult still to overrate the additional danger entailed upon Europe by the impunity allowed to the first open act of French territorial aggression. In passing I would make only one remark upon the despatch of the noble Lord—that I saw with regret that, when he stated so clearly, so forcibly, and so convincingly, the case against the Emperor of the French, he stopped short of the conclusion to which his own arguments so inevitably led. M. Thouvenel quickly declared that there was no protest. But why was there no protest? A protest was not only the natural conclusion to the noble Lord's own reasoning, but was the natural proceeding in the face of such an outrage on the public law and opinion of Europe? I have heard some persons say, "What is the use of a protest? If you do not mean to follow it up by action, it is only a confession of your anger and your weakness, meaning nothing and effecting nothing; and what an idle matter it is to protest at this time of day against the violation of the Treaties of 1815, after the violation of them has been so commonly permitted!" I demur to both of those conclusions as being entirely false. In the first place, with respect to a protest, I have always understood that, instead of a protest being a thing to be followed up by action, a protest was a substitute for action; and that it was when you are not prepared to follow up your objections by war that you made a protest, in order that your inaction might not be taken for acquiescence. The value of a protest is the value attached to it by the usages of Europe. A protest once entered against an Act is a precaution against the Act being established as a precedent, and a protest not entered is to be interpreted into acquiescence. Thus a protest becomes a matter of great importance, and not a mere idle

  1979
  ceremony. The public proclamation of a principle by means of a protest against the violation of treaties, and the deliberate warning of the consequences which would follow from further Acts of a similar kind, become of importance in the eyes of Europe, and is a deliberate warning that the protest may be followed up by more effective measures which the public safety might require against the public enemy. When I am told that the Treaties of 1815 have been before violated, I would again ask, has the principle of those treaties ever been violated before? What was that principle? It was protection to Europe against French aggression. Those treaties bound together the allied Powers against the public enemy, who had overrun the Continent, pillaged every capital, shaken every throne, and inflicted countless miseries on every population; and the trampled nations of the Continent, led by England, combining and overthrowing their oppressor, framed the treaties for their own future safety against the traditional policy of France; and it was the deliberate judgment of Europe that fixed the boundaries and formed the frontiers of that country with the one sole aim and object of confining France within her own limits, and of providing effectual security to Europe against the perpetually recurring danger from the insatiable restlessness of French ambition. That was the principle of the Treaties of 1815. and when has that principle ever been violated before? It is because that principle never has been violated that France has always chafed under those treaties as humiliations imposed on her, and the present Emperor of the French always encouraged the idea that it was his work to efface those marks of French dishonour; and these are the first steps in that direction; and it is this principle of limiting France within a frontier defined by the unanimous judgment of Europe that is now for the first time assailed and overridden by the Emperor of the French. What France gains by the annexation of Savoy is emancipation from her own limits, and a precedent for the future enlargement of them; and it is of the utmost consequence to Europe not to allow that right, and not to permit France to plead that it has been granted. This M. Thouvenel knows, and hence his desire to show that no protest is made, and his ill-concealed exultation that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has not distinctly affirmed that the British Cabinet would not
  1980
  admit the principle. The noble Lord ably showed that the French arguments were untenable, but there the noble Lord stopped short, and has not guarded against the repetition of the act, though no one has stated more forcibly than he that a repetition was to be apprehended. It was on these grounds that he thought a protest on the part of England would be a valuable declaration of the public law of Europe against the principle of small States having the right to make cessions of territory to an aggressive and absorbing neighbour, without bringing the arrangements thereon distinctly under the notice of the Powers who were parties to previous treaties; and it would be also valuable as a declaration that acquisitions of territory, under such circumstances between Powers so unequal would be looked upon as similar to acquisitions by conquest, and as such requiring European sanction. But it may be said that this view with regard to the importance of a protest is a mere abstract view, without practical consequence; but I beg the House to consider of what an immediate and immense practical importance a protest is as bearing on passing events. At this time it is impossible for the House to shut its eyes to the marvellous and rapid fulfilment of that almost incredible scheme of policy attributed to the Emperor of the French from the day he mounted the throne of France. It was then authoritatively announced that his mission was to humble, one by one, the several Powers who contributed to the former defeat of France; to efface the Treaties of 1815, and, having avenged France on the Powers of the Continent, that then his last great crowning act would be to lower the pride and break down the power of England. It was with a view to the fulfilment of this policy that France beheld, not only with complacency, but with exultation, those immense warlike preparations which have been going on there for the last few years, both by sea and by land. Mark with what reason France may exult in the fulfilment of this policy. Russia has been defeated and weakened; Austria has been dismembered, the Treaties of 1815 have been trampled under foot in the cases of Savoy and Switzerland, and Prussia is now threatened. Indeed, there are rumours that Prussia is something more than threatened. Within the last few days there are rumours that overtures have been made to Prussia for the rectification of the Rhenish frontier, an equivalent being offered in the acquisition

  1981
  of some of the small States of Germany. These rumours may be premature; but the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has himself shown that they may be only premature, and that this is the direction in which the policy of France may be expected to be developed. This shows how the policy of France is being accomplished in one direction; and let me show how parties in France at this moment are exulting at its apparent accomplishment in another. Two years ago a good deal of interest was excited by the appearance in this country of a map, published under the authority of the French Government, and sent to the principal map-sellers in London. It was entitled "Europe in 1860." This has passed out of the memory, probably, of most of those who saw the map at the time, but subsequent events have given, and not the least in the eyes of France, a significance and importance to the matter. This map was published in the middle of 1858, and no one then anticipated that within one year large territorial changes would be made in Europe, or that there was likely to be war in Italy; and the diplomatic Mentor of the Government who is never misled or outwitted by the Emperor of the French—our Ambassador in France—told the British Government, months after that map had appeared, that there was no danger of war in Italy, and that France was not arming; but the author of the map saw what was approaching, because Lombardy was taken from Austria in that map and placed as a territory of Sardinia. We are now only at the commencement of 1860, and the predicted change of territory has actually been accomplished. No one foresaw in 1858 that there was likely to be war between Spain and Morocco; but the author of that map foresaw that war and some of its results, because in the map to which I have adverted the territory of Morocco was transferred to the dominions of the Queen of Spain. War between Spain and Morocco has since the publication of the map broken out, and a cession of territory has been made, though not to the extent predicted by the map; but it is impossible to separate that war from the policy of the man who predicted it. But the most important changes of all were to take place in Germany. This remains to be realized; but I want the House to observe what would be the effect of a protest on the part of England against the annexation of Savoy on the policy of France in Germany, and
  1982
  with what good reason M. Thouvenel may congratulate his Imperial master that England has not the courage or foresight to make that protest. Prussia is at this moment threatened by France; and the danger of Prussia was first announced to the House by the Foreign Secretary, who has always frankly and manfully expressed himself on this matter. I want the House to observe how critical is the state of Germany, and particularly from its close analogy to the recent position of Italy. The minor Princes are the bane of Germany, whose constant and perpetual dread has been that they were going to be absorbed by Prussia—not by conquest, but by the movement of their own people, just as the Italian Duchies were afraid of being absorbed by Piedmont. Hence it is—and I beg the House to remark this well—that many of the Powers of Germany feel the necessity, which the Italian Sovereigns also felt, of having an external support to lean upon. They have not that support in their own people, because the people would willingly join Prussia. They are compelled, therefore, to look for support abroad, seeing that they must have a protector if they are to remain Sovereign Princes at all. Formerly, before the Crimean war, they had that protector in Russia, and partly in Austria; and this accounts for the great ascendancy of Russia over the affairs of Germany in times past. But all that is now altered. Russia is beaten, and is fully occupied at home. Austria is in the same position. Germany is alarmed; her people are drawing more towards Prussia; but the fears and the jealousies of their own rulers are excited precisely in the same degree. Anything to them is preferable to being merged in that dreaded Prussia; and hence there is an anxious desire to look in other quarters for a protector. And now comes the particular danger springing from the annexation of Savoy. The precedent of Savoy will be cited in the case of Germany. The population drawing more and more closely to Prussia, more and more urgent will be the cries for help addressed to France by the petty German Princes. One after another every petty Sovereign and Court may be driven to follow the example of Sardinia, and connect itself in some form or other with France; and, if England has not protested, they will all plead that their right to dispose of themselves to another Power is an established principle of European law. But then the position of Prussia is most embarrassing.

  1983
  Without Germany she is weak; without Germany she is very vulnerable. She dreads France, and she dreads the ascendancy of France over the petty German Courts. She remembers the terrible outrages and sufferings that were inflicted by France during six years of tyranny. She would willingly fight if strong enough to do so, but she has no friend to rely on if England does not stand by her. Well, now, what assurance can any Prussian Minister feel that he will have the support of England? If he braves France, and if Prussia is suddenly attacked, what assurance has he that England will at once, and before Prussia is lost, throw her power into the scale and make common cause against a common danger? What guarantee of that can he have but the declaration of the British Parliament or the declaration of the British Ministry given publicly in Parliament? But if, on the other hand, Prussia feels that she cannot rely on England, may she not, against her own feelings and inclination, be driven to make her own terms with France, and, knowing that she has no hope of support elsewhere, may she not barter away the provinces coveted by France for an equivalent somewhere else? If she does so, what happens? Then comes the turn of the petty German Courts. A new Confederation of the Rhine springs up, German in name, but French in substance. Antwerp is not far off. The North Sea is lost. The maritime supremacy of France is doubled: and then what becomes of your trade, 0 ye worshippers of material interests and of the divine principle of commercial treaties at any price? Sir, I have often expressed in this House an opinion, which circumstances and reflection have more and more confirmed, that that special and exclusive alliance with France, estranging us from the other Powers of Europe, was a false, and unnatural, and a mistaken alliance. I am speaking of the special alliance which exists. In my opinion, there are no two great Powers of Europe which have so little in common, which have, in fact, so much that is directly and irreconcilably antagonistic, as France and England. My hon. Friend who interrupts me, the Member for Liskeard, has lately shown so much accurate knowledge as to Cracow and the Treaties of Vienna, that I am not at all surprised at his knowing so little about the analogy between the interests of different countries. I will explain what, perhaps, my hon. Friend has not
  1984
  considered—the difference which exists between the position of the two nations. The Government of England is a constitutional Government; that of France is a despotism. The Government of England is a peaceful; that of France is a military Government. We are a commercial nation; France is an aggressive State. The Government of England is a settled and legitimate Government; that of France is a Government of revolution. Above all, let me say the Government of England prides itself on being a highly moral Government, and the present Government of France I believe to be the most immoral Government in Europe. Under these circumstances, I feel that a special alliance between the two countries is a forced and precarious alliance. It is the alliance of peace with war, of constitutionalism with despotism, of the love of commerce with the lust for conquest, of legitimacy with revolution. And I believe that that special alliance will not last one day longer than it subserves the policy of aggrandizement in France, of which England has begun by being the tool, and of which she will end, I believe, by finding herself the victim. And even as regards the relations of commerce, I believe there can be no permanent commercial spirit in France as long as you have that law of perpetual subdivision of property, which prevents the formation of a permanent middle class, which discourages the acquisition of wealth and property, and which places the whole social system in France in a state of perpetual revolution. On the other hand, Prussia, which is now needing our assistance, is a kindred State, a constitutional, intelligent, progressive, and peaceful State. Compare her with France—France trampling down all the noblest interests of the nation, and diverting men's minds by the intoxication of war and military glory. Allied with Prussia, we form and we pursue a policy of our own. We stand forward as inculcating certain great principles, and upholding sound English influences. Allied with France, we incur the ridicule of every State of Europe, as duped, subordinate, led about—involved in what we hate and are ashamed of, struggling against our chains, which we are unable or afraid to break, and too feeble to give effect to our guarantees; forgetting that we are a European Power, much more, that we once were a Power of the first order, and the leading State of Europe. I ask again, what reliance can Germany place on us? What respect can

  1985
  she feel for us when she sees that we are the humble servants of France? I say that if the English Government are not prepared to rouse themselves to the declaration of a manly and a definite English policy, we must expect to see every Ally in turn abandon us, and to see Europe make her own terms with him who will then be the conqueror of the world. If we are not prepared to advocate a positive, a prompt, and a bold policy, we must be prepared at the same time to see every generous hope in Germany crushed. Nothing but the declaration of such a policy can save Prussia from the arms of France, and then many Savoys will rise up in succession, and we shall be beaten and humiliated on them all. It is for these reasons that I am anxious to see the Government of this country still enter their protest against the annexation of Savoy, as the first open act of French aggression—that they should make the meaning of that protest clearly understood in Europe—that they should make it the inauguration of a new alliance with Prussia, thus infusing new blood into Germany. It appears to me that the despatches of the French Minister have invited, have challenged us to some Parliamentary action on the subject. In one of these despatches he says that England has not protested, and he is rejoiced to find that she has not protested. That of itself is proof to us that a protest ought to be made; and, if necessary, Parliament should address the Queen, beseeching Her Majesty to instruct Her Ministers to make such a protest, and to follow it up, in concert with her Allies, by maintaining inviolable the neutrality of Switzerland, to the guarantee of which we were parties. I adhere to an opinion which I expressed in this House on a former occasion, that when Savoy was ceded to France, and the other great Powers of Europe refused to interfere, it would have been culpable and criminal folly on the part of England to have engaged single-handed in war with France to prevent that annexation. But the case of Switzerland is quite different, as we were told by the noble Lord himself. It is one in which the honour of England is involved. England has given a guarantee; her word has been solemnly passed; the danger is positive and real; the independence of Switzerland is an European question of the first order; and the Swiss have shown themselves true to themselves and to Europe, and have made known to the world that the loss of their freedom shall not be
  1986
  their own act. They have, indeed, appealed to Europe, but they have also startled Europe by a declaration, that if Europe abandons them in what is its own cause they are determined singlehanded to brave the colossal power of France rather than suffer extinction without a struggle. They had the spirit of their own poet, who said—
  "The land we from our Fathers had in trust,
  We to our children will transmit, or die:
  This is our maxim, this our piety;
  And God and nature say that it is just,
  That which we would perform in arms we must;
  We read the dictate in the infant's eye;
  In the wife's smile; and in the placid sky;
  And at our feet, amid the silent dust
  Of them that were before us."
  And, when Switzerland appeals to those who should guard the little citadel of freedom which has for so long shared with us the honour of affording a refuge to the persecuted and proscribed of other nations—when she is ready to send forth her little bands of patriots and heroes, with a devotion not surpassed in history, to fight for what the wise and good and great of all times have held to be the first possession of a people—is England to stand aloof, to forget her pledged word, to forfeit her honour, and to allow those territories which she has sworn to defend to become the scene of a tragedy which must leave a stain upon the honour of England in all after times? I know it is said that we can do nothing for Switzerland without a combination with all the other Powers. I say that in this case, which is for the prevention of war, such a general combination is not needed. I do not know what answer the Government may have received to the communications that were addressed to the different Powers of Europe; but we know this, that if we are true to ourselves we are sure of Prussia as well of Switzerland, and, in such a case, even those Allies alone are sufficient, with the help of England, not to make but to prevent war. The Emperor of France dares not make war in such a case as that of Chablais; the public opinion of Europe would overwhelm him; he could not rely upon the permanent support of his own people. We know that in the Italian war against Austria the French people, although at first reluctantly, did extend their support to the Emperor; but Austria was a wrong-doer and the public judgment of France condemned her; but in the case of Switzerland it would be different. Here France is entirely in the wrong. Chablais is not Sardinia's to give, it is not pre-

  1987
  tended to be necessary for the security of France, but it would be an act of pure aggression. I am confident that France would not endure that her men, money, and commerce should be sacrificed in such a cause. But then it is said, "If you interfere you incur the risk of war, which is a dreadful thing, expensive, and injurious to trade;" that "Chablais is a long way off, and it is no concern of ours." Those who say that this is no concern of England would say the same of the Rhine, or of Belgium; and if Kent and Sussex were invaded they would say that Kent and Sussex were no concern of the manufacturing districts of England. I say those are not the advisers to whom we should listen in a case of this kind. There is a maxim that those who are indifferent to the liberties of others will never defend their own; but it must be borne in mind that the trade and commerce of England are beyond anything affected by the development of the aggressive policy of France. We are not now deceived—we know what that policy means. We may hesitate to act, but that will not avail us, for we know that France will support the Emperor as long as our hesitating conduct makes his policy uninterruptedly successful; but we have reason to believe she would abandon it if we resolutely opposed it. The question then is this—shall we oppose the Emperor's policy in Switzerland, or shall we wait until he has subjected Switzerland, divided Germany, overrun Belgium, and has only England to deal with? Shall we confront him now with the voice of all Europe against him, or wait until Europe, humiliated and disgusted, turns with him against us? When I am told—as I dare say I shall be told—that what I am saying tends to provoke war, I answer that no Gentlemen in this House have a right to monopolize a hatred of war and a love of peace; and those who have the least right to do so are the advocates and supporters of the Emperor of the French, who I believe to be the greatest enemy of peace in the world. There is a state of peace which is even worse than war—when it is a mere adjournment of war to a more convenient season, when the enemy who is determined to attack you may strike with more deadly effect. I grant you that the Minister who pronounces the word "War" incurs a fearful responsibility; but he incurs a responsibility still more fearful who, conscious of an impending danger, shrinks from his duty of meeting it like a man, but in a degenerate
  1988
  and craven spirit, tides over the difficulty of the day, bequeathing to his successors and his country the increasing difficulties of an unsettled question of which the dangers have been aggravated by his timidity and the disasters multiplied a thousandfold by delay. I do not believe the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is such a man. He has been called upon to conduct the foreign policy of this country at one of the most critical moments of our history; for it is my solemn conviction that the next few years, perhaps months, may be among the most memorable in the history of England, and may leave their mark for good or for evil on after generations. I have heard speeches lately from the noble Lord which indicate that he is not insensible to the danger. In that case he will not shrink from his duty. He bears a name which is associated with the past greatness of England, and I trust he will never allow it to go down to posterity linked with the darkest hour of England's dishonour and decline.
  MR. DUFFsaid, he wished to ascertain the opinion of the House upon a question connected with the important subject which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman. At this critical moment, when Paris was the centre of all the intrigues of the Continent, was England efficiently represented in that capital? If they referred to the many despatches in which week after week Lord Cowley misled Lord Derby's Government, or looked to his journey to Vienna, which was a failure in itself and embarrassing to the Government, or considered the fact that a private Member of the House was in possession of important information which ought to have been known to our Ambassador in Paris, it would appear that the noble Earl was not sufficient for the post. He had been too long in Paris; a residence of eight years in that atmosphere was too long for one man;—for he (Mr. Duff) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that politically the French Court was the most immoral Court of Europe.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I do not well understand what the right hon. Gentleman proposes by the speech which he has just addressed to the House. It is, no doubt, his privilege to address us upon any part of our foreign or domestic policy; but, at the same time, it must be recollected that that privilege is accompanied by a deep responsibility; and I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficiently

  1989
  weighed the importance of that responsibility, when he made that speech to which we have just listened. In the first place I must say, before I advert to the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, that while he appeared to be preparing the House for war, while he seemed to be endeavouring to rouse the feelings of this House in favour of a contest with the Government of France, he never laid down what were to be the objects of that contest. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that Chablais and Faucigny were part of the Swiss territory, and that the French Government were about to invade and take possession of that territory, contrary to the rights of Switzerland. Whatever dangers we may have to encounter, whatever may be in future the position of affairs, that is not their present situation. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what is the present state of the Savoy question. I may explain to him, at least, a portion of that question—my duty forbidding me to go into details as to what has recently happened and is now happening—but in going into that subject, I must state that the question of Sardinia and its cession of Savoy, and the question of the neutralized portions of Savoy and their relations, first to Switzerland, and next to the great Powers of Europe, are two totally distinct questions. The right hon. Gentleman says we did not protest against the cession of Savoy by the King of Sardinia. There may be, and I think there are, cases in which it is right to enter a protest—where, for instance, a treaty is manifestly broken. There was the case of Cracow; but there we did not think our interests were so endangered, or our honour so much concerned, as to render it necessary for us to take up arms. Such an occasion is one for protest. But there are other cases. Undoubtedly the late Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the late Duke of Modena, found their territories violently taken possession of, and another Sovereign claiming the right to rule over them. Not certainly having any inferior interest in the matter, but not having at the same time the power to resume that sovereignty, they very properly protest; meaning thereby that they do not acknowledge the right to do what has been done: and that if it shall ever be in their power to resume their sovereignty, they are fully entitled to resume it. The subject in that case was a very proper one for a protest. But what is our position with regard to the cession of Savoy?
  1990
  When we first heard of the matter—when we were told that it was not at that time intended to be carried into effect, but that it might be carried into effect, we stated we thought such a transfer would have injurious consequences, both to France and to the general peace and tranquillity of Europe; but we were not entitled to say to the King of Sardinia that he should not cede his territory to France, nor were we entitled to say to the Emperor of the French that he should not accept the territory which the King of Sardinia intended to yield to him. So much is this the view of some of the Courts of Europe, that the Emperor of Russia, through his Minister, has said this is a matter which entirely concerns the two Sovereigns, and that the Emperor of France had a right to ask for that cession; and that the King of Sardinia had a right to make it; and that with regard to the pure cession, there was no room for question. I do not understand that any of the Powers of Europe have said even so much as we have said upon the subject. Some of them have considered that the Emperor of the French might take this territory, if it were yielded to him; some of them have considered it in the light in which we have done—as a most injurious example, and pregnant with future consequences of evil; but they have not said that they were entitled to protest on the subject. So far, therefore, I think we have not only acted in conformity with the law of nations, but in conformity with what has been the general sense of the other Powers of Europe. There is a question, however, intimately connected with this question, and it is a question of some complication, which has been partly discussed, and must be further discussed, and which at this time occupies the attention of the Cabinets of Europe. It was agreed in 1815 that certain portions of Savoy—Chablais, Faucigny, and part of the Genevois—should have all the benefits, in case of war between neighbouring Powers, which belonged to Switzerland; that the King of Sardinia should have the power to withdraw his troops through the neutral territory of Savoy and through the Valais; and that thereupon the only military authority which should have power in that district should be the troops of the Swiss Confederation. Well, there has been a discussion, and some of the diplomatic despatches on this subject have appeared in the newspaper. There has been, in the first place, a discussion as to what was the

  1991
  origin of this particular provision, which is contained in the 92nd Article of the General Treaty of Vienna, dated the 20th of November, 1815. The French Government have contended in more than one very able despatch that this very provision was made for the benefit of the King of Sardinia, and for the protection of his troops in case of war. It has been contended, on the other side, that it was intended for the security of Geneva, and for the general benefit of Switzerland. But, whatever may be the result of that discussion, the view which Her Majesty's Government take is, that it was a provision which was conducive to the general security of Switzerland, and of that neutrality which was declared to be part of the general policy of Europe. That being the case, a new question arises with regard to the change which has lately taken place. The Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia have concluded a Treaty at Turin, by an Article of which the neutralized parts of Savoy are transferred with the rest of Savoy to the Emperor of the French; but it is declared that that territory is transferred with the same conditions on which it was held formerly by the King of Sardinia. That provision naturally gave occasion to a demand for explanation. And it has been said, and most frankly as I think, both by the French Government and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the King of Sardinia, that the meaning of that Article is not merely that the Emperor of the French takes that territory with the engagements as to neutrality to which I have alluded, and to which the King of Sardinia was subject; but he takes it, to use the phrase of Count Cavour, with the obligation of an efficacious neutrality for Switzerland. It being by general consent a great change that the neutrality which was formerly provided with regard to territory belonging to the King of Sardinia should be the condition of territory belonging to France, a most interesting and important question arises how that neutrality is to be efficiently maintained in the sense in which the Powers of Europe wished to establish it. But this is a question, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, which is not at all like that which he seems to suppose of the French Government seizing upon the territories of an independent State. It is a question on which you may argue that this change of condition is such that the neutrality of Switzerland cannot
  1992
  be placed in so secure a position as it was, whatever may be the precautions which you may provide. But, at all events, that is a question which may be maturely examined and considered; and, so far from being a question of war, it is a question which deserves to be considered by the coolest heads, by men of the greatest experience and of the most mature judgment, having regard, as it does, to the provisions of Treaties which hold the nations of Europe together. Well, Sir, there has been no objection by the French Government to the examination of this question. It is in general terms stated in the Treaty of Turin that the Emperor of the French will come to an understanding with the Powers of Europe on this subject. The Swiss Confederation, through their Federal Council, have asked that there shall be a Conference on this question. The French Government, through their Minister here—their Chargé d'Affaires—have more than once said to me that they have no objection to make to that Conference. The Powers which may be called to it, the manner in which they should be called, the place where they should meet, and the time at which they should assemble, may be matters of friendly consideration and discussion; but as to the Conference itself and the principle on which it should meet—namely, the reconciling the Treaty of Vienna, by which that guarantee was provided, with the present state of things, and the Treaty lately concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia—to that principle they make not the slightest objection, and they declare themselves perfectly ready to enter into it. Well, then, I say it depends not merely upon England, nor upon what I must call somewhat of a boasting declaration that we are at any time ready to go to war. It requires, I must say, that the Powers of Europe should be in a certain manner agreed as to the guarantees they should take, as to the precautions which they should establish, in order to give Switzerland an effective guarantee for her neutrality. Of this the right hon. Gentleman may be assured, that, without speaking of other Powers, or of the regard which they may have for the interests of Switzerland, the Government of Great Britain feels the utmost desire to see Switzerland—that free and independent nation—that refuge of the politically proscribed—that old and classical land of liberty—possessed of every guarantee that can secure to her the main-

