Sitting of 16 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Militia Ballot.
2° Landed Property Improvement (Ireland); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); Theatres and Public Houses; Bank of Ireland (No. 2); Manchester Cathedral Church.
3° Postage (Army and Navy); Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment; Crown Debts and Judgments; Inclosure (No. 2).

VACCINE BOARD.—QUESTION.
MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to ask, if it be the intention of the Government to institute a Vaccine Board in Dublin similar to that which exists in London? He would also beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that the Board of the Cow Pock Institution of Dublin charges 2s. 6d. for two ivory-charged points of vaccine
1946
lymph to medical men, whilst the said Board receives an annual grant of £400 for the better supply of pure lymph for the protection of the people?
MR. CARDWELLreplied that the institution referred to was one which received a Grant from Parliament, its object being the gratuitous vaccination of the poor; but it charged private persons 2s. 6d. for vaccine lymph. It supplied Medical Practitioners at 10 s. 6d. and Union Workhouses at £1 1s. a year.

DEANERY OF YORK.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that the Income of the Deanery of York has been increased; and, if so, when, and from what time; what was the reason for that increase, and out of what Fund was it made; and whether any record is kept of the names of the Commissioners who attend and vote at the meetings of the Commission?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Income of the Deanery of York had been increased out of the Common Fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners £2,000 a year, by an Order in Council dated the 10th of May last, and printed in the London Gazette of Wednesday, the 16th of May. The reason for that increase was a report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it was the fact that the names of the Commissioners who were present at any meeting of the Commission were recorded.

FORESHORE AT PEMBROKE DOCK.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state whether the Foreshore sold at Pembroke Dock by the Woods and Forests five or six years ago was sold with or without consultation with the Admiralty, and with or without its approbation; and whether any inquiries had since been made with a view to the repurchase of the same?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in 1854 certain parties proposed to purchase a piece of land near Pembroke Dockyard, and the Admiralty of that day consented to the purchase being made. Those parties were then prevented by circumstances from carrying out that purchase,

  1947
  but in 1858 they again proposed to complete their purchase. The matter having got into Chancery, some delays took place. In 1858, when the proposal was again made, the Admiralty refused their consent, but it was only fair to state that the Master in Chancery, in whose hands the case had been placed, overruled the objections of the Admiralty, and hound them by their former agreement of 1854; so that in fact this piece of land was purchased contrary to the wish of the Admiralty. There was no intention, however, on the part of the Admiralty to re-purchase it from the parties who now possessed it.

  THE BRONZE COINAGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Bronze Coinage will be issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that owing to the casual absence of the Master of the Mint in the country, he was unable to answer the question with certainty, but he had no doubt that in the course of a day or two he should be able to give the hon. Gentleman the information which he desired. The hon. Gentleman was probably aware that the delay which had arisen was referable to a mysterious secret of art.

  SUPPLY.—THE CHINA WAR.—REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £443,896, be granted to Her Majesty, for Repayment to the Government of India of Advances on account of former Expeditions to China."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: It was my intention to have availed myself of this opportunity to notice certain personal references to myself and my colleagues which were made on a former evening by the noble Lord the Prime Minister and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs after I had accidentally left the House. I extremely regret that now, at the usual hour for public business (half-past four o'clock), neither of those noble Lords are in their places, and I am therefore unable to proceed with the defence of myself and my colleagues from the imputations which were most undeservedly thrown upon us by both of them. I beg leave to give notice that as the somewhat unusual absence of those noble Lords prevents my making the remarks which I intended to have addressed to the House,
  1948
  I shall upon a future day call their attention and that of the House to this subject.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The observations made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were made in answer to the noble the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) in his presence, and in the presence of other Gentlemen who had been colleagues of the right hon. Baronet. So far as they contained any allusion to the right hon. Baronet, formerly First Lord of the Admiralty, they were only a repetition in a few sentences of what the noble Lord had said in answer to the right hon. Baronet, and in his presence, a few nights before.
  MR. ROEBUCK: As I do not think that the honour of England depends upon the presence or absence of either of the noble Lords I am going to make a few observations upon this Vote. The Vote is to provide for the expenses of the last, and it is connected with the present war in China. Now, I do not want either war to go past without a distinct protest on the part of one Member at least of this House, against its justice. I believe that the House is with me, and I believe that the people of England are with me upon this occasion. They have been misled, but they are not now misled, and if they once understood the origin of this war—for what we carry it on we cannot learn from that (the Treasury) Bench—I think they would be of opinion, as they are of opinion, that this war is utterly indefensible on the ground either of the interest or the honour of England. How did this war begin? It began with an attempt on the part of this country to promote the smuggling of opium. Here comes a very distinct inquiry as to the character of the Chinese, and that of the English people. Now, it is a very curious fact that the Chinese people have no desire to have any communication with us. We have thrust ourselves upon them. The restless spirit of English adventure has led us to China, and we have, thereupon, endeavoured to force our manufactures and our commerce upon a people who entirely repudiate all dealing with us. Now, I want the people of England to recognize with regard to the Chinese the feelings which they entertain with regard to themselves. What would they think if the Chinese said, "We will go to Liverpool and introduce into that port something the entry of which is forbidden?" Suppose that we had arrived at such a point of civilization that we wished not to see our

  1949
  people drunk, and that we desired to have no importation of arrack. Arrack is made by the Chinese, and opium by the English. Suppose that the people of England desired that no arrack should be imported into Liverpool, but that the Chinese were powerful enough to bring their ships to that port and to introduce arrack in spite of us, what would the people of England say? They would say that these were a barbarous people endeavouring to force upon us, a Christian people, the means of intoxicating our population and rendering them miserable. That is what the Chinese said, and when they said it we turned round upon them and said, "You are a barbarous people." We imported opium, they seized, confiscated, and destroyed that opium, and we, employing the force which what we call civilization gives us, compelled them to pay for it and to enter into a treaty of peace with us. This, Sir, was all before the occurrence of that memorable circumstance at Canton. Now, I recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary for War, and the noble Lord the Member for London, all expended violent eloquence in describing the horrible abominations of the conduct of the English. Then it was that we bombarded Canton. The right hon. Gentleman asked for what? He never got an answer to that inquiry; I never got an answer to that inquiry. I inquired then, as I inquired the other night, for what was that Chinese war intended,—what did we expect to get by it? The other night I asked the right hon. Gentleman, "If the bombardment of Canton so excited your indignation, how can you support the Administration in asking for these four millions of money to carry on this war?" The right hon. Gentleman said that circumstances had altered. Now, I want to know how they have altered? Let us understand the case. We bombarded Canton and compelled the Chinese to enter into a treaty. The force of cannon cannot be resisted, and they yielded, and said certain things in their treaty. Among others, an Ambassador was to go to Pekin. The noble Lord at the head of the Administration said that when our Ambassador arrived at the mouth of the Peiho treachery was practised towards us. Now, there was no treachery. Stakes were driven across the mouth of the river, and we were told that those stakes were not to be drawn up. We attempted to draw them up; guns were in
  1950
  consequence of that attempt fired upon us from the shore, and we were beaten. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman wherein the circumstances have altered. According to the violent eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the origin of that war was unjust. We by superior force compelled the Chinese to make a treaty. Does that alter the character of the origin of the war, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, was unjust? The Chinese entered into a treaty which stipulated that an English Ambassador should reside in Pekin. We determined to go by one way; the people of China said we should go by another. We attempted to carry our determination into effect, but we failed to do so; and now we are sending out thousands of men and spending millions of money in order to enforce a treaty, the origin of which, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was unjust. I want to know what has taken place since to render that just which was originally unjust, and to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in passing from one bench to another, to support that in office which he so eloquently denounced in Opposition. It appears to me that the interests of the people of England, on this question of war with China, are entirely neglected. We are supposed to be at the head of civilization, and to represent justice, mercy, and Christianity. I believe all three are overlooked on the present occasion. Justice, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, was violated by our proceedings in China. We bombarded an innocent city, and we, having superior power at our command, compelled the Chinese Government to enter into a treaty which it desired not to enter into. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office said on a former occasion we should have no end of the Chinese war. His vaticination has been verified. We shall have no end to the war or to the expense connected with it. England Weeds at every pore—in money and in honour—and the people of England are entirely neglected by the Government: we are degraded by the Ministry which leads us; everything that can possibly militate against humanity and morality is supported by the occupants of the Treasury bench; and we are now setting an example to the world of western civilization entirely opposed to the principles of justice, teaching an Eastern people to believe that Western civilization is Western cruelty and murder. I charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1951
  and his two noble Colleagues—I charge the right hon. Secretary for war—with having on this question deserted their duty. They began right, but they have changed; and the change which has taken place in them is the result, I fear, of a change in their situation. That which was wrong when they were on the Opposition benches is right now they are on the Treasury benches. It is clear that upon this question honour, justice, and truth are neglected. Ministers defend that which in Opposition they denounced. They are the supporters of murder, of dishonour, of dishonesty, of lying, of everything which when in Opposition they condemned.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am far from deprecating further discussion on this great question, either by the hon. and learned Gentleman or by any other Member of this House. I admit it is a question which can hardly be too much discussed, and with respect to which it is desirable that the people of England should possess the fullest information. I am glad when I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman address himself to the subject, because, however I may deny the justice of his attacks and incriminations, however I may think his arguments cannot be maintained, yet I cannot help respecting the principles upon which he treats it, and his disposition to hold that in our dealings with Eastern and feeble nations we should be as regardful of the principles of truth and fair play as if we were dealing with the most powerful and formidable nations of Europe. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman at present, because I think that as respects the merits of the quarrel in which we are most unhappily engaged with China, it is not possible to appreciate them without a very exact and careful consideration of dates and documents, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has, indeed, alluded, but in terms so general that I think his conclusions are not entitled to the reliance which might otherwise be placed in them. To one principle, however, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has recorded, I must, on the other hand, enter my protest. He states that the war which led to the Treaty of Tientsin was in its origin tainted on our part with injustice, and that the treaty itself was yielded by the Chinese to superior force. Upon those points, I am still disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he infers, if I understand
  1952
  him aright, from the fact that our case was not sound in the origin of the war, that we are neither bound nor entitled to enforce the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and that the Chinese on their part are not bound to observe it. In that proposition I cannot concur. I believe the Treaty of Tien-tsin stands a good and valid international compact. I do not mean to say that if it were a question of pressing to extremes all the terms of that treaty it would not be required by prudence, and even by justice and humanity, to use mildness in the enforcement of those terms, out of a liberal regard to the relative positions of the parties. But I do say that that is not the question upon which we have been at issue with China. The question has been, not whether the treaty has been mercilessly enforced on our part, but whether a treaty which has received in a public declaration the approbation in all its parts of the Emperor of China, should or should not be ratified in the capital of the Chinese empire. That is the question at issue, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that the ratification of the Treaty of Tien-tsin is the primary object for which the Government have thought it to be their duty to resort to force. As respects the question how far notice was given to us that our Ambassador was not to proceed to Pekin by way of the Peiho—how far we were entitled to use the main road of the empire—how far we were deceived with regard to the fortifications at the mouth of the river, I shall say nothing now, because, as I have stated, I think in order to be fairly judged they must be judged by careful and exact reference to documents, requiring an amount of time which certainly I am not prepared to give at the present moment, and to which the House would not be prepared to listen when it has met for the consideration of other, and, at the same time, very important business. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, in further reply to the question about the issue of the new coinage, that he had just received an official report from the Master of the Mint, informing him that the Mint was prepared to proceed with the striking of the coin almost immediately, but that some time must necessarily elapse after the striking of the coin had begun before the issue could be commenced. About two months would be occupied in accumulating a sufficient number of the new coin to enable the Mint to supply the public demand.
  Resolution agreed to.

LATE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  Order for Committee (Ways and Means) read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. NEWDEGATE, pursuant to notice, rose to move—
  "That the Rules against proceeding with opposed Notices and Orders alter a quarter before Six o'clock on Wednesdays, under the Standing Order of the 19th of July, 1854, be applied to all business standing for Evening Sittings, upon which debate shall arise after One o'clock in the morning during the remainder of the Session."
  The hon. Gentleman said the importance of the subject which he had ventured to bring before the House would furnish his excuse for interposing in the progress of the business which stood on the paper for that evening. The number of hours during which the House had sat each day of late, and during the last fortnight especially, in addition to the labour of attending Committees, rendered the matter of much interest to every Member and especially to the Speaker, for whose great exertions during these protracted sittings the House must feel grateful; it was a matter of congratulation that the right hon. Gentleman's health had not suffered in consequence. He felt much diffidence as an individual in bringing this subject before the House; but, perhaps, the fact of his having held for five years one of those nameless but important offices, the due discharge of the functions of which so materially affected the action of the House, had rendered it necessary for him to watch closely the proceedings of the House, might give him some claim upon their attention on the present occasion. Looking at the state of business before the House and to the duration of their sittings, especially during the last fortnight, he foresaw that the measures set down for consideration were likely to be hurried forward during the remainder of the Session in a manner to preclude the possibility of anything like a fair amount of deliberation being given to them. He held in his hand a Return of the number of hours the House had sat from Thursday, the 28th of June, to Thursday, the 12th of July. It appeared from this document that the labours of Members were thus engaged:—
  1954

  Days.

  Adj.

  Length of Sitting.

  Th., June 28

  No morn. sitting

  2¼

  a.m.

  10¼

  hrs.

  F. June 29

  Morn. sitting

  2

  a.m.

  12

  hrs.

  M. July 2

  No morn. sitting

  2¼

  a.m.

  10¼

  hrs.

  Tu. July 8

  Morn. sitting

  8¼

  p.m.

  6¼

  hrs.

  W. July 4

  Morn. sitting

  6

  p.m.

  6

  hrs.

  Th. July 5

  No morn. sitting

  2¼

  a.m.

  10¼

  hrs.

  F. July 6

  Morn. sitting

  3

  a.m.

  13

  hrs.

  M. July 9

  No morn. sitting

  2½

  a.m.

  10½

  hrs.

  Tu. July 10

  Morn. sitting

  1¾

  a.m.

  11¾

  hrs.

  W. July 11

  Morn. sitting

  6.

  p.m.

  6

  hrs.

  Th. July 12

  Morn. sitting

  4

  a.m.

  14

  hrs.

  On Friday last he believed the House did not adjourn until 2½ a.m. having sat 13 hours. The Notice Paper for that day contained the longest list of Notices within the memory of the oldest Member—it contained no less than 52 Orders of the Day, It appeared to him therefore they were not likely to devote to even a quarter of the business before them anything like reasonable deliberation, nor to continue those protracted sittings with common justice to themselves or due regard to the character of the House. In making those observations he did not intend to cast any undue reflection on the Government, who were no doubt pressed at that period of the year to pass their measures as rapidly as possible and to make up for lost time. Nevertheless, if such a mass of Bills as that presented to them was persevered with, it would be impossible to give them due deliberation, he, therefore, thought that the character of that House as a deliberative assembly was much endangered by the continuance of a system under which such a presssure was imposed. The number of hours which they sat in that House did not represent the amount of labour hon. Members had to go through. They had to communicate with their constituencies, to carry on a wide correspondence, and to devote some time to the study of those subjects before Parliament in order to render them fully competent to discharge their functions properly. In the Motion which he should submit to the House he proposed no absolute limit when the adjournment should take place, as the establishment of a limit of that kind might encourage a practice of speaking against time. What he suggested was, that debates arising previous to one o'clock in the morning should not be interrupted, but that no new debate should be originated after that hour. Under the existing system many of their most experienced and assiduous Members, utterly exhausted by protracted sittings, were compelled to re-

  1955
  tire at twelve or one o'clock at night, and to leave the most important questions in which they took the greatest interest to be dealt with by a comparatively small number of Members, who, perhaps, represented only a one-sided and partial view of those questions. It should be further recollected, that owing to the fatigue of the Reporters and the limitation of space in the public journals, it was impossible for the public press to publish those past-midnight discussions in such a manner as to convey an accurate idea of the debates of the House. Under such circumstances, the ordinary channel, through which public opinion was elicited and reacted upon the House, was thus cut off, and the House was liable to become the mere registry office for the decrees of the Government, or any sufficiently powerful faction. The proceedings of Parliament at the close of the Session had on several occasions become a mere byword. One hon. Member who had represented a large constituency and was held in much esteem by the House (the late Mr. Brotherton) had made it his special function to interpose at a reasonable hour of the night for the purpose of relieving representatives from their labours. That hon. Member was now no more, and the matter was now taken up by hands too feeble to do justice to it. If that House desired to maintain its character as a deliberative assembly it must insist on not sitting so many hours that Members were necessarily precluded from previously considering the subjects submitted to their consideration. The Government, notwithstanding their means for ensuring an attendance of supporters, were rendered liable, through the paucity of attendance, to be influenced by faction in the most objectionable form. The House, he thought, ought to insist upon not being compelled to sit so many hours as they had been called upon to do lately. Such a system reduced that assembly to a mere skeleton after one o'clock, and exposed the Government to the vexatious opposition of small sections who, influenced, perhaps, by factious or personal motives, often sought to impose, and sometimes succeeded in imposing, upon Her Majesty's Ministers the most objectionable terms.
  MR. BARROWseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the
  1956
  Rules against proceeding with opposed Notices and Orders after a quarter before Six of the clock on Wednesdays, under the Standing Order of the 19th day of July, 1854, be applied to all business standing for Evening Sittings, upon which debate shall arise after One of the clock in the morning during the remainder of the Session.'"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the subject to which attention had been drawn was, no doubt, one of considerable importance, and looking back at the late hours to which the House had sat during the last fortnight, he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman had brought it forward. It was, indeed, well deserving of consideration whether by the lengthened sittings which had of late prevailed too great a pressure was not put, not only upon Members, but upon the officers of the House. Still he thought it would be very indiscreet to adopt a stringent rule for the purpose of checking the present practice. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the rule existing on Wednesdays in regard to opposed Orders should be adopted generally on all the evenings of the week. But it should be remembered that on Wednesdays the House rose by a Standing Order at six o'clock, whatever business might be proceeding, and it was obvious that great inconvenience would ensue if on those occasions debates were carried on till six o'clock; and therefore the rule was adopted that any debate in progress at a quarter to six should be stopped and no opposed Order taken afterwards, with a view to leave a margin for the unopposed business. But towards the end of the Session it would become absolutely necessary to take some business which might be opposed after one o'clock in the morning. If the hon. Gentleman's Resolution were adopted, it would enable any Member to postpone any Order by merely declaring that he opposed it. The other morning, five divisions took place on the Motion to introduce the Peace Preservation Act Continuance Bill (Ireland), and the Resolution now proposed would have enabled the very small minority on that occasion successfully to prevent the introduction of the Bill. The House ought certainly to exercise moderation in the hours to which it sat, and opposed business should not, except in cases of necessity, be taken at a very late hour. But neither ought the House to tie its hands in every case by a rule of this kind. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division, or that if he did it would not be adopted by the House, for

