Sitting of 23 March 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Norwich, in the room of Henry William Schneider, esq., void Election; Right Hon. William Coutts Keppel, commonly called Viscount Bury, void Election.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Benefit Societies Rules Amendment; Companies (1860).
2° Mines Regulation and Inspection.
3° Endowed Schools (No. 3).

NEW WRITS FOR NORWICH.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he was aware that Motions for the issue of new writs had, by recent practice of the House, been made subject to notice, and Mr. Speaker had a right to enforce that practice, if he (Mr. Duncombe) attempted to violate it. Indeed, he believed he was now moving by the indulgence of the House; but this practice was altogether inconsistent with the original privileges and rights of that House to issue writs, for there was no part of its constitution more important than that which related to the keeping up of the full complement of Members, and the representation of the people through that means. At the present moment there were nine seats vacant—two for Sudbury and two for St. Alban's (these were vacant by Act of Parliament), two for Gloucester, one for Wakefield, and two for Norwich. If he were precluded from making his present Motion now in consequence of his having been prevented from rising at half-past four, the city of Norwich might be kept in a state of excitement till he could give two days' fresh notice. On the other hand, if the Motion were not made till a late hour of the night, the writ could not reach the returning officer by the ordinary course in time to be proclaimed at Norwich before Monday. He begged therefore to move—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Citizens to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Henry William Schneider, Esq., and the Right Hon. William Coutts Keppel, commonly called Viscount Bury, whose Elections have been determined to be void."
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he objected to the issue of the writ. The borough of Norwich was one of those that had manifested so determinedly corrupt a character as to require some very serious step to be taken with regard to it, and the hon. Gentleman himself seemed to be aware of it, for he placed Norwich in the same category with Gloucester and Wakefield. He believed the only way to punish the electors was by the non-issue of the writ. He found no fault with the late Members, for he believed more respectable Gentlemen never sat in the House. But the fault of this corruption lay chiefly with the constituencies; for he dissented from the doctrine, or rather as he would call it—the jargon, that was so common in the House,
1144
that it was the candidates who seduced the electoral innocence of the constituencies. He believed, on the contrary, that the primary inducements to bribery came almost universally from the electors. Surely it was to the interest of every candidate to get himself returned for as little expense as he could. Candidates generally went down sheltering themselves under the Corrupt Practices Act, which he believed, in spite of all that had been said against it, had been productive of much good, and, but for some defects in its machinery, would be productive of much more. But the candidate when he met his agent was sure to be told, "It is of no use your coming down unless you are prepared to spend money;" and they all knew what spending money was. In his opinion it was absolutely necessary, if the House wished its professions in favour of purity of election to be believed, that an example should be made of a constituency so notoriously corrupt as that of Norwich.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he did not rise to object to the issue of this writ, but rather to make an explanation on behalf of certain persons in Norwich from whom he had presented a petition last Session respecting the corruption that had existed in that city. That petition was agreed to unanimously by a very numerous meeting of the corporation of Norwich. It alleged that there had been great corruption in that city, and besought the House to institute an inquiry with the view of applying some remedy to the evil. Unfortunately the Election Committee did not report—and for sufficient reasons—that there had been extensive corruption at Norwich. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that when a petitioning party had proved sufficient to obtain its object, and overthrow the sitting Members, all further evidence was withdrawn. Nobody had any interest in incurring either the expense or the odium of promoting further inquiry, and thus the vast cesspool of electoral corruption was concealed from the House and the country. There was, indeed, an Act of Parliament under which a Special Committee could be appointed on petition, but it required that the petition asking for the Committee should be presented within a certain time after the alleged corruption had been committed. In this case the petition was presented too late for that object, and therefore he had found himself unable to move fur an inquiry under that Act. The general result, therefore, was that the corporation of Norwich