  1993
  tenance of that independence and that freedom which she has so long enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman asks what course the Government of England moans to pursue in regard to our treaty engagements in respect to other parts of Europe. That is a very wide and important question, and I should be greatly embarrassed, if I were to go over our treaties with the different countries of Europe, and attempt to say what course should be taken with regard to each of them. It is enough for the present to say that we have now a critical question before us—that we are about to enter into negotiations on that subject—and that the eight Powers of Europe who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna will probably meet and take part in the consideration of it. I should therefore not only think it unwise, but a dereliction of my duty to go into details. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that our position is such as to reflect disgrace upon us; he considers that this country is the slave of France, and that we are too cowardly to stand by our guarantees. If that opinion of the right hon. Gentleman be a correct one, then the present Government must be unworthy of the confidence of this House or the country, and it would be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to call for a declaration by this House of another and more decided line of policy, and to take the management of public affairs out of the hands of those who have made the country a byword in Europe. But the right hon. Gentleman makes no proposition of that kind. He has made a speech, but so far as I could see there was no practical end in it. To be sure, the right hon. Gentleman did at one time somewhat inconsistently represent this country, and especially all concerned in commerce and manufactures, as being bribed by the advantages to be obtained by the late Treaty of Commerce with France. Now, it is not six weeks ago since I heard the right hon. Gentleman, along with many others, declare that we had been completly duped in that Treaty, and that, so far from gaining advantages by it, we had made ourselves the dupes of France. Then all the advantages were on the side of France, and all the loss on the part of England; and now it is represented as a bribe so manifest as to make us forget the independence of all other nations and the honour of our own. That is not a very consistent representation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. But with respect
  1994
  to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to that Treaty I consider that, while those matters which concern one of the nations of Europe in whose independence we take a deep interest require our attention, and while other questions that may arise affecting the independence and safety of other nations may, no doubt, also require our immediate attention, yet an extension of commercial relations and the mutual advantages derived by the people of France and England from an exchange of manufactures and the conveniences and comforts of life—France obtaining from us our manufactures, and we obtaining from them the productions of their more fertile soil and of the fine climate with which they have been blessed—will tend to bring the two nations nearer and nearer to each other—that they will make men think when any questions arise between them, not, shall we sacrifice our honour? not, shall we forfeit our good faith? not, shall we sacrifice the independence of other nations, and rush into war in order that the world may admire the brilliant and showy deeds of hostility?—but that they will rather induce them to consider whether the subject-matters in dispute cannot obtain a solution by peaceful means. These, I believe, will be the effects of this Treaty; and I am glad to think that when those in power in this country and in France have passed away, and when these particular questions may have lost their interest, the effect will be to induce the people of the two countries to draw closer together, and to form that alliance of nations which, after all, is more secure than any mere alliance of Cabinets or Kings. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether any despatch has been sent in answer to the last despatch of M. Thouvenol? The despatch of Her Majesty's Government was a despatch stating our reasons for not agreeing to the statement made by the Government of France in favour of the annexation of Savoy. M. Thouvenel did not answer that despatch. He took notice that it was not a protest, and contented himself with doing so; consequently, there was no further answer. We have stated our case, and have gone fully into it, and there was no reason for prolonging the discussion. Our opinions naturally differed from those of the French people. The French people thought with their Government that the annexation of Savoy would be an advantage to the defences of France; they were glad to see their Government put forward a claim

  1995
  to Savoy, and to see it assented to by Sardinia. The Government and the people of England took a different view of the question. We could not conceive that there was any practical necessity for the annexation of Savoy, and we gave our reasons for not assenting to such a policy. With regard to the future, this is not the time to enter into it. If the House leaves us to conduct these negotiations, I trust we shall not be unmindful of the honour of England, or of the interests of Europe, and that the right hon. Gentleman will find when the papers are laid before the House that we have done that which became us as British statesmen, and as the representatives of an important part of the community of European nations.
  MR. CLIFFORDdefended Lord Cowley from the attack made on him by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Duff). He had known Lord Cowley for many years as one of the most able and intelligent public servants the country ever possessed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, It is unnecessary to add anything to what has been so fully, so ably, and I trust, so satisfactorily said by my noble Friend; but I must advert to the remarks which were made by the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Duff) in regard to the character and conduct of Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at Paris. I take leave to say that, having known that noble Lord for many years, having followed his course of duty in the various foreign States to which he has been accredited, and having had the honour to be his superior in office during periods of great difficulty, and when the duties he had to perform required all the qualities which an Ambassador ought to possess—I am bound to say that the attack made on him by the hon. Member behind me was founded on a complete mistake, on a great error as to the character and conduct of the person to whom his observations applied, and conveyed as unjust a censure as ever was passed on one who has ever shown himself to be a meritorious and deserving public servant. Lord Cowley has upon all occasions in which he has had to act as the Ambassador of England combined in a most remarkable degree that spirit of personal conciliation which is so essential to a proper performance of diplomatic duties with the strictest regard to the interests, the dignity, and the honour of this country. I am sure that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who had an opportunity during the period
  1996
  they had the conduct of affairs of marking the conduct of Lord Cowley—of examining the manner in which he performed his duties—will concur in the opinion I have expressed, and in bearing that testimony which he so fully deserves to his transcendent merits as the representative of England to a most important foreign State.
  MR. A. W. KINGLAKEsaid, that the cause in which he felt such a deep interest had been so ably advocated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, that it was not without pain that he found himself differing from him in even a minute point. But it was his opinion that a protest was an indication rather of weakness than of strength, and he was not one of those who thought that the House would do well to press upon Her Majesty's Ministers the adoption of that particular course. His right hon. Friend had spoken of a protest as being the natural conclusion of such an affair. It was precisely because it would be the conclusion of this affair, that he (Mr. Kinglake) objected to a protest. He did not by any means acquiesce in that which had been done; but it was precisely because a protest would be the termination of this business that M. Thouvenel was anxious to incite Her Majesty's Government to a course which would enable him to treat the affair as having been brought to its end. He (Mr. Kinglake) could not help thinking that the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, was under great misapprehension as to what fell from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Stroud. The noble Lord seemed to impute to his right hon. Friend that he was ignorant of the position of Chablais and Faucigny, and that he imagined that these provinces were part of the Swiss territory. But with the knowledge that was possessed by his right hon. Friend, it was impossible that he should have fallen into such an error. What his right hon. Friend probably meant was something equivalent to what he (Mr. Kinglake) had the honour to say when he first introduced this subject to the House, namely, that Chablais and Faucigny, and the neutralized part of the Genevese territory, though they were, for domestic purposes, under the sovereignty of Sardinia, yet for European purposes they belonged to Switzerland; because the Treaty of Vienna expressly provided that, when war broke out between France and Austria, then the Sardinian troops should march out of these provinces, and that Swiss troops' should

  1997
  enter. Well, M. Thouvenel had contended that this particular provision, with regard to the neutralized districts, was one inserted for the benefit of Sardinia and the therefore Sardinia had a right to cede these provinces to France. But he (Mr. Kinglake) thought that M. Thouvenel, or any one who put forward or accepted that view must be unacquainted with the documents upon which this question rested. By the Treaty of Cession, dated, he believed, in March 1815, it was expressly declared that this cession was in favour of the Canton of Geneva—expressly showing that it was an arrangement intended for the benefit of Switzerland, and not of Sardinia. It was not therefore, possible, for Sardinia, with any colour of right or justice, to surrender these provinces to the Emperor of the French. Now, the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had said that the provisions of this Treaty were such that he felt that he had no right to go to the King of Sardinia, on the one hand, and say, "You must not cede this territory;" or to go to the Emperor of the French on the other, and say, "You have no right to accept this cession." Well, he (Mr. Kinglake) could not understand how, with the knowledge the noble Lord must have of the Treaty of Vienna, he could possibly come to such a conclusion. By the treaty of peace, to which France herself was a party, it was stated in the most direct terms that the frontiers of France should be what they were then described to be—namely, such as they were before the recent annexation. It was also solemnly provided by united Europe that each Power that was a party to that treaty should be a guarantee for its maintenance. Then how was it possible for the noble Lord and the representatives of the rights of England in this quarrel to say that she is without the right—without the privilege of questioning this transaction? He could not but think, also, that the noble Lord was wrong in endeavouring to attribute to his right hon. Friend inconsistency, because he said that the Treaty of Commerce had been a bad bargain. It was very possible, as he imagined, that a portion of the community should be very much conciliated by the Treaty, whilst the general interests of the country were very little benefited by its provisions. Many of those who were interested in the trade of the country no doubt were conciliated by this Commercial Treaty; and his right hon. Friend might say that in perfect consistency with what he before stated
  1998
  —namely, that the whole was not beneficial to the country at large. He wished, now, to say a few words with regard to what had been done in the progress of our relations with the French Emperor since the House last met. The Emperor of the French had entered into three very strict engagements with England and the other Powers of Europe. He engaged in the first place that he would consult the great Powers of Europe. Well, the House knew that an attempt to fulfil that pledge was made by the despatch which was addressed by M. Thouvenel to the French Ambassador in London. The grounds upon which M. Thouvenel relied were combated by the noble Lord, who showed that they were altogether untenable. What was the reply to that despatch on the part of M. Thouvenel? Why he simply said that the prolongation of this discussion could produce no practical effect. He treated the noble Lord as one who was engaged in a mere barren discussion that could produce no practical result. If the noble Lord was the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—if he was one of the representatives of England in this quarrel, and England was still a great Power, he (Mr. Kinglake) thought the noble Lord had a right to expect a reply something different from this. Was this consulting England, to state certain reasons why the annexation should take place, and then, when those reasons were combated, to say that it was a mere barren discussion and a polemic that had better cease? He (Mr. Kinglake) denied that the French Emperor had fulfilled his promise or had consulted the Great Powers of Europe if this was the way in which the consultation was to be made. Then another engagement entered into by the Emperor of the French was that he would take the opinion of the populations of the countries proposed to be annexed. Now he (Mr. Kinglake) believed that throughout all Europe, before this question of annexation was raised, there were no more contented populations than those of Savoy and Nice. Well, when these questions were first raised they gave, he thought, every indication they could well be expected to give of the feeling they entertained on the subject. The population of North Savoy was animated not only by attachment to the throne of Sardinia, but by a strong dislike of being annexed to France; at any rate there was no question as to the authenticity of the 12,000 signatures to the petition against annexation to France, and to the prayer

  1999
  that if any change took place they might be annexed to Switzerland. But in the county of Nice the feeling was still more strong—it amounted indeed almost to unanimity. He was well informed that the proportion of those who objected to annexation to France was not less than five-eighths of the population. Was the conduct of the people of Nice inconsistent with this? The Municipal Juntas came to a resolution contrary to the annexation. The Colonel of the National Guard, who is chosen by the men, was opposed to it; a deputation was sent to Turin to entreat the King not to abandon them; and lastly, they elected Garibaldi and another, both of them men who were strongly attached to Sardinia. M. Laity was sent to Savoy, and M. Pietri to Nice. M. Laity was one of the fellow-labourers and associates of the Emperor in his Strasburg enterprise. That gentleman was sent to Savoy with instructions to promote there the principle of annexation to France, and M. Pietri, who was chef de police, and also a senator, went to Nice for the same purpose. He arrived there on the 30th of March, the French troops, who affected to be passing through on their return from Italy, being to reach the city on the 1st of April. The arrangements which were made for their reception were these: the gates were opened, no passports were required, the Provençals were admitted into the town with tri coloured flags, the sailors were landed from the French vessels of war which were in the port, and an attempt was made to get up a demonstration in favour of annexation to France. That attempt was a failure. If he (Mr. Kinglake) could inform the House of the source from which he obtained his information they would be satisfied of the truth of the report—it was from one who was present—that amongst the assembled people not a hand was raised, not a single voice was heard in favour of the scheme. Even a bust of the French Emperor drawn in procession by six grey horses failed to obtain a single cheer. On the 2nd of April a Provisional Government was formed; and the formation of that Provisional Government was, he asserted, one of the basest contrivances for shifting the allegiance of a loyal people ever resorted to by a Sovereign. The Sardinian authorities were displaced, and were succeeded not by French ones, but by men who were still to be called Sardinian employés, but who were to be nominated by France, and who were
  2000
  informed that if the annexation took place they would retain the places which had been conferred upon them. Nor was this all. Count Cavour addressed letters to the civil authorities urging them to do all they could to bring about the annexation; and also wrote to the Bishop of the county a nominee of his own, requesting him to obtain from the parochial clergy the use of their influence to induce the people of the villages to agree to it as an act of loyalty to their King. Was there ever a more cruel abandonment of a loyal people, or could anything be imagined more intolerable than that a Sovereign, not content with transferring his subjects to a foreign Power, should appeal to their loyalty to wards himself as an engine which was to induce them to renounce their allegiance? And this, as an hon. Friend reminded him, was done by Count Cavour, who declared in the most solemn and precise manner, and who succeeded in persuading many people of his fidelity, that he would never sell, concede, or exchange these dominions of the Sardinian King. On the 3rd of April, M. Pietri had the entire control of the Government of Nice. He had the direction of the police, and was really the governor of the place. On the 5th of April there was issued a proclamation, to a passage from which he must call the attention of the House. In all countries there were to be found persons of varying degrees of honour and of baseness. In the county of Nice, Count Cavour found a person named Luboni to act as Provisional Governor of the country, and this person addressed to the people a proclamation, in which, after saying,
  "At the august voice of the King all uncertainty with regard to our future mast cease; at those august words must disappear all dissensions and rivalries:"
  he continued,
  "Public demonstrations from this moment have no reason in them. Let us hasten to affirm by our suffrages the annexation of our county to France. In rendering ourselves to echo the intentions of the King let us press round the flag of that noble and generous nation which has always excited our lively sympathies. Let us rally round the throne of the glorious Emperor Napoleon III. Let us surround him with that fidelity peculiar to our country, which we have hitherto reserved for King Victor Emmanuel;"
  and the proclamation ended with the words, "Vive la France! Vive l'Empereur Napoleon III.!" Under such circumstances as these, the candidate upon whom the people had set their hearts hav-

  2001
  ing declared himself disqualified, and entreated his supporters to have nothing to do with the election, it was not surprising that the National Committee of Nice determined to abstain from voting, and he believed that no further precaution on the part of M. Pietri was necessary. That gentleman, however, seemed to have been determined to make assurance doubly sure, and therefore the urns in which the votes were to be deposited were committed to the superintendence of four persons who were known to be favourable to the plan of annexation to France. All hope of a fair election was at once extinguished. And this was how the Emperor had kept his second promise, this was how he had annexed these provinces by what he called universal suffrage. It was a great evil to mankind when brute force was used to overcome a free people; but that was not the utmost wrong which the Emperor of the French had perpetrated; because to that wrong he had added a semblance of consulting the population, but had adopted such means to mislead and overawe them as to render anything like a free choice or election absolutely impossible. This being the way in which the Emperor of the French had kept his two promises to consult the Powers of Europe, and to be bound by the free expression of the wishes of the peoples also were to be annexed, there was a third promise, the result of which was still open—namely, that in case of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France Chablais and Faucigny should be joined to Switzerland. That promise was made to Lord Cowley, not only by M. Thouvenel, but also personally by the Emperor himself, as was shown in the despatch of the 5th of February, and therefore the House would see that the personal honour of the Emperor of the French was pledged to the performance of a promise thus deliberately made to the British Ambassador. Upon this subject, however, he forbore from saying another word, because he collected from the statement of the noble Lord that it was now the subject of negotiation; but he must, before sitting down, express his hope that that negotiation would be conducted with a due sense of the importance of the question. The annexation of Faucigny, Chablais, and the Genevoise to France would absolutely destroy the neutrality of Switzerland by making it, as every military man knew, perfectly impossible to defend the western portion of that country. He was not, therefore, exagge-
  2002
  rating when he said that in this question there was involved the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland; and that with the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland, there was at stake the safety of Germany, and the peace and tranquillity of Europe for many years to come.
  Afterwards,
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he was unwilling that it should be taken for granted that he acquiesced in the observation that the explanation given by the noble Foreign Secretary was satisfactory, as that depended on the answer that might be given to the question he desired to put. The Swiss Confederation had appealed to the Powers of Europe, requiring that there might be a Conference to consider the condition of the neutralized provinces, and demanding at the same time that until the Conference met and a decision was come to, that the neutralized provinces should not be occupied in a military sense by France. What he wished then to know was, whether the noble Foreign Secretary, when he said that the Government of France was willing to submit this question to a Conference of the great Powers of Europe, and that in the opinion of the Government that Conference would conduce to the settlement of the question in a manner to secure the independence and neutrality of Switzerland, means to imply that matters would in the meantime remain in statu quo, and that the neutralized provinces would not be militarily occupied by France. On this the whole question turned, for it was obvious, as pointed out in one of Lord Cowley's despatches, that if this neutralized territory should be put in the hands of France, any stipulation with regard to the matter would not be worth the paper on which it was written. Lord Cowley had pointed out to the Government that it would be in the power of France in a moment to pour her legions, without the smallest resistance, into Switzerland, and it was perfectly obvious that if France entered into possession that anything like a retirement from it at a suggestion from a Conference was what the noble Lord, in the most sanguine moment of his existence, could not possibly anticipate.

THE CURRENCY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had given notice of the following Question, which he wished to put to Mr. Chancellor

  2003
  of the Exchequer—"Whether his attention has been directed to the Bank of England Return, published in The Gazette of Friday last, in so far as regards a diminution of notes in the hands of the Bank, and an addition to those in circulation; and whether he could give any information as to the report that this has not been produced by the ordinary requirements of trade, but by some concerted action on the Bank's Reserve, to produce a disturbance in the Currency of the Country." The proper use of the currency was a matter which not only interested the metropolis, and banks and bankers here, but it affected every part of the country, and all engaged in the operations of commerce. At the beginning of this year the rate of discount was 2½ per cent; on the 19th January it was advanced to 3 per cent; on the 31st January to 4 per cent, and at the end of March to 4½. The reserve of the Bank of England then stood at £8,083,000. On the 4th April, although there had been no alteration in the rate of discount, the reserve had diminished to £6,842,000. Last Thursday the rate of discount was raised to 5 per cent, and the figures in The Gazette of Saturday showed that the Bank reserve had fallen from near £7,000,000 to under £5,000,000, This astonishing diminution in the reserve naturally attracted considerable attention and caused much inquiry as to its cause. Last Saturday the well-informed and intelligent writer of the "City Article" of The Times announced that the diminution had not arisen from any extraordinary demand upon the Bank in the ordinary operations of trade; but from some concerted action on the part of the discount houses, by which a large amount of notes had been taken from the Bank and withdrawn from circulation; and that statement was confirmed in The Times of Monday last. It appeared to him that a charge of that kind—an amount which, from the analogy of previous years, would require the rate of discount to be 6 per cent and upwards. A charge of that kind was so disparaging to the character of London, and so injurious to the monetary interests, that he had thought it his duty, as connected with a large banking establishment, to ask this question, with a view to ascertain, on behalf of the public at large, whether there was any truth in the rumour that, by concert, a quantity of bank notes had been withdrawn from circulation and locked up in a box, where they were of
  2004
  no use to anybody. The public were now told that two days since the very same notes—£1,000 notes—had been returned to the Bank. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to throw some light on the transaction.

INCOME-TAX COLLECTORS.
  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to put the following Question to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"Whether persons who may have become sureties for Income Tax Collectors at a time when the rate of the Income Tax was 5d. or 7d. in the pound, are liable for any default made by the Collector when the rate of the Income Tax is 9d. or 10 d. in the pound; and if they are not, whether in the event of a Collector making default, the tax-payer will be held liable to make a further payment to cover the deficiency." He understood that a case of the kind had occurred some years ago, where the Collector became a defaulter, and his sureties contended that they were not bound under the higher rate of tax to make good the deficiency; and the revenue officers had come to the conclusion that they could not call upon the sureties. He would also ask what was to be the first business of the evening after Supply, and whether any of the Bills on the paper would be proceeded with?
INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to bring in his intended Bill to authorize Inland Bonding Warehouses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would answer the last question first. The course to be taken on the subject of inland bonding depended a good deal on what the House had voted or might vote in connection with the Customs' Duties Bill. As soon as that Bill had passed the House, which he hoped would be very soon, he would state what he proposed with respect to inland bonding.
  In reply to the Question as to the liabilities of income tax collectors and their sureties, the House was aware that the appointment of collectors, and the arrangements in general, were not under the direct control of the Executive Government, but

  2005
  under the superintendence of local authorities. But there was some misapprehension in the hon. Baronet's Question. The appointments of collectors were not permanent appointments, but were made from year to year; the bonds were taken from year to year; and consequently the liabilities of the sureties of the bonds could not be carried forward from year to year. A great deal of attention was therefore requisite on the part of the local authorities to see that the bonds were kept up, and that the sureties were renewed with the appointments. But this was a part of the system somewhat difficult to work under the superintendence of the local authorities, and he thought that the attention of the House might be advantageously called to it—he hoped during the present Session; for the liability of tax-payers to be called on for second payments was a most serious matter, and the state of the law was not satisfactory.
  As to the order of business, he proposed to take the Committee on the Customs Bill if he could do so by eleven o'clock. If not, he would not that night proceed with any of the measures under his care, except the Bill for repealing Sir John Barnard's Act. The Refreshment Houses and Wine Licecnes Bill could not come on; he would place it for Monday, and then state when it would be brought forward.
  The next Question was that of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Alderman Salomons), who asked if his attention had been directed to the Bank Return in The Gazette of Friday last? It had; for as the hon. Member correctly stated, that Return was regarded by the whole mercantile community as an index to the state of the country, and undoubtedly it was the duty of a person in his position to keep it in view. The principal facts relating to that Return were well shown in the Parliamentary paper moved for by the hon. Member himself, and published that morning, by which any one would at once see the most material facts. The first page of that paper showed that the diminution in the Bank reserve was almost entirely caused by the withdrawal of notes of £1,000 each. The notes of that description held by the Bank at the last Return amounted to £1,927,000 only; while on the 11th April, the date of the previous Return, they were £3,585,000. So large a difference as that having occurred in a single denomination of notes was of itself a demonstration which supplied the answer to the latter part of the
  2006
  hon. Gentleman's Question—namely, that the diminution of the reserve was not produced by the ordinary requirements of trade, but by some special operation. The latter part of the Question seemed, however, to imply that that result had been produced by some concerted action on the Bank's reserve, and with the view to produce a disturbance in the currency. He was not prepared to give any decided answer upon that point, further than to say that he did not think it was a "concerted action" in the natural interpretation of the words—namely, an action determined on by a combination among a variety of parties. There was no variety of parties; for it was entirely owing to a proceeding of a single house of great eminence and enormous transactions, which had thought fit, in the exercise of its own discretion, to adopt measures that had had that effect. There certainly was intention, though, perhaps, it did not amount to concert. The hon. Gentleman asked if this had been done in order to produce a disturbance of the currency of the country. He should go beyond his duty if he gave an opinion on that subject. Nothing would be more inexpedient than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to presume, by opinions given in that House, to interfere with the freedom of mercantile houses carrying on their ordinary business, who might do what was not prudent or imprudent, and who might take measures which they were perfectly free to take, but which, if they were of great extent, might injuriously affect the public interests. Every customer of a Bank was free to do what he liked with his balance, whether that balance was at a private bank or the Bank of England. On this, and on more general grounds, it was not fitting in him to pronounce an opinion on the matter. He had, however, seen the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, and one of the partners in the house of Overend and Co.—the house concerned—who, he must say, had invited communication, and had stated all the facts, and their view of the case, with the most perfect frankness. The Bank of England being a public institution, if there was anything to blame in its conduct, it might be a very proper subject of complaint in that House. But all persons were agreed that there was nothing that could be made the subject of censure in the proceedings of the Bank for the last fortnight. On that he believed there was unanimity of opinion.