  1957
  if carried it would lead to great inconvenience by the obstruction of public business, and it would only prolong the period, to which they were all now looking forward, when they would be released from their duties by the prorogation.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that whether the hon. Member pressed his Motion to a division or not, he thought the House was much indebted to him for forcing attention to the subject; for nothing could exceed the unsatisfactory manner in which the public business was at present conducted. The Government, who seemed to be now in the habit of withdrawing most of their important measures, constantly put down on the paper Bills which they must feel they would have to withdraw; and other important Bills were brought on under circumstances which rendered it impossible to discuss them properly. For example, the Government gave a pledge that the Poor Law Board Continuance Bill should be brought on at a time which would allow of its ample discussion, and accordingly it came on at twenty minutes to two o'clock last Friday morning. The Corporation of London Reform Bill had been before the House about three months, and had been on the paper, he believed, thirty-two times. Whenever the Government seemed to have nothing better to do, this miserable measure was appointed for discussion, and then postponed every night, not the slightest suggestion being given to Members or others interested in the subject. Night after night Aldermen were brought down from the City, and though it was said there that the Bill must necessarily be withdrawn, its continuance among the Orders occasioned great practical inconvenience. Then there was the Theatres and Public-houses Bill, which was one of considerable importance. This measure was read a first time at a little before three o'clock on Saturday morning, and now the House was asked to assent to the second reading this evening. Altogether, the mode in which public business was now being conducted was utterly unsatisfactory.
  COLONEL SYKEScomplained of the course taken with regard to the East India Stock Transfer, &c. Bill, a measure of great importance to the East India Company, who had petitioned to be heard by counsel against it. This Bill was the 24th Order on the paper for that evening.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEadmitted that Members were now kept in the House till a very late and disagreeable hour; and
  1958
  there was to-night a list of Orders which was the longest, he believed, within the recollection of the oldest Member. But there was an immense mass of business which it was absolutely necessary to dispose of before the prorogation. The reason why all these Bills had accumulated was obvious. One subject at present occupied the attention of the House until twelve or one in the morning; it was debated, and perhaps properly debated, at great length; and then, and not before, came the ordinary business of the sitting, and it was a constant practice now for Members to object to going on with any matters requiring discussion at that period of the evening. The hon. Gentleman's remedy for this state of things would be no remedy at all—it would increase the evil, instead of diminishing it. At present, by dint of severe pressure, some of the necessary Bills of the Session were advanced a stage every night; but if the Resolution were carried, it was a question if any business would be done whatever; any one Member would be able indefinitely to obstruct the progress of a Bill; and though complaints were now sometimes made that the majority were too much in the hands of the minority, under the new system the minority would be armed with absolute power. One cause of complaint had not hitherto been brought under notice. The Lords were in the habit of passing a Resolution every Session, declaring that they would entertain no Bill which was not read a second time by a certain day. That Resolution was, he believed, in part the cause of the present unsatisfactory state of public business. Measures were now brought in early in the Session, in order that they might go to the other House before the fatal day; and business, instead of being distributed over the Session, was all crowded together till something like a dead lock ensued. He looked upon this comparatively recent practice as a great infringement of the privileges of the Commons. Suppose the House of Commons were to pass a similar Resolution, would not the Peers have a just right to complain? The constitutional duty of both Houses was to receive every Bill sent to them at whatever period of the Session, and to pass them if they were proper Bills. This was one of the causes of the evil which had now been growing for many years; but if the Resolution were passed, he believed the House of Commons would be unable to transact any business whatever.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, the duty of the Lords was to consider properly the Bills sent up to them. How were they to do this if the House of Commons, after passing nearly the whole Session in deliberating, sent up Bills at a period when only the most cursory examination of their provisions by the Lords was possible? He thought the Lords had done well in attempting to make the Commons consider their legislative measures, instead of spending their time in discussing matters that were of comparatively trifling importance. As long as the other House existed, due opportunities of deliberation ought, at least, to be afforded it, pending the course of revolution which some hon. Members opposite seemed anxious to engage in.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Even now a minority has great power to obstruct the progress of business; but according to our existing rules the minority must consist of several Members; if the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Warwickshire be adopted, it will give an absolute veto to any single Member as to all business after one o'clock. Now, as every Bill, however innocuous, has some one enemy in this House, it seems to me that any Gentleman who objects to any Bill has only to stop here till one o'clock in order to be able to put an end to all further business. Practically this Resolution would enact that at that hour we must invariably close the proceedings of this House. I have heard propositions made at different times in different forms with a view to a compulsory closing of the business of this House at a certain hour. We all know the inconvenience of long sittings, but the House has always come to the conclusion that it is better to trust to the discretion of Members than to lay down an invariable and inflexible rule, and I hope the House will come to the same conclusion now. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone has made great complaints of the mode in which the Government have conducted their business this Session, and he seems to think there has been something new and unprecedented in the course we have adopted. I can only say we have pursued the same course as is always pursued by the Government. With respect to the London Corporation Reform Bill there has been a necessity for postponing it, and it is not the first or only measure that has been postponed. I have used every exertion to bring it on without success, and I can only express my regret if any Gentle-
  1960
  men have been inconvenienced by my not being able to proceed with it before this time. I had only the option to postpone it or to discharge the Order, and I did not think I was justified in asking that the Order should be discharged. The hon. and learned Member also referred to a Bill relating to theatres and wine licences. That Bill was introduced by me in consequence of an express understanding which had been come to in this House with the hon. Member for Southwark. The Bill now stands for second reading to-night, but if more time is required for considering it I am willing to postpone it. I do not see how that involves any censure upon me. The hon. and learned Member also states that the Government, contrary to an express promise, proceeded with the Poor Law Continuance Bill at half-past two. I believe that Bill was brought in at half-past twelve [Mr. EDWIN JAMES:—"Half-past one"]. I am assured it was only half-past twelve, and I think the House will agree that for a Continuance Bill at this period of the Session that is not an unreasonable hour.
  MR. DISRAELI: I have no wish to enter into any recrimination as to the business of this House; but it appears to me that there is one remedy for the existing evil which might be adopted with good effect. What I would suggest is, that Her Majesty's Government should make up their minds now as to what Bills they will proceed with during the present Session. Is it not unreasonable to ask the Government to adopt that course. The business of the House during the present Session has been of no ordinary character; and though, as appears from our papers, it has been only imperfectly transacted, we must remember that very important financial propositions were brought forward, and it is impossible for the Government to dispose of their other measures in a satisfactory manner till their financial business has been gone through. Until their money business is concluded, they cannot exercise that control over the other business of the House which it is desirable they should exercise. Besides, this Session has been a very peculiar one. We had one financial statement that led to many considerable measures; but that, unfortunately—it is not for me now to enter into the causes why—was an imperfect financial statement, and did not place the House in possession of the monetary position of the country. To-night we are to have another financial statement, which will lead to other measures; and I

  1961
  must remind the House that all of those consequent on the first have not yet been passed. It is therefore quite impossible at this period of the year that we can expect all the important Bills now on the paper to be dealt with satisfactorily. I see on this evening's list the Highways Bill, the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill—all measures of very great weight, I cannot see any prospect of proceeding with all those Bills; and I think Her Majesty's Government ought to make up their minds as soon as possible, and communicate to the House the decision to which they shall have arrived with the least possible delay. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who on these subjects is very properly considered to be an authority, that the press of business in this House is aggravated by a rule of the Lords. I cannot think that the rule of the Lords which, after all, admits of second readings till the end of the month, has had any ill effect. I cannot but think that the effect of the rule has, on the whole, been salutary. I cannot see that its effect has been to make the Government introduce all their Bills at the beginning of the Session; because I see that many of those now on the paper have been only recently introduced. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), I cannot support it, because in my opinion it would only add to difficulties, to extricate ourselves from which we must depend on the good sense of the House and the management of its chief Members. There is only one other remedy—the application to the House of the provisions of the Factory Act might produce an immediate effect. But I prefer to wait another Session before adopting such a course, and in the mean time to trust to the good sense of hon. Members themselves.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman that it will be necessary for the Government attentively to look over these measures, to see—not which can be postponed without inconvenience to the public service, for I think they are all desirable—but which are least urgent, and may with the least amount of inconvenience be postponed to another Session. Indeed, the subject has already in some degree occupied the attention of the Government, and I hope upon an early day to state the result of our deli-
  1962
  berations. The right hon. Gentleman has stated truly enough that this has been a very peculiar Session; and I must remind the House that almost all these important and useful measures were introduced at an early period, only one, I think—the Amalgamation of Forces in India—having been introduced since Easter. It is not the fault of the Government that these important measures have not been proceeded with. In the first place, we had the French Treaty; then the Budget and the measures connected with it; and then, as all Gentlemen will remember, there was a good deal of time consumed in discussing the Reform Bill. I mention that without intending to cast any reproach upon those who contributed to that consumption of time, but simply to prove that it is not from want of exertion on the part of the Government that many at least of these useful measures have not been disposed of. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Motion before us is not one which it is expedient we should adopt. In fact, I think it would be unwise for this House to bind itself unnecessarily by a fixed rule. We have rules enough already, which are mainly devised to protect a minority, however small, against an overbearing majority; and, although the Government of the day has usually no reason to be particularly pleased with the use that is sometimes made of these rules at three or four o'clock in the morning, yet even that rule, which puts it in the power of any small number of Members to impede, if not to stop business, has the value of protecting a minority against an overbearing majority. Therefore, upon general grounds, I am disposed to object to an innovation of this kind, and, with the quantity of business we have now to transact, it seems to me it would be unwise to fetter ourselves in the way proposed. It is an inevitable consequence if you have a great deal of business to transact, and only a limited time to transact it in, that you must sit late—
  "For the best of all ways to lengthen our days
  Is to steal a few hours from the night, my Boys."
  There are many Gentlemen who, if they were not engaged here, would probably be equally out of bed at those hours, and possibly employed in ways not so conducive to the public interest.
  MR. HENLEYobserved that no one could accuse the noble Lord at the head of the Government of inattention to his du-

  1963
  ties. It would be well for many, who did not spend a tenth part of the time which he did in the House, to imitate his example in that respect. He (Mr. Henley) did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire meant to do more than call attention to the subject, as was shown by his moving, on going into Committee on Ways and Means. He thought that air sides of the House would thank his hon. Friend for calling attention to the subject; but he thought it must be left to the discretion of the House to proceed in such a way as to enable them to get through the immense mass of business before them. During the leadership of Sir Robert Peel much progress was made by taking unopposed orders at a late hour, and giving the earlier part of the night to those on which there was a discussion. That plan might perhaps be found useful in the present difficulty. He trusted that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was not so presumptuous as to endeavour to regulate the House, and withdrew the Motion.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, on a recent evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) raised very fairly an issue with respect to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the finances of the country. He said that with the state and prospects of the public expenditure it was not just for them to have dealt, or, as he expressed it, to have tampered with those finances in the month of February. I now refer to that statement of the right hon. Baronet for the purpose of saying that I think there can be no more proper subject of discussion: and, possibly, we may have opportunities of discussing it in passing through their various stages any measures connected with the Vote for the expenditure in China; but with these matters of attack and defence I have no concern to-night. I shall confine myself, and confine myself strictly, as in duty bound, to matters of business and to
  1964
  the provision which Her Majesty's Government propose to the House to make in order to meet the expenditure that has been voted in Supply. The Committee will have perceived that there stand in the paper two notices in my name: one of them is a notice to move Resolutions which are not printed; the other is a notice to move Resolutions which are and have been printed for a length of time. The former relates exclusively to the means of providing for the recent Vote with respect to China; the latter, on the contrary, constitutes that portion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire has just alluded—that which has not yet been sanctioned by the House, of the financial measures of the month of February. The latter I dismiss entirely for the present, and I confine myself in my present remarks to an explanation of the former.
  And first, Sir, I wish to lay clearly before the Committee the exact state of the case with respect to the charge, so far as we are able to state it, that has now been incurred in regard to China; because on a former evening (for which I have myself either wholly or in some degree to blame), I do not think it was quite clearly apprehended, and the Government are very desirous that no misapprehension should exist. In the month of February we made provision for the China war as follows—For a sum of£850,000, to be charged upon the finances of the year—that is, the expiring financial year 1859–60—and for a sum of about double that amount, £1,700,000, to be charged on the Ways and Means of the financial year about to commence—the year 1860–61. These sums together—for the sake of clearness I shall speak in round numbers amounted to £2,550,000:—and that was the whole provision which we proposed to the House to make on account of the expedition to China while it was still an expedition only, and before we had any knowledge that it would necessarily have to conduct warlike operations. The sum that is further now proposed on account of the warlike operations of the same expedition is of nearly the same but of a somewhat greater amount—that is, a sum of £2,850,000. The Vote that is on the table is, indeed, larger than this; but it includes two items that are not comprehended in the figures I have just stated. It includes a sum of £500,000, for which provision was made in the financial arrangements of February, though the Vote in Supply was only taken

  1965
  last week; and it includes also a sum of £450,000 on account of the previous war in China—that may be called the war of 1857—a charge of which we bad uo knowledge that it would accrue in February, and for which no financial provision had hitherto been made. Therefore, Sir, the whole charge of this expedition to China arising from the occurrences at the mouth of the Peiho down to the present period, as far as Her Majesty's Government can state or can conjecture it, is£5,400,000, to which has to be added the sum of£450,000 due for the former war. And perhaps it may be a matter of interest to the Committee that I should state, in passing, the expense of a former war with China, in order that we may understand, along with other matters applicable to the subject, the tendency to a great increase of charge which is attendant on the course of our present operations. The war of 1840 must, I think, have lasted for between two and three years. I believe Sir Henry Pottinger's treaty was a treaty of 1842; so that that war extended over about two years and a half. The whole expense chargeable for it to this country was no more than £3,200,000. Thus, the total expense chargeable to the country for that war, carried on for the length of time I have named, was no more than £700,000 in excess of the sum which Her Majesty's Government invited this House to provide for the present expedition even when the occurrence of a war was a matter entirely problematical. The whole expense of that war was somewhat more, because a portion of the charge was borne by the East India Company; but the entire expense was only £4,200,000—a sum less by £1,200,000 than that which the House will have to provide—I may say has provided, or at least consented to charge in the present Session, on account of the war now commenced in China. This is the state of the case as regards the amount of charge—namely, £5,400,000 on account of the present expedition, and £450,000 on account of the war of 1857; making together £5,850,000. I have no means of stating to the Committee what has been the total charge of the war of 1857, because, although there were certain Votes not amounting to a very large sum taken specially for that war as Votes of Credit, yet the main portions of the expense were probably borne upon the Estimates under the ordinary heads of charge, and I have no; means of separating them from what
  1966
  was due to the general service of the country. With respect to the mode of provision that has been adopted by the Government and proposed to the House, in regard to the portion of charge which was made known to the House, and was within the knowledge of the Government in the month of February, it is as follows:—£850,000, as I have stated, was charged upon the finances of 1859–60. Happily, the provision made by the House in July last for the expenditure of that year was so liberal that the whole of that £850,000 has been paid from the produce of taxes, and not out of temporary resources. It pleased the House towards the close of the late Session to supply us with temporary means, in addition to the taxes which were then voted, by taking up one of the terms of the malt credit. The proceeds of that operation were somewhere between £800,000 and £1,000,000. But the revenue of the year was so productive that even if that malt credit had not been granted we should have been able to pay the additional charge required in the autumn on account of China, and still have had a surplus. As it was, notwithstanding the considerable addition which was made at so late a date to the charge of the year, by taking £850,000 for the Vote of Credit, the surplus of income over expenditure on the 31st of March amounted to no less £1,587,000. Therefore, Sir, it may be justly said, as respects that sum of £850,000, that full provision was made for it out of the taxes of the country. The temporary resource upon which we were enabled to draw by calling up the malt credit, together with the £250,000 which came in as a casual and unexpected payment from Spain, and was applicable to the charges of last year, both contributed to swell that surplus of £1,600,000, and were, therefore, in fact, made applicable to the reduction of the debt of the country. With respect, Sir, to the £1,700,000 which Her Majesty's Government proposed to charge upon the finances of the present year in February last, the case stood differently. I cannot say that we proposed to provide for more than about £500,000 of that sum out of the taxes of the country. For if, on the one hand, we deduct that charge from the anticipated expenditure as it then stood, and if, on the other, we deduct from the anticipated revenue the proceeds of the malt and hop credits and the further payment from the Spanish Government, the case stands thus:—That