1145
had petitioned for an investigation into what, under the present state of things, there was no power to cause to be investigated; and accordingly no investigation took place. He was informed that the persons bribed at Norwich during the general election were more in number than all those bribed in the two constituencies of Gloucester and Wakefield together; and it was a great misfortune that no inquiry had been instituted. The gentleman who promoted the petition from the corporation of Norwich extremely regretted that the inquiry could not take place, and had desired him to say—what he believed to be perfectly true—that they were greatly disappointed at this result. They had, however, done everything they could to prevent the screening of the great electoral iniquity which they alleged to exist in that city.
MR. ROEBUCK: I rise, Sir, expressly for the purpose of endeavouring to do something in this matter. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Birmingham has stated how it was he failed, and his friends failed, to punish the borough of Norwich, but there remains at the hands of this House one means yet, and that is to prevent the issuing of the writ. Now, Sir, I will explain how that is. When a man is bribed it is his interest to be bribed again, and to that end it is to his interest to have as many elections as possible. Now, acknowledging that statement of the hon. Member that he has failed to bring this matter to light—I take his words as he uttered them, and the House will recollect that he said there was as much or more corruption than in the two boroughs of Wakefield and Gloucester in the one single city of Norwich, it would appear that this House has failed to reach the evil by its defective legislation, and I now appeal to the House to take advantage of the means at their hands. If we could pass some Resolution, which I do not suppose we can, not to issue the writ for ten years, I think it would serve the city of Norwich right; and I will tell you why. I do not believe that corruption takes place in any town without the sanction of its leading men. I do not believe that the public opinion of that town is a guide to anything but the opinion of the persons most distinguished in that town. I know that bribery is considered a venial offence, and the man who has been bribed in Norwich a few months since will be bribed again if you issue your writ. Your cry for purity will be a mere pretence
1146
unless you take the matter into your hands, and refuse the issue of this writ. I want to know why the Member for Finsbury was selected to move the issue of this writ. I have always thought my hon. Friend the great friend of purity of election. No man more than he can depend on his own individual character to be elected to this House. Well, then, why is he selected to be the instrument in this dirty business? I say it is a dirty business, and this House ought now, by their negative of this Resolution, to mark their sense of what is going on in various other parts of this country. I call on them not to issue this writ as a punishment to the whole body of the people of Norwich. That will go far to prevent any further recurrence of that corruption, of which we all complain.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that whatever might be the inclination of hon. Members, they could not refuse to issue this particular writ, and therefore, the opposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. D. Griffith) was too late. The House had already acceded to the issuing of the writ rendered necessary by the unseating of Mr. Schneider. [Cries of "No, no."] It was a fact; the question had been put, and it had been carried, that a new writ should issue for the city of Norwich to return a citizen in the room of Mr. Schneider, who was unseated last Session on account of bribery, since which no writ had been issued. But what was the case with regard to Viscount Bury, whose seat was now in question? With regard to Viscount Bury there had been a subsequent election, and his seat had been declared void on account of bribery in the April election of 1859. The House would recollect the particular circumstances of the case. Viscount Bury accepted office while there was a petition pending against his return for corruption. The noble Viscount went to Norwich again and was returned, and the Committee having taken the petition into their consideration, decided that the seat was vacant, because he was disqualified from standing at that election, on account of the bribery which had occurred in the course of the previous contest. The House had no evidence with regard to Norwich except notoriety. There was a general impression, in which he himself shared, that there was great corruption in Norwich; but, unfortunately, the Committee which tried the election petition did not report that there was extensive corruption in that city, which was an essen-