  2007
  On the other hand, if the proceedings of a private house had been imprudent or injurious to the public interests it would be a very bad way of curing that evil if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should presume to pass sentence on their proceedings. It was within the knowledge of all that whatever had been done in this case had been done, not so much as a private transaction, but rather in the exercise of the power which every mercantile house might think itself entitled to exercise in order to expose what it might think wrong in the existing state of the law, so as to bring into view what it might consider a public evil, and thereby to produce and promote a disposition to apply a remedy to that evil. He gave no opinion on the existence of any such public evil. The state of the case he apprehended to be this. After the crisis of 1857, the Directors of the Bank of England were gravely impressed, as all must be, with the extreme inconvenience and mischief that resulted from repeated suspensions of the law at the discretion of the Government: yet the Bank of England and the Government had jointly found that that suspension was unavoidable, under the circumstances of the crisis when they occurred. The Bank of England had subsequently a rule for what he might term, not invidiously, the exclusion of a particular class of traders from discount; because the Directors of the Bank thought that such a rule was necessary to enable that establishment, under critical circumstances, to maintain their position, and to preclude the necessity of the interference of the Executive Government for the suspension of the law. The parties affected by that rule, on the contrary, thought that it was a very bad and injurious rule—that it tended very greatly, not only to their inconvenience, but to that of the public—and that it tended to throw what they considered their legitimate business into the hands of the Bank of England. These were very grave matters on both sides. They might well deserve careful investigation, but they were matters lying far above the region of the mere selfish or personal interests of any mercantile establishment whatever: they, in fact, cut deeply into the whole question of the policy of the present law; and nothing should be said tending to prejudge such a question. But this ought to be said in justice to the Bank—that everybody admitted that they had acted with the most perfect propriety and prudence under the circumstances of the
  2008
  case; and in justice, on the other hand, to the house of Overend, Gurney, and Co., that they had not the smallest objection to giving publicity to all the circumstances, because they consider that they have acted within their own right and discretion, and likewise in conformity with what they believe to be the public interests. Under these circumstances he did not think it necessary to go further into the matter.

THE NAVAL RESERVE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, there was such a wide difference of opinion on the subject of the Coastguard between the Secretary to the Admiralty and himself, that he must again refer to the matter. The number of the Coastguard was stated in the Estimates at 9,500. Seven years ago, Sir Charles Wood informed the House that they had a reserve of 8,500 men. The exact strength of the Coastguard at the present moment he found from Returns was 576 officers, 5,631 seamen, and 655 hoys, who, together with the 800 Naval Volunteers, constituted the whole Reserve force which the country possessed. And out of those 5,631 seamen, only 3,200 would be ready for the defence of the country in the event of anything unpleasant taking place on the Continent; yet the Manning Commission reported that for the safety of the country a Reserve force of not less than 70,000 men was necessary. If he were wrong in these figures, he hoped he should be corrected; but he had obtained them from head-quarters. In the present posture of affairs, the House would surely not be satisfied with so small a reserve as he had mentioned to fall back upon in any emergency.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETdid not suppose that anything he could say as representing the Admiralty would lead the gallant Admiral to believe that he was honestly endeavouring to give a true statement of the number of men available for sea service. Once for all, however, he would inform the gallant Admiral that, by a return just published by the Controller General of the Coastguard, the number of men and boys available for immediate sea service was 6,862. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Then my figures are quite correct.] He presumed, then, that the gallant Admiral had no complaint to make on that score, With regard to the Royal Naval Volunteers, it was true that only 800 of

  2009
  these had yet been enrolled; but there was, in his opinion, a very unnecessary alarm, both in Parliament and out of doors, upon the supposed failure of the scheme. From the first he never felt that seamen would join the new force all on a sudden, but, so far was he from regarding the progress of the Reserve force as unsatisfactory, that he was beginning to think it promised well. There was now a progressive increase weekly in the entry of men. In point of fact, they had only been ready to enrol the men since the 1st of the present month. The training ships had not before been in a state of preparation, and, as the men knew perfectly well that they could not begin exercising until the beginning of April, that fact, it might naturally be supposed, operated to prevent them from coming forward before. At the outset 30 or 40 a week were enrolled. The number was now increased to 100 per week, and if this rate could only be maintained there would soon be a very respectable force of Volunteers. It appeared to him that the gallant Admiral, by continually bringing before the House these statements as to the deficiency of our forces, acted very unreasonably, and did net tend either to advance his own credit or to promote the good of the country. The Government bad this year taken money Votes for 11,000 men more than were demanded for the service of the last year. They had no difficulty in getting men, who were entering—he would not say freely—but in a satisfactory way. So far were the Admiralty from finding any difficulty in obtaining men that they were declining to enter any but able seamen, unless they were men who had before been in the service. With respect to the Channel fleet, he was constantly visited by officers of high and low rank, who said, "Cannot you persuade the Member for Southwark to cease from offering continual encouragement to discontent among the crews?" He was bound to tell the gallant Admiral that his brother officers felt poignantly the continual complaints which he made about the men not having sufficient leave, when he could assure the House the fact was that they had more leave than had ever been conceded in former days. The cause of almost all the late disasters had been the prevalent practice of breaking leave; hut, irrespective of that, the fleet was in a healthy and satisfactory state considering how lately it had been created. There had been individual cases of
  2010
  insubordination, arising out of this question of leave, but the men were making good progress, and general contentment existed throughout the fleet. The gallant Admiral complained of the want of petty officers. No doubt there was. Could anybody expect, when a fleet had been created in so marvellously short a time, that it would have its full complement of experienced petty officers? At present, whenever a ship came home from foreign service, men who had behaved well were allowed to enter the Coastguard. This system accounted for the want of petty officers, for otherwise the men in question would now be petty officers on board the Channel fleet. The gallant Admiral's complaint on this score, therefore, was unfounded. He had made another more unreasonable than any. He stated that he had found the men were very overworked, were made to undergo excessive drill, and that great discontent existed in consequence. These complaints of coarse had gone down to the lower decks. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: I complained of the system, not of the quantity.] He could not see the force of this distinction. He Lad that day received a visit from Admiral Elliott, who was Captain of the Channel fleet, who was much distressed at the statements that had been made, and he produced a statement showing that the utmost amount of drill on hoard his ships did not exceed two hours a day, and upon an average of a week only one hour a day. That certainly was not an excessive amount of drill. He fully admitted that the gallant Admiral honestly desired to improve the service, but a strong feeling prevailed at the Admiralty and on board the ships, that his speeches in that House were doing incalculable mischief to a young fleet, which was now well-disposed, because they led the sailors to imagine grievances which really had no existence. He would not enter then upon the question of shipbuilding, because a notice had been given by an hon. Member on the subject. He hoped that when it came on the whole matter would be thoroughly sifted.
  MR. DISBY SEYMOURwished to know whether any school-ships were to be established, recording to the recommendation of the Manning Commission, who said that they were the best source of supply for our naval force. The important subject of our Naval Reserve had been most ably treated in an article in that day's Times, and the question of school-ships was in-

  2011
  timately connected with it. The Commission suggested that twelve school-ships should be placed in the principal ports of the kingdom. He hoped a supplemental Estimate would be introduced to provide for that want, and if no one else moved he would move such an Estimate. The great steamship companies of Southampton were willing to give liberal assistance in the formation of a Naval Reserve, and he hoped that at least Government would meet half way those ports which were inclined to contribute towards the establishment of school-ships.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEwarmly supported the establishment of school-ships, which, he said, the Manning Commission looked upon as the foundation of their scheme. If that plan was not carried on simultaneously with, or in advance of, the Naval Reserve, it would take away from it half its efficacy. He was perfectly satisfied that the great shipping ports would gladly defray part of the expense of the school-ships. The late troubles in the fleet had arisen not from drilling or working too much, but entirely from the breaking of leave, which showed a great laxity of morals among the men. One cause of this was the desperately bad places the seaman got into when he went ashore—places where he was fleeced of all his money, and utterly prostrated both in body and mind. He had seen, in the streets of Portsmouth, sailors; of the Royal Navy lying about disgracefully drunk, with nobody to look after them. It was not so in the army, for if soldiers kept out beyond a certain hour the pickets were sent to bring them in. He would therefore press upon the Government the necessity of establishing a police at the different dockyards and naval ports who would know where every man who landed would be found. As to the drill, the men suffered from a want of work rather than from an excess of it.
  MR. WHITBREAD, in reply to what had been said about establishing more training ships, explained that as yet they were rather a novelty, and there were many questions of detail to be considered before the Government could form an exact estimate of the annual expense of maintaining them. One vessel had been appropriated for the training of the boys, and as soon as the Admiralty had some little experience in the matter, they would shape their future course accordingly. The proposition to go halves with Southampton was one which the Admiralty were not yet
  2012
  prepared to deal with. It was perfectly correct that an offer had been made to the Admiralty by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company to allow the sailors of their magnificent vessels to be trained in the Royal Naval Reserve, while continuing to receive their wages from the Peninsular and Oriental Company.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he would postpone until the next Supply night the Motion of which he had given notice for a Commission of Inquiry into the control and management of the dockyards.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.

SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum not exceeding £174,378, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of Her Majesty's Naval Establishment at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
MR. W. WILLIAMS, going into the Estimates in detail, called attention to the great increase of several items over the Estimates of last year, especially for the appointment of additional clerks in dockyards at Chatham and Sheerness. He also remarked that, at Portsmouth and at Devonport, a new officer, called an assistant-superintendent, had been created, each with a salary of £800 a year. At Devon-port, moreover, there was another new officer, called an acting accountant, with £500 a year, and at the Haslar Hospital an Inspector-general. The increase of this Vote altogether for the salaries of different officers in the dockyards, victualling, and medical establishments was not less than £24,700. The waste and extravagance in this Department could never be justified.
MR. CORRYasked what were the special duties of the assistant superintendents of the dockyards whom it was now proposed to appoint? If they were to' be naval officers he did not think they were the best persons to overlook the work of the shipwrights.
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURalso wished to know the distinct grounds on which these new appointments were to be made, and whether it was in consequence of any representations from the superior officers who had the control of our dockyards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was true that the officers in charge of Portsmouth and Devonport had not made any strong representations asking for this additional assistance, but we had now nearly double the number of men working in the dockyards that we had some time ago; and there was a corresponding increase of clerks and officers in almost every department, and it was not reasonable to expect that the chief superintendents, whose correspondence was so enormously increased, could now look over the whole of the work and business of the dockyards, as they did before. He was sorry to say also that several very serious cases of embezzlement had lately occurred; but he was persuaded that if the superintendents, and the officers under them, were not so excessively pressed with an increase of work, they would be better able to ascertain what was going on. It was, therefore, the opinion of the Admiralty, that it would be a piece of good economy to appoint these additional superintendents. But they were about to have a regular inquiry into the dockyards, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle; an inquiry, which as he trusted, would be conducted by persons of high position, and would embrace the whole consideration of these important matters. It was, therefore, intended not to appoint these officers, until the inquiry should have taken place to see whether it was absolutely necessary or not. He proposed that the amount allotted for their salaries should stand on the Estimates in the meantime. As for the number of additional clerks employed it arose from the extraordinary amount of shipbuilding and other work that had been going on, and if that were to be continued the establishments must be enormously increased; but he trusted it would not always be necessary to make such great exertions in our dockyards, and that the present state of; things would prove to be merely exceptional. The Admiralty had, therefore, preferred to provide for it by the employment of temporary clerks.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTexpressed his opinion that amongst the half-pay Naval officers who were on shore unemployed the Admiralty could select very competent persons for assistant superintendents of dockyards.
MR. BRISTOWurged that the sum of £1,600 for the salaries of those two officers should be withdrawn from the Vote, if it were not intended to appoint them now.
MR. JACKSONalso supported the recommendation to reduce the Vote by that amount.
MR. W. WILLIAMSalso, appealed to the noble Lord to strike out this item. He did not see why there should be such an extraordinary amount of work just now in our dockyards, for we were told that we had ships enough, and only wanted men.
MR. BENTINCKshould be glad to know the number of men discharged from Portsmouth since the commencement of the financial year.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the total number of persons employed in the dockyards on the 1st of March was 20,032; but in the Estimates of 1860–61, the number was only 16,071. The number of shipwrights on the establishment on the 1st of March was 4,057; but the number proposed in the Estimates was 4,000. Of hired shipwrights the number on the 1st of March was 3,632; but in the present Estimates the number was only 1,950.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked how it was, seeing that a number of men had been discharged in the dockyards, that the charges for clerks was £1,872 more than last year?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know the number of the new officers appointed under this Estimate, and the amount of the salaries they were entitled to receive? Would they be entitled to superannuation? Because if they were, and if, after two or three years, the office was found not to answer, the country might be saddled with the officer for life.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the only new offices created were those of two assistant-superintendents, and as they would be naval officers, there would be no superannuation allowance attached to the appointment. The other additions were made under Vote 11, by which a sum was taken for the whole staff of the Director of the Works, each dockyard having its own. There were a number of additional temporary clerks.
SIR HENRY LEEKEsaid, that hon. Members seemed to forget that the work in the dockyards and in every department of the service had more than trebled within the last two or three years, and he thought it was an excellent plan to appoint assistants to the superintendents.
MR. LYGONsaid, the business of the dockyards generally had considerably increased, and it was necessary to place

2015
Deptford and Pembroke dockyards on the same footing as those of Sheerness and Chatham.
Mr. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked, whether there was any intelligible principle in the appointment or dismissal of the shipwrights? A great many extra men had been engaged, but some of them were dismissed. He wished to know whether the principle of seniority prevailed in respect to this. It was rumoured that private interests were brought to bear in regard to those officers. He hoped that such a rumour was unfounded.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the persons responsible for the discharge of shipwrights were the superintendents of the yard, who invariably retained the best workmen, provided they were not near the age of thirty-five, after which they were not allowed to be placed upon the establishment.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, there was a general impression abroad that there was a great advantage in obtaining the influence of a Member of Parliament in procuring appointments in those dockyards; and that an application by a Member to the Board of Admiralty was frequently successful in obtaining a situation in those places. It was alleged that private influence was often successful in obtaining those appointments without due consideration of the merits of the individuals selected. He thought that no persons should be appointed over those dockyards who were not shown to be fully competent for the office, and who did not understand the building of ships. He wished for some explanation as to the repeated changes that had taken place lately amongst the superintendents of dockyards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. Baronet did not quite understand the various duties which a superintendent had to perform. If the works of the dockyards were confined to the building of ships it was evident that the individual appointed as superintendent should be thoroughly acquainted with the mode of constructing ships. But ships were not only to be built in those places but also to be rigged and turned out fit for sea. He admitted that in consequence of a chapter of accidents there had been many changes made amongst the superintendents of the dockyards, but those changes were wholly unavoidable. He could assure the hon. Baronet that political influence had not now, nor had it under the late Board of
2016
Admiralty, anything to do with dockyard appointments. He believed that those appointments of late years, at all events, depended substantially upon the merits of the individuals themselves.
MR. CORRYwished to know what the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) meant by saying that political influence was used in respect of appointments.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would find it stated in a Report of a Committee of the House that "corrupt expedients" had been used in the obtainment of contracts.
MR. CORRYwould remind the hon. Baronet that the "corrupt expedients" were not charged by the Committee against the Admiralty or to the late Government, but against a gentleman who had obtained a contract. The Committee to which the hon. Baronet referred was that on steam-packet and telegraph contracts; but neither it nor the Committee which had during the present Session inquired into the petition against the return for Dovor accused the late Government of corrupt expedients.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought it would be advisable when a Rear-Admiral who was superintendent of the dockyard was promoted, to allow him to continue his five years in office.
MR. FREELANDsaid, he had bad an application made to him with regard to a situation in one of the yards, and he was glad to say that on mating inquiries he found that any interference on his part would be rather injurious than otherwise to the person on whose behalf he had been requested to exert himself. He hoped the House would assist the Admiralty in putting a stop to political interference with the dockyards.
MR. JACKSONagreed that it was absurd to remove a superintendent as soon as he had learnt his business.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEfound in the Votes, items of £120 per year for Roman Catholic Chaplains in some ports, while in two others he believed the amount was somewhat more. There was also a place fitted up for Roman Catholic worship in some of those ports. The Presbyterians in the navy were ten to one to the Roman Catholics, yet the only item he saw down for a clergyman for the Presbyterians was a sum of £20 paid at Woolwich.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the question of making any increase to the stipends allowed to clergymen was a very serious one. If the Presbyterians in any

2017
port made an application to the Admiralty it should receive due consideration.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(1.) £172,778, Salaries and Expenses, Naval Establishments at Home.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £30,953, Salaries and Expenses, Naval Establishments Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an increase of £2,870 on the Vote; though he could not see that any additional work was done.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the increase was not so large as was supposed by his hon. Friend. An increase had been made in the salaries of the medical officers; and the salary of the Director of Works had been transferred from Vote No. 11 to this Vote.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,440,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that unless a satisfactory explanation was given of a statement contained in the Report of the Dockyard Committee which sat last year, he should feel it necessary to move a considerable reduction of this important Vote. In the first place the Committee pointed out the remarkable variation in the charge for wages in different yards, it was stated that the cost of labour for building certain ships at Chatham had been £5 8s. per ton, whereas at Woolwich the cost had been £8 16 s. It was moreover stated by four of the members of the Dockyard Committee that the sum expended by private builders in labour would not have been more than £2 12 s. per ton—that was, not more than a third that was paid by the Royal Navy.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would endeavour to show the Committee the reason why the discrepancy existed in the cost of building ships in different dockyards. There was great difference in the price of a vessel built at Chatham and the cost of two others which had been built at Woolwich. It should be observed, however, that these vessels were built in the midst and, he might add, during the confusion of the Russian war. He would state the reason why the vessel built at Chatham (the Cadmus) cost so much less
2018
per ton than the vessels built at Woolwich (the Pearl and the Scout). At Chatham there happened to be plenty of timber lying in the yard, which at a very small expense could be converted into the frame of a corvette. At Woolwich, where two similar vessels (corvettes) were built, there was no timber proper for the particular purpose, and old timber, which had originally been prepared for other vessels, had to be altered at considerable expense into the frames of the two vessels. Another circumstance should be taken into consideration, and that was that Chatham was not a fitting yard, whereas Woolwich was; consequently, the vessel at Chatham could be built without interruption, while at Woolwich, where there was a great amount of shipfitting done, the artificers on the two corvettes were continually withdrawn from their work to do something else which it was necessary to do in a hurry. These interruptions necessarily entailed expense. Another cause of the differeuce of expense was that at the different yards, there was a different system of calculating when a ship was properly prepared; and consequently less money would, of course, have been spent on the less forward vessels, though equally styled "prepared." It appeared, also, that at the time the vessels were built there was such an excess of duty in the dockyard at Woolwich that certain clerks were appointed to value the expenditure on timber and stores, and, to make a long story short, the account referred to by the hon. Gentleman was not a correct one. The Controller had sent down an experienced officer, and a strict investigation was going on respecting some other vessels mentioned by the Committee which had been alluded to, and the Admiralty were most anxious to improve the system of taking the accounts of vessels.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the statement was satisfactory as far as it went; but though the noble Lord had answered his question with regard to the difference in the price of shipbuilding in Woolwich and Chatham dockyards, but not as to the discrepancy in price between the Government and private yards. But besides that difference of 173 s. to 52 s. there must be added to the former all the interest in the capital which was sunk in the public yards, inasmuch as every private builder took into his estimate the interest upon the capital engaged in his business. So that the comparison would really stand, not as 52 s. against 173 s., but as 52 s. against 173 s.

2019
plus another figure, which would perhaps bring it up to 200 s. He repeated that he had received no answer to this important question.
MR. JACKSONsaid, that even this did not represent the whole case, because the private shipbuilder had rent to pay for his yard, and local taxes, from which the Government were exempt, so that the comparison was extremely favourable to the Government. He had had considerable correspondence with individuals employed in dockyards upon this subject, and was told by one holding a high official position, that every Commission and Committee yet appointed on this subject had been thoroughly humbugged by the dockyard authorities; and, looking at the small results which had accrued from these inquiries, he was inclined to think so too. As a man of business, he felt confident that if the same system were pursued by a manufacturer or a private builder as was maintained in the Royal yards, bankruptcy must very speedily ensue, and not one penny in the pound would be left to pay the creditors. It was a system rotten to the core, and ought to be at once put a stop to.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETread a letter from Mr. Pitcher, the builder of the vessels which were said to have been constructed so extremely cheap. It was dated Northfleet, July 1, 1859, and the writer contradicted a statement which he had seen in The Times, declaring that the expense for building a vessel of war in the merchant yards did not exceed the sum of £2 8s. per ton for shipwrights' labour. Mr. Pitcher said,—
"It should be understood that the ships alluded to were mere shells when sent to Her Majesty's yard at Chatham to be fitted as might be required, as the cost of such fittings would depend very much upon the service they were intended for. I am of opinion that the vessels built for the Government in private yards, when compared with those built in the Royal dockyards, according to the evidence published, amounts to very near the same sum for the total completion of the hull; for instance, in the labour for building about 13,500 tons of the gun-vessels at Northfleet, they cost on an average, complete, about £6 per ton."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was no answer to him to read a letter written a month before the Committee made their Report.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that the work in a private yard differed entirely from that executed in a Royal dockyard, and you got in the former a much worse article for the money you expended. As far as his experience Went, contract vessels were
2020
notoriously bad in every instance. He knew nothing more difficult than to keep contractors to the fair terms of their contract. We had seen ships handed over to the Government from private yards which were in a most disgraceful state from incomplete workmanship, which was concealed by several coats of paint. In his opinion, it was far better to pay £8 per ton for a good article than £4 for a bad one.
MR. LINDSAYobserved, that he had advanced no charges against the Royal yards, but had merely quoted a statement made by the Committee appointed by the Government themselves, four out of five of the members being officers in those very yards. It was said that ships built under contract were badly built; but did Her Majesty's ships never stand in need of repairs? Were they not, when at sea, constantly putting into port to be refitted? Did we hear of one of the Cunard or the Peninsular and Oriental Company's boats putting back in every press of wind and requiring large repairs? There were, of course, failings in all establishments, but he questioned very much whether there were so many defects in ships of the first class built in private yards as there were in vessels constructed in the Royal yards at a much higher cost to the country.
LORD LOVAINEreferred to some instances of defective workmanship in vessels built by contract.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that what the noble Lord had stated as to the defects in ships from private yards was perfectly true. It was only the other day that he saw a basket of copper bolts intended for Her Majesty's ship Caroline, which ought to have been eleven inches long, and were only five. Some of the ships built by contract during the last war had since come in for repairs, and it was then found that the planks which ought to have been bent round the bows by the aid of steam had been sawn half way through to facilitate warping. He left the Committee to consider what would be the fate of these vessels in a gale of wind.
MR. JACKSONwould like to know what kind of superintendence there could be for such things to be permitted? Three-fourths of the business of this country was done by contract; and he believed there were as honest men in the contracting world as there were noble Lords in the kingdom.
LORD LOVAINEwould only say this,

2021
that his experience in the navy had not been very long, but his impression decidedly was that there was a great disposition on the part of contractors to give very short measure indeed. Their work required the constant supervision of a most careful eye; and he appealed to any hon. Member acquainted with the subject to confirm his statement. The question of the damages sustained by the navy was an evasion of the original question, which related simply to the imperfection of the original work.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the noble Lord had not answered the question as to who attended to see whether the work was properly executed or not. If the pay—£400 or £500 a year—of the present superintendents was not sufficient, they ought to give more to get honest men—men who were above being bribed.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that the gallant Admiral's remarks had confirmed his statement in every respect.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the gallant Admiral had intimated that it was impossible to get an honest man for £500 a year. But the fact was, he had never heard of a man who ever trusted a contractor. This was not a question of impugning the honesty of the contractor; it was their way of transacting business; and the real defect was the want of proper superintendence at the Admiralty. He believed that the work was better done in the dockyards than anywhere else, and that the country got more for their money. He was, however, very much struck with the comparison instituted by the hon. Member for Sunderland between the wear-and-tear of ships in the navy and those on the lines of packet service. There could be no comparison between the two services in this respect.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYreferred to the different cost of vessels in different yards, and said that there was great anxiety to get new ships laid down at certain yards; it was even made a matter of political influence. Looking at the money wasted in times past, the Government ought now to practise economy.
MR. HENLEYwished to know whether it was true that a vessel going out with Admiral Keppel was obliged to put in at Portsmouth, and to be docked for repairs: was that vessel an old or a new vessel; and was it built by contract or otherwise?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied,
2022
she was a vessel built at one of Her Majesty's dockyards. She was going a very long distance, and it was desirable that she should be made as perfect as possible; therefore, when a slight leak was discovered in her stern, which would otherwise have scarcely been important enough for such treatment, the vessel was immediately taken into Portsmouth and examined.
MR. HENLEYasked again, was she a new or an old vessel?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, she was quite new. It had been said by various hon. Members that sufficient superintendence was not applied by the Admiralty. There were sometimes as many as a hundred vessels under repair or building at the same time, and if the Admiralty had to supply a superintendent for every bolt it would be found an impossibility to comply with such a requisition.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYpointed attention to a discrepancy in the cost of shipbuilding at Woolwich as compared with Sheerness, adding that there was a growing impression abroad that great waste prevailed in the Government dockyards, and that though Parliament voted the money it had nothing like an effective control over the economical expenditure of it.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, an inquiry was now pending as to the difference in cost.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbelieved the discrepancies in question were partly due to the different mode of measuring the work done in the various yards, and would be found not so great as they appeared to be. He adverted to the manifest superiority of the workmanship in Her Majesty's as compared with that in private dockyards, citing in proof of that the case of the Agamemnon, which on her return to Plymouth from her memorable voyage on laying the Atlantic telegraph cable, in which she was exposed to a terrific storm under circumstances altogether peculiar, and which would have resulted in the certain destruction of any ordinary ship, was found to require only a few trivial repairs.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSwished for further information as to the ships said to be of equal size but of unequal cost. Inquiry would probably show that there was much more work in some than in others. He thought an improved method of keeping the accounts desirable.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Admiralty had had eight months to consider the charges in the report of the Committee to