  1967
  each of those two sums very nearly balances the other, the charge for China being £1,700,000 and the joint amount of the malt and hop credits, with the Spanish payment, being about £1,650,000. It follows, therefore, that the provision made by means of taxation to meet any expenditure on account of China, according to the plans of the Government as explained in February last, was very little more than the surplus of the revenue over the expenditure which was then stated upon my Estimates, or, in round numbers, about half a million of money. So stands the case, Sir, as to the provision made for that portion of the charge for the China expedition which the House was invited to take into consideration in February last.
  I now come to the question how we were to make provision for the remaining portion of the charge. That remaining portion is£3,300,000, the Vote authorized last week being £3,800,000; £500,000 of that sum having been included in the financial statement of February, and in the provision that was then made. I have therefore to go back to the period of February as the basis of my calculation of the means by which this sum is to be provided. And there is no reason, I think, why I should depart from the Estimates either of revenue or of expenditure which I then made. As respects the revenue of the country, estimating it by its proceeds up to the close of the month of June, I think, considering the circumstances, the condition of that revenue is eminently satisfactory. It is very difficult,—indeed, it would be hazardous, to form an anticipation of the year's revenue from the revenue of the quarter, especially, too, in a year when very considerable changes, reductions, and commutations, so to call them, of taxes have been made. But the result of it, I think, entirely comes up to, and even exceeds, the expectations of the Government. Still I should not recommend the Committee, and should not view it as consistent with the rules of prudence, to improve upon the estimates of revenue which I ventured to submit in February. Because there is, in the first place, a tendency to partial stagnation in some descriptions of business, connected either with the actual condition of the times or with the temper in which men's minds are disposed to view them; and there is likewise the important element of the harvest, which must certainly be late, and may too probably be defective. All these influences,
  1968
  though they might not act very seriously upon the anticipated amount of the public income, I think would render it unsafe for us to make those additions to the Estimates of February which, under more favourable circumstances, I should not at all have hesitated or scrupled to recommend.
  Then, starting from the revenue of February last, I have now to state to the Committee the manner in which the Government propose to provide for the charge which has just been authorized in Committee of Supply. The total of that charge is £3,800,000, taking the Votes as they stand and as they have just been sanctioned. I first set aside or deduct from that amount the sum of £500,000, which, as I have already stated, was included in the provisions of February last. I then come to the question how far the small surplus which was then estimated as likely to arise upon the revenue of the year over the expenditure remains still available. That surplus, as was to be expected, in the course of long and detailed financial discussions almost of necessity involving a variety of changes more or less important, while the measures of the year were passing through this House, has undergone some vicissitude. It is not, however, altogether disposed of. I cannot undertake to enter into very minute details with respect to the estimates of minor taxes, in regard to which great exactitude and great confidence in each particular are totally impracticable, and where the best that can be hoped is, after using every care and attention, that the general result may not be far wide of the mark. Proceeding upon that principle, I should say that we stand thus with respect to the surplus which I estimated in February last:—I then placed that surplus at £464,000; but in the estimate for the collection of the revenue which was furnished to me at that early period, and which did not take into consideration the practical effect of some of the financial measures of the year, particularly of the increase of the income-tax, there was an error which is not immaterial. That estimate of the expense of collecting the revenue was too low by above £200,000. The Committee will also remember that an important item in the general result of the revenue was made up of a variety of new charges which were about to be imposed. In the course of the discussion of those charges, with a view to mitigate their pressure, especially upon the commercial community, who were called upon

  1969
  to submit to a number of minor taxes falling almost all of them directly upon the profits of trade—with a view to making those charges as little onerous as possible, various modifications were introduced which led upon the whole to a loss, as compared with the estimate which I made in February, of £180,000 a year. Taking these two items together on the adverse side, they require us to deduct from a surplus of £460,000 about £400,000. On the other side of the account, whereas it was first proposed that the abolition of the paper duty should take place from the 1st of July, it was found more convenient for several reasons that it should be postponed till the 15th of August, and the effect of that postponement was to relieve the Exchequer by a sum of about £200,000. Therefore the total loss upon the surplus estimated in February is about £200,000. After balancing the various items which I have mentioned, there remains about a quarter of a million, or to be more particular, £264,000, which is avilable in part to meet the charge of the China Vote. I come, then, now to the proceeds of the paper duty, presuming that it shall be the pleasure of the House that it should be retained throughout the financial year. If that be so, of course it will make an addition not immaterial to our resources. The loss estimated to arise upon the paper duty, as its abolition was proposed in February, would have been £1,000,000. The loss which would have arisen from abandoning that duty, according to the terms of the Bill which passed this House, would have been 800,000. I cannot say how much of that will be recovered in consequence of the rejection of the Bill. I doubt whether the whole of it will; but I think it very possible that £600,000 may be recovered. Perhaps we may take it at £700,000. That is upon the presumption that the duty remains payable until the close of the financial year; and therefore, if it is the pleasure of the House that that duty should continue to be levied throughout the financial year, a sum of £700,000, in addition to the amount which I have previously named, may be taken as available in part to meet the charges of the China Vote. The three items which I have mentioned—£500,000, £264,000, and £701,000—give a total of £1,464,000; and, deducting that from the whole sum which the House has voted in Supply—£3,800,000, there remains to be provided a sum of £2,336,000, to which I have
  1970
  now to invite the attention of the Committee. Out of the amount already provided—£2,664,000, a sum of £1,478,000 has been taken out of the taxes of the respective financial years, and a sum of £1,186,000, according to the statement made in February and the plan then proposed, would not have been taken from the taxes of the year, but would have been chargeable upon those extraordinary resources which Her Majesty's Government invited the House to call in aid, under the peculiar circumstances of the time. We propose to apply to the sum which we still require the same principle of a divided method of provision which we adopted in regard to the sum with which we have already dealt—that is to say, we ask the Committee to give authority for raising that sum in part by taxation and in part from sources other than taxation. In so doing, we follow the rule which is commonly applicable to war expenditure. It is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that that is a rule which ought justly to be applied to a case like this of China—first of all, because the scale of the expenditure is such that the country can hardly be expected, especially at a period when charges are rapidly growing under other heads, to provide the whole from the proceeds of the annual taxes. I may perhaps say that there is another special reason which is certainly applicable to this case, although the value to be assigned to it may vary in the minds of different Members of the Committee. I mean that there is already an outstanding debt in hard cash due from China to ourselves, and that a further demand has been made upon China which ought to result in a further payment from her resources in aid of ours. I am not surprised that by some Members of the Committee that statement should be received in a manner which shows that they are not sanguine as to the general principle, and I confess that if there were some great middle man who would deal with us upon these terms—that we should make over to him entirely and bodily the whole of the compensation that we expect from China, both retrospective and prospective, and that he should on his part undertake whatever future charge may arise on account of the war over and above what has been stated to the House and what is known to the Government—I think that financially we might do very well to close with such an offer. At any rate, a portion of these sums is actually

  1971
  due under the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and they constitute an element in the case which ought not to be put altogether out of sight. The sum which we propose to raise by taxation, out of the £2,336,000, will amount to about £1,000,000. The mode in which we propose to raise it is by an immediate addition to the duty upon ardent spirits. I will enter, I hope sufficiently for explanation, but at the same time very briefly, upon the special considerations that are applicable to that duty, and upon the present condition of that important branch of the revenue, but I will state at once that the addition which we contemplate is one of 1s. 11 d. per gallon on the various descriptions of ardent spirits which are chargeable either under Excise or under Customs, and that the effect of the measure will be to make British spirits liable to a duty of 10 s., colonial spirits to a duty of 10 s. 2d., and foreign spirits to a duty of 10 s. 5d. per gallon. These duties will be particularized in the Resolutions which it will be my business, Mr. Massey, to place in your hands. In proposing to the Committee this augmentation of the duty upon spirits, Her Majesty's Government set out from what they consider to be the recognized and established, as well as the sound and healthy, principle of taxation in regard to that particular commodity. That principle they conceive and understand to be this—that it is a commodity from the consumption of which you ought to levy the maximum of obtainable revenue. It differs from other commodities in this—that when you deal, for example, with tea or sugar your object is to promote consumption as much as possible consistently with obtaining the money you want; but when you approach the article of spirits the rule is precisely inverted. Your object then rather is to limit the consumption as far as possible, but always subject to the same condition which I will by-and-by consider—the obtaining the money that you want; for it is a mistake to suppose that by the mere increase of a duty you can continue ad libitum to increase the proceeds. The question is, how much will the article bear without defeating the purpose of the duty, first by adulteration, and secondly by illicit distillation? That is the necessary question; and under all circumstances of doubt, and of greater or less difficulty, still it is one that does not altogether defy the calculations of the prudent and experienced persons who have charge of the public reve-
  1972
  nue. The real question then is, can we get the money? Upon that subject it would be unfair, considering the difficulty of the case, to say that even the most experienced and most capable public officers can give an opinion upon which any absolute reliance can be placed; but, taking a calm and impartial view of the present state of the trades connected with the production of spirits, and endeavouring to draw every fair inference from the important experience of the last seven years, the conclusion at which Her Majesty's Government have arrived, borne out and sustained by their proper advisers, is that there is no reason why the Committee should not now proceed to that which has long been looked upon as the natural conclusion of our legislation in regard to the duty upon spirits, and at once fix it at a standard of 10 s. per gallon. That is not the highest duty which has been levied upon British spirits. So late as 1823 a duty of between 11 s. and 12 s. was charged upon spirits in England. That duty was too high, and smuggling was encouraged by it. It was reduced in consequence to 7s., and at 7s. it has remained, only subject to some successive and small modifications, rising to 8s. 1d., for a period of forty years. But the circumstances of the country and the means of levying the duty effectively have been immensely improved during those forty years. Public opinion is now much more adverse to illicit proceedings, and the efficiency of the revenue departments is far greater than it was in 1823. What has taken place in Ireland is full of instruction—it is more instructive than the case of Scotland, because that, in point of fact, had practically been settled, in the opinions of most men, by the experience before we came to deal with the case of Ireland. In 1842 an addition of only Is. per gallon to the spirit duty in Ireland was found so to stimulate smuggling that it was necessary to repeal the Act in 1843; but when a similar experiment was made in 1853, not only was it not attended with a similar failure, but it was followed by a further increase in 1854, by a further increase in 1855, and by either one or two subsequent augmentations the duty in Ireland was equalized with that in Great Britain. It now stands at 8s. 1d. per gallon. In the short space of five years, between 1853 and 1858, it was raised from 2s. 8d. a gallon to 8s.; and at the same time that this operation was effected, and that a considerable addition was made from

  1973
  an unexceptionable source to the permanent revenue of the country, no stimulus was given to illicit distillation. Sir, in a matter of this kind—so far, at least, as regards illicit distillation—Ireland is naturally looked upon as the peccant part of the Empire; and whatever apprehensions we may feel in respect to the productiveness of the spirit duty naturally direct themselves, in the main, to that quarter. The case of Ireland with respect to illicit distillation I believe to be this—that the manufacture of spirits in Ireland, as well as in England and Scotland, has immensely improved; that more capital, more skill, and more machinery are applied to it; that the views of those who produce the spirits are much more directed to an extended trade in spirits as a great article of merchandise, and even of export, than to a mere local and partial supply; but, above all, this important fact is to be taken into consideration in the case of Ireland—I do not speak now of those topics which are of a general character, and which, perhaps, more than any others lie at the root of the whole case, the great changes, namely, which have taken place in the social condition of the country, in the demand for labour, and the general market for produce—that whereas until the last few years we were dependent for securing the collection of the revenue in Ireland upon a very limited corps, called the Revenue Police, and under the direct superintendence of the revenue authorities, that duty has now been transferred for about five or six years to that most efficient body, the Irish Constabulary, which, with the greatest intelligence, with entire fidelity, and with a strength tenfold that of the Revenue Police, has conducted this important business on behalf of the public in a manner the most satisfactory and effective. These are the general considerations which led the Government to believe that, as far as respects illicit distillation, there is no reason in the circumstances of any one of the three countries why we should not carry forward the duty upon spirits to the point I have mentioned. There is another point which I need not discuss at length—namely, the loss which may arise from adulteration—that is to say, from dilution—which is a matter that stands in a somewhat different catergory. Dilution is, I believe, normal in the spirit trade. It would not be too much to say that in ordinary spirit shops there is hardly such a thing as the sale of spirits in a state
  1974
  perfectly pure as they come from the distillery. If that be an exaggerated statement, and if any hon. Gentleman, which I should not like, should feel bound to resent it on the part of his constituents, I should be sorry to deny him his privilege; but I may, at all events, say with perfect truth that dilution prevails largely, and that it has a tendency to increase in proportion as the duty upon spirits is augmented. But the proper mode of dealing with the risk, whatever it may be, of dilution is by making a fair and reasonable deduction from the probable yield of an increase of duty. But, Sir, what I think the most important and perhaps the clearest argument, if I can state it as I ought to the Committee, to show that the proposed increase of the duty on spirits is practicable and timely, and with probably the anticipated results, is that for the last three years—that is to say, both immediately before the equalization in Ireland and ever since—a further increase of duty has been confidently anticipated by the trade, as shown in the increase of the deliveries which have immediately preceded in each of those years the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1858 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks made his financial statement on the 19th of April. Between the 1st and the 17th of April, as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, there was an increase in the deliveries of spirits, yielding an excess of duty of no less than £250,000. The spirit duty is so heavy that an anticipated delivery implies in itself a very considerable charge, and therefore it is not a measure to which traders ever would resort, unless in their opinion there was a serious probability that Parliament and the Government would be disposed to have recourse to an increase of duty which it would be worth their while to escape by an anticipated release from bond. The case of 1858 was chiefly an Irish case, because it was in that year that, by the wise resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, the duty upon Irish spirits was raised to an equality with that in England and Scotland. But in 1859 there was no such element in the case. The duties throughout the three countries were then equal, and the conclusion that the trade had then come to was, that when once equalization was established an increase would necessarily be the next step. The financial statement was made

  1975
  on the 18th of July. Between the 1st and the 16th of July there was an excess of deliveries from bond, as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, which yielded an augmentation of revenue to an extent of not less than £287,000. A still more pregnant illustration is afforded by the experience of the present year, because it shows that the fact of last year having passed away without an increase of duty by no means convinced the trade that Parliament and the Government had abandoned the idea; on the contrary, they reasoned thus—that, as an increase had not taken place in 1859, it would certainly be made in 1860. And what happened was this. The financial statement was made on the 10th of February, and in the term of three weeks, ending on the same day, there was an augmentation of delivery of spirits from bond which yielded an increase of revenue, as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, to the extent of £554,000. These circumstances taken together appear to us to constitute a solid foundation for the measure we propose. At the same time, when I have stated that we estimate that that measure will yield something over a million in what remains of the financial year, I must remind the Committee that there are some peculiar causes of uncertainty by which it is affected—causes, I mean, special to the article, and not connected either with the topics to which I have alluded, or with the general condition of the country. The special circumstances are these:—First of all, it is only in the present year that foreign spirits have been admitted to a real competition with British spirits, and at so early a date after that change has taken place we cannot say that the two kinds of spirits have yet found their equilibrium in the market, nor tell precisely what will be the course of competition between them, which would affect the relative yield of duty from the Customs and Excise. There is, again, the competition of wine. There is not the smallest doubt that the competition of wine with spirits will stand upon a different footing from what it has hitherto done. Lastly, the competition of an article in which many Gentlemen in this House—particularly those sitting on the opposite benches, feel a lively and almost tender interest—I mean the competition of malt liquor. Whenever there is a considerable increase in the duty on spirits, it serves to a certain degree to stimulate the process of malting, and in Scotland, and more particularly in Ireland,
  1976
  there takes place a considerable augmentation in the consumption of beer, which is traceable, apparently, to no other cause than its greater cheapness as compared with spirits. In recent years, owing to the alterations which Parliament has introduced into the law, there are special causes which produce some peculiar uncertainty into the estimate of the productiveness of the duty; but the uncertainty is on the face of the case, rather than in the substance; because, if an increase of the spirit stimulates the consumption of another duty-paying liquor, you get on the one side of the account what you have lost on the other. I may mention, in passing, that in case the Committee should think fit to adopt the proposal of the Government, it will be necessary to introduce a small modification into the duties on wine as fixed to take effect on the 1st of January next, in order to guard against the danger of a fraudulent introduction of spirits in the form of wine; but that is a subject to which I will call attention at a future stage. I will now state to the Committee the computed produce of this duty, and it is important that the Committee should know it, because the weight of this subject is not to be estimated simply by what is added to our financial resources in the present financial year, but by the effect of the proposition in enlarging a most important branch of revenue in a permanent form available from year to year. The increase of 1s. 11 d. duty on British spirits, chargeable on the whole annual consumption, taken at a fair and moderate estimate, would produce—making no allowance for diminution of consumption, dilution, adulteration, or increase of price—would produce no less than £2,252,000 a year, and that without taking into view the proceeds of the increased duty on foreign and colonial spirits. But prudence necessarily requires us to make allowance for some diminution in the total consumption of spirits, in consequence of the additional duty, which might have the effect of adding something like 20 per cent, or nearly 20 per cent, to the price. Instead, therefore, of assuming the augmentation of duty to be £2,250,000, I shall only assume the augmentation of revenue to be £1,000,000 from the increase of Excise duties on British spirits, and that sum of £1,000,000 would be—allowing for a diminution in the quantity consumed of about 10 or 11 per cent—the annual yield of this increased duty of 1s, 11 d. per gallon, if we had the whole

  1977
  financial year to deal with. But I am now addressing the Committee on the 16th of July, and about six weeks more must be added to that, because it is the practice of the Department to charge the duty in one of its six-weekly rounds and to raise it in the next. Looking, therefore, to what may come into the Exchequer before the 1st of next April in consequence of this measure of increased duty on British spirits, and assuming that for the whole of one year the increased duty would yield £1,000,000, I can only take credit for about £650,000. To this amount I am about to make an important addition by a countervailing or compensating increase from the duty on foreign and colonial spirits. That, of course, as all Customs duties are taken at ready money, would be reckoned from the time I now speak—from the deliveries of to-morrow:—and the proceeds of the increased duty, making a reasonable allowance for a diminution in consumption, would be about £400,000; making together, with the increase from British spirits, the sum of £1,050,000. That is the provision which the Government mean to make from taxation during the remainder of the present year towards meeting the charge in which we are involved by the war with China. And they make a proposal which is permanent in its nature, though the charge is temporary, because they consider this a measure which is in itself sound and salutary, which Parliament has been expected to adopt, which Parliament may very reasonably desire to adopt, and with respect to which, for some years past, the only question has been as to the precise moment when its adoption might be consistent with prudence.
  Sir, I have now got rid of the formidable Vote of £3,800,000 excepting so much of the sum of £2,336,000 as is not provided for by the increase of the spirit duties; and the increased spirit duties £1,050,000 being deducted form £2,336,000, leaves a sum of £1,286,000. This sum we propose to provide for without any further resort to the taxation of the year. The balances in the Exchequer are in a state so satisfactory that probably they might well adimt the withdrawal of that, and even if necessary, of a somewhat greater sum. The surplus revenue wisely provided by the House in the arrangements of last year is, of course, available under the provisions of the law, in addition to the balances of the present, and the proper course obviously is to apply in aid those balances when the taxation of the year
  1978
  is insufficient, rather than to go through the operose and needless double process, first, of applying a sum of money to the extinction of debt, and then of going to the market for the contraction of new debt. I will lay shortly before the Committee the state of the balances. On the 1st of April the balances in the Exchequer—which the Committee should be aware by no means represents the whole amount of public deposits in the Bank, but only those for the Consolidated Fund and Supply—was £7,972,000. On the 30th of June the balance was reduced to £6,594,000; but that sum does not represent the real reduction, owing to the fact that the collection of the income tax is by no means equable in the four quarters of the financial year. It comes in lightly in the first and third quarters, and heavily in the second and fourth quarters; and, as we are now coming to one of the heavy quarters, I anticipate that the balance in the Exchequer on the 30th of Steptember will, perhaps, be materially better than on the 30th of June. Looking to the demands of the public service, I feel no hesitation in saying, though of course there will be a drain from China in order to supply the Treasury chest there, that I think it quite unnecessary to take any Supply measure to meet this expenditure, inasmuch as the means actually at the command of the Government (the proceeds of last year's revenue), will enable them to defray it without difficulty. I say that if it be necessary to make the demand on the balances we could draw therefrom without inconvenience the remaining £1,286,000, and indeed the demand on the balances could be extended, if necessary, from £1,300,000 to about £2,000,000. It may be necessary for Government to make application for power to re-borrow £1,000,000 now outstanding on Exchequer bonds which would fall due in November next; but no embarrassment or inconvenience would be attended on that transaction. It is quite possible, if circumstances should be favourable, that it may not be necessary to re-borrow the whole of that sum; and, if necessary, there would be no difficulty whatever in conducting the operation, because these Exchequer bonds are in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and form for them a convenient and profitable investment, and with them they can remain.
  This is the statement I have to lay before the Committee; and if there are any