1147
tial preliminary to any subsequent inquiry. What had they done in a similar case within the last few days? The hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Colonel Vandeleur) was unseated on account of certain cases of bribery alleged against him, and yet a new writ had been issued for a new election. How could they substantially distinguish between the cases of Norwich and Clare? It appeared to him there was only one rule to go upon. Where the Committee decided that bribery existed they could suspend the writ, but if they went on suspending writs wherever hon. Members were unseated for bribery, they would have the House sitting without a very large proportion of its Members. Looking at the general features of the case, he thought they were bound to agree to the issuing of this writ.
MR. COLLINSsaid, the case of Norwich differed from that of Clare, because a petition had been presented from the corporation of Norwich praying for inquiry. The petition alleged that extensive bribery had prevailed, and that a sum of money was subscribed in London for election purposes in Norwich. Under these circumstances he thought the writ ought to be suspended. If the other writ had been ordered to be issued that might be remedied by a supersedeas.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought that the House had before it no sufficient reasons for which to refuse the issuing of this writ. He did not press the point that the other writ for Norwich had been ordered to be issued, the hon. Member opposite having risen too late to oppose it.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexplained. He understood the hon. Member for Fins-bury had moved the issue of a writ, but he was not aware that the question had been put from the Chair.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the general ground on which he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was, that if the House did not agree to the issuing of this writ they would be confounding mere rumour and notoriety with absolute proof after full inquiry and examination into the facts. They would be treading upon very dangerous grounds if they adopted, and acted upon, statements in petitions without having subjected them to any investigation or examination. He was not denying that corruption prevailed in Norwich; it might be notorious that it did so. For the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) no in-
1148
vestigation had taken place or could take place—a circumstance which he much regretted—and he did not think that the House would be justified in acting penally in any case except those in which there had been a full and complete inquiry into the facts. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that extensive corruption could not prevail in any borough without the guilty connivance and even encouragement of the more influential inhabitants. In all such cases there should be a penal suspension of electoral privileges for a certain period, but such a course could not fairly be adopted in the present instance, because it had not been proved that extensive and systematic corruption had prevailed in Norwich.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he thought it proper to state that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) rose to address the House when the hon. Member for Finsbury resumed his seat, and, as be believed, before the Question was put from the Chair.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he could speak to the fact that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Griffith) certainly rose before the hon. Member for Finsbury reached the foot of Mr. Speaker's Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Devizes rose immediately after the hon. Member for Finsbury had concluded his speech; but that was too early, because I had to put the Question to the House. I did so in the usual way, and the hon. Member did not rise again until after the Question had been decided. That Motion has been disposed of; the second Motion has been put, and is now under the consideration of the House.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him the hon. Member for Birmingham was wrong on one point. The hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not worth while following up a petition after it had been disposed of by a Committee. Many people would be disposed to do so, but that they believed that all discussions in Parliament on the subject of bribery and corruption were mere matters of form, and meant nothing; that there was never any real or any bonâd fide intention to deal with such questions. He believed that to be the real state of the case. The whole thing was treated as a joke. Having proved during the past year that great bribery and corruption existed among the £10 householders, the House was now

1149
gravely discussing whether it would not be desirable to extend the franchise to a class of men, who, being much poorer, would be more accessible to bribery. It was a perfect farce for any hon. Member to get up in that House and say he wished to put a stop to bribery and corruption.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Sheffield that he had not been selected to do this dirty work, as the hon. Gentleman had thought proper to term it. He had selected himself, because he thought it due to the electors of Norwich that it should be done. No case had been proved against them, and a borough was not punished for bribery and corruption, until it had been proved guilty. The hon. Member for De-vizes (Mr. D. Griffith) was not only too late in his speech, but he was twelve months too late, seeing that the circumstances to which he had alluded occurred in April and in June last. In April the seat was vacated, and a new writ was issued, on the ground of corruption. The election which then took place was pure, although it was void. If any other person than Viscount Bury—who was personally disqualified—had been returned, he would now have been Member for Norwich. And he believed that Major Boldero, who had polled a few votes, might have had the seat, if he had claimed it.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that as a Member of the last Norwich Committee, he wished to explain that Major Boldero could not have the seat, because it was doubtful whether, when Viscount Bury accepted office, a new writ should have been issued. The doctrine laid down by the late Speaker on a previous occasion, on a Motion for the issuing of a writ in the case of the present Lord Chief Justice Cockburn was, that, in cases where a petition was presented, and the seat prayed for, a new writ could not be issued on acceptance of office; but, if the seat was not asked, then a new writ might be issued. That doctrine was questioned before the Committee, and he thought the House should come to some understanding upon it.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYremarked, that as bribery and corruption had not been legally proved against the city of Norwich, the House was bound, on constitutional grounds, to issue the writ.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that after the speech of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hope) it seemed to him that they were treading on rather dangerous
1150
ground. The Committee up stairs had thoroughly investigated this case, and had come to the decision that Viscount Bury was not duly elected at the last election, and that it was consequently a void election. The Committee had not inquired into the question of bribery, and he hoped that the House would not re-try the point on which the Committee had actually pronounced a decision.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, all he wished was that the House should determine what course they would pursue in similar cases for the future.
MR. DEEDESprotested against being included in the sweeping censure of the hon. Member for Norfolk, who said that when questions of bribery and corruption came under consideration the House was unwilling to deal with them. He would, if it were in his power, adopt on the present occasion the course recommended by the hon. Member for Sheffield; but there were two reasons why he was not prepared to oppose the issuing of the writ in the present instance. The first was that he believed that by suspending the writ they would do an act of injustice, because there was no legal proof of corruption, however, much they might believe it took place; and the second was, that inasmuch as a writ had been issued for one of the seats, it would be an invidious course to refuse to issue a writ for the other.
Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH POST OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will state to what resolution the Government has arrived with regard to the erection of a new General Post Office at Edinburgh?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the subject was not yet decided on. The Government had called for a statement of the accommodation required by the Post Office at Edinburgh, and until that statement was furnished he could not answer the question now asked.