2023
which such frequent reference had been made. Under these circumstances he should move that this Vote be reduced by £100,000; he ought to move that it be reduced by two-thirds.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, vessels should be able to keep company if they were to be of any service to each other in a fleet, and therefore it was most important they should be made both to sail and steam, and capable of bearing rough or fair weather with equal results.
LORD LOVAINEreferred to the gunboats built by contract, and quoted the opinion of a private builder to the effect that the cost was much the same in Government dockyards and in private yards. So far from the cost in private yards being only 48 s per ton, it was nearly £6 per ton, including all the fittings.
MR. LYGONalso spoke of the economy of the Government yards.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that no answer had yet been given by any Member of the Government to the discrepancy which had been pointed out between expenditure relatively in Government and private dockyards.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) were pressed to a division, he should be unable to support it, as he was unwilling, in the present state of public affairs, to withhold from the Government any sum of money which they declared to be necessary in order to carry out the proposed alterations and additions in the navy. At the same time he could not refrain from expressing regret that the Government were not disposed to pay more attention to the Report of the Dockyard Committee appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, which had deservedly attracted Considerable notice. In his opinion, the Gentlemen composing that Committee were entitled to the gratitude of the country for the ability and public spirit with which they had conducted their inquiries, and he was sorry that their proceedings should have been ignored in so unaccountable a manner, and that they themselves had been treated with such disregard by the present Board of Admiralty. The only official notice taken of their labours that he had seen consisted of a memorandum written by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and from its tone of discourtesy and sarcasm towards the Members of that Committee he was induced to think the noble Duke must rather have had in his mind the fact
2024
that the Committee had been appointed by his predecessors than any regard to the contents of their Report. He could account in no other way for the course pursued by the Board of Admiralty, who had entered into no explanations, but had continued to act just as if the Committee had never sat, or as if those startling statements which the House had heard that night had never been put forward. Entire disregard of such a document came with peculiarly bad grace from the noble Lord who now held the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, because no one had made such sweeping charges against extravagance in the dockyards as fell from him in the course of last year. He it was who was then loud in his complaints, and who told the House that in the course of the last eleven years £5,000,000 had been wasted by successive Boards of Admiralty. At the time he stated that the noble Lord was bound to sustain the charges which he had made, and he had given notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a Committee, before which the noble Lord could have come face to face with the parties against whom he brought the charges, and would have been compelled either to prove or to withdraw them. But just at that moment the change of Government took place, and the accusation in consequence was merely dealt with by an answer from the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker; though, in the absence of closer disproof, he must, in justice to the Committee, say that Sir Baldwin Walker's report entirely negatived the wild and loose assertions of the noble Lord. From the general and well-deserved character for fairness and plain dealing enjoyed by the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), he expected that he would have had the generosity to state that on reflection he found those charges could not be substantiated; but instead of this, he had merely declared in general terms that he adhered to his former statement. He must say he thought the able and zealous labours of the Committee, which tended to throw great light on the important question of dockyard expenditure, had been but ill-requited.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he was desirous of doing all that was possible to reduce the expenditure, but he could not support the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed to a division.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not allow the remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to

2025
pass unnoticed. So far from the Report of the Committee having been wholly ignored, it had received the careful attention of the Board of Admiralty, and many of their recommendations either had been, or were about to be, carried out. The right hon. Baronet had deprecated the tone of the Memorandum of the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty; but he was bound to say that the tone of the Report itself was somewhat offensive to the officers of the dockyards, against whom a very grave accusation was preferred. The Commissioners attributed many of the evils which they stated in detail "to the want of zeal and activity on the part of the officers of the yards." On going over the evidence he had been unable to discover upon what evidence they based this decision, and they themselves admitted that many of their recommendations were unsupported by evidence. The weight attaching to their Report was further shaken by the fact that one of the Commissioners refused to sign it. Then, with regard to the proposal for the appointment of a Committee and his meeting Sir Baldwin Walker face to face, everybody who knew him was aware that, though he would not shrink from it if it was thought proper, he had no desire to enter into any such encounter. This was a very adroit method of turning certain representations which he had made condemnatory of the system into an attack on one individual. It was a very old dodge, but fortunately it would not go down with the House of Commons. He distinctly denied that he had ever attacked Sir Baldwin Walker, and he was surprised that any Member should have imputed such a thing to him. He stated so last year when he was called upon to make the amende honorable to Sir Baldwin Walker. He declined to do so, simply because he had never made any attack or imputation against him. He had last year called the attention of the House to the great cost of shipbuilding, and to the total absence of anything like a detailed account of the expenditure under the Votes 8, 9, and 10. To ascertain the real cost was the great object of his Motion last year, and the present Board of Admiralty, as might be seen by a Return on the table, had done all in their power to promote that end.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, Sir Baldwin Walker had not only been attacked by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, but he had written an answer
2026
to those attacks. He (Sir Charles Napier) read to the House the attacks of the noble Lord, and he also read Sir Baldwin Walker's answers to them, from which it appeared that not one of the vessels referred to by the noble Lord had been altered by Sir Baldwin. He stated that only two vessels had been altered—the reasons for which he gave—and showed that the cost was not more than £500. The noble Lord spoke of £6,000,000 as unaccounted for; but Sir Baldwin Walker, in his reply, accounted for the whole of that sum, with the exception of £6,000. The noble Lord now thought proper to say that he had made no charges against Sir Baldwin Walker. Whom, then, did he attack? Sir Baldwin Walker, as Surveyor of the Navy, was the person responsible, and the charges could apply to no other. That gallant officer had done more for the navy, and the improvement of ships than any other person. The noble Lord ought to make an apology to Sir Baldwin Walker, and it would have been an honourable thing on the part of the noble Lord had he done so.
MR. JACKSON, in justice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, explained that he had done everything in his power to give him facilities for bringing forward his Motion for a Commission to inquire into the expenditure of the dockyards, though as yet he had not been able to bring the Motion before the House.
MR. MONSELLwished to ask how it was that there was a large amount for wages to be spent in every harbour except that of Haulbowline, which was admirably adapted to make a good harbour, and which would, no doubt, have been much improved if it had been in England, instead of Ireland.
MR. BENTINCKthought that the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had unnecessarily attacked the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, he recollected perfectly well, had stated in the speech in question that he had no intention to attack Sir Baldwin Walker.
COLONEL DICKSONremarked that this naval expenditure was growing frightful to contemplate, although he believed shipbuilding was carried on better in the Royal dockyards than in private yards. By way of coming to some practical conclusion on the matter, he should vote for the reduction of the Vote as proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He also concurred in the complaint of his

2027
right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) respecting the small amount of money expended on Haulbowline, which he thought was utterly disproportioned to the large amount of taxation contributed by Ireland, and the unrivalled natural capabilities of some of her harbours.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,310,681 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her. Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £63,686, Wages in Naval Establishments Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to an in-crease of £3,010 for the establishment at Hong Kong.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, it was obvious that the additional outlay was rendered necessary by the continuance of the Chinese war.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, an additional outlay upon the dockyard at Hong Kong necessitated the increased Vote.
Vote agreed to.
(5) £3,204,434 Naval Stores.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to say a few words in answer to a very interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), made on a former evening, with respect to the supply of timber in the dockyards. The allegation of the right hon. Gentleman amounted, he thought, to this—that, whereas it was usual in former days to keep a three years' stock of shipbuilding timber on hand for seasoning, successive Boards of Admiralty had neglected their duty in not keeping up that stock, and had reduced their three years' stock to a two years' stock, and that within the last year or two it had been reduced to even less than that. He might say, in the first place, that this was rather an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague (Sir J. Pakington), because it would, he believed, be found that in the Estimates of the late Administration no more money was taken for timber than was necessary to keep up a two years' stock at the ordinary consumption. He was, however, prepared to contend that a two years' stock was ample. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the evidence taken before the Committee on Dockyard Econo-
2028
my, in which certain dockyard authorities had complained that green timber was employed, and that certain ships were built of timber that had not been properly seasoned. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn the inference there from that the dockyard authorities themselves were of opinion that the Government did not keep up a proper stock of timber. If the right hon. Gentleman accused the Board of Admiralty of not keeping up an establishment of timber commensurate with the wants of the year, the answer must be that if the Admiralty went on building ships at the same rate as at present it would be manifestly necessary to increase the present establishment of timber. The expenditure of timber expected to take place during the present year was 60,000 loads, and the amount of stock at the commencement of this year was about the same amount—namely, 59,000 loads. In expectation that the consumption this year would be 60,000 loads, the Government had taken a sum of £500,000; so that at the end of this year there would still be two years' stock in hand for ordinary consumption, namely, about 30,000 loads. It might be necessary to explain that circumstances had very much changed since the days when three years' stock was required. The hard foreign woods now used were then comparatively unknown. The English oak was then principally used, and it required greater seasoning than foreign wood. It was cut and purchased, upon the spot, and was brought to the dockyards without loss of time; while Italian oak, for example, was cut in a hot climate, the voyage took a certain time, and it was partly seasoned on its way. Two-thirds of the shipbuilding wood now used in the dockyards did not require seasoning; it was foreign timber, like African oak, teak, and mahogany, and therefore no comparison could be made between the stocks formerly in hand and the stocks kept at present. The right hon. Gentleman said that the officers of the dockyard declared that timber ought to be kept three years in stock. [Mr. HENLEY: Some say four.] Well, there was a difference of opinion on that subject. A gentleman, who was an eminent shipbuilder and owner, Mr. Green, who had 30,000 tons of shipping of his own, said, that two years were quite sufficient to season English oak timber, and that it deteriorated after that period. If this were so it was a strong argument for not keep-

2029
ing a stock for more than two years' consumption in hand. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if the Government had only to ask the House for an additional £100,000 and to buy so many thousand more loads of timber. But if they asked Parliament for a larger sum they would not get the timber. The stock of timber was restricted, and the Government could not get above a certain quantity. No doubt, if circumstances were pressing and the Government were obliged to purchase without regard to price, they might obtain an addition to the present supply; but it was no easy matter to increase the quantity of such timber as they required. He admitted that it would be a very great thing if the Government had the means of keeping up a larger supply of timber. It would be unwise for him to state exactly what the Admiralty were doing in this respect, but they were using every possible endeavour to get a more regular and better supply of timber from abroad. Injustice to the dockyards, he ought to state that when hon. Members heard of the green wood employed, it was generally confined to one particular timber in a ship which it was very difficult to find at all of a sufficient size, much less of seasoned timber—he referred to rudder pieces. Take a first-rate for example, of which the Admiralty were building a good many. The rudder-piece of a first-rate must be a piece of English oak. It must be 26 feet long and 28 inches square. It had happened lately that as many as six of these rudder pieces were cut up and found defective, for the trees being necessarily of great age were found rotten at the heart. Of teak there was a very large supply, which required no seasoning. One reason why it was not desirable to increase the stock of timber was that we were now building four iron-cased ships; and though he was not prepared to say whether they would fulfil all that was anticipated from them, yet, if they were successful, probably not so many line-of-battle ships would be required, and it was the line-of-battle ships which required the large establishments of timber, for there never was any difficulty in finding timber for frigates, corvettes, and vessels of a smaller class. If these iron-cased ships succeeded, it would be unwise to do what the right hon. Gentleman wished—to increase our establishments of timber merely because we had consumed more than our ordinary quantity within the last two years. He had often heard
2030
it stated that the Admiralty did not go to work properly to get their timber cheaply; that they confined themselves to one or two contractors, who charged their own prices. No doubt from the necessity of the case, the contracts did come into the hands of two or three great contractors, who might meet and arrange about the price; but if any landed proprietor or other person of respectability, having a large quantity of proper timber on his estate, or for sale, were to come and make an offer to the Admiralty, they would be very glad to enter into a bargain with him.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had given no opinion as to the time timber took to season; he only quoted that of certain officers of Her Majesty's dockyards, and he was quite willing to leave it to be settled between them and the private authorities the noble Lord had quoted, whether it took two years or four years to season oak timber of the largest dimensions. He had not blamed any Board of Admiralty, but had expressly guarded himself from doing so, for he had read the statement of the Storekeeper General as to the enormous difficulty of getting timber, and he could not put it stronger than he had done. What he complained of, however, was that the First Lord should have put it on record that 60,000 loads was a sufficient quantity to keep in stock. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty stated most distinctly that we ought to keep two years' consumption in stock; but 60,000 loads would not suffice for that. Sir Baldwin Walker had stated that the proper yearly addition to the navy was three ships of the line, three frigates, and four small vessels, the construction of which would take 32,000 loads of timber; adding to that 10,000 loads for necessary repairs, they would have the total yearly consumption of timber at 42,000 loads; and, as according to the statement of the noble Lord, it would require two years' consumption in stock, it was plain that 60,000 loads was not sufficient. The noble Lord would not find any indication in his speech that three or four years' seasoning was necessary for all kind of timber. African oak, teak, and mahogany, perhaps, he knew could be used almost as soon as imported, and the Italian and Sardinian oak required less seasoning than the English oak; but every master shipwright would tell them that English oak required three or four years' seasoning, nor would ny of them venture to say that large 15-inch square timber

2031
would be ready to use in two years. The noble Lord admitted that it would be very desirable to obtain as large a stock of timber as possible for the navy, which was all that he (Mr. Henley) contended for, and he was glad to find that their views did not differ on the real point, though they might as to the actual supply.
MR. BENTINCKhad already stated that in his opinion the work done in the dockyards was better than that which was done elsewhere, and that we got our money's worth out of those establishments; but he wished to call attention to an item that related to work done out of dockyard by contract—he meant the anchors and chain cables. If he was rightly informed the Admiralty paid a very much larger sum for those articles than they ought to pay. Although there had been a great diminution in the price of iron, there had been no deduction in that paid by the Admiralty to the contractor. He quite admitted that the articles supplied were of the best quality, but that was no reason for paying a much larger sum than they were called on to pay. Great improvements had been made in the machinery used in the construction; but, inasmuch as the Admiralty had obtained no advantage whatever from that circumstance an unnecessary and therefore an objectionable expenditure of money had prevailed in this department. He wished to refer to a Return he had moved for, not with a view of advocating Mr. Trotman's anchors, but to show the price at which the best anchors could be manufactured in the best yards by the best firms. He found that the cost of seventeen anchors of various sizes, made of the best material, was £1,428; while the contract price for the same weight of anchors supplied to the Admiralty, and which were in no way superior, was £3,434, or nearly treble the amount. Amongst other things there was a tender advertised to supply to Her Majesty's navy iron chain-cables and anchors thereto. It was stated that parties intending to make a tender were requested to take notice that the whole supply would not be given to any one firm, but the contract would be equally divided amongst three firms. Now, he was given to understand that so far from that arrangement being carried out, the whole of the contracts had been given to the one and the same firm since 1841 up to the present time, in direct contradiction to the wording of the tenders asked for from the public, and inviting persons to come forward. He be-
2032
lieved a discrepancy also existed as to the prices of anchors and chains, between those furnished to the Admiralty and to private yards. He wanted to know whether his information was correct as to those facts.
MR. RIDLEYthought it would be a fault on the part of the Government to incur the expense of providing too large a stock of timber for building line-of-battle ships, when the more powerful means of destruction which modern science provided might soon render ships built of timber no longer available for war. They should consider the advantage of building iron ships to meet the improved gunnery of the present day. He wished to know whether the item of £722,000 for timber was for the sole purpose of building line-of-battle ships of timber?
SIR CHARLES NAPIER, referring to the sum of £798,500 for steam machinery, suggested that the ships' bunkers should be furnished with some apparatus for taking in water, when the stock of coal was consumed, in order that the ship might not become so extremely light as to be unable to remain in the proper position. It would not be difficult to provide some apparatus for doing this, and he had experienced the disadvantage of not doing so when he came home in the Duke of Wellington, from the Baltic.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEcalled attention to another item of considerable magnitude for the building of iron-cased ships, steam vessels, and gun-boats by contract. The noble Lord had said that four iron-cased ships were now building. Did they include all under that head? The Vote taken for that item last year, including the Supplementary Estimate, was £500,000. In the present year it was £640,000, making no less in the two years than £1,140,000. Now, those iron-cased ships had never been tried in actual war: the sum was, therefore, a large one to expend for a mere experiment. He viewed those experiments with no feeling of satisfaction. He thought that they were very apt to make great mistakes in those experiments upon ships as well as upon fortifications. He looked upon the national defences of the country as being best supplied by highly-trained seamen and soldiers. We could not have too many of them. Now the noble Lord ought to consider in what way those experiments of iron-cased ships were to be tested. He knew that France was building ships of that description; but that was not a reason why we

2033
should embark in any blind system merely for the purpose of coping with France. He wanted to know the number of those iron-cased ships that had been or were to be built, how many steam vessels, and whether there were to be any gun-boats in addition?
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it was the opinion of scientific men that the new inventions in gunnery would alter the whole system of ship-building. He wished to impress on the Government the importance of keeping in view those improvements, in order to guard against not only a useless expenditure of the public money, but also the sacrifice of their seamen's lives by the sinking of a vessel in consequence of a shot through her timbers.
MR. FREELANDinquired, whether at those ports at which the fleet might be expected to rendezvous, such as Milford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Sheerness, arrangements had been made for improving our coal depôts, and for getting the coal on board, in case of an emergency, with the least possible delay? He understood that at Portland great efforts had been made to effect these objects. He had, however, been informed that what had been done at Portland must still be regarded as an experiment—that it was still a question whether it was best and most economical that the great ships should go to the coal, or that the coal should be brought to the great ships. He wished to know whether the subject was engaging the attention of the Government? No doubt the question of expense was a serious matter; but it was rumoured that large sums were about to be spent on fortifications, some of which were said to be of questionable value. In the event of war our wooden walls would have to bear the brunt of battle before our stone walls could be required for defence, and he would respectfully submit it to the consideration of the Government whether a portion of the sum to be expended on fortifications might not be advantageously applied to the improvement of our means of getting coals shipped, in case of emergency, with the least possible delay.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) with regard to the putting coals on board men-of-war, said that they had not made any great progress with regard to the mechanical contrivances for the hoisting of coal on board our ships. Our men of war, however, had naturally a large crew on board, and it was marvellous
2034
the amount of coals they were capable of conveying into the ship within a very short space of time. They had at Woolwich a very clever machine, which lifted the coal by steam power, and dropped it into the ship. There was one also on board a coal depot at Portland. With respect to the anchors and chains, it was quite true that the Admiralty had but one manufacturer, the firm of Brown and Lennox; but the reason was that the prices which that firm charged for anchors were lower than those of other manufacturers who had offered their anchors for sale to the Admiralty. The others he would refer to were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Trotman. The price charged by Brown and Lennox for an anchor suitable for a 90-gun ship was £2 16 s. 6d. per cwt., whereas Mr. Rogers charged £2 18 s., and Mr. Porter £3 5s. Anchors of a smaller class were sold by Messrs. Brown and Lennox at £2 3s., and by Mr. Rogers at £2 4s., while Mr. Porter charged £2 8s., and Mr. Trotman £2 10 s. This showed that the anchors which were purchased of Brown and Lennox were of the cheapest quality. He did not mean to say, however, that it would be unadvisable to consider the propriety of opening this contract. The hon. Member for Sunderland, however, when he said the other night that, taking the average of four different classes of anchors, the Admiralty were paying 180 s. per cwt., made a great mistake. He added the prices of the four different classes together, in order to take the average, but he forgot to divide the amount again by four, so that he made the result four times as great as it really was. The real average, instead of being 180 s., was 45 s., which made rather an important difference. With regard to the question that was put by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Jolliffe), who asked what was the cost of these enormous ships that were being built, there were four iron-cased ships that would cost £734,325, and their engines would cost £210,075; making a total of £944,400, merely for the hull and machinery of the four vessels. Then there were 6 sloops of 200 horse power, which would cost £88,574, and their engines £60,000. There were 12 gun-vessels of 80 horse power, which would cost £119,255 for the hulls, and £48,960 for the machinery; and there were 10 gun-boats of 60 horse power each, costing £62,383, and their engines £32,235; making a total of 6 ships, 12 gun-vessels, and 10 gun-boats,

2035
costing £271,000, and £141,000 for their engines and machinery; and the grand total of the vessels building by contract, including their engines, but exclusive of fitments, was a cost of £1,355,875. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ridley) asked what wooden vessels they were building? There were 11 line-of-battle ships, 5 corvettes, 15 sloops, and 23 gun-vessels and gun-boats.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the evidence produced before the Select Committee over which, he had lately presided showed that as far as anchors and cables were concerned, the Royal Navy was admirably served, He wished to know whether it was proposed that the navy should be supplied with apparatus for the consumption of smoke. He believed that machinery for the perfect attainment of that object could now be obtained.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had the same objection to this Vote that he had to some of the others, namely, that they did not get full value for their money. They paid for their anchors 94 s. per cwt., and he believed that was 100 per cent more than they could get anchors and cables of equal quality for. Until he called the attention of the House two years ago to the subject, he believed the Admiralty were under the impression that there were only two firms in England who could construct steam-engines for ships; but now there were a dozen firms tendering, and he believed that the same result would follow if they wanted the leading firms to tender for the supply of anchors and cables.
LORD LOVAINEasked, whether it was intended to introduce into the navy the use of super-heated steam?
MR. H. A. BRUCEasked what course was taken with regard to the tenders for coals. It was well known that from the same pit, coals of various qualities were obtained, and the great steam-packet companies had agents to see that they got the coal from the vein they wanted it from. Government ought to adopt the same course. He did not think, however, that public tender was the best mode of obtaining coal. It was perfectly notorious that the best coal was not supplied to Her Majesty's navy.
MR. CORRYagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that 60,000 loads of timber were not a sufficient establishment for the dockyards. Although it was true, as stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty, that foreign
2036
timber did not require seasoning to the same degree as English timber, yet, as our supply from abroad might be interrupted at any time, care ought to be taken to have a large stock always on hand.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that a great discrepancy existed between the statement he had made on a former occasion with regard to the price of anchors and the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. He understood the noble Lord to say that the prices under the Admiralty contract were lower than those offered by other parties. In 1841 the prices of anchors offered to be supplied to the Admiralty appeared from a list he had in his hand to be 20 s. per cwt., while the price of the Admiralty contract was 44 s. per cwt., or rather more than double.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the case was so in 1841, but since then the contract prices had been greatly reduced. Three frigates were now being fitted with engines with an apparatus for superheating steam. An engineer had recently been appointed to inspect every cargo of coal put on board a ship, and ascertain that the coal was of the denomination specified in the contract, was properly screened, and was free from dust. He made a weekly report, and since his appointment there had been no complaints of the coal supplied to the fleet. The Admiralty were willing to adopt any economical plan for consuming smoke, and at the present moment several vessels were fitted with various descriptions of smoke-consuming apparatus.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved that about £400,000 was to be expended on coal in the ensuing yean He thought that stringent orders should be given that ships should not use steam except when compelled to do so; for, besides the economy, it would be of great advantage both to officers and men to have a little more practice under canvass.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished for some further information with respect to the four iron steam-vessels ordered by the Admiralty. The first of these vessels was ordered by the late Government, and he understood the second was to be of the same class, size, and character. He had been informed, however, that the two others were to be different in size and character, and he wished to know what would be their tonnage and the strength of their iron coating. He should also be glad to hear when these vessels would be finished.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid that he should be glad to see at the Admiralty any firms prepared to make proposals with respect to anchors and chains. With respect to the iron-cased ships the one ordered by the right hon. Baronet ought to have been launched by this time; but some delay had occurred in consequence of the novel construction of the sternpost, the one which was first put in not proving strong enough. He believed that she would be launched in the beginning of July. With regard to the others, he was not prepared to say when they would be ready, but all of them were contracted for. The tonnage of the Warrior and the Black Prince was 6,035 tons each; and of the Resistance and the Defence 3,668 tons each. The Warrior and the Black Prince would carry thirty-six guns, and the two smaller ones, the Resistance and the Defence, would carry sixteen guns. Their scantling was the same, and there was the same thickness in the iron plates.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEcomplained that the engineers in the navy set their faces against smoke-consuming apparatus, and hence inventors did not get fair play.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c, REPEAL BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BENTINCKobjected to proceeding with the measure at so late an hour (twenty-five minutes past twelve o'clock), and moved that the debate be adjourned.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that if they were to make any progress at all in business there was no reason why they should not now proceed with Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal Bill. The question involved had been debated twice before, and he must persist in going on with the measure.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 156: Majority 89.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that three totally different explanations of the object of that measure had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Solicitor General respectively. The principle of the Bill was an important one—namely, whether gambling of the worst description should be sanctioned by the Legislature, and as it was impossible that it could be duly discussed at that late hour he should move that the House do now adjourn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, after the unmistakeable proof they had just had of the sense of the House on the subject. The importance of this Bill had been greatly exaggerated. The Act was only suggestive of qui-tam actions and bills in Chancery. It had been stated, and the statement remained uncontradicted, that the Gambling and Wagering Act provided an efficient guard against gambling and wagering, so far as by law the prevention could be effected. Therefore, in repealing this Act, they would only place the British funds on the same footing as every other kind of property. It was absurd to enact that it should not be lawful to contract for the sale of property not in the possession of the person contracting to sell it. Was a merchant not to contract on the 1st of January to deliver to another on the 1st of February, cotton, or indigo, or wool, or sugar, unless it was in his possession at the time of the contract? It was lawful to do so at present with regard to all property excepting the British funds. Lord Tenterden once laid it down that such a contract was void in law to whatever kind of property it related. That decision was speedily reversed, and the observation was made from the Bench that if such a rule were adopted it would be fatal to half the commerce of London. Why did not the learned Gentleman propose to extend the Act to every other kind of executory bargain? Either the Act ought to be repealed or it ought to be extended. He trusted that the House would proceed to business, and pass its judgment on the matter instead of interposing these delays.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 153: Majority, 93.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  An HON. MEMBER An HON. MEMBER moved that the debate be adjourned.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYremarked, that whatever the House might think, the public would say the object of these Motions was to get rid of the third reading of the Church Rate Bill which stood lower on the paper. The House had passed judgment on the measure, and the sooner the Bill was in the other House the better.
  MR. ADDERLEYrose to order. The hon. Baronet was not entitled upon the Motion for Adjournment to speak upon a Bill which was not the subject of the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Baronet was not out of order.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY: The debate on Sir John Barnard's Act was made the means of attacking the Church Rate Bill. There must be other divisions; but let it be clearly understood that they were church rate divisions.
  MR. COLLINSprotested against the assertion that the divisions were on the church-rate question. He had voted twice, and both times on Sir John Barnard's Act. It was too late to go on with the discussion at one o'clock in the morning.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that in making the Motion for adjournment the subject of church rates had never entered into his mind, but he moved it in order that the principle of the Bill of Sir John Barnard might be fully and fairly discussed. The Solicitor General had expounded a principle totally different from that of the Secretary of the Treasury, who told them it was intended by the Bill to legalize transactions in time bargains, which were really gambling transactions, which was a statement entirely different from that made by the Solicitor General.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEthought the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make his speech in a few minutes, and the House might dispose of the Bill that evening.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he should be sorry to be misunderstood to be in favour of Sir John Barnard's Act because he had voted in the minority upon the last division. He so voted because he thought that those who objected to it were entitled to express their opinions upon it, and it had been an under-
  2040
  stood rule that no opposed business should be taken after twelve o'clock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong as to the rule he supposed to prevail, for if no opposed business were taken after twelve o'clock the Government would not be able to proceed with their measures. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock was perfectly willing to go on with the Church Rate Bill at this hour. He denied that the clear and lucid statement of the Solicitor General was at all in contradiction with that given by the Secretary to the Treasury. A zealous minority might induce a prudent majority, to think that the best course was to give way and go home, but the public took its own notice of such proceedings. After the determination that had been exhibited, however, he should, for the comfort of the House, give way, and would not now proceed with the Bill, but he must deny that it was at all a measure for the encouragement of gambling. It was one simply to legalize transactions on the Stock Exchange, which had long been virtually legal.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYconsidered that those who had a conscientious objection to the Bill had not been fairly dealt with. The effect of the Bill would be to legalize a system of gambling against law and morality, and the matter ought to be fully considered before Sir John Barnard's Act was repealed. The assimilation to an executory contract for goods was quite inconsistent, and wanting in analogy.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved the third reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not believe that the hon. Baronet was serious in proposing to take that stage of the Bill at so late an hour. There was no wish to offer anything like a factious opposition to it, but it could not be expected that so important a Bill could be read a third time without discussion at half-past 1 o'clock. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he could not consent to postponing the Question to that day three months, which would practically be the case. He resisted the adjournment unless the Government would give him a morning sitting.
  MR. BENTINCKcould not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman connected Sir J. Barnard's Act with any opposition to the Church Rates Bill. He took the course he had adopted because he thought the proposal an immoral one.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsuggested whether there would be any objection to taking the debate on Tuesday morning.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 131: Majority 55.
  Question again proposed "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. LYGONthen moved the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 124: Majority 51.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsuggested that the third reading of the Bill should be adjourned to Friday week, which was the first open day.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYannounced that he would follow his original intention of proceeding with the Bill on the first available opportunity, and he would therefore put down the third reading for to-morrow evening.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.—"That the Debate be adjourned till Friday next, at Twelve of the Clock."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Adulteration of Food or Drink.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.—ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS.