  1979
  particulars in which I have failed to convey clearly my meaning it will give me great satisfaction to answer any question that may be proposed to me. I have still, however, to state two points. The first is that it will be my duty, as on all occasions when an increase of Excise duty is proposed, to ask the Committee for an immediate Vote. The purpose of that is, of course, well understood. It is not in any degree with the view of binding the discretion of the Committee, but to secure the charge of the duty on the commodity, so that no loss to the revenue may take place pending the time when the House is considering whether or not it would be right finally to adopt the proposal. The rule, that the augmentation of Customs' duties should be immediate on the proposal, is not in itself so entirely urgent and imperative as the rule with respect to Excise duties; but in the present case it is quite plain that what we do with respect to the Excise must be done with respect to the Customs; for if we impose an Excise duty of 10 s. on spirits, and do not impose the Customs' duty till next week or so on the competing article, there would be immense deliveries of foreign and colonial spirits, to the great injury of the revenue and of the home trade. That is what I have to state with regard to the proposals which I have submitted to-night. The further Resolutions have been long under the consideration of the Committee, and stand in a category altogether different. But in regard to the present proposal, I ask, in accordance with uniform practice, for an immediate Vote, without in the least degree binding the discretion of the House. Of course the Government will appoint such a day as may meet the convenience of hon. Members for taking the discussion on what I may call the merits of the measure, and that will accordingly be made a matter of arrangement. But as there is another subject involving a charge upon the country which has not been brought before Parliament it is right I should allude to it for a moment. It is that of the Vote for fortifications, which remains up to the present time without explanation, and with regard to which, of course, the Committee will be desirous of knowing the intentions of the Government. What I have to say upon the subject is that though it could not be conveniently combined with the very heterogeneous matter with which I have now been dealing, it is the intention of my noble Friend (Vis-
  1980
  count Palmerston) to explain the mode in which the Government propose to apply the sum of money which has been reserved for the Vote of fortifications, and likewise to explain their views respecting the Report of the Commissioners recently laid before the House. My noble Friend will probably do this upon an evening which he will select antecedently to the day when the House will be asked to give a decisive vote upon the proposals I have now submitted. All I need now say is that, so far as the Government are concerned, if the House will accede to our proposals, it is not our intention to make any further demand in the shape of taxation upon the country for the services of the present year. Thanking the House for the attention with which it has heard my statement, I will now conclude by moving the First Resolution.
  Resolution moved—
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged for and upon every gallon of Spirits of the strength of Hydrometer proof which, on or after the fifteenth day of July I860, shall be distilled in the United Kingdom, or be in the stock, custody, or possession of any distiller in the United Kingdom, or of any person in trust for him, or for his use, benefit, or account, or which having been distilled in the United Kingdom shall, on or after the said day be in any Duty-free warehouse, or on removal to any such warehouse, and be taken for consumption in the United Kingdom, the Duty of One Shilling and Eleven Pence, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity, or any greater or less degree of strength, in addition to the Duty chargeable on such Spirits under any Act or Acts in force, or under any Resolution of this House, passed during the present Session of Parliament."
  MR. VANCEsaid, that he fully agreed that there ought to be no limit to the taxation on ardent spirits until it reached an amount that would defeat its own object; but he thought the increase now proposed would enormously stimulate the illicit distillation of spirit—in Ireland at least—and that the consumption of duty-paid spirit would, consequently, fall very short of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had seemed to draw an argument in favour of his proposed increase from the fact that the trade had anticipated his intended increase. It was only natural that the trade should entertain such anticipations, because the right hon. Gentleman had never before, as he had on the present occasion, announced that he had arrived at a final limit. But it was scarcely any inconvenience to the trade to anticipate by a month or two the delivery of spirit from bond; and he did

  1981
  not therefore, think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was using a fair argument when he said that because the trade had looked forward to what might happen, that therefore what did happen was right and reasonable. He was, however, particularly desirous on the present occasion of impressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was a favourable opportunity of doing justice to the home trade. When home-made spirits were placed in bond the duty was eventually, upon their being taken out again, levied upon the number of gallons which the cask originally contained when it entered the Queen's stores; but when foreign spirits were taken out of bond the duty was charged only upon the actual number of gallons the cask contained. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to this, and consider whether it was not possible to place the home and the foreign trade on the same level. Beyond this, also, another grievance relating to the home trade was that the allowance for leakage and evaporation while in store was much smaller than it actually amounted to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the point to which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the Committee was one the importance of which the Government fully acknowledged, and that they had under consideration at that moment various points connected with the more equitable adjustment of the rules of Excise in favour of the distillers. The present state of things was a natural consequence of their being subjected for the first time to a real foreign competition.
  MR. CRAWFORDasked what were the contemplated changes in the wine duties as recently settled by the House, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded as consequent upon the proposed alterations in the spirit duties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in the event of the House adopting the 10 s. spirit duty, there would be no change in the wine duty at the present moment. The 3s. duty now leviable would remain so to the first of January next without any change, because that was a duty that gave rise to no serious apprehension with regard to its affecting the amount derivable from spirits. But he thought it probable he would have to make the following propositions:—That in the 1s. duty on wine of less than 18 per cent proof strength there should be no change; that to
  1982
  the 1s. 6d. duty on wine above 18 per cent and under 25 per cent strength an addition of 2d. or 3d. per gallon should be made; and that to the 2s. duty on wine between 25 and 40 per cent strength an addition of either 4d. or 5d. per gallon should be made.
  MR. M. SMITHsaid, he could scarcely comprehend what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant by describing the Exchequer as being in so flourishing a state, when there were deficiency bills to meet to the amount of £1,500,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that nominally such an amount of deficiency bills were in existence, but as far as he was able to form a judgment at the present moment, he believed that no interest would be payable on such bills during the present quarter.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSinquired whether any change would be made in the relative position of colonial and foreign spirits?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that foreign and colonial spirit would stand on precisely the same footing relatively as at present—the duty on colonial spirit would be 10 s. 2d. a gallon, and that on foreign spirit 10 s. 5d. per gallon.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired whether the wine drawback had been paid out of the expenditure for the year ending March last or out of that for the present year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in estimating, on the 10th of February last, the probable charge on the country for what remained of the financial year, he took £350,000 on account of wine drawback. That sum was provided for out of the revenue of last year, and formed no charge on the revenue of the present year. That sum was not, however, actually obtained out of the revenue of last year before the expiration of the year, because the Government had not obtained Parliamentary authority to pay the drawback. Almost all the payments had now been made, and the result was that the whole charge on the public in respect of drawback, as the cost of effecting this great operation of the reduction of the duties, would be under £200,000, instead of £350,000, as he had expected.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very quietly availed himself of the amount thrown back upon his hands by the refusal of the other House of Parliament to agree to the Re-

  1983
  peal of the paper duties. But he (Lord Fermoy) did not think the right hon. Gentleman in doing this was acting fairly to those who, like himself, did not consider the question settled. The right hon. Gentleman too was the last man in the world who ought to endeavour or appear to dispose of this question by a side wind. By availing himself of the law as it stood the right hon. Gentleman placed them in this position—that whereas if the House were disposed to send the Bill back to the Lords there was now this difficulty interposed, that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that as financiers the Lords had proved themselves more capable than he. The right hon. Gentleman might have left the amount, which he said was about £700,000, as a surplus. It would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had refrained from taking any active step upon the law as it at present stood. He protested against this mode of getting rid of a difficult question by a side wind. He, and those who thought with him, were prepared to face all the difficulties of the question, and he was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman disposed to act differently.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in making this statement to the Committee he had endeavoured, as far as it was possible to do so, to avoid prejudicing any question or any proposition that the noble Lord or any one else might submit to the House. As a Member of the House of Commons, he was ready, when the question at issue with the House of Lords came to be debated, to enter into it and to assert his opinion without disguise. But he did not consider it to be his duty on every incidental occasion that might occur to refer to his individual opinion on that point. He had cautiously avoided giving offence, or taking too much responsibility on his own shoulders, for he had said that the money should be available in case the House should so please.
  MR. BALLregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having got £700,000 by the paper duty, had not set that amount against the malt duty credits, and thus conferred a great boon upon the agriculturists.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the malt growers would be rather benefited than injured by an increase of the spirit duties.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcontended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notwithstanding the answer just given to the noble Lord, had, by the statement he
  1984
  had made that evening, precluded himself from taking that "action" which was spoken of with so much boasting the other night with reference to the rejection of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Also Resolutions 2 and 3, fixing the duties on spirits imported from Foreign countries, and from the Channel Islands.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the Fourth Resolution:—
  Resolution moved—
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the 12th Section of the Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chap. 81, which enacts that it shall not be necessary for any person or persons to take out an Excise Licence for the sale of any foreign goods or commodities, for the sale of which in any manner an Excise Licence is required; while such goods or commodities shall be and remain in the warehouse or warehouses in which the same shall have been deposited, lodged, or secured according to Law, before payment of Duty upon the importation thereof, shall not extend to exempt any person from liability to take out an Excise Licence for the sale of any Foreign Wine or Spirits."
  MR. HANKEYsaid, the effect of this Resolution would be to compel importing merchants—merely because they had imported some few casks of spirits in the course of the year, passing their goods through the Custom House, and having nothing to do with the Excise—to take out an Excise licence. That certainly never was understood. It was extremely difficult to follow up these Resolutions. They had been on the paper sometimes in one shape, sometimes in another; and he knew not where they were in regard to them. He was quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to take any of the trade by surprise; but, having referred to the Act, he did not think it would bear this interpretation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was very sorry his hon. Friend appeared to object so much to the Resolution. It was within his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) own knowledge, that it was known and understood by those who had thought fit to give it their attention. The way in which the case now stood was this: Up to the present time there had been but a very slight competition between the ordinary established wine and spirit merchants of England, and a class of persons who went about the country as agents for various houses, and dealers in wines and spirits, which were in bond; or as canvassers for British houses, perhaps,

  1985
  but always with respect to the article when it was in bond. Now, at a time when they were going to have a very sharp competition in all probability in that trade, and when there were so many new channels of supply to be opened, it was absolutely necessary to remove that anomaly, and to require that everybody who dealt in wines and spirits in bonds should be liable to pay the same tax for Excise licences, as those who dealt in wines and spirits free. Then he came to the main question—what were they to do with the West India importers of rum? He frankly owned that he had not been able to discover any satisfactory mode of exempting them from duty. They were dealers in spirits in bond; they could not get rid of that definition; but if they really thought it worth contending for, and if they had any good mode of drawing the distinction, he did not know that the House might not be willing to consider it. He could not say that be thought they had a very strong claim, or that theirs appeared to be a very heavy burthen. He begged to remind his hon. Friend, that they had got a penny more protection on their rum than they were entitled to. ["Hear!"] He could assure his hon. Friend that, owing to the way in which one arrangement came across another, it was perfectly clear that that was the fact; indeed, he was not quite certain that they had not got 3d. At all events, he could assure his hon. Friend that they got more protection on their rum than they were entitled to. It was the best and fairest arrangement which could be made upon the whole; and if it were looked into, it would be found that their position, on the whole, was quite as good, or, perhaps, a shade better than before. The Resolution had been some months in its present shape; and he trusted that, on the 16th of July, he should not be asked to postpone it.
  MR. CAVEsaid, the West Indian importers did not allow that any great advantage was possessed by them over the distiller, for they had a very long voyage, and they lost a quantity of the spirits by leakage during it. There were a great many other disadvantages, too, which practically made the position of the West Indian importers very much worse than that of the distillers, who had everything under their eyes, and had not to carry their products any distance to the market. With regard to the immediate question, there was a considerable difference between an importing merchant and an agent taking
  1986
  orders for a foreign or British house. Although not considerable in amount, there was something entirely unprecedented in the present proposal, and he felt sure it could not be difficult to find words to exempt the importers.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, as an occasional importer of spirits in bond, he should be very glad if he felt himself at liberty to claim exemption from the charge. But there were good reasons for some charge being imposed upon a class of gentlemen who represented establishments abroad, especially on the Continent. It was very evident that, if they felt it worth while to obtain orders for their wines and spirits in bond by personal solicitations, they must have an advantage in doing so, which was in competition with the regular wine merchants who paid the licence.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, there seemed to be three or four classes of persons involved in the exemption, whose conditions were very different. First, the merchants engaged in the importation of foreign spirits; then the second class, those who did not import, but sold for consumption in this country; and then the third class, who dealt in commodities in bond; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman wished to put the tax on the latter class, who came immediately into competition with the ordinary wine merchants. To that there could be no objection; but he trusted the proposed change would not be carried the length which was implied in the clause. The result would be that almost every general merchant of England would have to take out a licence, because in the course of the year he might have some transaction, for a constituent perhaps, to the extent of a parcel of wine, fie hoped the Resolution would be confined to its legitimate object. The agents of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke might not, under the Resolution, be taxed at all, because it was the principal who must take out the licence.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The agents will not be allowed to act, unless he acts for a principal who pays the Licence.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution moved.
  "5. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the time limited for payment of the Duty of Excise on Malt by every maltster or maker of Malt who shall have given security in the manner directed by the Act passed in that behalf, in respect of all Malt begun to be made on after the first day of October, 1860,

  1987
  shall be six weeks in lieu of twelve weeks after the making of such account or return of Duty as in the said Act is mentioned."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution moved.
  "6. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duty of Excise, which for the time being is or shall be chargeable on Hops growing or to grow in Great Britain, shall be payable on the first day of March, 1861, and afterwards on the first day of January next after the curing thereof,"
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, although the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) who had given notice of an Amendment for the repeal of the hop duty was now absent, he wished to say a few words on the subject. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a reduction of the duty, which, as far as it went, was a step in the right direction. He wished, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had felt himself justified in moving the total repeal of this tax, which operated most unfairly and oppressively on the hop-growers. It was only consistent with a free trade policy that this objectionable impost should be abolished, and he therefore trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would include its abolition in some future scheme of finance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, however dull of comprehension a Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, he was certain somehow or other to learn before he had been long in office the sentiments and the case of the hop-growers; and he had himself had full opportunity of appreciating their statements in that respect. He was glad to be able to propose a small reduction, and should have been glad had it been in his power to propose a greater.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the hop-growers of this country had now come to view the prospect of free trade in hops without fear or horror, believing that they could compete with all the world. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would before long concede the total abolition of this Excise duty.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution moved.
  "7. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid upon Chicory, or any other vegetable matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee, grown in the United Kingdom, for every hundredweight thereof, raw or kiln-dried, until the first day of; April 1861, the Duty of Three Shillings; and on and: after that day the Duty of Six Shillings, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity than a hundredweight."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Also Resolutions 8 and 9, fixing the Duties upon Contract Notes and Assignments or Leases.
  Resolution moved.
  "10. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in lieu of the Stamp Duty now chargeable upon the instruments hereinafter mentioned, there shall he charged and paid the Stamp Duties following:—namely,
  For and upon any Policy of Assurance or Insurance, by whatever name the same shall be called, whereby any sum of money shall be assured or agreed to be paid only upon the death of any person from, or by reason of, any cause incident to or consequent upon travelling, whether by land or water, or any accident or external violence, or any cause whatever other than a natural cause; or whereby any compensation shall be assured, or agreed to be made or paid, for personal injury received from any cause whatever; or whereby both a sum of money upon death and a compensation for personal injury as aforesaid shall be assured and agreed to be paid:—

  s.

  d.