THE CENSUS OF 1861.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what course he proposes to take with regard to the introduction of a Bill for authorizing the Census

  1151
  next year, and whether he sees any objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the best mode of procuring such information in connection with the Census as may be thought desirable?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, a Bill in reference to the taking of the census was in course of preparation, and would in due time be laid on the table. The hon. Member, after seeing the Bill, would have an opportunity to move, if he thought it desirable to do so, for an inquiry before a Select Committee.

H.M.S. "THE QUEEN."

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as stated in the United Service Gazette of January 21st, that the Assistant Surgeon of H.M.S. The Queen was refused a cabin at a time when four cabins were vacant, and whether, if the statement is true, any notice has been taken of it by the Board of Admiralty?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Admiralty had no intelligence of this transaction having taken place, and he sent to-day a telegraphic message to Portsmouth, where The Queen was at the time, and the answer returned was that they knew nothing about it there.

BOOK-POST IN THE COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether printed papers sent to a Colony by the Book Post are not merely forwarded to the nearest seaport of such Colony and no further? And whether any steps will be taken by the Government for having such printed papers so sent by such Book-Post forwarded on to their address?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had put the question under some misapprehension. It was not a fact that printed papers were forwarded to the seaports of the Colonies and no further. On the contrary, the rule was that such papers sent out to the Colonies were forwarded to their address, and either delivered to the person to whom they were addressed or to the nearest post town. There was, however, an exception
  1152
  in regard to the Cape of Good Hope, where printed papers were not sent beyond certain considerable towns in the colony. This was not owing to any measure of the Imperial Government, but in consequence of the Colonial Government not finding it convenient to forward such packages by the inland mails. But the authorities of the English Post Office had given notice to the public of this fact and had advised persons sending packages to the Cape to take care and consign them to those who would forward them to their proper destination.

CHANCERY EVIDENCE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General when the Report of the Chancery Evidence Commission is likely to be presented to the House; and whether the Government intends to introduce any measure this Session to carry out the suggestions of the Commission?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Chancery Evidence Commissioners had met several times to consider the subject, and their Report would be prepared in such time as would enable the recommendations to be carried into effect by a speedy appeal to Parliament, if that should be necessary; and, if not, then they would be carried into effect by the orders of the Judges.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is about to bring in any measure founded on the Report of the Harbours of Refuge Commissioners; and whether such measure will contain provisions for facilitating the raising of money by small seaport towns for the improvement of their Harbours?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow him to defer his statement with regard to any measure upon the general question of Harbours of Refuge until the subject should be brought formally before the House. He would only state upon the present occasion that it was his intention to introduce a measure for the improvement of such Harbours as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE TO FRANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there will be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the following papers relating to the proposed Annexation to France of Savoy and Nice, namely:—M. Thouvenel's last Despatch on that subject, the Answer of Her Majesty's Government thereto, and the Note recently addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Switzerland; and also (if they had been communicated) the protest addressed by the Swiss Government to the Government of France, and the answer of M. Thouvenel thereto?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he thought it would be injurious to the public service that he should at present produce those papers.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he wished to know when it was likely they could be produced?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would answer that question on another day. He could not answer it at that moment.

INDIAN FINANCE AND THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is about to sanction the issue of a Paper Currency by the Government of India, and, if so, whether he intends to communicate the details of the scheme to Parliament and take the opinion of the House upon the subject, and whether the Government has come to a final decision with respect to the re-organization of the Indian Army?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that he had sanctioned the issue of a paper currency in India. The details of that measure would be brought before the Legislative Council of India, and it was not his intention to make any statement on the subject in that House. An hon. Friend of his had already moved for papers respecting it, and they would be laid on the table of the House on Monday. As to the second question asked by the hon. Gentleman, the Government had not yet come to a final decision upon the re-organization of the Indian Army.