  MOTION FOR SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of his noble
  1920
  Friend (Earl Grey), who was about to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice relating to the Government Reform Bill, to the propriety of including Scotland and Ireland, as well as England and Wales, in the reference to the Select Committee, if their Lordships should agree to its appointment. It was quite clear that if it was considered proper that the subject should be inquired into as regards England and Wales—and he had no doubt it was proper,—it was equally proper that the inquiry should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, especially as the Scotch Bill was essentially different from that proposed for England and Wales. It might be said that there would be sufficient work for the Committee if the inquiry were restricted to England and Wales; but, in whatever way it might be done—whether it was considered advisable to refer the subject of Scotland and Ireland to the same Committee appointed for England and Wales, or whether two Committees should be appointed,—he could not but think if the inquiry were assented to for England and Wales it should also be assented to for Scotland and Ireland. He therefore begged leave to call the attention of his noble Friend to the propriety of including Scotland and Ireland in his Motion.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, in addition to what we learn from other less formal sources of information, we know by the Votes of the House of Commons, that there is before that House a Bill which professes to have for its object to amend the law relating to the Representation of the People. The progress of that Bill has not been rapid, since it was introduced on the 1st of March, and has not yet passed a second reading. It also appears to have met with a very moderate amount of approval either within or without the walls of Parliament. It may, therefore, be doubtful whether it will ever come under your Lordships' consideration; but, as it may do so, in anticipation of that event I think it right to ask your Lordships to appoint a Committee for the purpose of instituting an inquiry which, I think, may throw some useful light on the subject. My Lords, the measure is one of such momentous importance—any error into which we may be uufortunately betrayed in dealing with it may so deeply affect not merely the welfare but the safety of the nation—that I think your Lordships will concur with me that I shall have assigned sufficient reasons for appointing a Committee,

  1921
  if I can show, as I feel no doubt I shall be able to show, that there is information calculated to assist us in forming a sound judgment on the subject which is not at present within our reach, but which we may hope to elicit by inquiry. My Lords, I need hardly remark that one of the most important questions which can be raised in the consideration of a new Reform Bill, is as to what is to be the future right of voting in counties and boroughs; and, in forming a judgment on this question, it is desirable that, with regard to any extension of the franchise that may be proposed, we should know, as clearly as we can, what is the extent of the addition that will be made to the electoral body, and what may be the character of that addition.
  Now, my Lords, as far as regards the future number of the constituency in the Boroughs of England, there are returns on your Lordships' table intended to enable you to form some estimate of the increase of voters by the extension of the franchise to the occupiers of houses of the annual value of £6 instead of £10; but, to show how little those returns can be trusted without further inquiry, I need only state this notorious fact, that whereas Her Majesty's Government have estimated the probable increase of voters from such a change of the franchise at somewhere about 200,000 persons, a great many gentlemen, who have very good means of forming a judgment, including among them the representatives of some of our largest constituencies, have declared that they are prepared to show that this calculation is entirely fallacious; that it ought to have been at the very least doubled; and that 400,000, not 200,000, is the smallest number which ought to be reckoned upon as the probable addition to the borough voters. This opinion is also supported by many persons of good local information. Since I came into the House I have been told of the case of a borough in Cornwall, where the Government estimate of the increase to the constituency is at least one-half below what it ought to be. I do not know whether your Lordships have observed the fact, but in many of the local papers there are calculations of the same kind. I do not mean to trouble your Lordships with unnecessary details, and I will not, therefore, refer to many instances; but I may name one as a sample of many others. It appears that the number of voters now on the register for Ashton is 1,052. According to the returns laid before Parliament, the estimated probable
  1922
  addition to the constituency, by reducing the franchise to a £6 occupancy, is between 800 and 900. A gentleman well acquainted with that town, has, however, stated in the local papers, that the probable addition to the number of voters there under the operation of the Bill would be, instead of 800 or 900, at least 2,000. Now, this discrepancy between the calculations made upon the point seems to me to be a matter of so much importance, that it becomes clearly our duty to inform ourselves more thoroughly with respect to it. By calling before us those officers of the Poor Law Board who have made these returns, and some of the persons engaged in the local administration of the poor law, as well as other witnesses from some of the principal towns throughout the country, we may be enabled to clear up the doubts which at present exist as to the accuracy of the returns, as well as to learn something of the probable condition in life of those electors who will be admitted to the enjoyment of the franchise under the proposed change. It is, moreover, desirable not only that we should acquire some information with respect to their condition in life, but also with regard to the degree of intelligence and education which they may possess. And while the point is one of considerable importance, so far as the boroughs are concerned, in the case of which the information before us is deficient and not trustworthy, it becomes of still greater importance in the case of counties, in reference to the position of which under the Bill we absolutely have no information at all. As far as I am aware Her Majesty's Ministers have not even made a conjecture as to the probable increase of the electoral body in counties if the contemplated change in our representative system should take place. This I cannot look upon as right. What the amount is likely to be of the proposed addition to the electoral body in the United Kingdom is, I contend, a question which it is of great importance to take into account in the decision at which we ought to arrive upon the measure which we are asked to pass into a law. The probable increase of the number of voters, and the character of that increase, are not, however, the only questions which I deem worthy of consideration in dealing with this subject. Although there are doubts entertained as to the amount of the proposed addition to the electoral list, there can be no doubt but that addition will be very considerable, and the distribution of

  1923
  the franchise under the new Bill very unequal. In some towns its operation will create very little difference as contrasted with the present state of things; while in others, in which the rents of houses are lower, constituencies enormous in point of number will be created. That being so, it becomes expedient to consider whether to intrust the privilege of returning Members of Parliament to those overgrown constituencies is a course which it is dangerous to take, or the reverse. It seems to me, I confess, that we already know enough of the operation of such constituencies—especially in the case of the metropolitan boroughs—to render it desirable that we should know more upon the points to which I am adverting, in order that we might be enabled to judge how far the allegations which have been made as to the working of such constituencies are true or otherwise. We have ascertained from Returns which have been laid before Parliament that in constituent bodies so large as those of which I am speaking only a small proportion of the number of electors entitled to vote avail themselves of the privilege. According to the latest Returns, for instance, which I have seen on the subject, it appears that in the borough of Marylebone, out of a constituency of 21,000, little more than 10,000 voted at a recent election. In other metropolitan boroughs the proportion of those who actually vote to those who possess the franchise is, I believe, not very different. We also know that the contests for those boroughs have been of a very expensive character—that individual candidates have paid for a single election as large a sum as £5,000, that being the amount only which was returned by the election auditor; while I fear we should deceive ourselves if we were to imagine that this was the actual extent of the expenditure which has in every instance been incurred. Now, it being clear from the Returns that only a small number of the electors vote on these occasions, and that the elections are exeedingly costly, even if we exclude any reference to illegal and concealed expenses which may have been incurred, it becomes expedient to ascertain to what cause these facts are to be attributed. We have been told by persons acquainted with the subject that the evils to which I have adverted are due to the great size of the constituencies in question. Those persons say that in consequence of the very great number of voters which they contain, no individual voter takes
  1924
  any great interest in the exercise of the electoral privilege, and that as a result it becomes necessary to use various means in order to bring men to the poll. It is, moreover, asserted that, although bribes may not be offered to particular voters at those elections, a system which partakes to a great extent of the nature of corruption prevails; that paid canvassers are employed; the interest of the publicans purchased by allowing long bills to be run up for the entertainment of these canvassers and their committees; that machinery of this kind is largely employed, and that the result of resorting to it is to make individual voters still more unwilling to go to the poll, inasmuch as they feel that their vote is practically valueless in opposition to the organized measures which are taken by the professional traffickers in those elections. It is added that this unwillingness is manifested especially in the case of the more intelligent and educated inhabitants of the boroughs in question, who abstain from recording their votes; so that practically the control of the elections falls into the hands of a cabal, of a self-appointed committee, and a little knot of intriguers, the choice of a representative being thus practically restricted to a comparatively small number of persons. That the facts are such as I have mentioned is openly stated in pamphlets and newspapers, and I cannot help thinking that we ought, before we create any more of those large constituencies, to ascertain what amount of truth there is in such assertions. It is, of course, no easy matter to get at the truth of statements of this description; but still I am not without hope that, from the information which I am told different persons are ready to afford on the point, we shall be able to throw much light (should your Lordships think fit to grant the Committee for which I ask) upon the machinery by which the elections to which I am alluding are conducted. It may turn out on inquiry to be the case that facilities for personation and various other frauds are afforded in consequence of the number of electors being so large that it is difficult to recognize them individually. It may be ascertained, also, that the extreme multiplication of the number of voters diminishes, not only the value set on the franchise by the person who possesses it, but also the feeling of responsibility under which he exercises the privilege. It may, moreover, appear that one of the chief

  1925
  securities which we now enjoy for the fair and proper conduct of elections arises from the fact that the voters feel themselves to be a select body, exercising the right with which they are intrusted under the supervision of many of their countrymen who do not possess the same privilege, and that this feeling materially tends to make them discharge their duties as electors for the public advantage. It seems to me to be all the more important that we should have accurate knowledge on these points because of that which we know takes place in the United States. I was much struck by reading in one of the newspapers a letter from its "Correspondent," who stated himself to be a citizen of New York, describing the state of things in that city. He declared it would be a safe wager that out of 100 citizens, taken at random, not 10 could tell who were their representatives in Congress, and not five who were the members for the town in the State Legislature—unless it was said, you happened to stumble on a member of one of the committees by whom these things are really managed. These small knots of self-elected agitators are the real electors for the great city of New York; and the expression used by the writer was, I think, that the body of the inhabitants have as little real choice as the person who is asked by a conjuror to draw a card from a pack, who of necessity draws the card that the conjuror has determined beforehand. That is the account given by an American citizen of the effect produced in that country by the extreme multiplication of the number of electors. And, therefore, it seems to me a subject well worthy your Lordships' consideration, before we determine very largely to multiply the number of electors, that we shall endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain information as to the real practical working of elections carried on by very numerous bodies. We ought to know what approach we are likely to make to the state of things which I have just described; we ought to know whether an extension of the franchise is likely to conduce to the better discharge of the important trust of returning Members to Parliament. If we were to judge from popular harangues, and from the many speeches which are made in Parliament, we might suppose that the extension of the franchise is necessary in order to give to many of our fellow-countrymen some advantages of which they are at present unjustly deprived. I want to know
  1926
  what is the real advantage of having a vote in the election of Members of Parliament. What good does a man derive from being one of some hundreds or thousands, who in the borough in which he lives, when a new Parliament is to be chosen, vote in the election of the Members? He derives no direct advantage from the privilege—I am supposing always that he does not make any improper use of it—a vote is in itself of no consequence whatever; for no man will say that it is of advantage to him to possess this sort of fractional share of the power of choosing Members of Parliament. But what is of the deepest moment to every man is, that the election of Members shall be so regulated as to afford the best security that the country shall be well governed, and that the interests of every class shall be fairly dealt with and consulted. This it is which is of consequence to every man, from the highest to the lowest; and the mere possession of a vote, irrespective of the objects for which that vote is to be exercised, is not for one single moment to be taken into account. Looking at the subject in this light, and considering it to be a question whether the extension of the franchise is likely to lead to a more honest and a more judicious exercise of the privilege and to the choice of a House of Commons better fitted for the discharge of its high duties, it will be for your Lordships, whenever a measure on this subject is brought before you, to determine what evidence we have that such an extension is required. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say, so far as we have at present any means of forming an opinion, that I see no proof at all that such an extension is either necessary or expedient. It seems to me that this is the opinion of by far the majority of those who have written on this subject in a dispassionate tone, and of the best and soundest thinkers who have expressed their views upon it. I do not mean to trouble your Lordships by citing these authorities; but there is one to which, from various circumstances, I attach so much importance that I will take the liberty of bringing it under your Lordships' attention. I am sure there is none of your Lordships to whom the name of the late Mr. Hugh Millar is not familiar; you must know him by reputation and the delightful works which he has published. You are well aware that by his high moral no less than by his intellectual qualities he raised himself from the station of a working mason to a position of great

  1927
  influence and distinction. As the editor of a newspaper of wide circulation he was accustomed carefully to consider political questions, his opinions with regard to which were decidedly Liberal; and having been himself a working man, he knew by experience the opinions and feelings of that class, and the whole course of his life showed how earnest were his desires to promote their real interests. Mr. Millar, in one of his very interesting publications, under the name of The Cruise of the Betsy, refers incidentally to the subject of the franchise, as to which he thus expresses himself:—
  "Let Chartism assert what it pleases on the one hand, and Toryism on the other, the property qualification of the Reform Bill is essentially a good one for such a country as Scotland. In our cities it no doubt extends the political franchise to a fluctuating class, ill hafted in society, who possess it one year and want it another; but in our villages and smaller towns it hits very nearly the right medium for forming a premium on steady industry and character, and for securing that at least the mass of those who possess it should be sober-minded men with a stake in the general welfare."
  That is the opinion of Mr. Hugh Millar with regard to Scotland; and I would remind you that the franchise in that country is much less widely diffused in proportion to population than in England.
  I know it has been stated that it is unjust not to give the working classes a larger share in the representation, and that they ought not to be excluded from their fair share of political power. If that were true, and if any such exclusion were really practised towards them, no man would more heartily concur than myself in the opinion that this was an injustice and ought to be remedied. But is it true? In the first place I venture to submit to your Lordships that from among the £10 householders in our boroughs the working classes are by no means excluded. In the present days of prosperous trade in this country there is no resident in an English borough who may not hope by industry and intelligence to become the occupier of a £10 house. Practically, a very considerable number of £10 householders have risen from the class of working men, if they do not still belong to that class. They are, besides, closely connected with the whole body of the industrious classes, and have a strong feeling of sympathy with them. I might also remark that voting is not the only means by which political influence can be exercised. A man who has either never possessed or has never given a vote may, by his character and ability, exercise a
  1928
  most powerful influence on public opinion. For instance, do you think the amount of political influence exerted by such a gentleman as Mr. Bright much depends on the effect of his individual vote? Nor has it, I think, been established that an extension of the franchise is necessary in order to secure that Parliament shall deal justly towards the working classes. As far as we can judge from experience, I submit to your Lordships that the electoral body in this country is by no means indifferent to the interests of the great bulk of the population. These matters must be estimated by their effects; and I ask whether the whole course of legislation for many years past does not prove that the Parliament which is returned under the existing rate of suffrage is sincerely desirous of doing what is just and fair by all classes of the community. It is said, I know, that there ought to be a more direct representation of the working classes—that it is not enough that a certain number of these classes already possess votes, and that Parliament, as now constituted, deals justly towards them; but that something more is required, and that there ought to be persons in the House of Commons who would more fully express their sentiments. I acknowledge that there ought to be in that assembly the organs and representatives of every class, and especially of the working classes; and that it is highly important, even whore their opinions may be mistaken and their wishes unwise, that they should still be expressed, because it is by being publicly stated and as publicly answered that any delusions which may possess the popular mind can most effectually be dispelled. But is this to be effected by a general and sweeping reduction of the franchise? I think there is great force in the argument that shows this cannot be the case. The industrious classes are so numerous, compared with all other classes, so like each other in their modes of living and general circumstances that it is impossible, by a general reduction of the franchise in our cities and boroughs, to secure to these classes a more direct representation without giving them a complete political predominance. That point, my Lords, requires great and careful consideration. Many persons, whose opinions are entitled to great weight, think it is impossible to obtain a satisfactory result without adopting a different principle. They say that by a simple reduction of the franchise you would do either too much or

  1929
  too little, and that, to accomplish your object, you must proceed on some different principle. By the variety of franchises existing before the Reform Bill all classes, it is said, were represented. In some towns the right of election belonged to the corporations or other bodies representing the more wealthy classes; in others it was vested in the householders or freemen who acquired the franchise by serving a seven years' apprenticeship. They returned Members representing the industrious classes, not only of those particular towns for which they sat, but of the kingdom in general. By this diversity of the right of voting in different places, there were thus opportunities for all classes in society to obtain a share in the representation; and it is contended that, if we wish to secure the same object, we must return, in some degree, to this principle. My own opinion, I confess, leans to the soundness of these views; but I forbear from entering into this question, because it will form no part of the inquiry I ask your Lordships to institute. The Committee will have nothing to do with devising any plans of reform; by the terms of the Motion I am about to make it will be limited to the humbler task of endeavouring to collect information that may assist your Lordships to form a judgment on any measure of reform that may be brought before you.
  But I cannot ask your Lordships to enter on this limited inquiry, without expressing my opinion that one of a far more comprehensive character is urgently required. I believe that the principles on which a safe and effectual improvement of the representation can be accomplished have yet to be ascertained, and that the best mode of carrying these principles into effect yet remains to be discovered. I think that Parliament cannot safely deal with this question till it has been submitted to further inquiry; but I have no such claims on your confidence as to entitle me to ask your Lordships to entrust such a difficult investigation to a Committee moved for by me. I am not even prepared to say that any Committee of this House would be the best mode of conducting it; but I am not the less persuaded that it is necessary, and that if we would deal safely with this great subject, it must undergo a more searching and more dispassionate inquiry than it can receive in a discussion of a Reform Bill brought in by the present or any other Administration. The failure of the different attempts to pass Reform Bills within the
  1930
  last eight years, and the very small approval any of those Bills, framed by different Governments, have received or deserved, ought to convince us that it is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory settlement of this great question till the mind of the nation is more clearly made up as to what it wants, and till the leaders of the chief political parties can arrive at some agreement as to the measure that is to be passed. If Reform Bills are to continue to be brought forward and discussed in the manner they have been during the last and the present years, nothing but evil can arise to the country. The ultimate overthrow of the Constitution is what we must expect, unless this subject shall cease to be the battlefield of contending parties, and unless there is sufficient virtue and patriotism left among the leaders of all parties to enable them to agree, either to leave the question as it stands—and after all there is really very little practical objection to the working of our representation—or else to endeavour to concur in some measure framed according to principles which political wisdom and experience have suggested—and not with the mere purpose of catching a little fleeting popularity, or to patch up for a time a difficult and troublesome question. Unless they will do this there is danger of a great calamity befalling the nation, by the overthrow of the balance of political power. I believe that only a small fraction of the nation wishes to disturb the balance at present existing. The great mass of the people are well aware of the benefits they enjoy under our present Constitution; they are well aware that we enjoy a greater share of real liberty and of the blessings of good government than any other people on earth; and if the question were put to them distinctly whether they would abide by the main principles of the Constitution to which we owe so much, or whether they would depart from those principles to seek some new and untried system for the uncertain benefits it might confer, I am persuaded the answer of ninety-nine of every 100 in every rank of the community would be to abide by the constitution as it exists. But the danger is that in the strife of parties, and from weariness of a vain and barren struggle, the nation and Parliament may at length be prevailed upon to pass some measure of which the fatal working will not be understood till too late, and would only be known by experience; some measure founded on