  Where the premium or consideration for such Assurance or Agreement shall not exceed two shillings and sixpence

  0

  1

  And where the same shall exceed two shillings and sixpence and shall not exceed ten shillings

  0

  6

  And where the same shall exceed ten shillings and shall not exceed one pound

  1

  0

  And where the same shall exceed one pound, then for every twenty shillings, and also for every fractional part of twenty shillings

  1

  0

  MR. AYRTONsaid, that this Resolution imposed a stamp duty of 1d. upon all assurances where the premium did not exceed 2s. 6d. Such a duty would press very unfairly upon a class of assurances applicable to passengers by railways, who took a ticket of assurance for a single journey, for which they paid 2d., 4d., and 6d., according to the class in which they travelled. A charge of 1d. would be a tax of 50 per cent on third-class passengers, which would press very unfairly upon them. He would, accordingly, suggest that the new duty should only be leviable on premiums above 6d., so as to exclude this class of assurances.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the view of the hon. Member not unreasonable. He did not believe that any new duty would be charged under this Resolution upon any instrument not now liable to duty. The Resolution ran "In lieu of the stamp duty now chargeable upon the instruments hereinafter mentioned." In case of doubt, a financial Resolution was always construed in favour of the public. The matter, however, should be looked into, and care taken to exclude these assurances.
  MR. MALINSbelieved that the clause would have the effect of imposing a duty of 1d. upon railway assurances unless it were altered.
  MR. AYRTONtrusted that benefit societies would be exempt, in accordance with the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the early part of the Session.
  Resolution moved.
  "11. That it is expedient to amend the Acts relating to Stamp Duties.
  "Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution moved.
  "That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for and upon any Promissory Note made, or purporting to be made, out of the United Kingdom, for the payment within the United Kingdom of any sum of money, the same Stamp Duty as on an Inland Bill of Exchange for the payment, otherwise than on demand, of money of the same amount."
  Resolution agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to explain the course which he proposed to take on the Report—and which he believed would not be opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite—with reference to the Resolutions upon the spirit duties voted to-night without notice. A Bill regulating the sale of spirits, and containing, in fact, the whole of the law upon that subject, now stood for a third reading. This Bill would be reported to-morrow, and he should propose to recommit that Bill for the purpose of inserting these Resolutions in the Bill. The Resolutions would then stand in the Bill as a portion of its provisions, the Bill would be reported as amended, and would then stand for a third reading. The debate on the Resolutions might either be taken on the report of the Bill as amended, or on the recommittal of the Bill, and a day might be named for the debate.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to take a most unusual course. He proposed to insert new Resolutions in a Bill which would thus evade a discussion upon the second reading. He was not aware that in any Taxing Bill such a course was ever adopted as to insert Resolutions into a Bill that stood for a third reading, thereby saving the first two stages, and inserting new Resolutions upon the recommittal. He could not help thinking that exception would properly be taken to such a course.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaw great objection to any course that limited the power of the House to dis-
  1990
  cuss such Resolutions on the recommittal of the Bill.
  House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 128 agreed to.
  Clause 129 (Securities may be purchased).
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he thought that this clause gave unreasonable power to the Accountant General in Bankruptcy as regarded the investment of the large sums entrusted to him. This clause, in connection with the 132nd Clause, demanded, he thought, the gravest consideration.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to correct some misapprehensions which appeared to exist. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyne and Kendal stated the other evening that there were in the hands of the Bank of England, on an average, gross balances exceeding £100,000, belonging to the Court of Bankruptcy, and that the Bank derived, by the commission charged for the management of those funds, a sum varying from £3,000 to £4,000 per annum. Now, he (Mr. Crawford) had inquired into that matter, and he was enabled to inform the Committee that there was considerable exaggeration in those statements. Looking at the accounts in past years it appeared there had been on one occasion a balance of £161,000 in the Bank. In the course of a week that sum was reduced to £50,000, and in another week a further considerable reduction was effected. Not long afterwards the balance was not more than £420. It was equally untrue to say that the charge made by the Bank of England for the management of those funds was £3,000 or £4,000 a year—for example, the sum charged last year was only £2,203. Out of that sum the Bank had to pay the salaries of officers employed solely in the management of this branch of the Bankruptcy Court; to pay various incidental expenses, and, in fact, to maintain the whole expenses of an establishment for the purpose. Practically speaking the Bank derived next to nothing for itself for the management of this fund.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) evidently wag not aware of the Return of the Accountant

  1991
  in Bankruptcy, and which he now held in his hand. This Return showed that the sums received by the Bank on account of the Court of Bankruptcy in the years 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, and 1859 exceeded £6,500,000, and the payments to nearly the same sum. The Return further stated that the average of the quarterly balances in those years was £83,700. The highest balance was in September, 1856, £166,247; the lowest in March, 1858, £26,369. In respect of remuneration, the hon. Member stated that the Bank received in 1859, £2,200; but the Accountant made it £3,160. The hon. Member was therefore greatly in error as to the amount of remuneration received for managing the account of the Court of Bankruptcy. The hon. Member for London was therefore not justified in charging himself and the hon. Member for Kendall with inaccuracy. He fully adhered to his former statement.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 130 and 131
  Clause 132 (If Securities at any Time insufficient to answer Demands, Deficiency to be made good by Parliament).
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the clause provided that the funds of bankrupt estates paid into the account of the Accountant in Bankruptcy should be invested in 3 per cent consols, and as this was for the security and benefit of the creditors it was only reasonable that they should run the risk of any fall in the value of the stock. The clause, however, gave a guarantee to the creditors that the Government would be responsible for any such loss—a proposition which he thought was highly objectionable.
  MR. CAYLEYcharacterized the proposition to saddle the public with the loss arising from an investment made for the advantage of the creditors as altogether monstrous. He was disposed to take the sense of the Committee upon the clause.
  MR. VANCEcontended that if the general bankruptcy fund got the benefit of the interest, as he believed it did, the creditors ought in justice to be protected from any fall in the price of the stock. And if the proposition were not agreed to, the creditors should be allowed the interest that might accrue.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause was word for word the same as the existing law on the subject, which had been in operation for some years. The real facts were those. The Accountant in
  1992
  Bankruptcy had received from day to day large sums, and consequently had always a large floating balance to his credit. The portion of it which he found it prudent to invest yielded an annual income of about £40,000. That sum of £40,000 was applied for the benefit of the Court of Bankruptcy, and was one of the chief sources of revenue which enabled him to abolish the onerous fees and impositions which were now charged to suitors. He therefore contended that as the profit was taken by the public, and applied to public purposes, the public was bound to guarantee the parties entitled to the money from the possibility of any deficiency. There was no likelihood, however, that the public would be called upon to sustain any loss in consequence of that guarantee.
  MR. CAYLEY: the objection was not to investments, but to unlimited investments.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: None but the creditors of Estates in bankruptcy were interested in the application of the fund. It was a question in which the public had no interest whatever. He protested against entering into unlimined guarantees for the benefit of creditors in the Court of Bankruptcy.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the Court of Bankruptcy was a court for the administration of justice in the largest sense of the word, and courts of justice should be maintained at the public expense. Since, therefore, the interest received from these investments went to maintain the court—the public really had the benefit of them, and consequently ought to bear any loss that might arise.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken was mistaken. The Bankruptcy Fund and not the public derived the profits made from the investments.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the profits never reached the public. The Bankruptcy Fund retained the profits, and the public by this measure would be bound to make good the losses.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that in the Court of Chancery every penny invested there went not for the benefit of the public, but for those on whose behalf it was invested. With respect to the fund of the Court of Bankruptcy, there was a fund invested, of which the public had the benefit, and as it was so large, he did not believe the public would ever be called upon to pay anything towards the administration of the affairs of bankruptcy.
  MR. BAGLEYsaid, that a more rapid distribution of funds would render investments unnecessary.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 20: Majority 65.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 133 and 134 agreed to.
  Clause 135 (Released Commissioners' Salaries continued).
  MR. PAGET MR. PAGET moved as an Amendment to leave out the words "the full," and insert "two-thirds of the" in line 4, and at the end of the clause to add, "provided that in case he shall be called upon to perform any of the duties mentioned in section 4, he shall in such case, and so long as he shall be called upon to perform such duties, receive the full amount of his salary, payable in like manner." The reason why he proposed two-thirds was because he greatly objected to embarrass the fund with such heavy payments. The system was not adopted in the military profession, and he did not see why it should obtain in the legal. The system was objectionable to the country, and he thought that it was sufficient to do simple justice in the matter without conferring what would really be a boon.
  Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 4, to leave out the words "the full," in order to insert the words "two thirds of the."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the rule hitherto invariably acted upon was that, if upon public grounds, it was deemed expedient to do away with a public office, they could not do so justly without giving to the officer the full value of his office. He thought it would introduce a dangerous principle, if the House of Commons abrogated any office conferred by contract on individuals for life—or quamdiu se bene gesserint without giving full compensation. The 4th and 5th clauses of the Bill already passed, affirmed the principle that the Commissioners were entitled to their full salaries, and the House would act inconsistently in adopting this Amendment. He trusted the House would not lay down a new rule, which he thought would be disastrous to the real interests of the country.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite new. He denied that there was any contract between the public and these gentlemen. It seemed as though lawyers were to be placed under a different
  1994
  rule than other men. He remembered the abolition of the Six Clerks. He proposed on that occasion that the retiring allowance of those Gentlemen should be £700 a year, but they were allowed to take away with them £6,000 or £7,000 a year from the public treasury.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that he thought the hon. and learned Attorney General put the illustration a little too high when he compared these Gentlemen's salaries to private property. But with regard to the justice of the case, the whole of these five Commissioners had been Commissioners twenty-eight years ago, and the country had had the benefit of their services for that period. They were all competent to go on performing their work, and if an Act of Parliament deprived them of their offices it was but just that they should be fully paid. In a public point of view it was desirable not to be too niggard in such a matter, or otherwise officers whose places were to be abolished for the sake of some reform would set their faces against the proposed change, and prove great obstacles in its way.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 77 Noes 43: Majority 34.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 136 (Salaries of Officers of the Court of Bankruptcy).
  MR. HENLEYasked for an explanation of the latter portion of the clause, which provided that the annual sums now payable out of the Consolidated Fund for the use and purposes of the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors and the officers thereof, other than the Commissioners of the said Court, shall be paid in future into the Bank of England, to the credit of the Chief Registrar's account in Bankruptcy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Insolvent Court was entitled to an allowance in aid of its funds amounting to above £4,500 annually. It was not proposed to make any alteration whatever in the amount, but to transfer the sum to the credit of the new amalgamated jurisdiction. It was but fair that, as the Court of Bankruptcy was to assume the liabilities of the Insolvent Court, it should likewise obtain whatever advantages were attached to it.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEthought the right hon. Gentleman had been misled by some of the officials of the Court of Bankruptcy. There were no payments from the Consolidated Fund to the officers of the

  1995
  Court other than the Commissioners, but sums were annually voted in Supply to make good the deficiency in the funds of the Insolvent Court. As that Court was no longer to exist, he thought there was something objectionable in voting sums of money at the outset in aid of a fund which might no longer present a deficiency, and which, should it prove deficient, would have to be made good by a Vote in Supply.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsuggested the leaving out of the last portion of the clause. After a short discussion,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would strike out the latter part of the clause to which objection had been taken, and would bring up a separate clause, providing how much was to be taken out of the Consolidated Fund and how much was to be voted every year.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 137 agreed to.
  Clause 138 (Pensions and Retiring Allowances).
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE MR. E. P. BOUVERIE moved an Amendment, providing that the Lord Chancellor shall not have power to grant retiring allowances in cases of ill-health or permanent infirmity, except after twelve years' service.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYthought that the limit of five or seven years was long enough.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsuggested a limit of ten years.
  MR. PEACOCKEsuggested that there should be some smaller amount of compensation where the period of service had been short.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, if the Committee thought it was necessary to insert a limit of time he would consent to insert seven years, though he thought that there might be some hardship arising even from this.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he would consent to the limit of seven years, and withdraw the Amendment he had moved.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 139 to 151 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 152 (Abolition of distinction be-between Trader and Non-trader).
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved an Amendment for the purpose of raising the important question whether this great change, applying the bankrupt laws to non-traders and traders alike, should or should not take place. He would state to the Committee two or three classes of per-
  1996
  sons who would be injuriously affected by it. It was most unjust by retrospective action to place some persons in a position of advantage and others in a position of amazing disadvantage, which was never contemplated when the parties contracted. A man's father might have died twenty or thirty years ago leaving an estate chargeable with various amounts, and that man, as was commonly the practice, might have raised money by mortgage on the property to pay off his brothers and sisters. It was a debt, because the man covenanted with the mortgagee to repay the money, as well as pledged the land for it; but it was a debt totally different in its nature from liabilities to his butcher or baker, because the creditor had a special security in the land for payment. A panic might arise—panics seemed to have their cycles, and appeared to come round every ten years. There was a panic in 1847, and another in 1857, when money was hardly to be obtained at all, and, if obtained, only at a most extravagant rate of interest. A person in the situation which he had described might be called upon in such times of pressure to pay off his debt. If he did not it was proposed that judgment might be recovered, and he might be made a bankrupt. He might be told that it was the ordinary case of a man against whom a judgment was recovered; but the screw in ordinary cases could not be compared with the screw of threatening to make such a person a bankrupt, to send him to prison, to seize everything belonging to him, even his most private papers, and to drag his wife into a court, which they had just heard was unfit for any one to enter. That was one class of persons, and a numerous one. A vast portion of the land of England was mortgaged under those circumstances, and it did not apply exclusively to men of high rank and station. He believed that the more they descended the scale the move was the laud mortgaged, and just in proportion as they descended the scale was the difficulty of raising money in times of pressure increased—especially as the usury laws were repealed. It must not be supposed that it was a question which only affected the higher classes. It affected every man—from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the lowest cottager—and such a change ought not to be made without great and corresponding advantages. He saw no objection to there being one Court instead of two. If a man wanted to petition the Court and to be wound up, let him be

  1997
  made a bankrupt and go to the Bankruptcy Court, but be saw no reason why they should include under the operation of the bankrupt law a class of persons who could not fairly be said to be insolvent debtors. Another class of cases was not unfrequent. A man bad a limited estate. He could not raise money by mortgage. He had perhaps improvidently been spending more than his income. He had to incur debts to put his family out in the world, purchasing commissions or educating them for professions. These debts were usually met by borrowing money on annuities. When the eldest son was twenty-four or twenty-five years of age an arrangement was often made by which the entail was broken, money was raised on mortgage, the annuities were discharged, and the family was again placed in easy and comfortable circumstances. How would the Bill affect persons in that condition? It said that any conveyance for that purpose should be valid if the lender had no notice of any act of bankruptcy. These notices, of course, would make lenders of money very careful. It would not be an easy matter sometimes to say whether a lender had received that species of information which the law described as a "notice." The definition of "notice" often gave rise to litigation, and therefore he believed lenders of money would be very shy of dealing with persons under the circumstances he had described, who might be more or less deeply involved, and might, perhaps, have judgments against them. Then, there was a third class of cases, also of not unfrequent occurrence. He meant cases where persons, being in difficulties, assigned their affairs to trustees, very often for the purpose of raising money by mortgage to pay off other incumbrances. Sometimes a father and son joined in putting an estate under trust in that way, and their affairs were thus set right without further trouble. This Bill, however, would interfere with an arrangement of that kind, because it provided that every trust deed which did not fulfil the conditions specified in the arrangement clause should be utterly void. The case he had instanced was not provided for by the Bill, and the consequence would be that these arrangements would be rendered impossible. Men circumstanced as he had described would, therefore, be almost ruined. For these reasons he held that the clause, naked as it stood, ought not to be agreed to. He hoped the Attorney General would either
  1998
  agree to exclude the large class of persons he had specified from the operation of the measure, or, if not, at least to introduce such provisions as would prevent that great inconvenience which the Bill, as it stood, must necessarily cause to that class. He could not see that by the proposed arrangement the smallest advantage would be conferred on any one except the moneylenders, who, he believed, were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. He understood almost all the hon. and learned Gentlemen in the House were against him on this occasion. ["Hear,hear!"—"No!"] He was glad there was some one to say "no," but he feared that, generally, the lawyers were against him. He believed, however, that mankind at large had little reason to feel satisfied when all the lawyers were on one side. When they were divided they fought the matter out, and so the truth was elicited; but when there was a great preponderance of them on one side, it was high time for laymen to look out. It was very desirable, no doubt, that the law should be made as symmetrical as possible; but he could not forget that there had been great lawyers in the world before the present generation, and that for some 200 years they had drawn a geat distinction between trading and other debtors. He was well aware that this distinction had been much broken down in the present century by the introduction of the Insolvency Court system; but he believed there was an essential difference between trading and commercial and non-traders debts, and he thought the distinction ought not to be demolished altogether, as the Bill proposed. In moving the omission of certain words, he did so, not under the pretence that that would be the best way of altering the clauses, but for the sake of raising discussion on the question involved. He then moved the omission of the words "debtors whether" after the word "all."
  MR. EDWIN JAMESthought the right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice to the lawyers, for during the debate on this Bill they had taken a most liberal and generous course, a number of them having voted against the enormous compensation proposed to be awarded. This clause involved one of the most important questions connected with the subject of bankruptcy, as affecting not merely the mercantile but the social relations of the country. When the Attorney General introduced the Bill he (Mr. James) stated that he would support the principle it embodied, and he in-

  1999
  tended to do so. He must admit, however, that if it was to be carried out, it ought to be surrounded with a great many protections. He found that by Clause 164 every judgment creditor who was entitled to sue out against a debtor a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum—whicli could be got for a debt of £20—or to charge the debtor in execution, was authorized, at the end of one week from the signing of judgment, to sue out against the debtor, whether he be in custody or not, so long as he was in England, a summons, requiring him to appear and be examined respecting his ability to satisfy the debt. Then, again, Clause 170 provided as follows:—
  "Upon the Appearance of the Debtor he may be examined on Oath, by or on behalf of the Creditor and by the Court, respecting his Ability to satisfy the Debt, and for the Discovery of Property applicable in that Behalf, and shall he bound to produce, on Oath or otherwise, such Books, Papers, and Documents in his Possession or Power relating to Property applicable or alleged to be applicable to the Satisfaction of the Debt, as the Court shall think fit, and to sign his Examination when reduced into Writing; and any Debtor who shall upon Examination wilfully fail to discover fully and truly to the best of his Knowledge and Belief all his Property, Real and Personal, inclusive of his Rights and Credits, and to produce all Books, Papers, and documents in his possession or Power relating thereto, shall be liable to be committed by the Court as in the Case of a Bankrupt."
  It appeared to him that that was a very dangerous and extraordinary power to confer on a creditor, and he could not help thinking that there ought to be some distinction between a mercantile and, ns the phrase was, a gentleman debtor. By the French code no one except the person trading was liable to the Bankrupt Law. But the present clause might be made the means of the greatest extortion. A young man who had contracted a debt of £40 or £50 might get into the hands of usurers, who might make the whole of his property subservient to their extortion. He had given notice of an Amendment, which he should press, to the effect that all Peers, whether Peers of Parliament or otherwise, should be equally liable to the bankrupt laws with Members of the House of Commons.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSbelieved that this was the first occasion on which a question had been brought before the House of Commons which had excited much discussion out of doors—namely, whether non-traders ought to be liable to the bankrupt laws. He regretted that a discussion of so much importance should come on at so
  2000
  advanced a period of the Session. It was to be remembered that, whatever the views of hon. Members might be as to the abolition of the distinction between traders and non-traders, such a change was not demanded by commercial circles. The question that interested them was, whether they should have those Amendments in the administration and execution of the bankrupt laws which they had demanded. The other question was not one of urgency, and was not demanded by the feeling of the country, and might have been postponed to another time. It ought not at all events to be legislated upon without a full and searching investigation. Having had occasion to consider the subject, he would frankly state his belief that, to a certain extent, an irresistible argument might be urged in favour of abolishing the present distinction between the trader and non-trader. When, however, he saw the sweeping manner in which the change was proposed to be made he felt the greatest alarm. If the clause were adopted, all non-traders would be brought under the peril of committing one of the acts of bankruptcy therein described. Let the Committee observe what these acts of bankruptcy were, the Commission of any one of which would make a non-trader a bankrupt. By the 155th Clause seven acts of bankruptcy might be committed by a debtor. One was:—"If any debtor shall, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, depart this realm." Who was to judge of the motive for which a non-trader departed the realm? There was an all important difference herein between a person carrying on business and one who was not. The duty of a trader was to be always at his post. If he quitted the country, it was his duty to make suitable arrangements, and to leave no engagements which his representatives could not satisfy. The burden of proving that he did not go abroad to defraud his creditors was, therefore, thrown upon the trader. But a non-trader was not bound to be in the country. He had no place of business at which he was bound to be present. Another act of bankruptcy was defined to be, if the debtor "being out of this realm shall remain abroad." That was a most astonishing act of bankruptcy to apply to a person who was not in trade. Another Act of Bankruptcy was,
  "If any debtor shall suffer himself to be arrested or taken in execution for any debt not due, or shall suffer himself to be outlawed, or procure his