"THE GREAT TASMANIA."—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman,
1154
Whether his attention has been called to the Verdict given by a Coroner's Jury on the bodies of the unfortunate Soldiers who had died on board the Great Tasmania during the voyage home from India The paragraph in the Verdict to which he referred was as follows:—
"That the provisions supplied by the Government as stores for the use of the troops were bad and unfit for human food, with the exception of the tea, pork, pickles, and rice. That there was an entire absence of proper disinfectants, and that the lime juice had lost its medicinal properties when put on board. That the officers who signed the General Inspection Report' are the culpable parties, so far as the quality of the stores is concerned. That the captain and officers of the ship are entirely free from blame, and that the ship's contract was satisfactorily fulfilled. That the military officers and the surgeon did their best, under the circumstances in which they were placed, to promote the health of the men under their charge."
He would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such treatment as those men have received, and for which the Indian Executive were, he apprehended, responsible; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to order the immediate dismissal of the officials whose conduct was declared to be culpable, and through whose neglect of duty this lamentable loss of life has arisen?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it must be remembered that the Secretary of State for India could only act in conjunction with his Council, The evidence in this case would, of course, be brought before the Council, but meanwhile he could not say what steps would be taken in the matter. Great blame was, no doubt, attachable to some persons in Calcutta, but it was certainly not possible to decide offhand on the punishment to be inflicted.
On Motion "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday,"

STAFF APPOINTMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON,Referring to Clause 18 of the Warrant of October, 1858, which specifies, "that the commands of General Officers and other situations on the Staff, both at home and abroad, shall not be held for more than five years, unless by reappointment under special cases," To ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is to be understood that an Officer, having held one Staff

  1155
  appointment for the period named, can be considered eligible for immediate nomination to another Staff appointment; and, if so, whether there be any, and what, limitation to such successive appointments? The clause in question was rather hazy, and he should be glad to have information on a point so important to the service. For instance, in the event of a deputy adjutant-general having served the whole of his five years, could he, on the expiration of that term, be appointed to a brigade at Alder-shot, and after that again be eligible, say, for command in the West Indies? Could an officer, immediately on vacating one Staff appointment, be re-appointed to another, or was there to be any limit to these re-appointments? He should like also to know whether the same rule was to apply to the Ordnance.

DISEMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that an order had been issued two or three months ago for the disembodiment of certain regiments of Militia, among which were some Irish regiments. These regiments had been disembodied accordingly, but it seemed that for some reason the 2nd Staffordshire Militia had not shared their fate, and that a new supply of clothing for 1860–1 had been issued to the latter regiment. He wished to know whether that regiment was to be excepted from the proposed disembodiment of the Militia force, and the grounds of the exception? The colonel of the regiment, he believed, occupied comfortable quarters in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, and it was intelligible enough that he should be unwilling to return; but that was not the case with the men, and as there was plenty of employment for them in the pottery and mining districts, he was at a loss to know why the rule laid down, in other cases had here been departed from. He therefore wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a new supply of clothing has been issued to the 2nd Staffordshire Militia regiment; and whether it is contemplated to except that regiment from the proposed disembodiment of the militia force, with the grounds for such exception?
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he could not conceive why the gallant Officer referred to should not occupy a house in the Phoenix Park, and he regretted that the hon. Gen-
  1156
  tleman should give a personal colouring to this subject by referring to matters which had nothing to do with it. With regard to the 2nd Staffordshire, he believed it was one of the best militia regiments in the service.

THE ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, instead of raising the two brigades of Artillery, 15th and 16th, which are named in the Army Estimates, amounting to 2,206 men, it is intended to raise only one brigade of 1,000 men? He asked this question with the more anxiety inasmuch as he understood that the Militia Artillery were to be disembodied, and in their place only 1,000 regular Artillery added. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also inform him whether there was any intention to add a half battalion to the Royal Engineers?