  1931
  no principle, unsettling what exists, and settling nothing; some measure of which the apparent moderation would be only a snare and an additional danger, and which, if agreed to in the vain hope of obtaining a temporary respite from agitation, and a settlement of the question at least for a time, will be found on the contrary only to have increased all the existing difficulties, and to have opened the door to farther and indefinite changes which will be forced upon us in rapid succession till nothing is left to concede, and till our well-balanced Constitution is utterly overthrown, and an unchecked democracy is established on its ruins. That is what we have to fear, and what has happened in other nations, the example of the gradual corruption of free institutions in other countries, in ancient and modern times, ought to be to us a beacon pointing out the dangers on which we seem to be so blindly running. Above all, the example of the United States ought to be a warning to us that we cannot lay these things too deeply to heart. Let me remind your Lordships that the great men who brought the Revolutionary War with this country to a successful close established a Federal Constitution, by which they thought they had provided sufficient checks against the dangers of an unbalanced democracy. At that time the Constitutions of the several States were founded on similar principles. But almost every check then provided against abuse has been, one after the other, swept away, and the unchecked dominion of the mere numerical majority has been established, both in the Federal and the State Governments. My Lords, I believe if the contemporaries of Washington had been asked whether they would abandon the system then established for the one that has replaced it, they would have answered unanimously, "We will not try so dangerous an experiment." But the change has taken place, nevertheless, and how? By a succession of changes at first apparently inconsiderable in themselves, but all leading by a gradual, steady, and certain progression to that result which we now see. And how has that change worked for the happiness and well-being of the people of the United States?
  In bringing this part of the subject under your attention, I wish to say nothing which can wound the feelings of a people for whom, individually, I entertain the highest respect and admiration—but it would be false delicacy in me to abstain from describing the evils which now afflict
  1932
  that kindred nation, and which the best and most enlightened of their own citizens are the first to admit and deplore. I will endeavour then, shortly to point out to your Lordships what is the state of things now existing in the United States, as described by witnesses of the highest authority, native and foreign. In the first place, it is admitted that the ablest and more enlightened citizens of the United States are absolutely excluded from all share in the Government. They not only exercise no public functions, but they have not even the smallest influence over the acts of the Government. They are perfectly helpless and powerless, and the whole power, both legislative and executive, has fallen exclusively into the hands of those men who do not scruple to flatter the lowest passions of the mob. The effects of this are seen both in the Executive Government and in the Legislature. I do not intend to dwell upon the topic, but we all know in what manner the relations of the United States with foreign nations are carried on. Everybody is aware of the unscrupulous, overbearing tone which marks their intercourse with foreign nations. If any one European nation were to act in the same manner, it could not escape war for a single year. We ourselves have repeatedly been on the verge of a quarrel with the United States. With no divergence of interests, but the strongest possible interest on both sides to maintain the closest friendship, we have more than once been on the eve of a quarrel, and that great calamity has only been avoided because the Government of this country has had the good sense more than once to treat the Government of the United States much as we should treat spoilt children, and though the right was clearly on our side, has yielded to the unreasonable pretensions of the United States. There is a danger that this may be pushed too far, and that a question may arise on which our honour and our interests will make concessions on our part impossible. If from the Executive Government we turn to look at the proceedings of Congress and of the State Legislature we find them marked by habitual coarseness and vulgarity, and sometimes even disgraced by scenes of actual violence. We find that their measures, instead of being directed by a desire to promote the welfare of the nation by enlightened legislation, seem to have no other object but to satisfy the cupidity or the passions of their members. Let me point

  1933
  out to your Lordships just one remarkable contrast between Congress and the British Parliament. In our Parliament, which has been condemned as so faulty, public opinion—that is, the opinion not of mere numbers, but of the enlightened and educated part of the nation—has been strong enough to enforce the application of sound political science in our financial and commercial legislation. It has swept away all protection, and has placed our revenue laws on a system which is admitted to be, on the whole, wise, sound, and beneficial. But while public opinion has been able to do this in England, contrary to the wishes and contrary to the supposed interests of that landed aristocracy which is said to possess undue power in Parliament, and to abuse it for the oppression of the nation, Congress, on the contrary, has maintained the very narrowest system of exploded protection; and at this moment the revenue laws of the United States are of such a character, that no man who has the slightest pretension to a knowledge of the subject, can doubt that they impose a great and needless burden on the mass of the community for the benefit of a few. But, worse than this, the system has led to the most hideous corruption, which pervades every department of the Government. This is universally admitted and deplored, not by one party or one set of men only, but by all. The fact has been set in the clearest light by one of the highest authorities to which I would venture to appeal, that of the President himself. In a letter dated February 23, 1859, Mr. Buchanan speaks of "the disastrous influence which excessive and lavish expenditure of the public money may exert on the character of our free institutions," and he goes on to say:—
  "A strong tendency towards extravagance is the great political evil of the present day. Money from the national treasury is constantly demanded to enrich contractors, speculators, and agents, and these projects are gilded with every allurement which can be imparted to them by ingenuity and talent. Claims which had been condemned by former decisions, and had become rusty with age, have been again revived, and have been paid, principal and interest. Indeed, there seems to be a general rush to obtain money from the treasury on any and every pretence."
  He adverts in this passage to one of the most extraordinary modes of corruption which can be imagined. Some old claim on the Government, which has been considered and rejected years ago on good and sufficient grounds, is brought forward again, and by an arrangement among the parties who are to share in the benefits of the de-
  1934
  cision, the old decision is reversed, and this fancied claim is satisfied by an extravagant grant from the public treasury. This system of corruption is shamelessly avowed in the maxim which is loudly proclaimed, "To the victors belong the spoils." The meaning of this is, that each new President of the United States is to make a wholesale dismissal of public servants, and to fill their places without even the slightest pretension to any reference to the fitness of the new holders, but solely with reference to their claims on the party which has brought him into power. Still more remarkable is the fact that it is openly asserted that Acts of Congress and of the State Legislatures are often obtained by direct pecuniary corruption. One case of this kind—a railway case—attracted much attention two years ago, and was mentioned in the City article of The Times. It appears to be the practice of Congress to make grants of public lands to some of the Western States for the purpose of enabling them to encourage the formation of railways. These grants are in the first instance obtained from Congress in the corrupt manner I have described, and, when obtained, are used very much in the same manner by the Legislatures of individual States. A railway in Wisconsin obtained an act of the State Legislature making to the Company a grant of land by the wholesale purchase of the whole Government of the State. The case was so flagrant that it became impossible ultimately to refuse an investigation, and the following facts were reported to have been clearly proved:—Thirteen Members of the Senate received bonds to the amount of £35,000, in sums varying from £2,000 to £5,000 each; sixty Members of the House received sums varying from £1,000 to £2,000 each, and only four Members voted for the Bill without pay. The Governor of the State received for his share in passing the Bill £10,000—the Government is supposed to be carried on economically there, and the salaries are small, but with such irregular gains its public servants are certainly not less costly to the State than our own more highly paid ones—his Private Secretary got £1,000, the Lieutenant-Governor got £2,000, the Controller of the Bank £2,000, and the Clerks of the House from £1,000 to £2,000 each. Then there is a gross sum put down for "outsiders"—that is lobby agents and various undefined expenses of that kind—£50,000. This does not rest upon mere loose statement; it is the result of an official inquiry

  1935
  by a Committee of the Legislature—it is the history of the transaction as reported by a Committee of the succeeding House of Representatives. That is an example of the state of things which has arisen in that country. Before leaving the subject of America, there is another point which I really must mention. I stated to your Lordships that the President of the United States, with the most praiseworthy spirit, had written a letter to caution the country against the extreme extravagance which in modern times has prevailed; but I am sorry to say the President appears to be himself unable entirely to resist the effects of the system; because there has been an inquiry into the state of the navy in the United States, and the result of that inquiry has been the publication of a mass of documents which I am sure no man can read without the greatest astonishment. Contracts are proved to have been habitually and avowedly made to promote, not the interest of the public, but of the individual. A physician is shown to have been appointed to be agent for the purchase of coal, who knew nothing about coal, who never did anything in the purchase of coal but signing the certificates brought to him, and who received the appointment in order to share with others the profit of the contract. More than this. We have letters addressed to the highest officers of the Government calling on them to grant contracts to particular individuals for electioneering purposes. One letter is addressed to Mr. Buchanan himself, urging him in the strongest manner to have the contract for the machinery of a steam-sloop assigned to a particular house in Philadelphia with a view to obtaining their influence in the approaching election. There is no disguise. It is put openly that it is of importance, in the then state of the election, that the contract should be given to this particular house. I appeal to your Lordships whether, if a letter were addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, making a demand of that kind, and it were proved that he had listened to it for a moment, he would not by the universal indignation of all parties in Parliament, and out of it, be driven from the councils of the State. But how did the President of the United States treat the matter? The letter to which I have referred was simply sent to the Secretary of the Navy with this indorsement:—
  "The enclosed letter, from Colonel Patterson, of Philadelphia, is submitted to the attention of the Secretary of the Navy.—J. B."
  1936
  Such corruption produces its natural effects upon every interest and upon every class in the country, and above all, I am sorry to say, upon the administration of justice. Your Lordships are all aware that not many years ago the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States were regarded with the greatest respect, not only there, but in this country. The Judges were enlightened, honest, honourable men, and their dicta were often quoted in our own Courts as of high authority. How has this state of things been altered? Under the system which has arisen in America, appointments to the Supreme Court, like all other appointments, have been used for party purposes and as a natural consequence, that Court has lost the high character it formerly possessed. It no longer commands the respect which it did in better days, and some of the decisions which it has recently pronounced have excited the disgust of all high-minded men in America. But this is by no means the worst—in the Federal Courts the state of things is not good, but at least they have still Judges who hold office during good behaviour, and may therefore venture to act with independence. But in many of the States—I believe I may say in most of them—the Judges are now elected. They are not only originally appointed by election, but they are appointed only for short periods; consequently they are looking forward to re-election;—and in some States they are elected annually, and their salaries are voted annually by the Assembly. This has arisen, because when the undisputed dominion of a numerical majority of the nation had been established, they will not bear to have the desires and passions of the hour checked by a firm administration of the law. The effect has been to degrade the character both of the Bench and the Bar. It is stated in the American newspapers, and the evidence is confirmed by that of impartial observers, that the laws in that country are now become mere cobwebs to resist either the rich or the popular feeling of the moment. While the rich and the upper classes are excluded from any legitimate influence in the government of the country, the illegitimate influence of money is greater than ever, and it is stated that rich men have little to fear from the law in a majority of the States of the Union. How it acts when any popular feeling is involved will be best understood from a short statement which I beg leave to make to your Lord-

  1937
  ships. In the autumn of 1858 there existed a quarantine establishment which had been established by the authority of the Legislature and of the Government in the neighbourhood of New York. The situation was one where many villas had been built for the citizens of New York, to which the quarantine establishment was regarded as a nuisance, and its removal was desired. The inhabitants of the district attempted to get it removed, and, not succeeding in doing so by legal means, the course they took was to assemble and burn it down. No secret was made beforehand of what was intended, on the contrary, the time at which the outrage was to be committed was openly proclaimed, and at the time appointed the rioters accordingly assembled and deliberately set fire to and destroyed the building. They first removed the sick, but I believe the lives of some were lost by the exposure to the weather they endured. Not the slightest attempt was made by the authorities to resist the outrage which they knew to be intended, and only a nominal attempt to punish the perpetrators. Proceedings were taken against them, but I find in a local paper, those proceedings described as a protracted farce, and the result was a decision from the Bench that, as the quarantine establishment had been pronounced a nuisance by the grand jury, the rioters were justified in burning it down. This is a sample of the manner in which the law is now expounded in one of the States of the Union. I say nothing of those abuses, of which I am afraid there can be no doubt, in the police of New York that make life and property unsafe in many parts of that great commercial metropolis. I refer only to known facts, which stand on clear official statements, and which cannot be denied or doubted.
  Perhaps I shall be told that there is no danger of our coming to such a state of things as this—that the reverence of Englishmen for law and justice, and their desire to see it fairly administered, are so great that they will never for a moment follow such an evil example. But I believe that seventy years ago these feelings were quite as strong in America as they now are in England, and I beg to remind your Lordships that when you once establish the irresponsible power of a mere numerical majority of a nation, they are led on insensibly from one step to another, until the consequence is the establishment of such a tyranny as I have now been describing. I
  1938
  believe that this experiment of Government by a numerical majority has been tried in America under circumstances of far less danger than it would be in this country; and I refer your Lordships to an admirable letter which records for our instruction the opinion formed on this subject by the great historian and statesman, in whom this House, this country, and the civilized world, have lately experienced so irreparable a loss. I refer to the letter of Lord Macaulay, in which he points out with his usual power of language and of argument that, in a country still so imperfectly settled as the United States, where the population have the opportunity of spreading over a wide territory, the experiment of government by a numerical majority has been tried under far greater advantages and with far less danger than it would be in a thickly-peopled country like our own. I have referred to these things because I think they ought to render us cautious how we take any steps which may lead to the establishment of such a system of government in this country. But we do not need the example of America in order to enable us to judge what must be the character of such a Government if established here. From the speeches which have been delivered during the last two years to various audiences throughout the country by a gentleman of great energy and talent—I mean Mr. Bright—we may form some conception of the degree of moderation, wisdom, and justice, with which power would be exercised if placed exclusively in the hands of that class to whom his speeches were addressed. I will not trouble your Lordships with quotations from those speeches; if your Lordships will but look at the points that were cheered, you will see some test of the degrees of wisdom, moderation, and justice, with which power would be used, if entrusted exclusively to a single class.
  I feel I have already trespassed too long upon your Lordships' attention. I will therefore pursue this topic no further, and only express my hope that what I have said may be sufficient to satisfy you of the propriety of granting the Committee I ask for, in order to inquire whether by adopting the changes which are now proposed in the representative system, you would not virtually concentrate the real power solely in the hands of a particular class, and deprive all other classes of their proper share. Let it not be supposed I object to a well-considered measure of Reform. I never expressed the opinion that

  1939
  the Reform Bill of 1832 ought to be a final measure. I do not think that finality belongs to human legislation. But this I have always said, and this I still say, that when you have a Constitution which secures to the people the blessings of good government and the largest amount of liberty, and is practically found to work well, you ought not lightly to disturb that arrangement, and above all things you ought not to adopt any change of which you cannot see pretty clearly the probable effect and ultimate consequences. You are bound to remember that the Constitution of this country is, as it is well described by our greatest political writer, a well-balanced and complicated machine, and that if you venture to disturb its operations with a rash hand, you may throw it out of working order. Even in correcting admitted faults you may do harm, unless you take care at the same time to correct faults in the opposite direction. I believe that the circumstances of the times impose upon us a great and solemn duty; and when any Bill of Reform is brought before us it will be our duty to give it our deliberate attention, and to refuse steadfastly to pass any measure, unless we are satisfied it will promote the future interests of this great country. In order to enable us to discharge that duty, and to provide us with information on which we may form our judgment, I beg to move, in the terms of my notice—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what would be the probable Increase of the Number of Electors in the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales from a Reduction of the Franchise, and whether any or what Change is likely to be made in the Character of the Constituencies by such Increase: Also, what Difference there is between large and small Constituencies in respect of the Proportion of registered Electors who usually vote in contested Elections, and into the Causes of any such Difference which may be found to exist, likewise into the Means by which Elections in very large Constituencies are practically determined, and into the Expense incurred in conducting them."
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government to oppose the Motion of my noble Friend. We are perfectly willing that the inquiry asked for—though the terms of the Motion are somewhat loosely worded—should be instituted as far as it is capable of having a proper and useful direction given to it. It must be, however, on the distinct understanding, which I believe my noble Friend admits, that it is a bonâ fide Motion for the purpose of obtaining information which will guide us in our deliberations
  1940
  on the measure of Reform when it comes up from the other House of Parliament, and that the appointment of the Select Committee is not to have the effect of shelving the question, or causing unnecessary delay in the consideration of the Bill, when it shall come up from the House of Commons. Upon that understanding the Government are prepared to enter into the inquiry with my noble Friend. If, indeed, the Select Committee now moved for were to inquire into all the matters my noble Friend has referred to—into the decay of nations in ancient and modern times, the alleged decline of the American constitution, and the state of the United States now as compared with what it might have been had the institutions devised for it by General Washington and his associates been maintained—I should indeed despair of any progress being made for a very considerable time, and should regard with unmitigated commiseration the unhappy lot of the Members chosen to serve upon the Committee. But I understand my noble Friend intends the inquiry to have a more definite direction. Some of his observations seemed to imply that he wished the inquiry to be directed to the verification or correction of certain Returns produced by the Government for the purpose of informing Parliament of the probable effects of the measure they have introduced; and the Government are perfectly willing that the accuracy of these Returns should be tested by the Committee. I do not, therefore, at present deem it necessary to enter into any defence of these Returns; but I must say I was surprised at the way in which my noble Friend treated that question. My noble Friend, in proof of the inaccuracy of the Returns, said he need only refer to the fact that several Members of Parliament representing important constituencies had, in their place in the House of Commons, stated that in reference to their own respective boroughs the Returns were most erroneous. I admit that several Members of Parliament have challenged the accuracy of these Returns as regarded their respective boroughs; but I am informed by the Department from which the Returns emanated, that, in consequence of these allegations, inquiries have been made in the specific cases referred to, and the Returns have been found perfectly accurate. The charges of inaccuracy are almost all couched in the vaguest terms, and are founded on letters of individual electors to their Members, who say that as the result

  1941
  of their private inquiries they have come to the conclusion that the Returns are inaccurate. I think that the statement of the public Department which has had access to the official records of the various boroughs is possessed of more authority than the unsupported assertions of any individual constituent. One alleged source of fallacy in these Returns has been pointed out more specifically. It has been said that in a very large number of boroughs the strict requirements of the law are not complied with, and that all the persons who are assessed for poor rates are not entered in the rate-books. That is perfectly true. There are, I believe, a large number of parishes and boroughs in which the system of compounding for tenancies is adopted, and in such cases the names of the tenants do not appear in the rate-book. But I can assure your Lordships, on the authority of the Poor-Law Department, that specific instructions were given to clerks of unions, who are officers of intelligence and education, that in all cases of compounded tenancies, though the names of occupants are not entered in the rate-book, the whole number of tenants of the required value should be included in the Returns. I believe that has been done in all cases, and although there may be some slight errors in the Returns, I shall be surprised if there are found to be any serious ones. In the instructions sent down to the boards of guardians great care was taken that those officers should understand the object of the Returns that were to be obtained—namely, to give Parliament as near an estimate as possible of the numbers of male occupiers of various classes of tenements. The noble Earl has referred to a noble Lord behind him (Lord Vivian) as having pointed out the incorrectness of the information procured. I can assure the noble Lord that, as far as regards the source of error that has been commonly dwelt upon, it has not been allowed to operate against the accuracy of these Returns. It is perfectly true that as elaborate Returns have not been obtained with respect to the county constituencies, as have been laid before Parliament with respect to the boroughs; but there are other means of getting access to an estimate of the county franchise. There are various Returns before Parliament from which that information can be gathered by any noble Lord who refers to them. Another reason which has prevented the Government from presenting to Parliament
  1942
  such full particulars with regard to the county constituencies was that a £10 franchise in counties was a prominent feature in the Reform Bill brought in by our predecessors in office. Such a franchise has been over and over again voted by the House of Commons; and, as compared with the proposed borough franchise, it is objected to by very few persons in either branch of the Legislature. Having said thus much in reference to the assent of the Government to the institution of this inquiry, and carefully guarded them from being supposed to admit it as a cause of delay in the consideration of important measures which may come up to us on the subject of reform, I should have been well content to say no more on the general question. But I am sure your Lordships will feel, after the speech of my noble Friend, that any Member of the Government who follows him would be guilty of a very grave dereliction of public duty if he allowed all that has fallen from the noble Earl to pass without some observation, or, I think I may say, without some protest. I have this difficulty in answering the remarks of my noble Friend on this question, that they appear to me so wholly wide of the mark. My noble Friend occupied the attention of the House for nearly an hour with very interesting details of the degeneracy of the American democracy. Now, if any Bill had been introduced into Parliament by any Government proposing to lower the franchise in this country as it has been lowered in America, or proposing a system of universal suffrage and the ballot—which, by the way, is termed across the Atlantic "the sneaking ballot"—then I should willingly receive the lecture of my noble Friend as a grave argument against our measure. I have no hesitation, my Lords, in saying that I should view with the greatest possible alarm and dismay the institution of universal suffrage, especially if accompanied by the ballot. I believe they are two great instruments of modern despotism, most hostile to the liberties of mankind. I see them used all over Europe, sometimes to cajole, sometimes to terrify, the poorest and most uninstructed of men into a surrender not merely of their own liberties, but of the liberties of others who are more enlightened and more independent than themselves. But I repudiate altogether the lesson read us by my noble Friend as applicable to any measure proposed or likely to be proposed in this coun-

  1943
  try by any Government. The noble Earl has intimated very clearly that he desires no change whatever in the existing constituencies of this kingdom. He is opposed, at least, to all reduction of the borough franchise. I ask my noble Friend, and I ask the House, whether that is an opinion which any Government is now in a position to act upon? His observations on this point were received, I thought, with very faint acquiescence by noble Lords opposite, I beg the House to consider what has been the history of this question, and what is the situation in regard to it in which the leading men of all parties have been placed by their course within the last ten years. It is now upwards of nine years since the First Minister of the Crown undertook to deal as a whole with the question of Parliamentary Reform. Since then we have had six successive Governments; every one of which, except the short-lived Government of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), in 1852, has pledged itself to bring forward a measure at the earliest possible opportunity to settle, if it could, this great question. I must say I heard my noble Friend's language on this subject with astonishment. Recollecting as I do that he was himself a Member of the Liberal Government in 1852, which, on the united responsibility of the Cabinet, directed the attention of Parliament, through the Speech from the Throne, to the question of Parliamentary Reform, and which afterwards proposed a Bill to reduce the borough franchise to a £5 rating, or an amount, at the highest estimate, not differing more than 20 s. from the borough franchise of the present Government—I say my noble Friend was responsible with his colleagues for that measure; and from that responsibility, let me tell him, he cannot escape. When, therefore, I hear him protesting that there is no necessity whatever for dealing with this question, or at least for dealing with it in the way of reduction, I can only ask him, "When did this conviction flash upon his mind?" He was no young and inexperienced statesman in 1852. He had had a long acquaintance with public affairs, and he knows how the decision of the Government was then brought about. [EARL GREY: Hear, hear!] I quite understand the meaning of that cheer. My noble Friend intends to intimate—what has over and over again been alleged by all the opponents of Reform—that this question has been raised through the personal indiscretion of a statesman
  1944
  who was then one of his colleagues. ["Hear, hear!"] I am astonished at that intimation from my noble Friend, for, although we may not all have been in the Cabinet of 1852, we all know, from our access to the public sources of information, what then took place. The determination of Lord John Russell's Government to deal with the question of Reform did not originate—as is sufficiently proved by the Parliamentary transactions of the period—from any personal desire of Lord John Russell to take the subject up. For what was the fact? Lord John Russell's Government was more than once defeated, if I recollect aright, on a Motion by an independent Member of Parliament—one of their own party, indeed, but unconnected with the Government—who was vigorously opposed by Lord John Russell—I mean Mr. Locke King—on this very question of a £10 franchise in counties. The Government in consequence of that vote resigned. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) was called upon to form a Ministry; and in a speech which he made in this House, stating the reasons which had induced him to relinquish the task committed to him by the Queen, he gave a long and very able analysis of the division that had occurred in the other House. He proved that Lord John Russell's Government had been placed in a minority, not by the votes of those with whom the noble Earl was politically connected, but by a majority composed of members of its own party voting against it on the question of reform. I contend this disproves the assertion of my noble Friend that this question of Reform was raised by any personal desire of Lord John Russell. It was raised by an independent Member of Parliament on the question of the £10 county franchise; and it was then felt by the independent Liberal party that the subject could not be dealt with merely incidentally or in detail; that if they touched it at all they must deal with the whole question; and the Bill of 1852 was accordingly introduced. I can only account for the change of opinion which has come over the noble Earl's mind by that long interval which separates the speculations of individuals acting in an isolated position from their convictions when Members of a Government acting together and responsible for the conduct of public affairs. What is the position in which the borough franchise stands? I have never thought that full justice was done to the Reform

  1945
  Bill of the late Government; but the greatest injustice that was done to it was inflicted by its own unnatural parent. It was most ably drawn, and conceived on distinct and definite principles. One of its most prominent features was that the Reform of Parliament should be dealt with exclusive of any lowering of the franchise. Let me quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure of the late Government. Mr. Disraeli said, in introducing the Reform Bill:—
  "I am ready to admit that there are many persons quite capable of exercising the suffrage who do not live in £10 houses, and whom I should wish to see possessing the suffrage. But should we obtain that result by—I won't call it the vulgar expedient, because the epithet might be misinterpreted, though I should not use it in an offensive sense—but by the coarse and common expedient which is recommended, by what is called ' lowering the franchise in towns?'" [3 Hansard, clii. p. 984.]
  Hero is another passage from the same speech:—
  "It certainly would be most injudicious, not to say intolerable, when we are guarding ourselves against the predominance of a territorial aristocracy and the predominance of a manufacturing and commercial oligarchy, that we should reform Parliament by securing the predominance of a household democracy." [Ibid, p. 985.]
  On the 31st of March, Mr. Disraeli again says:—
  "That being my opinion, I cannot look upon what is called reduction of franchise in boroughs but with alarm. I have never yet met any argument which fairly encounters the objections that are urged against it." [3 Hansard, cliii. p. 1246.]
  Now, I think that these passages of Mr. Disraeli's speech bear out the assertion I now venture to make, that one of the prominent features of that Bill—the essential feature which distinguished it from all other Bills previously introduced—was that it proposed to deal with the question of Reform somewhat in the same way as I suppose my noble Friend proposes to deal with it—without lowering the borough franchise. I do not, my Lords, in saying this, mean to throw ridicule on such a mode of procedure. The opinion may be maintained by many. I was well aware that it was maintained by Mr. Hugh Millar, whom my noble Friend has quoted tonight, and others, that the present borough franchise is low enough. We are not of that opinion. But what happened with the Bill of the late Government? I am not speaking of its treatment ab extra, but of its treatment at the hands of its own
  1946
  parent. During the discussions that arose in the other House of Parliament every subsequent speech of Mr. Disraeli was marked by a distinct step backward on this point. He declined to admit that it was one of the principles of his Bill. When pressed on the point he would give no definite answer. Everything was a matter of detail and to go before the Committee. That was not dealing fairly with the Bill of the late Government. Let me now direct the attention of the House to what was said by the same right hon. Gentleman when the new Parliament assembled. When the late Government was defeated on the Motion of my noble Friend Lord John Russell, the first thing they did, both in this and the other House of Parliament, was to say, "Remember we do not go to the hustings with this Bill—we are quit of it altogether":—and one of the objects in being quit of it was to get rid of the mode in which it proposed to deal with the borough franchise. I can readily admit that there was a good deal of claptrap talked at the last general election; but I may appeal to noble Lords on both sides whether, although there was no sort of democratic excitement, there was not a considerable and almost universal pressure put on all those who addressed the constituencies in regard to the question of the borough franchise, and whether Members of the Conservative party did not find it generally necessary to profess a reconsideration of their Bill in reference to the borough franchise. When the new Parliament met, a vote of want of confidence was moved, and what was the deliverance of Mr. Disraeli on this most significant of all heads? He was then combating the vote of want of confidence. He had been speaking of the £10 county franchise, and he says:—
  "The question of the borough franchise was not in that condition of maturity. Until the last great debate that question has never been thoroughly grappled with in this House. It has never been brought forward by persons of stay eminence, nor has it at any time attracted or commanded much attention. Well, in that direction we proceeded very cautiously, as you must do with that part of a subject for which the public mind is not so ripe as for the other. …. I am perfectly ready to admit, on the part of the Government, that that proposition was not favoured by this House, nor was it sufficiently favoured by the country to be one upon which we can insist. The question of the borough franchise, however, must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with, too, with reference to the introduction of the working classes. We admit that that has been the opinion of Parliament, and that it has been