  2001
  goods, money, or chattels to be attached, sequestered, or taken in execution, or make or cause to be made, either within this realm or elsewhere, any fraudulent grant or conveyance of any of his lands, tenements, goods, or chattels, or make or cause to be made any fraudulent surrender of any of his copyhold lands or tenements, or make or cause to be made any fraudulent gift, delivery, or transfer of any of his goods or chattels, any such debtor doing, suffering, procuring, executing, permitting, making, or causing to be made, with such intent, any of the acts, deeds, or matters aforesaid, shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy."
  By Clause 158 it was enacted that
  "If any debtor, having been arrested or committed to prison for debt, or on any attachment for non-payment of money, shall, upon such or any other arrest or commitment for debt or non-payment of money, or upon any detention for debt, lie in prison for fourteen days, or, having been arrested for any cause, shall lie in prison for fourteen days after any detained for debt lodged against him, and not discharged, every such debtor shall thereby be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy; or if any such debtor, having been arrested, committed, or detained for debt shall escape out of prison or custody, every such debtor shall be deemed to have thereby committed an act of bankruptcy from the time of such arrest, commitment, or detention."
  He had read these provisions to show how wholly inapplicable they were to the state of the law that had grown up in regard to the trade of the country. The law gave the trader certain advantages, but stipulated that in return he must regulate his conduct so as not to elude his engagements as a commercial man. But these acts of bankruptcy that were framed and originated for traders were inapplicable to those who were not men of business, and had no business habits. At all events, it was nothing more than justice, if they were going to make an alteration in the law, that they should only apply it to debts contracted hereafter. Another safeguard ought to be inserted in the Bill. The Legislature might very safely permit all non-traders to be made bankrupts on their own petition. The law at present was that if a creditor were in a position to take any debtor in execution, having recovered judgment against him, the debtor might be put in prison either until he paid or until he volunteered himself to come under the Insolvent Act. It always seemed to him that when the creditor had got to the point when he might put the debtor in prison, the law might advantageously dispense with the formality of putting him in prison, and might enable the creditor to summon him before the Court of Bankruptcy, and make him subject to the operation of
  2002
  the Bankruptcy Law. If an alteration were made in these respects it would remove a great objection to the present Bill. By the 173rd section creditors might file an affidavit in the District Court against a debtor, and the Court might issue a summons to show cause why he should not be adjudged a bankrupt, which summons was to be returnable in four days from the issuing thereof; so that as the Bill stood a non-trader might be summoned for £40, to appear in four days, and, if he failed to do so, might be adjudged a bankrupt. Nothing could be more convenient as an engine of oppression than this. At present a summons in the case of traders was returnable in fourteen days; and even this had been regarded in mercantile circles as productive of great hardship; but to extend it to non-traders, and to reduce the time from fourteen to four days, was a proceeding unnecessarily harsh. Unless the Attorney General limited this provision to those cases in which a creditor was in a position to put his debtor in prison, or to cases in which the debtor voluntarily submitted to it, he would deem it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he had given notice to leave out these objectionable clauses. The clause now under discussion made an absolute identity between those who were traders and those who were non-traders, and thus would effect a complete revolution in the law of bankruptcy. There had at all times been a distinction between these two classes in this country, and there was good ground for that distinction, for a man engaged in trade and commerce was bound at all times to meet his engagements, and to be ever at hand both with his person and property; but a man not engaged in trade was not expected to have his estate in a condition to be at once turned into money, to be in a place of business ready to meet his creditor, or if he went abroad, to run the hazard of being adjudged a bankrupt. The vice of the Bill seemed to be that it had many clauses exceedingly proper as applied to traders, but harsh and oppressive to an excessive degree when applied to those not engaged in trade. By virtue of a subsequent clause in the Bill. Any man might be summoned before a Bankrupt Commissioner or County Court Judge for a debt of £40, and, unless he could satisfy the Judge that he could pay not only that debt but any other he might owe, he was to be declared

  2003
  a bankrupt. He doubted whether in any code, however severe, such a clause had ever been found. A man might be on the moors in Scotland, or salmon fishing in Ireland, and be summoned to appear before the Court in London or before any provincial Court, however remote, within four days, to be examined on oath as to his debts. It might be right that a man engaged in commerce should be able at once to pay everybody, but it was not necessary that every man not in trade, from the Archbishop downwards, should be compelled to appear at four days' notice, and pay all his debts, or be declared a bankrupt. There were persons who had their incomes payable only at stated periods, who had no property, and to whom credit was given on the faith that they would pay when their salary was received. But if a malicious creditor summoned such a person before the Court, and it came out that he could not at the time pay his debts, he would be declared a bankrupt. A farmer, as they all knew, looked to his crops to pay his debts; but, supposing he was summoned three or four months before harvest for a debt, the result might be that his crops would pass into other hands, and he would be ruined. He might refer to the case of officers of the army, also, whose pay came in periodically, and who, when moving about from place to place with their regiments, would be liable to be summoned for small debts. Were they to be declared bankrupts because at the time when they were summoned they were unable to pay all their debts? The distinction between traders and non-traders had always prevailed in this country, and was not an arbitrary distinction, but was founded on common sense and the habits of mankind. It might be perfectly right and proper to frame stringent laws for traders, but that was no reason why those who were non-traders should be drawn into the net with them. He believed the parentage of these stringent clauses of the Bill did not belong to the Attorney General, but to certain classes of the mercantile community. The Bill contained provisions unnecessarily harsh towards non-trading debtors, possessing property not immediately convertible, and unnecessarily lenient towards others, possessing no present property, but having expectancies which sooner or later might be realized. It no doubt contained many valuable provisions as regarded the commercial community; but those who were beyond the pale of trade
  2004
  had not been consulted regarding it, and he believed that they were utterly ignorant of the consequences that would follow from the adoption of the Bill as it stood. If a clear distinction was not made between traders and non-traders, the Bill, he believed, would be productive of mischiefs that its framers had never contemplated.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he was sincerely desirous that this Bill should pass, and he agreed with the Attorney General in supporting the principle of this clause, yet he could not help expressing the wish that his hon. and learned Friend had stated to the House the nature of the protection and safeguards with which he meant to accompany it. It might relieve some of his friends from the apprehensions which, not unnaturally, they entertained regarding this clause if they remembered that by the law of Scotland, as amended some years ago, the distinction between traders and non-traders had been wholly abolished, and he was not aware that any serious mischief, or any mischief at all, had arisen from its operation. He must say that, much as he desired to see this Bill pass, he would rather see it withdrawn than not have a distinct assurance from the Attorney General that some strong safeguards would accompany the clause now under consideration. It was impossible not to perceive that almost all the clauses which immediately followed this, for the most part excellent in themselves as regards traders, were altogether inapplicable to a number of other classes in the community whoso case seemed to have been entirely forgotten. A trader was bound to be at all times ready to pay his debts—it was of the very essence of the solvency of a trader that he should, at any and every moment, be prepared with any sum of money to meet every demand that might lawfully be brought against him; but would they apply the clauses constituting acts of bankruptcy, for instance, to landed proprietors? He was sorry to say that nine-tenths, or perhaps nineteen-twentieths, of the landed proprietors of the country had their property more or less subject to mortgage. A mortgage debt, though due in point of law, was not intended to be claimed, and ran on year after year; but to apply to such a case the provisions of this Act would be to introduce a revolution in the whole state of property, and the condition in which every man in the kingdom who happened to be a landed proprietor would be placed. A gentleman possessed of an in-

  2005
  come from landed property of some £2,000 a year might have some debts, though, on the whole, in easy circumstances; there might be a mortgage debt; some ill-natured creditor might issue a summons against him, and unless he was able to satisfy that mortgage debt in four days he was liable to be declared a bankrupt by the Judge in Bankruptcy. He could not agree to such a clause unless the Attorney General at once consented to render inapplicable to non-traders in general the whole series of provisions respecting acts of bankruptcy; and, as an additional safeguard, he would suggest that as to the circumstances in which a non-trader should be made a bankrupt, he should be summoned, not within a given time, for that should in all cases depend on the discretion of the Judge, but only on fair and ample notice given. The debtor should then appear, according to the circumstances of the case, to give such information respecting his affairs as might seem reasonable to the Judge; and if it should appear—but only if it should appear—that he was utterly unable to pay his debts, that he was living on his creditors, and that it was necessary the bankrupt law should be put in operation against him—in these circumstances only should he be made a bankrupt, and thus prevented from wasting the estate. It was necessary to introduce into the Bill the most careful and specific provisions with regard to the notice to all non-traders. A trader was bound to be always in presence to meet his creditors; but non-traders might be absent on the Continent for a year or two without their address being known even to their own families, and these cases could not be dealt with unless satisfactory evidence was given that the absent debtor had proper notice. Before going further with this Bill the Committee had a right to expect from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General a clear and specific explanation of the safeguards he meant to provide in the case of non-traders.
  MR. MALINSconcurred in thinking that the question raised by this clause was one of the last degree of importance. It was one of the most valuable provisions of the Bill, providing for the assimilation of the law of debtor and creditor to all classes of the community. He thought it right that every facility should be given for the recovery of debts, and that there should be one uniform system by which those who were unable to pay their debts should have their debts adjudicated. He agreed, how-
  2006
  ever, that many qualifications should be made with reference to non-traders. They should not be liable to be made bankrupts in the manner provided by the Bill; but only after judgment was obtained. The great principle which it was desirable to establish was that those who did not pay their debts should be made with the greatest facility to do so, or at least to make a cessio bonorum to their creditors; and that then, whether traders or non-traders, they should be restored to their original position and to the capacity of acquiring property. Did the Committee think that non-traders who were in debt should be allowed to retain possession of their property by simply crossing the Channel? He was of opinion that if a proper notice were given at the residence of a non-trader, who was abroad, and he did not within a specified time—say a month or six weeks—return and settle with his creditors, every facility should be given to the latter to obtain possession of his property. The reckless habits of extravagance now too prevalent in the upper and middle classes of society would be checked when it was found that debt could not be incurred with impunity. It was said traders were bound to be always ready to meet the claims of their creditors; but ought not non-traders to be equally so bound? By going to Boulogne a debtor could avoid his creditors, or at least could put such difficulties in their way as amounted to an avoidance of them; but this Bill would compel him either to give up all his property for their benefit, or to come home and deal with them as he must do if he were a trader. No doubt proper safeguards ought to be provided, so as to prevent an oppressive creditor from making even a trader bankrupt; but the principle of the clause deserved the approval of the Committee.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, the question raised in the clause now under discussion was so important that it ought not to be disposed of summarily, and he therefore begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALhoped the Motion for reporting progress would not be pressed. The House was then as full as he could expect to have it during the discussion of this Bill, and it would be convenient that night to dispose of the question raised by this clause.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEhoped his hon. Friend would presevere in his Motion to report progress. The subject was one of the gravest import, and came on at that

  2007
  hour quite unexpectedly. It could not be properly discussed at so late an hour. He asked what could be the position of officers in the army and navy when the present clause passed? He hoped the fullest opportunity would be given for the discussion of this clause.
  House resumed.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the clause now under consideration was of the very essence of the Bill, and he wished to know whether, if it was rejected, the Attorney General would withdraw the Bill. If he was disposed to do so, it would be useless to ask the House to spend several mornings in consideration of other clauses.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clauses of the Bill might be so altered as to remove many of the objections to the principle in dispute, and many opportunities would arise in the consideration of the subsequent provisions of the Bill for discussing whether or not non-traders should be included within its operation. Although he thought it was most important that they should be included, he should not be disposed to abandon the measure if the House decided that they should not. The greater part of the remaining clauses were merely a repetition of the existing law, inserted in order that the whole of the law might be comprehended in one Act. He therefore thought there was a reasonable prospect of arriving at the end of the Bill in time for it to go to the other House, so as to be passed into law during the present Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the best way will be to put the Bill for Thursday evening.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSwas glad the noble Lord had fixed the further consideration of the Bill for Thursday evening, as it would be impossible to proceed with one clause before the Committee had arrived at a decision upon the principle of including non-traders.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsuggested to the Attorney General the propriety of so amending the subsequent clauses of the Bill as to obviate the objections entertained to the clause relating to non-traders.
  MR. AYRTONthought that if the Attorney General wished to pass his Bill he should limit its application to traders, leaving the question as to non-traders to be dealt with in a separate measure in a future Session.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would propose as an Amendment, that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day three months. He charged the Government, he said, with something like a deliberate breach of faith. On the 16th of February the Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Montrose, stated that the Resolutions then before the House were not intended to apply to Scotland or Ireland. In consequence of that authoritative statement the Lord Mayor of Dublin countermanded a meeting which he had convened for the purpose of protesting against the extension of wine licences to Ireland, and many of the Irish Members in consequence, he was sorry to say, supported the English Bill. He thought, moreover, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing the present Bill, forgot many circumstances peculiar to Ireland. The Irish licensing system was in many respects better than that of England. The present Bill sought to re-establish a system long since abolished. In a debate which took place in the Irish House of Commons in 1791, Mr. Grattan said it would be necessary to regulate the granting of licences, with the view of taking from the Commissioners that power and lodging it with the quarter sessions. The third clause of the present Bill provided that the power of giving licences should rest practically with the police Commissioners and not with the ordinary magistrates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down the proposition that the consumption of ardent spirits diminished as the consumption of wine increased. But the facts in Ireland did not bear out that assertion. In 1800 the number of gallons of wine consumed in Ireland was 1,200,000; of ardent spirits, 4,140,000. In 1810 the consumption of wine was 1,100,000 gallons; of spirits, 3,600,000. In 1820, the consumption of wine amounted to only 500,000 gallons, and that of spirits to 3,800,000. The relative proportions were the same in 1830 and 1840. In 1858 the consumption of both wine and spirits had decreased, which was to be accounted for by a remarkable increase in the consumption of tea.

  2009
  The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore was inapplicable to Ireland, however it might be true of England. In Ireland there was a number of refreshment-houses, in which no spirituous liquors were sold; but, as these houses would all be subject to a tax under the present Bill, the result would be that the owners would, on paying a little more, take out licences to sell liquors. All who had studied the question of intemperance agreed with Father Mathew in saying that, whenever the licensing system was increased intemperance would be increased, and this constituted the chief objection to the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was prepared to change the drunkenness of England for the drunkenness of France; but was he prepared to change the social life of the middle classes of England for the social life of the middle classes of France? In the larger cities of France the middle classes hardly lived in their homes, but in drinking-houses. No doubt it would be said that if some lighter drink were substituted for ardent spirits, good might be effected; but he had shown that, as the drinking of wine increased in Ireland, so did the drinking of spirits. The quarter from whence this Bill proceeded furnished the strongest argument against it. It is the proposal of a Finance Minister. His business is to augment the public revenue; and, whether he does so by diminishing public morality is not a question which seems to attract much attention at the Exchequer. He boasts that he will increase the revenue by facilitating the sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks. There have been Chancellors of the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) is one of them—who might make a very different boast—namely, that they increased the revenue by raising the duty on such articles. He regretted that the present Government had not tried the experiment of still further raising the excise on spirits, instead of adopting this reckless and immoral policy of endeavouring to secure national finances by endangering that national character for temperance which, since the labours of the good Father Mathew, has been the happy characteristic of Ireland.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this
  2010
  House will upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL DUNNEseconded the Amendment, because the present Bill transferred the regulation of the sale of spirits from the magistrates to the Excise, and that efficient supervision over drinking houses which was desirable would not be obtained.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwould not enter into the merits of the Bill, but wished to call to the recollection of the House what had passed about five o'clock that evening. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire drew attention to the state of public business, and to the extreme inconvenience of protracted debates, which were brought on after midnight. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had contrasted the course adopted by the present Administration, with that pursued by the Government of Sir Robert Peel, which never brought on measures that were opposed at a late hour; the consequences being that they succeeded in getting through the business in a most satisfactory manner. The Bill now before the House had stood for some time on the notice paper; and his hon. Friend, the Member for the King's County, representing one of the most important constituencies in Ireland, had given notice of an Amendment that it be read a third time that day three months; notwithstanding which the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose at half-past twelve o'clock, and moved that the Speaker should leave the chair. Lower down on the list of the evening's business was a similar measure for Scotland, notices of Amendments to which had likewise been given. His object was to facilitate the progress of public business, and to obtain for those measures a satisfactory discussion, and he therefore begged to move that the debate be adjourned. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "Oh!" but Members sitting behind the Ministerial Bench had interrupted the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the King's County, with cries of "Move!" before he had half finished his short and moderate statement in support of the Amendment. He did not blame hon. Members for wishing to prevent discussion; but he blamed the Government for the pernicious and obnoxious practice of bringing on Bills which they knew would provoke discussion at so late an hour. In order that the House

  2011
  might, at one o'clock in the morning, proceed to the consideration of the forty-seven or forty-eight other Bills standing on the paper, with some reasonable prospect of advancing them a stage, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the noble Lord was, no doubt, sincere in his desire to forward public business; but he could not compliment him on his choice of the mode for effecting that purpose. The Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, if adopted, instead of being rejected as an inconvenient restraint, would not have applied to the present Bill, which had been taken up at a quarter, and not at half-past twelve, as the noble Lord imagined. The hon. Member for the King's County stated his arguments against the Bill, with his usual ability, and with great fairness; but it was quite evident that the natural time for opposition was to the second reading, when the Bill came on at eight o'clock, and when great numbers of Irish Members were in the House. Four-fifths of the Representatives of Ireland, he ventured to say, eagerly desired that this measure should be adopted. ["No, no!"] The momentary expression of impatience during the speech of the hon. Member for the King's County, had been provoked by his travelling over the general question, which had been largely discussed when the principle of the English Bill was agreed to. Separate Bills for Ireland and Scotland were introduced for convenience of form and procedure. He repudiated the idea that there had been any breach of faith with the House. No distinction whatever had been made between the three kingdoms in the Resolution which was adopted; and it had been distinctly made known, early in the course of the discussion on the English Bill, that measures would be subsequently introduced for the other portions of the United Kingdom.
  MR. O'BRIENhad always supported the removal of restrictions from the spirit trade; but that was a different thing from the support of a monopoly. The feeling of the people of Ireland was not that which had been represented by his hon. Colleague.
  MR. BLAKEbelieved that this Bill would do more towards promoting temperance and morality in Ireland than any measure that had been passed for many years. The Irish peeple were very glad to get a glass of wine whenever they could. What he meant was that they would gladly
  2012
  take a glass of wine in preference to a glass of spirits. This Bill would be a blessing to Ireland, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for it.
  MR. M'MAHONhad asked the opinion of several of his constituents, and had not heard one expression of dissent to the Bill, except by a teetotaller, who was in favour of a Maine liquor law.
  MR. BUTT, after the immense preponderance of opinion among Irish Members in favour of the measure appealed to the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion of adjournment.
  COLONEL DICKSONdenied that the majority of Irish Members were in favour of the Bill, and said that, if they were polled, the measure would certainly be condemned by them. Drinking was the great vice of Ireland. This Bill would encourage drinking, and it would be fraught with great disadvantage to the people.
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"
  Put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 38: Majority 98.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  In reply to Lord NAAS,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that by this Bill the obligation to pay the licence duty would apply, in Ireland, to those refreshment-houses, uot being wine-houses, which were open at night.
  House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Subdivision of Dioceses; Census (England); Census (Ireland); Queen's Prison; Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Felony and Misdemeanour.
2a Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment; Bleaching and Dyeing Works.
3a Jews Act Amendment; Indemnity; Augmentation of Small Benefices (Ireland); Universities and College Estates.

SAVOY.—MOTION FOR A PAPER.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving pursuant to notice for a Copy of a Letter to the late Duke of Wellington in relation to the military frontier of Savoy, said, that he had always disapproved of the proposition that Her Majesty's Government should take part in the Conference which it was intended should be held for the purpose of considering the Treaty of Turin, because he believed that such consideration involved a recognition of that treaty as thenceforward part of the public law of Europe. What had since taken place, although it might have diminished, had by no means removed those objections; and he expressed this view with the more regret as it differed from that of the two noble Lords who were more peculiarly responsible for the foreign policy of the country—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No man could be a more sincere friend to the French alliance than he was. He regarded it as of the highest importance for both countries, and for the advancement of civilization and for the peace and welfare of Europe, that between the French and English people and between the respective Governments a sincere and cordial amity and a close alliance should exist. But although holding that opinion strongly, he could not shut his eyes to events, nor forget those principles which were essential to the maintenance of peace between nations and to the feeling of general security. The condition of Italy engaged the attention of the Plenipotentiaries at the Congress of Paris in 1856, and it was represented that the foreign armies which then occupied her soil could not be withdrawn without lending to disastrous consequences. Now what were the facts of the case to which he was about to invite the attention of their Lordships? The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), speaking as First Minister
1926
of the Crown in February, 1859, happily summed up the condition of Italy when he described it as a standing danger to the pence of Europe. It appeared that in the Autumn of 1858, Sardinia and France entered into confidential communication with a view of taking concerted action in reference to what was known as the Italian question; and on the 1st of January, 1859, public attention was aroused by some words addressed by the Emperor of the French to the Austrian Ambassador. Diplomatic negotiations were entered into, but without effect, and the short but sanguinary war ensued which was terminated by the Peace of Villafranca. In that peace no mention was made of any alteration of the limits of the French Empire. During the whole of these transactions, in fact, not a word was uttered of what was subsequently demanded by French ambition. On the contrary, any views of territorial aggrandizement or peculiar advantage were repeatedly disclaimed. Nevertheless, it was surmised, even in the spring of 1859, that, among the possible consequences of the action which France and Sardinia were about to take, the contingency was contemplated of the increase of Sardinian power rendering it necessary for France to demand an addition of territory. Our Ambassador at Paris was directed to make inquiries on the subject. To these inquiries he received no answer; and in July or August the rumour being revived, Lord Cowley was told that, as the war had terminated in a different manner from that which had been expected, when such a contingency was contemplated, there was no longer any question of an increase of French territory. Lord Cowley himself had told their Lordships that this question of the cession of Savoy had been mentioned in conversation by Count Walewski, but it was only referred to as a subject to be laid before a Congress of the great Powers of Europe. That Congress, it had been supposed, would have been held during the winter; and when the British Parliament met in January, they were told that Her Majesty's Government had been invited to a Congress, but that that Congress had been indefinitely postponed. About the same time the rumours were revived of the cession of territory to France; but so late as the beginning of February the Governor of Chambery was instructed to state, in answer to inquiries which were made from him on the subject, that there was no intention to cede Savoy or Nice. Now, in the Treaty of July it was agreed between Austria and

1927
France that the states of Central Italy should be restored to their Sovereigns. Events prevented this from being carried out, and the Duchies became integral parts of Sardinia. On the 24th of January, after the Duchies had become part of the Piedmontese kingdom, a formal demand was made by France on the Sardinian Government for the cession of Nice and Savoy. This came to us first as a rumour; and a telegraphic denial was received here of the truth of the rumour; it was said that no intention existed of giving up Savoy. However, on the 24th of March a treaty was signed without any Congress, and without the consent of any of the great Powers of Europe, by which the transfer of those territories was agreed on. This was the treaty to which England was called on to accede by entering into a Congress, the foundation of which must be a recognition of a violation of a previous treaty forming a portion of the great international law of Europe. No justification for it had appeared beyond the grounds put forward by the French Government. The King of Sardinia had been much blamed for his share in this affair; but no one who had taken an impartial survey of the events could refuse to acknowledge that such an amount of pressure had been put upon the Sardinian Government as made it a necessity and a duty for them to yield. The Italians did not share in the opinions expressed respecting him by the King's critics in this country, and he could well afford to remain satisfied with their approbation. The question, however, was on what ground could this treaty be accepted as a basis for the deliberations of a Congress. To him it appeared a flagrant violation of the international law of Europe. The ground on which the annexation of Savoy was defended was that it was a geographical necessity produced by the formidable aggrandizement of the Sardinian kingdom. But to what length was this doctrine of geographical necessity to be carried? Why should it not be extended to Genoa, to Geneva, or to a different side of the French Empire? Before going into a Conference some definite principle ought to be laid down as to the extent to which this new doctrine ought to prevail. The aggrandizement of Sardinia was put forward as the reason for this annexation of Savoy and Nice; but it did not appear that France had yet recognized Sardinia's possession of the Duchies, nor had Victor Emmanuel yet been recognized by France as King of that district of Italy. It was well
1928
known that he had never been recognized as King de jure. Yet we were now called upon to recognize the claims of France to Savoy and Nice, both de facto and de jure. And not only this, but he was informed that the agent of the dethroned Dukes had not long ago been officially received at the Tuilieries. The guaranteed neutrality by the great Powers of the treaty of 1815 of the neutrality of Savoy and part of Switzerland had been set aside and disregarded in the most unjustifiable manner. It was almost amusing to observe the shifts to which M. Thouvenel had been driven to make excuses for the violation. It was first said that all the Powers of Europe were to be consulted. They had not been consulted. M. Thouvenel then proposed that those parts the neutrality of which was guaranteed should be ceded to Switzerland. But that proposal was withdrawn, on the ground that the population had been consulted and did not desire it. He did not see the use of going into a Congress with any view to establish limitations, when it might at once be said such points could not be touched because the population had been consulted and declared in favour of annexation to France. M. Thouvenel once more changed his ground, and said to the Swiss Federal Government, the stipulations at Vienna in regard to the neutrality of these districts were not for them, but for Piedmont; that the rest of the Powers of Europe had nothing to do with it; Piedmont was satisfied and therefore Switzerland must be satisfied. This was not the way in which the great Powers of Europe ought to be treated, and he objected to going into a Conference without knowing how far the sphere of their deliberations would extend. The strongest reason for going into a Congress was sympathy for Switzerland. As a matter of European policy, as well as out of regard for the patriotism, the valour, and the virtues of the Swiss, it was necessary that the independence and security of that country should be maintained. He acknowledged that in a Congress for the purpose specified—namely, to reconcile the 2nd article of the Treaty of Turin with the 92nd article of the Treaty of Vienna, some conditions and some stipulations might be framed which would not be without advantage. A frontier for Switzerland might be found possessing strong military positions. Their force was by no means contemptible, and if they had such a frontier and the passes of the Alps were conceded

1929
to them, their security, though deteriorated by the annexation, might be maintained. Arrangements might also be made for extending the neutrality of districts round Geneva and for garrisoning certain parts. But after all, the real advantage to which Switzerland must look was the union and concert of the great Powers of Europe in insisting on a guarantee of the independence and neutrality of that country. No one could deny that there had been a gross violation of the joint guarantee of the Powers which signed the Treaty of Vienna. But it was said that the guarantee was not changed, and that France took Savoy and Nice subject to all the stipulations under which Piedmont held them. It could hardly be said, however, that Switzerland was in as good a position as before, and M. Thouvenel himself had shown how untenable was that argument by proposing that the neutralized portions should be ceded to Switzerland. Looking to the position of Europe and the state of public opinion in Europe he thought that before they went into Congress to sanction what had been done they ought to have previous concert with the other Powers, of which he could find no trace in the papers which had been produced. The serious question was, whether in a Congress means might be taken to restore confidence and tranquillity. Look to the State of Europe. To whom were we to look to restore tranquillity and confidence to Europe and above all to France? What was the present condition of this country? Why, we were become a military nation; we were thinking of nothing but armaments, defences, volunteers, and militia. Why was all this? What was it about? Were the Estimates peace Estimates, and could England be said to be in a condition of peace? He said that neither were the Estimates peace Estimates nor were they in a condition of peace. They were in a position of suspended hostilities, and he wanted to get out of that position as soon as possible. He therefore thought it best to speak openly and frankly to the French Government, and to invite France to give us as well as Germany such assurances—practical assurances—as would tranquillize the public mind. The warlike excitement was not unfounded and the preparations were not unnecessary. They were unnecessary with regard to an invasion, because he was perfectly convinced that no Prince in his senses would think of that, and that an invasion of this country would never take
1930
place. People talked of the Volunteers showing our strength—it might be said ex pede Herculem. But he thought we had yet done nothing to show our real strength, for what were 130,000 or 135,000 men under arms, when, if an invasion were threatened, a million of men would be found on our coasts at forty-eight hours' notice, if the railways could carry them, able to work with their spades or shoot with their guns in the national defence? No man of ordinary sense or capacity would now think of invading England. But he could not deny that, looking to the general state of Europe, they were under the necessity of making preparations and bringing the expenditure to an amount not characteristic of a state of peace but of a state of suspended hostilities. What was the meaning of the Imperial visit to Baden? This meeting of crowned heads ought not to have been necessary. The motive assigned for the meeting of the Emperor of the French and the Princes of Germany at Baden was that the Emperor desired to render personally such assurances as would tranquillize the public mind of Europe, and remove the commercial stagnation which prevailed. That might be well; but what was the cause of the general uneasiness and apprehension? Notoriously it was this very treaty for the annexation of Nice and Savoy to France that had surprised and alarmed Europe, and caused every one to ask what was to happen next. Where a Government undertook the censorship of the press it could not avoid being responsible for the cone which that press assumed; and in the language of the French newspapers and pamphlets of the day would be found one of the chief causes of the excitement and anxiety which prevailed as to the future policy of France. The writer of La Prusse en 1860 assigned to Prussia the great task, of establishing national unity in Germany. In La Question Irlandaise it was admitted that this might not be just the moment for European intervention to restore to Ireland her national position; but, at the same time, Ireland was assured that her cause deserved sympathy, and significantly re minded that the interest of France was wherever there was a just and civilizing cause to be assisted. In another pamphlet the writer warned England that it was only by an intimate alliance with France that she could hope to preserve her maritime grandeur; and hinted that, if she objected to justice being done to France upon the

1931
Rhine, the result would be an alliance between the Emperor and the Czar, which would he fatal to our naval power. The remarkable feature in all these productions was that the men who wrote them never seemed for a moment to imagine that things could be allowed to continue as they were, and that France and England could remain quiet. No one could forget how useful had been the good understanding with France that had existed for the last thirty years; and if France would only be content to leave what was moderately well alone, and abandon the idea that her interest was to meddle wherever a civilizing cause required assistance, tranquillity would be restored to Europe, and the alliance between France and England would become as cordial and intimate as could be desired. But it was impossible for England to go hand in hand with France when we were asked to enter on a course of policy which set at nought the security of treaties and the good faith of nations, and which might lead us to the subversion of all existing arrangements. He maintained that before we entered any Congress we ought to have a distinct understanding as to the tone which was to be assumed and the principles which were to be recognized. There was a recent example which warranted us in demanding some assurance on this subject. He did not ask the Ministers on the Treasury bench to confirm the truth of what he was about to relate, but he should be surprised to hear any of them contradict it. He had it, not from an official source, but upon authority so good that he could not doubt it. He was informed that when the Emperor of the French proposed to meet the Prince Regent of Prussia in Germany, the Prince with that candour and sincerity which was a part of his personal character, as it was also, he believed, of his public policy, at once made it a condition of the proposed meeting, that if any political propositions or considerations were to be deliberated upon, no change of territory whatever should be proposed to him during his stay at Baden. In the same way England had a right to insist upon knowing the principles which were to regulate the proceedings of any Congress to which she was invited. It was for the interest of Europe, and far more for the interest of France, that the present alarm and distrust should cease. There could be no doubt that in effecting the annexation of Savoy and Nice France had committed a serious blunder, and, instead of aug-
1932
menting, had lessened her influence. No one who compared the influence which the Emperor of the French possessed last December, or even twelve months before, and that which he possessed at this moment, could doubt that it had been weakened by this transaction. If the Emperor wished to recover and increase his influence, he could not do so more effectually than by reassuring Europe as to his future policy, and putting an end to the painful disquietude which prevailed. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Letter addressed by the Foreign Office to the Duke of Wellington in 1816, concerning the Military Frontier of Savoy, referred to in Lord John Russell's Despatch to Earl Cowley of April the 24th."
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that there was no objection to produce the paper to which his noble Friend's Motion referred, but it would be necessary to alter the terms of his Motion, as no despatch from the Foreign Office existed on the subject. The paper to which his noble Friend referred was a letter from the representative of the Swiss Government to the British Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Vienna. It was unnecessary to follow his noble Friend in detail through all the topics of his speech, since a great portion of it consisted of an account of events well known to their Lordships, and the despatches of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office contained a clearer and more authoritative exposition of the policy of the Government than he could possibly give. The main object of the speech of the noble Marquess was to express the objection he felt to a Conference. That being the main point he should confine his observations to it. It was necessary to bear in mind the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government had consented to enter into a Conference, and it was singular that his noble Friend, with his knowledge of the subject, had omitted the most important consideration of all, namely, the wishes of Switzerland herself. No doubt this country was bound to consult the interests and maintain the independence of Switzerland, both as a country in which from the character of her people we took a great interest, and also because her neutral and in-independent position was necessary as a part of the general arrangements of Europe, and because Great Britain had engaged with other Powers to guarantee her inde-

1933
pendence. Under these circumstances the first question in regard to the Conference was, what were the views of the Swiss Government itself? The Government of Switzerland had given no dubious answer to this question. They sent despatches to all the great Powers of Europe, demanding, in the most emphatic language, that a Conference should assemble. In asking for that Conference they could appeal not merely to the advantage of Conferences in dealing with questions affecting treaties by which the state of Europe was regulated, but they could appeal also to special stipulations as to the manner in which these treaties were to be observed, and these Conferences carried on. The latter point was so important to be borne in mind, that he would trouble their Lordships with an extract from the Protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle, dated November 15, 1818, under which these regulations were made. It stipulated that whenever any of the questions mentioned before, namely, questions affecting the treaty concluded at Vienna, or any discussion between the different Powers occurred, there should be a Conference of the kind now proposed. Article 4 ran thus:—
"Que si pour mieux atteindre le but ci-dessus énoncé, les Puissances qui ont concourus au present Acte jugeaient nécessaire d'établir des réunions particulières, soit entre les augustes Souverains eux mêmes, soit entre leurs Ministres et Plénipotentiaires, respectifs, pour y traiter en commun de leurs propres intérêts, en tant qu'ils se rapportent à l'objet de leurs delibérations actuelles, l'époque et l'endroit de ces réunions seront chaque fois préalablement arrêtés au moyen de communications diplomatiques."
The article referred to the Treaty of Vienna already spoken of; and the Protocol concluded as follows:—
"Et que dans le cas où ces réunions auraient pour objet des affaires spécialement liées aux interêts des autres Etats de l'Europe, elles n'auront lieu qu'à la suite d'une invitation formelle de la part de ceux de ces Etats que les dites affaires concerneraient, et sous la reserve expresse de leur droit d'y participer directement ou par leurs Plénipotentiaires."
Their Lordships would therefore see that the Protocol distinctly contemplated that when any of the States of Europe more particularly concerned demanded a Conference it should assemble. Switzerland, thus, demanded not only on grounds of general expediency that a Conference should assemble, but also on positive stipulations founded upon the Treaty of Vienna that expressly provided that mode of settling the dispute. That being the
1934
case, it would not be treating Switzerland with proper regard, and it would be lowering her still further than she had unfortunately been lowered in the eyes of Europe, if, when she appealed to the great Powers to consider her affairs they should reply that although she might think her interests required a Conference, it was not convenient for them to assemble. That, in point of fact, was the view taken by Her Majesty's Government, and these were the reasons why Her Majesty's Government at once stated that they were ready to meet the other Powers of Europe in a Conference. He might, perhaps, confine himself to what he had now stated; but his noble Friend had pointed out some of the inconveniences that might attend a Conference, and although he could not deny that some inconvenience might arise, he thought he might remove from the minds of their Lordships some misapprehensions that prevailed on this subject. His noble Friend had insisted on the necessity of making previous conditions before entering upon a Congress; and what were the previous conditions he required? Neither more nor less than that Her Majesty's Government should concert with the different Powers of Europe, excepting only France, to impose on France a particular policy. It was, however, obviously impossible for a Conference to lead to any good result if it were preceded by a condition such as that. If, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government agreed with France as to the conditions on which the Conference should be held, that would be begging the whole question, and such a Conference would be merely a court for registering the decrees that had been already settled. His noble Friend said, that the whole fabric of European treaties had been shaken and disturbed by the change now made in the territorial arrangements fixed by the Treaty of Vienna; and he said he wanted to know why conditions were not obtained from the French Government previous to entering upon the Conference, by which that Government should bind itself to make no more such territorial changes, and especially that no changes should take place on the particular grounds and reasons alleged for this change of territory. He begged to tell his noble Friend, however, that if Her Majesty's Government were in a position to exact such a condition it would be the greatest mistake to do so, because what possible guarantee could they have more complete and efficient