  1947
  the opinion of the country as shown by the hon. Gentlemen who have been returned to this House. …. We are perfectly prepared to deal with that question of the borough franchise and the introduction of the working classes by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting in that direction with sincerity, because, as I ventured to observe in the debate upon our measure, if you intend to admit the working classes to the franchise by lowering the suffrage in boroughs, you must not keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. The lowering of the suffrage must be done in a manner which satisfactorily and completely effects your object, and is at the same time consistent with maintaining the institutions of the country."—[3 Hansard, cliv. p. 139.]
  Now, I ask my noble Friend, considering all that has taken place on this question; considering the measure for which he himself was responsible; considering the pledges which every Government have been obliged to take; considering the course taken by the Conservative party, and the manner in which they have struck their flag upon this question—does he think it possible that any Government could bring in a Reform Bill that does not deal with the borough franchise? And is there, after all, anything so very dreadful in this lowering of the borough franchise to a moderate degree? There seems to be a theory now prevailing in some quarters, which I apprehend is quite a new one—that society is stratified in horizontal lines, each layer wholly distinct and even opposite to the next; and as in nature different strata, though in close contact, are yet separated from each other by innumerable ages, so all classes that lie below the present constituency are wholly separated from them in feeling, thought, and aspiration; that they are arrayed against their fellow citizens above them, hostile to the institutions of the State, jealous of the rich, and would interfere with the rights of property and the other constitutional principles on which the liberties of England depend, I ask, is there any foundation whatever for this theory in the actual life of England? When you come to deal with the artisans and lower classes of the country, do you find that they are animated by this spirit of hostility to you and your institutions? I saw in the public papers not long ago, at a great Conservative dinner given to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) at Liverpool, Lord Stanley was reported to have given distinct utterance to this sentiment, which I believe to be true, that the working classes of this country are mainly Conservative in their disposition. And, if that is really your belief, why such a horror
  1948
  of lowering the borough franchise? My noble Friend talked as if the proposition of the Government was to introduce into this country the mere despotism of numbers. Why, the whole question is the lowering the borough franchise by 80 s. It is quite preposterous, I say, then, to address lectures to this House on democracy in America, as if we were going to introduce universal suffrage accompanied by the ballot—of which I, too, have a great horror, although I question if the effects of such a measure would be as terrible as my noble Friend appears to imagine. A very remarkable inquiry was moved for by my noble Friend (Earl Grey) during the last Session of Parliament on the subject of the municipal franchise, with a view to its effect on the discussions likely to take place in reference to the Parliamentary franchise. I shall beg your Lordships' attention to some of the facts which came out in the course of that investigation. It appears, by what I really believe was a mistake of the intention of Parliament, a system of very nearly universal suffrage, as regards the municipal franchise, was introduced into many boroughs; and my noble Friend represented that this had been productive of very serious inconvenience where it had come into operation. The Committee appointed at my noble Friend's instigation reported fully. The balance of evidence was, I think, in favour of my noble Friend's assertion, that serious inconvenience had arisen in several boroughs of England; that at Newcastle and other towns bribery and corruption had taken place at municipal elections: but I should explain that the class of voters in these towns is of the very lowest kind. But, after all, this inconvenience was trifling as compared with that we might have expected from the theory I am now venturing to combat, of the hostility of the various classes to each other. Some very remarkable evidence was given in this Report, to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention, with regard to the borough franchise. The Report most probably was drawn up by my noble Friend. I find in the Report to which I refer a passage to the effect that the higher order of artisan is to a man quite as intelligent and independent as the smaller shopkeepers, who, generally speaking, occupy dwellings of which the rates are paid by the landlord. The Report goes on to say that any measure which would disfranchise such men would deprive the electoral body of a valuable and respecta-

  1949
  ble element. The question was put by the noble Earl to several witnesses what line they would propose to draw with the view of securing in the respective constituencies the higher and better class of artisans, and for the purpose of excluding the very poor classes; and I find on looking through their evidence that almost every one of them fixed upon a £6 or a £7, and in some instances on a £5 rental as representing the points at which this line ought to be drawn, to admit the higher class of artisans and exclude the lower classes. Is this evidence which my noble Friend seeks to ignore in dealing with the question of the borough franchise? The line fixed upon by the Government is that which the Committee recommended. They have taken a £6 franchise; and in doing so they have, I believe, adopted a perfectly safe course, inasmuch as they will thereby be admitting to the exercise of the franchise that class of artizans who are by no means a lawless or reckless body of men, but who are, on the contrary, as intelligent and quite as well fitted to possess the suffrage as the smaller class of shopkeepers, and quite as independent in many towns. Now, my noble Friend also spoke this evening as if the constituencies which would be created by an uniform franchise would be in themselves necessarily of an uniform character. I must, however, contend that he could give expression to no greater fallacy. The statement of the noble Earl would not be correct even if it were confined to the case of a £6 franchise in any one town. A £6 householder in the Tower Hamlets, for instance, occupies a position entirely different from a £6 householder in Marylebone, and the same observation applies with equal justice to the east and west ends of Manchester. But if this be true of individual towns it may be still more fairly said with respect to the different boroughs which are scattered over the face of the country, some of which are of a purely agricultural character; that is to say, whose artizans and shopkeepers have relations rather with the neighbouring county gentlemen and farmers than with the manufacturing class, while the relations of others stand upon the contrary footing. When, therefore, my noble Friend seeks to secure variety by means of a varying franchise he seems to forget to take into account the different effects which will be produced on different parts of England by a franchise uniform in itself. Instead of uniformity I contend that the
  1950
  result would be that Members would be sent to the House of Commons representing every variety of interests. The House will, I hope, excuse me for having trespassed so long upon their attention, but I could not, as a Member of the Government, deem it to be consistent with my duty to sit down without entering my protest against the doctrines which the noble Earl has this evening laid down. I may, perhaps, before resuming my seat, be permitted to say a few words with regard to the question of delay. The noble Earl in the commencement of his speech intimated that the Reform Bill had hitherto made slow progress in the other House of Parliament, and implied that this delay was owing to the dislike of the measure which there prevailed. My noble Friend has, however, omitted, in dealing with that part of the subject, to lay before the House two most important facts, the first of which is that the discussion of the Bill has, perhaps unfortunately, but certainly unavoidably, been retarded in consequence of the fact that it was brought forward concurrently with a financial scheme of unusual importance. He forgot, in the second place, to mention that the Conservative party in the House of Commons announced it to be their intention not to oppose the second reading of a measure the principle of which might be regarded as having already received the sanction of the Legislature. Under these circumstances I do not think that my noble Friend is justified in supposing that it is not the desire of the leading men of all parties that the settlement of the question of Reform should be effected during the present Session, and by means of the present Bill. Nor can I too earnestly impress upon your Lordships the conviction that serious complications may arise from postponing that settlement. Such a course may prove dangerous to the constitution, and could not be otherwise than injurious to the character of our public men. Their sincerity in dealing with this important question is already becoming suspected, and a contrast is drawn by the journals of the day between the professions with regard to it which they make at general elections, and the language which they make use of in their places in Parliament. Do you desire, then, to defer all decisive action in the matter until the country becomes the scene of widespread agitation, or is it not rather your wish to set it at rest at a moment when you may do so without being influenced

  1951
  by undue external pressure? I entertain no doubt as to the answer which ought to be returned to such a question; and I trust now that we have before Parliament a measure of Reform which, in its main features, is not essentially distinct from that of the late Government, a sufficient degree of public spirit and a sufficient absence of acrimony will be manifested on the part of the majority in both branches of the Legislature to enable us, if not to pass the Bill in its present shape, at all events, to fix upon the amount of the franchise in boroughs and counties to which we shall be prepared to assent. I shall only add that it is the sincere wish of Her Majesty's Government that this question should be kept no longer—to use the phrase of the noble Earl—"dangling" before the House and the country, but that it should be settled in a manner consistent with the increased political liberty of the people, and at the same time, with the due maintenance of our political institutions.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, he did not rise to address their Lordships on this question; but reference having been made to a letter which he had received, he begged to say that the person who wrote that letter was a person on whose ability and accuracy he could rely. The writer of the letter was the clerk of a particular union in the county, and contained the following passage:—
  "Since I had the conversation with your Lordship on the subject of my return to the Poor Law Board I have revised it, and find it to be strictly correct. On the face of the rates there would appear to be an addition of 55 electors, but, as the gross estimated rental in the Bodmin rate is 20 per cent below the actual rent, the addition would really be much greater. Mr. Bray, the town clerk, tells me that he has gone through the rates of Bodmin borough and parish with the overseers, and that eighty at least would be added to the constituency under the £6 rental franchise. This would be just double the number given in the printed Report. As I made all the necessary deductions before my Return was forwarded to the Poor Law Board, I am at a loss to conceive why 20 per cent has been since deducted from the number on the rates."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I cannot, my Lords, but apprehend, after what has fallen from the noble Duke who has just addressed you, and who deprecates the introduction of acrimony into this discussion so strongly, that he and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government are not even yet sufficiently impressed with the vast importance of this subject, and that the noble Duke himself, more especially in the speech which we have this evening heard
  1952
  from him, and by the reference which he has made to the conduct of former Ministers, is less desirous—or would, at all events appear to be less desirous—to arrive at an amicable and satisfactory settlement of this question than of keeping alive the spirit of party agitation, and seeking to throw upon the shoulders of his political opponents that which, according to him, is the invidious task which he and his colleagues have very reluctantly undertaken. The noble Duke has favoured us with his historical reminiscences; and though my recollection extends a good deal further back than that of the noble Duke, the noble Duke has one advantage over me, because, I cannot, of course, presume to enter into any discussion of those mysterious conversations, and those various inducements which were held forth at the time when the noble Duke was a Member of the Cabinet, and of which I know nothing, but which led to the original introduction of the Reform Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I alluded to what took place in Lord John Russell's Cabinet in 1852, of which I certainly was not a member.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: At what period in 1852?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think I am right in stating that the first Reform Bill of Lord John Russell was introduced in the month of February, 1852.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In extremis?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Possibly.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I merely wish to say, in answer to the noble Duke, that he need not have reminded us of the special inducements under which particular Members of the Cabinet were led to sanction the propositions which he has taunted the noble Earl with having assented to. I do not know anything of them; I do not pretend to know—I do not wish to know—anything in reference to them. But he has gone further, and he has certainly surprised the House by one fact—which, as it has been stated by the noble Duke, I must assume to be a fact—namely, that Lord John Russell, of all men in the world, was extremely unwilling to deal with this question of Parliamentary Reform, that he, to the best of his power, resisted the reduction of the county franchise to £10, and that he was opposed to the measures which afterwards he certainly proposed. Lord John Russell was dragged, a reluctant victim to circumstances, bound to the chariot wheels of a triumphant Parliamen-

  1953
  tary majority; and so, contrary to his own earnest desires, at variance with his own cherished opinions on the subject, Lord John Russell became a convert to the principles of further Parliamentary Reform. Perhaps some few years hence we may find the noble Duke himself assenting to the principle of universal suffrage and vote by ballot, which he says, much as he dislikes it, is not altogether so bad as it is represented. The noble Duke, I know not why, has thought fit to deal with the measure proposed by the late Government, and the terms and conditions on which that Bill was introduced; and, little as I desire, and still less as I expected, that any such discussion would have been forced on us, I am not unwilling to meet the noble Duke on that ground, and to state precisely the course Her Majesty's Government then took, and which they thought best adapted for the final settlement of the question. The noble Duke has stated, not quite correctly, that on the first entry of that Government into office, I pledged myself to the introduction of a measure of Parliamentary Reform. I carefully guarded myself against giving any such pledge. But I did pledge myself that during the recess Her Majesty's then Ministers would devote their best attention to the consideration of that very difficult question, with the hope that, if there was public feeling such as we trusted to find at both sides of the House, we should be able to submit a measure, which, if it failed to satisfy the extremes of either party, would receive the sanction and support of all moderate men. I stated at the time that I was induced to take this course, not by any conviction in my own mind that for practical purposes an alteration of the existing system of representation was positively called for, but by the fact that successive Ministries had pledged what might be considered the honour of the Crown—had pledged the Crown in person—to an attempt to settle the existing difficulties. Accepting the responsibility of that promise, and trusting we might be met in a spirit of fairness and generosity, I endeavoured—without a sense of its intrinsic necessity, but I hope I need not say I honestly endeavoured—to redeem the pledge which had been bequeathed to us by our predecessors. I was glad to hear from the noble Duke opposite that justice has not been done to the merits of that Bill. Its history is fresh in the recollection of your Lordships, and I need not remind you of the course which the discus-
  1954
  sion took. The noble Duke has taken the opportunity of referring to speeches made prior to the dissolution by my right hon. Friend who then filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli); and he has quoted passages in which he stated that it was necessary to deal with this question with a view to the representation, more or less, of a portion of the working classes of this country. That representation we endeavoured honestly to secure, without the injurious consequences which, as I believe, are involved in the measure of Her Majesty's present Government. We did not think it was desirable or expedient that the borough franchise should be reduced generally below £10, so as to create that flood of the lower class of voters which would be introduced if the present Bill should unhappily receive the sanction of your Lordships and of Parliament. I acknowledge that Parliament differed from us on that ground; but we thought it was a matter of no insignificant importance to secure it by the identification of the borough and country franchise. The material distinctions between these have been already so far done away with that they can hardly be said to subsist in practice; and therefore in reducing the county franchise to the same amount as that in boroughs, where we declined to lower it, we acted on the opinion, which I hold now, that identity of the franchise affords the best security against future agitations for the reduction either of one or of the other. I was very much struck with what took place in the course of the elections which followed the overthrow of the Government. To the circumstances under which that overthrow took place I will not now recur. We had been in hopes that our propositions would have met with fair and candid consideration; that if the Bill, to a great extent, had met the views of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House they would have been willing to sanction the second reading, and to discuss with us in Committee what seemed to them most to require amendment. The noble Duke thinks this a fitting occasion to taunt us as if we had abandoned the views which we entertained, though all our efforts were directed to prevent the agitation of these questions before the time at which they would properly come on for consideration. And how was that measure met? Not even by moving Amendments, or by stating the objections which they might entertain; but, for the purpose of

  1955
  escaping from the necessity of moving Amendments, it was met by an abstract Resolution, such as we know noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite are very well practised in laying down, but which on certain questions they subsequently find it absolutely impossible to adhere to. By that ungenerous device, aided by concert with other parties, and by an understanding, in which, if we are to believe what is passing at present, one of the parties seems to have been very much deceived as to the intentions of the Government, a narrow and small majority was given to the Opposition. An appeal to the country followed, the result of which undoubtedly was to return a House of Commons which did not approach the discussion of specific principles, but in a mere party fight between opposing bodies, gave on a vote of want of confidence a majority which was certainly not large, but was still sufficient to overthrow the Government and to change the hands in which power had been deposited. During the elections I was much struck by a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who now fills the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, (Sir G. C. Lewis) in which there was a great deal of very good sense, on which I hoped Her Majesty's present Government were about to act. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman declared his opinion that under the circumstances of the case it was matter of absolute necessity that any person or any Government who proposed to bring in a Reform Bill should distinctly point out to the House the points as to which, in the opinion of the Government, there existed a necessity of Reform, the specific defects in the former Reform Bill which required to be corrected, the points in which it had failed to answer the expectations of its promoters, and in what respects it had failed to satisfy the just expectations of the country; and having thus realized the difficulties of the case and perceived what were the defects of the former Bill, they should apply the provisions of the new Bill to remedy those defects, and should be able to point out what specific remedy they were prepared to prescribe for the objections which had been raised. When it was first announced that Her Majesty's present Government intended to introduce a measure of Parliamentary Reform to satisfy the just expectations of the country, and above all, to comply with the wise recommendations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I went down, I confess,
  1956
  with great anxiety and the deepest interest to the place into which, by the courtesy of the House of Commons, your Lordships are permitted when discussions are taking place. Of course, I am precluded from referring in the slightest degree to what I heard in that place. On going into the House, as I recollected the same great actor performing the same great part twenty-five years previously, I certainly was considerably struck with the very altered condition of the benches and the galleries as compared with what I recollected them on the occasion to which the noble Lord specifically called our attention by saying that he would bring forward this Reform Bill on a day that was not without its significance, namely, the 1st of March. If by significance be meant the significance of contrast, certainly no day could be better devised, if he proposed to compare the 1st of March, 1831, with the 1st of March, 1860. I said I would not refer to what I heard fall from the noble Lord in the discussion; but as by an habitual breach of privilege we are enabled to obtain some information as to what takes place in this and the other House of Parliament, I can entirely corroborate, by my own personal testimony, the accuracy of those statements by which we were enabled the next day to collect what were the views of Her Majesty's Government in introducing this measure, and by what principles they intended to be guided. I must confess—if I am not speaking disrespectfully of the House of Commons—that the tone of the debate appeared more to resemble the discussion on a Turnpike Bill than that on a measure of Parliamentary Reform; and I cannot say that the mode in which this great scheme was brought under the consideration of the House was such as to bespeak for it very grave consideration or to load to the expectation that it would be soon and satisfactorily settled. As far as I could collect the opinions of the Government on the following day, it did not appear that any consideration pressed upon their minds beyond the number of persons that would have to be added to the constituencies to redeem the pledge which had been given. No effort was made to point out the specific defects of the present system; there were no attempts to show that under the existing system many persons properly qualified by intelligence, by position, and by capacity for exercising the franchise, were improperly excluded from it, while others, inferior to them in every

  1957
  respect, enjoyed, or rather possessed that privilege. And there is one point on which, I confess, I am not prepared to go with the noble Duke; it is the appreciation he appears to attach to the possession of the franchise. The main object of the franchise is to secure the representative body that may best conduct the government of the country; that object must be attained mainly by the quality of the constituencies and the votes of those who can wisely and judiciously, freely and independently, exercise their privilege. It was impossible for us not to see that there were large classes who, by the provisions of the last Reform Bill, confining the vote to £10 householders, were altogether excluded from the franchise, though perfectly qualified and fully entitled to possess it; and it was very important they should be added to the constituency, whatever their number. By a variety of franchises we thought we should add to the constituencies, not the whole body of the working classes, but a considerable number of them, applying sufficient tests to show that they were the most steady, intelligent, and industrious, as well as the least improvident of their class—the least migratory, and having the deepest interest in the locality, and in the general welfare of the country. To that class we were willing and anxious to extend the franchise; and now I hope the noble Duke will understand in what sense we were willing and anxious to admit the working classes to a fair share of the representation. We proposed to give the franchise to persons who for a certain time had occupied furnished or unfurnished lodgings, often at a considerable amount of rent. This lodger franchise would also have included many industrious mechanics and artizans, as well as many persons of education, property, and intelligence, very superior to several classes which now possess the franchise, and who, merely because they are not £10 householders, are now, to a great extent, excluded from the exercise of the privilege. We proposed also that the possession of a certain amount of personal property, of deposits to a certain amount in a savings bank, should constitute a claim to the franchise. In short, we were desirous to give a right to the elective franchise to every one who could show he had a permanent stake in the country, and from whose character and mode of life we had reason to believe he would exercise the privilege honestly, temperately, and judiciously, and to the best
  1958
  of his ability. These were the principles for which we contended; and when the present Bill was introduced I hoped to hear that where we had fallen short of expectation, or where our measure left any practical difficulty or grievance, to those difficulties and grievances a remedy had been applied. But all I heard with regard to the franchise was this—that the number of the constituencies must be increased. Now, except so far as the increase may have an undue influence on the present constituencies, the number of the electors is the least important point. It is the quality of the constituencies that is important. If you have a properly qualified constituency—whether it is 200,000 or 500,000, or even 1,000,000,—the mere question of numbers is the least important at all. You may add 1,000,000 to the constituencies so that the quality be irreproachable. But the only question that appears to have entered the minds of Her Majesty's Government is, by what reduction of the franchise could they obtain a given number of electors? In introducing the Bill the only argument of the Government was this,—looking at the boroughs, a £9 franchise will give so many votes; an £8 franchise so many more; a £7 so many more; and by a £6 franchise we shall obtain exactly 203,000 additional votes. That is literally all the argument of the Government; it took a £6 qualification because it would give 203,000 votes, neither more nor less. If that is the only argument on which the £6 qualification is to be adopted by the House of Commons, then the inquiry asked for by the noble Earl, and which I am gratified to hear will be acceded to by the Government, though under some pressure.—[The Duke of ARGYLL: No pressure.] No pressure! Very well; but I was about to say that if the main argument for the Bill is that these 203,000 voters will be no undue augmentation of the constituencies, then it is important to ascertain what may be the probable result of the extension. And I am afraid, when we come to examine, we shall find Her Majesty's Government has no very accurate foundation for the estimate it has submitted. The noble Duke says the Government consents to this Committee of Inquiry under no pressure, that it is voluntarily conceded, and that the subject deserves investigation. I think Her Majesty's Government must have some doubts on their own minds whether their data are as clear as they are supposed to be, and whether there is not room for fur-

  1959
  ther inquiry into the practical results of the measure they have proposed. Then the noble Duke says the Committee is conceded on the understanding that it is not proposed for the purpose of delay. I am quite prepared to say that the Committee will not be used for the mere purpose of delay; but if the noble Duke supposes that, whatever the degree of progress made in the inquiry, legislation on this subject is, nevertheless, to go on, then Her Majesty's Government is placed in a position I cannot comprehend. The investigation is either intended to satisfy the mind of Parliament or resolve the doubts of the Government as to the accuracy of its own data; the noble Duke himself thinks it likely to be useful. Useful for what? For the purpose of determining whether this measure ought to receive the sanction of this and the other House of Parliament. You are not asking for the inquiry merely for your own information and instruction; the investigation is intended to ascertain whether a certain measure can be wisely, safely, and judiciously adopted by Parliament. Then, I say, if Parliament passes the measure, and the Committee continues its inquiry, Parliament, after it has passed it, may receive a Report stating that the Bill has been sanctioned on erroneous data, and is a dangerous measure. The Report of the Committee may condemn a measure you have already passed. I earnestly hope the House of Commons will take full time to consider the data that may be laid before the Committee. The loss of one Session, or even of two Sessions, would be more than adequately compensated by the certainty of proceeding on sound data, and knowing the probable consequences of the measure. On a subject important enough in itself, but insignificant in comparison with this—the system of purchase in the army—I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War declare that the Government did not intend to proceed one inch beyond the stage of which they could clearly see the effect and consequences. I only hope he has inculcated the same caution on his colleagues with regard to this far more important question. The inquiry of this Committee may tend to throw light upon a subject which is at present in great darkness, and enable us to judge how far we can adopt a proposition which has been very imperfectly and unsatisfactorily laid before us. I should deprecate it as a great misfortune if this House should be under
  1960
  the necessity of rejecting a measure sent up by the House of Commons, or, by important modifications of it, seek to force upon the House of Commons provisions which they did not approve. I do not mean to say that the question does not vitally affect your Lordships. It affects the whole country generally—it affects the whole constitution; but it is important that the main provisions of a measure which relates directly to the representation of the other House should be introduced with the sanction of that House. Still, whatever may be the objections to a modification or rejection, if this Bill were to come up to your Lordships in its present state, with its present simple provisions—simple they are called, and simple they are, undoubtedly, in one sense, but most dangerous they will be found—I should think its rejection for the purpose of further consideration infinitely preferable to the adoption of a measure, the most unstatesmanlike, the most unconstitutional, and the most inconclusive of any which has been submitted by any Government on this important subject. My Lords, without impugning the motives of the Government, or imputing to them or the persons employed by them any wish to deceive, we deny altogether the accuracy of the Returns which have been submitted to Parliament, and we are prepared to show that in regard to many boroughs they are notoriously erroneous. Every day almost I receive letters from persons offering evidence to show that such is the case in regard to this borough or that. That is a point which ought to be fairly and carefully inquired into, and the Committee might very advantageously make the inquiry. But, even admitting the Government Returns to be correct, what is the alteration which they are about to make? According to those Returns, the number of borough voters is now 440,000; to this it is proposed to make a gross addition of 240,000. Allowing a deduction of 20 per cent, there is a net addition of 203,000. That may seem to be an unimportant addition, but you will recollect that there is a very small addition to the metropolitan constituencies. Deducting the metropolitan and University constituencies from the whole body, the number of the present constituency is 288,540, and to this you are about to add 203,000. Therefore, according to the Government Returns, you are about to make an addition of 5·7ths to the existing constituencies; and the whole of this addition