1935
than the treaties that already existed? The present territorial arrangements of Europe rested not upon Conferences, but upon the express conditions of treaties, and what Her Majesty's Government and all the Powers of Europe had a right to ask was that these treaties should be maintained and observed, and it would be a matter of great regret if any other interpretation were given to these treaties. His noble Friend did not deny that guarantees might be given to Switzerland, that changes might be made in the distribution of her territory, that stipulations as to the occupation of a portion of the Swiss territory of Savoy might be taken into consideration, by which the position of Switzerland, if not entirely secured, might yet be materially improved. But his noble Friend went on to say that the true security of Switzerland was in the union of all the Powers to maintain the guarantee of her independence. He agreed with his noble Friend that that was her true security, and if that union had been maintained their Lordships would not now be discussing the question. But the difficulty was to maintain that union. Some of the other Powers of Europe, moved by other considerations, might not take the same view of the affairs of Switzerland that they had hitherto done. That was the case with the Russian Government, which, speaking through Prince Gortschakoff, thought the matter of less importance than Her Majesty's Government held it to be, and declared it was a matter of comparatively little consequence whether Switzerland had a little more or less territory. His noble Friend said, and he entirely agreed with him, that the position of Switzerland, as regarded other Powers, was based on the treaty by which her neutrality and independence were guaranteed. Still, there were supports and props that might assist in that basis being maintained, and these were that Switzerland should be in such a position that no Power should lightly attack and destroy her before any of the other Powers could interfere for her defence. In fact, the independence and neutrality of Switzerland were strengthened by the Treaty of Vienna, by the territorial position that was secured to her on her frontiers. The question had been so much discussed both in and out of Parliament that it would be familiar to their Lordships; but he would venture to point out what the position of Switzerland really was. One argument used to show that the position of Switzerland was not
1936
materially weakened was singular. It was said that she was weak on one of her frontiers, and that it would not weaken her by altering her position on the south. It was perfectly true that the frontier of Switzerland was not satisfactory on the side of Gex, and anybody who looked at a map would see that whereas the Lake of Geneva was formerly exposed on one side only, now it was exposed on both sides. No one could affirm that by entering the Conference such concessions would be obtained as would secure for Switzerland all that she required, or that the friends of that country might desire for her; but, at all events, an opportunity would be given for complete and free discussion, and if it should unfortunately happen that no agreement was come to, Switzerland would be in no worse position than she was now in. His noble Friend said by going into the Conference they would do nothing more than ratify the treaty. He (Lord Wodehouse) did not see why it should be assumed that they would ratify the treaty by meeting in Conference.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexplained that he did not say that they "would," but that they "might" ratify the treaty.
LORD WODEHOUSEcertainly understood his noble Friend to say that they would ratify the treaty; but he was prepared to say they would do no such thing by such a meeting. The French Government put the matter in this point of view. They said the Conference must meet to reconcile the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin. Some people said that this was too narrow a basis of discussion; but if these two articles were to be considered they would open the whole question, and there was nothing whatever to prevent the Powers represented at the Conference making any proposal they might think fit. He thought he had explained that there were some good reasons for going into the Conference; and he could not see those dangers ahead which his noble Friend had pointed out. He would refer to what might be the alternative. His noble Friend had spoken at some length of the disquiet that unfortunately existed, not in this country only, but in other countries; and he seemed to think that that disquiet would be increased by this Conference. But he (Lord Wodehouse) thought that if such changes were to take place as had been made by this treaty between France and Sardinia without there

1937
being any discussion of them by the other Powers of Europe who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, it was very possible that the disquiet would increase. Persons might naturally say there had been one change, and the Powers of Europe had not taken any steps with regard to it, and therefore other changes might take place with the same result. He did not mean to say that, supposing the Conference were to meet and separate without any such result as was desired, that would be a convenient or satisfactory position to be in; but he maintained that not to go into a Conference would be as dangerous as it would be impolitic, and would be to disregard the expressed wishes of Switzerland. His noble Friend spoke of the understanding which had been entered into before the late war, and he traced the course of events which had followed. It was not for him to praise the despatches of his noble Friend under whom he was happy to serve, but he was glad to find that the views taken by his noble Friend were approved by the noble Marquess. All he could say was that his noble Friend had shown us by his despatches that he was sensibly alive to the gravity of this question—that he felt the importance of maintaining the territorial position of Switzerland, and also felt that a serious inroad had been made on the territorial arrangements of Europe. It was useless to discuss what were the motives of the different actors in this matter; but one thing was perfectly certain—that the treaty which had been concluded, and by which Savoy had been transferred to France, had altered—materially altered—the position of Switzerland and greatly diminished the safety of that country, while it had given a precedent of a dangerous and unsatisfactory character to Europe.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he thoroughly concurred in one observation made by the noble Lord who had just spoken, that some attention ought to be paid to the wishes of Switzerland on this question; but he could not concur in the observation that the position of Switzerland was worse than before. On the contrary, he believed that the gallant stand made by her had raised her in the estimation of Europe. While however he said that he was inclined to go into a Conference, he by no means meant to say that any good would come from a Conference. He would not dispute the eulogium that had been passed on the skill and talent of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, as
1938
dislayed in his correspondence on this question; but he must say it was the misfortune of the noble Lord that in none of his despatches did he exhibit any settled plan of action, and that they did not carry conviction to the mind of any person to whom they were addressed. He thought there was an unreasonable amount of alarm as to the point which referred to the south side of the Lake of Geneva. Had this entire question been taken up when the option to do so was offered by Count Walewski last year, the Government would have been better able to meet the difficulties of the case than they were now, because at that time there had been no vote on the subject, whereas now there had been two votes which showed the feelings of the population—the first for the election of Members to the Sardinian Chambers, when five out of the six Deputies were in favour of annexation; and the other the vote by universal suffrage in favour of the annexation. He would not be suspected of thinking that any settled form of Government should be changed by any sudden ebullition of popular feeling and universal suffrage. The Government had, however, encouraged this mode of procedure in certain parts of Europe, and surely they would not say that an appeal to universal suffrage was only to be adopted in cases when it was directed against existing Sovereigns in Italy, and not to be applied to the case of Piedmont? The noble Marquess praised the despatches of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, but he would tell him that the despatch which in his opinion most merited praise was that in which he stated that if the King of Sardinia bargained away and sold the ancient cradle of his illustrious race it would for ever remain a blot on his escutcheon. He wished now to refer to some dates. On a former occasion, when he had put a question to his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) with reference to the rumoured annexation of Savoy to France, the answer was that the Government were in possession of no information on the subject, while it appeared that on that very day, the 27th of January, the first convention for the transfer of Nice and Savoy to France was signed. Now, if that were so, the act had been done some days previous to that on which Count Cavour made that unfortunate declaration to the effect that Sardinia would never either sell, barter, or exchange any portion of her territory. He might add that Earl Cowley, in his despatch of

1939
the 5th of February, stated that Count Walewski had informed him that if Sardinia were aggrandized by the acquisition of the Duchies, it must be at the cost of Savoy. He had, however, never been able to obtain any satisfactory explanation why that despatch did not arrive here until the 8th of February, thus taking three days instead of twelve hours to reach London from Paris. He had, however, put that question when our Ambassador was present in his place. He wished further to observe, that a despatch had been received at the same time from Sir James Hudson which contained a statement to the effect that he had had a conversation with Count Cavour, in the course of which Count Cavour had intimated that the Government of Sardinia had not the slightest intention of exchanging or selling Savoy. Now, that being so, he wished to know how his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had been enabled, in his observations in reply to a Motion which he (the Marquess of Normanby) had submitted to their Lordships on the 7th of February, to state the purport of a despatch from Turin which did not reach London until the following day?
EARL GRANVILLE: I may have got the intelligence by telegraph; but of this I am perfectly sure, that the information which I gave must in some way have reached the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: I should like to have some explanation with respect to the delay which occurred in the case of Earl Cowley's despatch of the 5th of February, which did not arrive until the 8th.
LORD WODEHOUSEobserved that Earl Cowley frequently dated his despatches two or three days before he transmitted them to London. It should also be borne in mind that messengers did not start every day for the purpose of conveying them. The despatch was certainly received on the 8th.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: He was at a loss to understand why upon the particular occasion to which he alluded—and that a most important one—a delay should have occurred of which he believed there was no similar instance. But, passing from that point, he wished to observe that, however anxious he might be to see the independence and neutrality secured, the despatch of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Earl Cowley on the 15th of May did not quite meet his
1940
views on that important subject. He, therefore, hoped that if Her Majesty's Government entered into a Conference they would not insist upon a solution of the question, in advocating which it was evident they would not be supported by the other European Powers. As this would probably be the last opportunity which their Lordships would have of discussing the subject before Parliament re-assembled, he would say that he did not think Her Majesty's Government had approached this question in a proper manner, or at the proper time. In the autumn of last year they were engaged in endeavouring to abrogate the Treaty by which the peace of Europe had been established, and later on their action in their dealings with France was not a little embarrassed by the proceedings of the Financial Minister, whose schemes had for a time met with support, but now that the truth was known, they had been emphatically condemned by the country.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid the subject which had been brought under the consideration of the House by the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, and of the noble Lord on the Ministerial Bench, was admittedly one of the most extensive and important that could engage the attention of their Lordships. He was nevertheless inclined to think that no disposition existed to entertain it at any considerable length; no one had yet risen from the Opposition benches, and nothing had occurred to give to the Debate a comprehensive character. What little he had to say might have been postponed, if that were not, as his noble Friend had just remarked, the last opportunity which would probably be offered of expressing an opinion with reference to this question in the present Session of Parliament. He admitted the force of some of the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in support of the view taken by Her Majesty's Government; but at the same time the subject was so much beset with danger, in everything connected with it there were points of such great delicacy, and so little certainty existed as to the results of the Congress, that he must confess he should have been more gratified if he had learnt that there was an intention of coming to an understanding with France before any further steps were taken. On going into a Congress we should be exposed, by the line which we adopted, to the painful

1941
alternative either of appearing to give our sanction to the annexation of Savoy to France, or of increasing that coolness and estrangement which had lately taken place—he regretted to say, on very sufficient grounds—in the alliance with France, and thereby expose ourselves to inconveniences and incur hazards to which the country could not be blind. The nation was bound, as far as was consistent with the maintenance of its own interests and dignity and honour, to preserve that state of peace and friendly feeling which at present existed between this country and France; but he was unable to go to the same extent as his noble Friend, who, in opening the discussion, said that it was for the permanent advantage of this country to maintain a close alliance with France. If any receipt existed for producing constant quarrels in Europe it was, he believed, the attempt to bind together in bonds of constant alliance two countries, however connected their interests, which differed so widely in character and had such distinct aims and associations. In proportion to the endeavours made to keep up a constant, close, and formal alliance the tendency would inevitably be towards its severance. A consistent disposition to conciliate to the extent permitted by the honour and interest of both nations would, he conscientiously believed, be much more conducive to a lasting good understanding than such a close and intimate alliance as was contemplated by the noble Lord. The attitude to which he alluded did not prevent, and need never prevent, such occasional understandings as existed at this moment with regard to the course to be pursued in a distant part of the world, or which might exist with reference to another part of the globe not so remote, but still distant from this country. But it was his firm conviction that strict alliances were neither for the interest of England nor of France itself; a state of amity and mutual co-operation according to circumstances and the changes effected by time, would be a policy much more highly deserving of commendation. A Conference was stated to be required in the interests of Switzerland with a view to restore that country to that state of political security and neutrality which was guaranteed to it in the settlement of Europe in 1815. No man could admire more than he did the conduct of that distinguished confederacy. Connected as he had been in former times with that country, and having then had the opportunity of re-
1942
marking the historical virtues of the people perpetuated through so many generations, and so nobly shown on every occasion when their rights or independence were assailed, he could not but feel satisfaction at the reasonable nature of their demand, and he trusted, therefore, that we should not overlook the obligations we had for stepping forth in defence of her rights, and for extending, as far as we properly could, consistently with the principles of non-intervention, the countenance of this country to the position which Switzerland had taken up. Though her name had been mentioned in the course of the Debate with respect and friendly feeling, he did not think justice had been done to the position in which she stood, or to the great qualities which her inhabitants had shown, partly from their own zeal and energy of purpose, and partly from the complicated situation of European affairs, in exposing themselves to positive danger. When they saw a country with such a limited population bringing forward 100,000 men ready to take the field, with a proportionate amount of artillery, (respecting the existence of which there could be no doubt, as not many years had elapsed since it made its appearance), and when they learnt on good authority that the Swiss were prepared to support that force if necessary by a fresh demonstration of equal magnitude, it was impossible, considering the extent of their means and the dangers to which they were exposed, not to entertain the highest opinion of that country. They were but exhibiting in the present day the same heroic firmness and the same attachment to their principles which centuries ago led them to place themselves in opposition to the enormous armies of Austria, to vindicate their independence, and to establish that confederacy which, in its long duration, had never failed to command the respect of Europe. It was impossible to deny that, in addition to the efforts of the Swiss, and to the prepossession we might have in their favour, the neutrality of Switzerland as guaranteed by the Treaties of Vienna was intimately connected with the interests of Europe. Undoubtedly the acquisition of Savoy by Prance altered the position of Switzerland towards Europe, and compromised the great European interests which were connected with her safety. He had never acquiesced in the opinion, formerly expressed in that House, that the acquisition of Savoy by France was a light matter, especially considering the degree

1943
of power to which France had attained—a degree of power which, if not exercised with the greatest discretion and with a regard for public principle, must place Europe in a state of jeopardy and alarm. Nothing which occurred to alter the relative proportion of one country in Europe to another could be so esteemed, and such annexation tended to keep Europe in a constant state of fever and anxiety. It was estimated that the population of Savoy was about half a million; such an addition to the population of France would not of itself affect the general interests of Europe; but the addition of a country like Savoy to France, the manner in which it had been carried out, and the motives assigned for it, undoubtedly gave grounds to Europe for mistrust and apprehension, lest similar projects might be entertained, and fully justified the alarm which Switzerland had expressed. Under these circumstances, all men naturally looked for some means for removing the causes of European anxiety, for giving security to Switzerland, and, if he saw any prospect of a conference bringing about those objects, he should be one of the first to support it. There was sufficient ground for apprehending, however, that whatever might be the hopes of the Government, and however anxious they might be to carry out their European policy, the result might be one which would increase the difficulties and complications of the situation. It might be that the alternative would be presented to us either of losing what remained to us of our friendly position towards France, or of appearing to give our sanction to an arrangement which would lead to the evil consequences he had already described. Before entering into a Conference we ought to have an understanding with France, that, if it should unfortunately be found impossible to effect an arrangement which would give security to Switzerland, at least we should not be taken to give our sanction to the principles on which the annexation of Savoy had taken place.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely approved the decision of the Government to enter into a Conference. He had always expressed his disapprobation of this annexation, from its origin in a war without a pretext and without a justification to its accomplishment; and, though he allowed that the Savoyards and the Nizzards had the fullest right to manage their own affairs, to have what sovereign they chose without foreign interference, yet that was
1944
a very different thing from admitting their right to annex themselves to a foreign Power, even by an unanimous vote fully and fairly taken, which he could not allow had been the case in this instance. Nothing would be worse than that the annexation should take place against the wishes of the people; but their wishes for it gave no ground for other Powers agreeing to that annexation. He did not believe that France had gained any such additional strength, either strategical or territorial, as need give any material ground to the other Powers for objecting to it; nevertheless, the assent of the other Powers ought to be sought, and the means of giving it would, no doubt, form a fit subject for discussion in the Conference. Much complaint was made on the other side of the water of France being suspected; but the best way for a country to avoid being suspected was to pursue a course of conduct which was not auspicious. A constant good understanding between France and England was the greatest blessing which could happen to both countries and to the peace of the world in general. A strict alliance between them was a very different matter, though there might be occasions when it would be of the greatest importance that they should act in alliance with each other. He hoped nothing would interfere with the present peace of Europe, but the best course to render that peace secure was a cordial understanding between those countries which suspected a certain other Power, or felt it necessary to be on their guard against it, and in each of those countries at home an unceasing, vigilant, and strenuous preparation for the worst that might happen.
Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

  COMMITTEE NEGATIVED.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD RAVENSWORTH, who said he had taken charge of this Bill at the request of the Archbishop of York, moved that the House resolve itself into Committee. The clauses of the Bill were a portion of the Government Bill on the same subject which was in the other House; but it was to be feared that that Bill would not come up to their Lordships in time to be passed into law. The present measure was therefore proposed in order to provide a remedy for an evil which had been ac-

  1945
  knowledged, and he did not anticipate that the Government would oppose clauses which they had already adopted.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTER, said that, as a Member of the Ecclesiastical Commission, he should oppose the further progress of the Bill. Since it passed the second reading an opportunity had been given for considering what would be the certain effects of the measure. He admitted that the object which the Bill had in view was in itself perfectly just, provided it could be carried out without injury to existing interests. But the Bill would create very heavy charges upon the estates of the Commissioners without making any provision to meet those charges, and would, in fact, create charges which the resources of the present Commissioners would not be able to meet. He must, therefore, move an Amendment that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day three months."
  On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and House to be in Committee on this Day Three Months.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.