  1961
  is not to be taken, as was proposed in our measure, from a number of classes, some higher and some lower, but all from the very lowest class, from the very lowest scale of voters. Of this gross addition of 254,000 not more than one-third are between £8 and £10 householders; the other two-thirds are between £6 and £8. If we are to assume, as I am afraid we must, that the lower we go in the scale of voters, the greater is the risk of a want of judgment, a want of due appreciation of the vote—of a liability to undue influence and corruption—then I say that, on the Government's own showing, the change which they propose is sufficiently important to make us pause and consider before we admit so large an infusion of what I must call, without offence, the democratic element into the House of Commons. But, if the information which reaches me is anything like correct, the numbers mentioned by the Government afford no just view of the real state of the case. The increase of 203,000 of which they speak, according to some, must be more than double; and no statement which I have heard places the addition which ought to be made to it at less than 50 per cent. And recollect that this addition is not made equally over the whole constituencies of the country. There are more titan thirty towns in which, even assuming the correctness of the Government figures, the addition to the existing constituencies would range from 100 to 380 per cent. How is it possible to argue that these boroughs will not be in the possession and under the control of the very lowest class of voters; and that that which has happened by the reduction of the municipal franchise will happen also in regard to the Parliamentary franchise—that parties who have no concern whatever in the expenditure will be those who will virtually regulate taxation? Consequently, even if you have no corruption, if you have none of those scenes which the noble Earl opposite has so forcibly described as the result of a low franchise in the United States, you will, at any rate, set an irresistible temptation before the lowest class of voters to tax for their own benefit, with an ignorant prodigality of which no judgment can be formed, those higher classes whom they erroneously suppose to be the authors of the great expenditure. The noble Duke reminded us—and I can assure him there was no danger of our forgetting it—that this Reform Bill which is to give this great power to the lower classes is introduced
  1962
  simultaneously with an important Budget, I must say that the very fact of the simultaneous introduction of the two measures requires double caution from Parliament before taking the irrevocable step which is proposed to us. The noble Duke thinks that the noble Earl who introduced this Motion—in my opinion with much moderation, judgment, and power—went out of his way to point out the dangers which have resulted in the United States from the preponderance of the lower order of voters. But is that warning wholly to be thrown away in considering a Reform Bill for this country? Have we not those among us, exercising great influence over this very low class of voters, whose boast is that they desire to Americanize our institutions? Have we not too much sanction given by high authority, as connected with the Budget and prospective finance, to the notion that the present taxation presses too heavily upon the lower classes and too lightly upon the higher? Have we not heard rejoicing at the anticipated success of the Budget, on the ground that if we need to make any effort at any future time, either for defence or to carry on a war, the expense must fall upon the rich few and not on the many poor? and was not the impossibility of raising sufficient sums by direct taxation for military operations referred to with exultation, as being an important result of this valuable Budget? And now you are asked to give to a class of voters most likely to be under such influences a preponderating control over the finances of the country, at the very moment when such a Budget is introduced, and when the deficiency, too, promises to be even more serious next year than it has proved this present year. Nay, more; it was stated by the Government that we ought to leave financial questions to the unbiassed decision of the new Parliament. Is not that a reason why we should not constitute the new Parliament in such a manner that it will be open to those influences and temptations which are most likely to surround it? And is it an imaginary danger, when we are told by those who boast of their influence over the large body of non-electors, that their power will so far preponderate as to render any increase of revenue, except by direct taxation, wholly impossible, that this measure will cramp the resources, fetter the energies, and do away with the military power of the country? That alone is reason enough for a severe examination into the

  1963
  accuracy of the data and the amount of power which the Government are about to throw into the hands of a portion of the community whose loyalty and good feeling I do not doubt, but whose proneness to be acted upon by interested agitators, and whose inability to form a just view of political subjects, I venture, with all respect to their many virtues, greatly to fear and regret. I will only revert to one point with regard to the accuracy or inaccuracy of these Returns. It seems to be supposed that the discrepancy between the number of electors and the number of houses affording a qualification is because the persons for whom a composition is made do not appear. That is not the fallacy in the Return to which I wish to refer. But there are two fallacies which the noble Duke will see at once go to the very root of the basis which the Government have taken for their measure. Your Lordships will recollect that the argument of the Government is that only a certain number will be added to the present amount of electors. Two questions then arise:—What is the present amount? and, What is the number about to be added? For the purpose of ascertaining the present number of electors the Government have taken the parochial registers. Now, these registers do not give the number of electors, but they do give the number of names. Consequently, if one name is repeated half-a dozen times, it represents five more electors than is really the fact. I apprehend that no means have been taken by which that fallacy has been avoided. The Return certainly gives the names, and not the present number of electors. That is the less important fallacy of the two. The more important is this:—the Government have taken as their data the gross estimated rental, and have obtained Returns of the houses the gross estimated rental of which is £10 and upwards, £9, £8, £7, £6, and so on. By-the-by, the Government have a Return of the Houses the gross estimated rental of which is £5, and I should very much like to see it, for the reason which I am about to state. The gross estimated rental is taken as the basis on which the Government proceed, making a deduction of 20 per cent for tenements occupied by women and unoccupied. But though the gross estimated rental is taken for the purpose of rating, it is not the rental value, and it is notoriously, upon an average, 20 per cent below the rent actually paid. The qualification is not upon the gross esti-
  1964
  mated value, but on the actual rent which each individual can prove to the Revising Barrister that he pays. It has been found that in many cases persons rated at a gross estimated value of less than £10 are electors, because they can prove they are paying above £10, and that is the only mode in which to account for the fact that the registered electors are greater in number in some boroughs than the total number of £10 qualifying houses—because a few freemen or a few freeholders will not account for the discrepancy. If that is so, it is very likely a £5 or a £4 gross estimated rental will make a voter under a £6 qualification, and I should like, therefore, to see what is the Return which the Government have in their possession of the gross estimated rentals of £5. I know they have it. I know at least that they sent for it, and I can only suppose that they do not produce it because they are relying on the accuracy of their calculations, and, as they do not propose less than a £6 qualification they do not think it necessary to give the Return lower. But if an estimated value of £4 or £5 should give, as is very likely, votes under a £6 qualification, the Return may, perhaps, astonish Her Majesty's Government, and supply facts of which they are not at present aware. I am sorry that the observations of the noble Duke should have led me into so detailed a discussion of the operation of a measure which is not actually before us. But I do think it is of great importance that Parliament should not legislate upon this subject without full and accurate data, more especially seeing that there is no great public impatience; that, provided Parliament is seen to be dealing honestly with the question, there is no danger of any great or serious agitation, and that there is no deep anxiety among large classes of the community for any great alteration of the existing system; and, moreover, seeing that there is the utmost apprehension of the consequences among the more respectable even of the lower class of existing voters, I do think it is a matter of the deepest importance that there should, be a full, searching, and impartial inquiry before the Committee moved for by the noble Earl. I hope that whatever time may be occupied by the Committee in bonâ fide inquiries, the Government will not attempt to force through, in ignorance of facts which are necessary for our proper judgment, a measure, whether for weal or woe, the most important which has ever been submitted to Parliament, and which, in its present

  1965
  state, I am painfully convinced is likely to endanger the whole balance of the constitution, to return a House of Commons irreconcilably at variance with this House, and to lead to perpetual collisions between the two Houses, which it is the bounden duty of every Minister to keep in harmonious action. If, unhappily, the Bill, unguarded by other provisions, should pass, and a preponderance of power be given to one class, I fear that the result will be not only to unsettle the constitution of the country, but either to make your Lordships' House a permanent obstruction to the legislation of the Lower House, or to sweep it away altogether, and with it to sweep away the Monarchy and our most cherished institutions. I do not say this to prevent its adoption after full discussion, if it be wise and practicable, but because it is of vital consequence that no step, which must be irrevocable, should be unadvisedly taken in a matter of such deep importance.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have carefully listened to the three speeches which have been made this evening. The speech of the noble Earl who opened the discussion was moderate and philosophical, but it was certainly equally applicable against the Bill which became law in 1832. There was one argument which the noble Earl addressed to the opposite side of the House, which I can hardly think likely to have much effect. One of the disastrous consequences which we are told will follow if we lower the franchise too much, is that we shall have a Legislature that will have recourse to protective duties. I do not believe that if we went much lower than is proposed, such would be the result; but it is a singular argument to address to a party who have only very recently been converted from the doctrines of protection. I regret, also, the very strong attack made by the noble Earl upon the institutions of America, and am afraid that, coming from so distinguished a Member of the Upper House of this country, it will produce much irritation in the minds of the people of the United States. I agree in some of the remarks which he made, although generally they were much exaggerated; but the adoption of such a constitution as that of the United States is very different from the moderate extension of the franchise which has been proposed in this country. The noble Earl, as an instance of the injurious effects of democratic institutions, referred to the corruption by which Railway
  1966
  Bills had been promoted in one of the States; but I am afraid our own early legislation in such matters was not so entirely pure and free from reproach, as to justify us in attributing the bribery in America solely to the democratic character of the Government. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) accuse my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) of having indulged in acrimonious language. In the whole of that able and closely-reasoned speech, I did not, for my own part, hear a single phrase fall from him to which that epithet could be justly applied. My noble Friend, it is true, quoted Hansard; and it is sometimes very disagreeable to remind noble Lords of what they and members of their party have formerly said; but he did so only in a historical way, for the purpose of showing how public men on both sides of the House have gradually arrived at the conclusion which Her Majesty's Government have now adopted. The noble Earl opposite has given us an account of his own conduct in connection with the Reform Bill of the late Government. He has made the very singular acknowledgment that when he, as the Prime Minister of this country, introduced his Reform Bill into Parliament, he entertained at the same time the deliberate and clear conviction, that such a measure was unnecessary. It is also not a little remarkable that the very strong declaration made by Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the House of Commons, on the part of the late Government, that it was necessary to deal with the lowering of the franchise in boroughs, should have remained uncontradicted and unqualified, so as to have its full effect on the vote of the House, and that the noble Earl should now tell us it was then, and is still, his firm conviction, that the only sound principle to be adopted is the maintenance of the two franchises on an equality. The noble Earl then made an attack on the principle of the Bill which has been introduced by the present Government. It is, however, quite irregular to discuss a Bill not before us, and I do not think it desirable to do so; but, as the noble Earl asserted that the Government, determined to get a large quantity of new voters, had gone down as low as they could to catch hold of them, I feel bound to state the principle upon which we have proceeded. Considering the great spread of intelligence of late years among the population of this country, the Government are of opinion that it is desirable to extend the

  1967
  franchise to a number of persons who may usefully exercise it. Entirely disagreeing with the view that as long as a man is well governed he has no interest in having his humble share in the Government of the country, and holding that an element of strength is added to the Constitution when all those who are capable of exercising the franchise properly are allowed to do so, we have thought it desirable to see how far down we can go, without producing that enormous increase of numbers which would swamp the other interests of the country. Both the noble Earl, who moved for the Committee, and the noble Earl opposite, say that we have gone too far. The noble Earl opposite, however, should recollect that, according to the admission of Mr. Disraeli, his own Bill would have increased the constituency of the country by something like half a million. The noble Earl said that, arguing from the returns of the Government, we proposed too large an increase of the constituency, but that he had reason to believe the Returns were altogether inaccurate. I can only repeat what has been already said, that the Government believe that they are as accurate as it is possible for Returns of that description to be. I will not go into details, which had better be left to the Committee to inquire into; but I may say, in answer to the noble Earl, that very generally the gross estimated rental is the actual rental paid. The noble Earl regards the willingness of the Government to agree to this Committee as an acknowledgment of our guilt; but our object is simply to satisfy those who question the accuracy of our Returns that their suspicions are groundless, and that we have framed our measure neither on erroneous nor insufficient data. I would ask the noble Earl whether, when he was eloquently advocating the Reform Bill of 1832, he had in any degree as distinct a notion of what would be the result of the extension of the franchise as we have in regard to the present measure? The Government consent to the appointment of this Committee with the most sincere desire to meet the wishes of those who are anxious to procure full and accurate information on this important subject; and any Returns which are in our possession, or which we can obtain, shall be unreservedly at the use of the Committee. I am not clear, however, that any great political advantage will be derived from this Committee; and I wish the noble Earl had explained more fully the manner in which the evidence required is to be pro-
  1968
  cured. Much of it will, of course, consist merely of copies of rate-books and other official records; but a portion of it will take the shape of estimates, and the mode in which such estimates are to be formed seems a difficult point. I am not sorry that the Committee has been moved for, but there is much in the general tone of the speeches on the subject which I certainly do regret. The noble Earl, in deprecating the language employed in treating of the question of Reform, alluded, I understood, to what had been said by one speaker who has expressed his views of the effect of Parliamentary Reform on the financial arrangements of the country. Now, I believe that speaker to be a very earnest and sincere man, although I disagree with many of the views which he holds, and among others his representation of the aristocracy as selfish, illiberal, and opposed to the popular feeling. I believe that representation has made no impression on the public—it has fallen flat on the public ear, because hitherto they have seen reason to believe the contrary. But I must say I can hardly understand any course more likely to strengthen the hands of anybody who wishes to create a prejudice against the aristocracy than for the noble Earl to seize this early opportunity of attacking a measure which his own party in the other House do not venture to oppose on the second reading, of proclaiming the hostile feeling with which it will be received when it comes into your Lordships' House, and of expressing his opinion that it should be postponed for a Session or two. I do not think the noble Earl is justified in using such language to represent the feeling of the House of Lords. I believe that, while your Lordships are averse to any dangerous innovations, you are convinced of the desirability of disposing of this question at a moment when the working classes are moderate in their claims and hopeful of receiving justice at your hands without the exercise of any extraordinary pressure. I cannot believe that, either directly or indirectly, the adoption of this measure will produce the fearful consequences predicted by the noble Earl opposite—the destruction of all our institutions, the Monarchy not excepted. On the contrary, I hold the firm conviction that it will tend greatly to strengthen those institutions and promote the happiness and prosperity of the nation. As I have said, the Government do not oppose this Committee; but I wish to protest against the idea that its appointment is in any way

  1969
  to tie our hands in promoting our measure of reform, or that we are to be restricted in advancing it through Parliament by the length of time the Committee may think fit to bestow on any point of the inquiry.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I must in the first place apologise to a noble Earl on the other side (the Earl of Eglintoun) for having from inadvertence omitted to notice the suggestion he offered to me immediately before I rose to address your Lordships, that I should alter the terms of my Motion so as to extend the inquiry to Ireland and Scotland. I do not doubt that a similar inquiry to that which I have proposed for England is also wanted for the other parts of the United Kingdom; but I think in inquiring into the representation of England, one Committee will have quite as much work as it can well get through. My Lords, I turn now to a matter which affects myself personally—I mean the share which I had in the responsibility of proposing to Parliament the measure of Reform brought forward in 1852. The allusion which has been made to-night to that subject imposes on me the necessity—I assure your Lordships it is to me an unpleasant necessity—of explaining the circumstances which induced me to join in that course. Having had some anticipation that some remark might be made on that subject, I have obtained the permission of Her Majesty to refer to what took place in the Cabinet at that period. My explanation is a very simple one. I cheered the observation of the noble Duke when he said, I implied that the Reform Bill of 1852 originated from the indiscretion of my noble Friend then at the head of the Government. I am bound to say that such is my opinion; I think the original difficulty on this subject arose from the fact which is, I believe, well known to all your Lordships, although it may never perhaps have been publicly stated—namely, that three or four years before that Bill was introduced Lord John Russell, as the head of the Cabinet, without any previous concert or communication with his colleagues, committed himself by expressing in the House of Commons the opinion that the time was come when a change ought to be made in the measure of 1832. That opinion was expressed without the intention to express it having been intimated, as far as I know, to any one of his colleagues, and certainly not to the Cabinet. I believe when that announcement was made it was not approved by any, or at least not by more than one or two, members of the Ca-
  1970
  binet. For myself, I can say it had my most entire disapproval—a feeling which I did not attempt to conceal, as Lord John Russell can testify. It is perfectly true, as the noble noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has remarked, that subsequently circumstances occurred in 1851, which rendered it exceedingly difficult for Lord John Russell's Government to avoid dealing with the question of reform. In that year, as the noble Duke has stated, the Government of Lord John Russell was defeated in the House of Commons on Mr. Locke King's Motion for extending the right of voting in counties to £10 householders, and in consequence of that defeat the members of the Administration unanimously agreed that they ought to tender their resignation to Her Majesty. But the task of forming a new Government having been abandoned or declined by the noble Earl opposite and by Lord Aberdeen, Lord John Russell and his colleagues found themselves almost compelled to resume their offices. For myself I must say that nothing but an apparently overruling necessity compelled me to concur in this determination, on account of the inconvenience that I foresaw would ensue from the pledge which Lord John Russell had previously given on the question of reform, and which he had renewed still more explicitly in the debate that preceded the defeat of the Government. With the opinion I entertained and avowed on this question, it was with extreme reluctance that I consented, after this occurrence, to continue a Member of that Administration. But, looking at all the circumstances of that time, I felt it to be my duty to remain in the Government; and I did so, distinctly reserving to myself the right not to be regarded as standing pledged to any measure of reform until I saw what might be proposed, and not disguising my conviction that to disturb the question at all was inexpedient if it could be avoided. Such was the situation of affairs when Parliament was about to meet in 1852. The Reform Bill, which was afterwards laid upon the table of the House of Commons, was submitted to the Cabinet. For my own part I never approved it. I thought it open to the gravest objection. But, my Lords, I was induced to consent to its being introduced into Parliament by this one consideration—I felt sure that the Government was on the eve of falling, and it so happened that at that time the principal attacks made upon it were directed against the particular department with which I was

  1971
  intrusted. I did not think that it would be honourable towards my colleagues, or right towards myself, that at such a moment I should appear to run away from the post which I held; and being persuaded that the Bill had not the remotest chance of passing—having stated that to the Cabinet before it was brought in—I undoubtedly acquiesced in its introduction. My Lords, I freely acknowledge that in doing so I made a grievous mistake. Although my anticipations, both as to the fall of the Government and the utter failure of that Bill—which I will say unreservedly deserved to fail—were fulfilled, I confess I had not sufficiently weighed the importance of having a' measure of Reform recommended by the Crown to the attention of Parliament, or of having such a measure, even though it could not pass, introduced on the responsibility of a Government. I frankly admit that I was greatly to blame for allowing any consideration of any other kind to induce me to waive my objections to that measure and become a party to it. My Lords, I am afraid that, in the present state of public affairs, there is no public man on either side of this or the other House who can honestly acquit himself of having ever committed mistakes with regard to this important subject. I believe we have all been more or less to blame; but I think the time has come when, without reference to any feeling of reluctance to acknowledge past errors, or, indeed, any personal feeling whatever, we ought to deal with this grave question as the public interests demand. We were all, I think excusably, a little insensible to the extreme importance of this subject a few years ago. The discussions, however, of the last few years, I must own, have opened my eyes far more than before to the extreme danger of mooting this question. I believe that many of your Lordships, many Members of the other House, and the great majority of the nation, are now, in consequence of past discussions, far better aware than they were a few years ago of the real difficulties of this subject; and it follows that if we are convinced of these difficulties, and that there is no practicable mode of safely settling the subject, then I will say that prudence commends us not to deal with it. It has been said that the arguments I have used equally apply against all reform, and might have been urged against the Bill of 1832. Let me remind your Lordships how utterly different are the circumstances of the present time and
  1972
  those of the year 1831 when the first Reform Act was proposed. I believed then, and I am convinced now, that at that period it was a question between Reform and Revolution. A state of things then existed in which it was absolutely necessary that there should be a great displacement and transfer of political power from one class to another. For some time previous, and chiefly in the reigns of George III. and George IV., great abuses had arisen; owing to which the House of Commons had ceased to be any longer the organ of the enlightened opinion of the country. Its measures had come to be habitually directed not to the benefit of the community at large, but rather to the benefit of the few. So deep a sense of these abuses existed in the mind of the nation that a state of things prevailed which could by no possibility have been continued; and, unless a change had been accomplished by peaceful means, it would have been brought about by violence. Fortunately a measure of Reform was proposed, and, in spite of difficulties of which the public can now form no adequate estimate, was passed safely into law. The experience we have since had of its working is an ample justification of those who brought it in. The measure, no doubt, had its defects; but considering the excitement of the times in which it was carried, and the difficulties against which its advocates had to struggle, it is to me still matter of surprise that it should be marked by so few faults as are to be found in it. The fact of its having been passed as it was does great honour, if I may be permitted to say so, to the Government by whom it was introduced, and especially to the chiefs of that Government in both Houses of Parliament. The patience, the perseverance, and the ability with which the then Lord Althorp, as leader of the House of Commons, almost unassisted, sustained the whole burden of carrying that measure through Committee were beyond all praise. Is the situation now by any means to be compared to what then existed? Far from it. There is no urgent and pressing necessity for any violent displacement of political power from one class to another. Even the authors of the Bill do not contend that there is, but rest their arguments in its favour on other grounds, admitting that the House of Commons, as it is now constituted, discharges its high duties with success; that in the last twenty-eight years it has accomplished

  1973
  more useful and practical reforms than have been effected in any equal period of our history; and that it has shown an earnest desire to promote the good of the nation at large. The noble Duke stated that he was surprised at my speech as altogether wide of the mark, seeing the Government had not introduced a measure of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. I did not go into any discussion of the details of a Bill which is not before us, and which, if it does come before us, will, I trust and firmly believe, do so in a very altered shape. But I spoke of the general principle of the measure, the danger of greatly increasing the power of mere numbers, compared to the higher classes of society. I argued against making changes in that direction, leaving the extent to which they are to be carried to be determined by no new principle, but by mere arbitrary limits, while all the reasons assigned for the measure proposed are applicable to a larger one. I contended that by doing this we should be left without any ground to rest upon. It was against such a course that I cautioned your Lordships, and I have yet to learn that in moving for this Committee such an argument was misapplied or inappropriate. I believe, on the contrary, that it deserves your Lordships' best consideration. My noble Friend who spoke last (Earl Granville) deprecated the tone of my observations with reference to the United States of America. I trust I said nothing against the character of the American people. No one admires the character of the American people more than I do; there can be stronger proof of their great qualities than the fact that a Government so faulty in its construction and so imperfect in its arrangements should work even so well as it does. But while we feel at liberty to criticise the conduct and character of the potentates of Europe, I can see no reason why we should not express our views as to the institutions of America with equal freedom. My noble Friend expressed his fears that the effect of instituting these inquiries will be to lower this House in the opinion of the country. I, for one, do not feel the least afraid of such a result. Your Lordships' conduct will be judged rightly by the people. I firmly believe that at this moment there is among the most intelligent and educated classes of this country an earnest hope that your Lordships will perform your duty fearlessly and wisely; that upon that rest their main hopes; that they feel that
  1974
  while in the other House of Parliament a large proportion of the Members are, from various circumstances, afraid to act on their real opinions, and while we are told if that House were to be polled on this Bill by ballot it would be rejected by a large majority, and yet, that by an open vote it would pass by as large a one,—they feel while that language is held almost openly, that it does become this House to consider these matters with boldness, with fairness, and with determination. As to the sort of understanding of which the noble Duke has spoken on which this inquiry is to be conducted, I must profess my entire agreement with the noble Earl opposite. Most undoubtedly I do not move for this Committee with any intention of delaying the Bill. I believe we shall have time to obtain the information we require before we are called upon to consider the details of the Bill now before the other House of Parliament; but if the Bill comes before us earlier than I at present suppose, or if the inquiry should prove wider and lead us further—and I see important information bearing on the Bill, likely to be elicited—I utterly repudiate the idea that we ought to force the Bill forward without waiting for information.
  Motion agreed to.
  The Committee to be named To-morrow.
  On the Morrow the following Lords were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. President

  V. Eversley

  Ld. Privy Seal

  L. Ashburton

  M. Salisbury

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  Ld. Steward

  L. Overstone

  E. Derby

  L. Belper

  E. Spencer

  L. Egerton

  E. Grey

  L. Liveden

  E. Lonsdale

  L. Llanover

  E. Cathcart

  L. Taunton

  E. Stradbroke

  L. Stratheden

  V. Stratford de Redcliffe

  House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.