STAFF APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. ELLICE (Coventry)said, he rose to put a question on a subject which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Captain L. Vernon). He saw in the newspapers of Saturday that—
"Brevet-Lieutenant-Colonel J. E. Thackwell, unattached, succeeds Brevet-Lieutenant-Colonel James Connolly, as Assistant-Adjutant-General of the South-West District. Colonel Connolly proceeds to Canada as Assistant-Adjutant-General of the Forces in that colony."
Colonel Connolly had before this been Brigade-Major at Portsmouth. Now, the recommendation of the Committee on this subject was that officers should hold Staff appointments for only a limited time, as a matter of fairness to other officers, whose turn would thus come round. He wished, therefore, to know on what grounds Colonel Connolly had been promoted three times from one Staff appointment to another?
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he thought that the system of continuing the same officers on staff appointments for an unlimited period was unjust to the public service, and towards the Commander-in-Chief, who was deprived of the means of ascertaining who were the most competent officers for Staff appointments. There appeared to be a sort of life-tenure of those offices, particularly of those well-salaried offices at the Horse Guards. Those appointments seemed to be limited to some thirty or forty gentle-

1157
men in the whole army; and even when a change was made, those who were dispossessed were comforted by other nice appointments. From a reply he received to a question put the other night, he understood there would be no objection to furnish the particulars of salaries of the ambassadorial and diplomatic Staff in the Chinese seas, and he had consequently put a formal Motion on the paper for Returns. He now understood that, though there would be no objection to give the particulars in regard to Mr. Bruce and Mr. Alcock, there was an objection to giving any such particulars in regard to the Earl of Elgin. He was inclined to believe from the tenor of the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) statement the other night that we were about to have two Plenipotentiaries in China, and two sets of salaries. He hoped some information would be afforded upon this point.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he did not seek to defend a system of life tenure in staff appointments, but he thought the proposition to limit the tenure to five years was worthy of a few remarks. Many officers holding staff appointments had been commanders of regiments or regimental field officers, from which appointments they could not be removed save for misconduct. By a rule of the service no regimental field officer could hold an active Staff appointment and remain on full pay in his regiment, and it was not likely that any man in his senses would give up a full pay appointment, from which he could not be removed, and perhaps the command of a regiment to go upon the Staff, if he was to be removed as a matter of Dowse, in five years, and then to be placed on half-pay without any compensation. He would take the opportunity of asking for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to a statement made by a noble Earl, the Under Secretary for War, in "another place," as to its not being the intention of the Government to continue the Militia Act for another year. Many persons imagined, from that statement, that it was intended to disband the Militia altogether, but he imagined that it referred merely to the Act of 1857, which enabled Her Majesty to embody certain Militia regiments, to supply the places of portions of the regular army sent to India in consequence of the mutiny, and which Act had been by a subsequent enactment continued until 1861. He could not help thinking, that though the cause for which that power
1158
was given had ceased to exist, yet considering the present critical state of Europe, it would be unadvisable to deprive Her Majesty of the powers which that Act conferred, of calling out the Militia on the shortest notice. No doubt the Volunteers were a very fine body of men, and the movement reflected the highest credit upon the patriotism of the nation. But however useful such a force might be in case of emergency, it could not be regarded as an actual auxiliary to the Militia or the regular army. In conclusion, he would refer to a circumstance mentioned in the papers that four volunteers on Wimbledon Common had amused themselves with shooting a lady's dog, and very nearly shooting the lady herself. He thought an immediate example should be made of those persons if they could be discovered, and that they should be deprived of the right to carry arms. He felt so much respect for the body of Volunteers that he would desire to see such incidents prevented in future.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he merely rose to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). Similar complaints had been forwarded to himself, but as the regiment which he had the honour to command was one of those marked out for disembodiment, for obvious reasons he had declined to take the matter up. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the lieutenant-colonel of the regiment in question did occupy a house in the Phœnix Park rent free, and no doubt he did desire to keep the regiment embodied. However, his complaint was that in disembodying the Militia regiments no attention whatever was paid to the wishes of those who had done their duty so creditably, and more especially that the younger officers had met with such little encouragement. Such conduct tended to impair the feelings of loyalty and patriotism which the Militia had always evinced up to that time. He would ask why it was that clothing had not been issued to the regiments disembodied as well as to those still embodied? Surely it was not intended to renounce the services of those regiments altogether.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that in answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Captain L. Vernon) he had to state that it was true that Committees and Commissions had for some years recommended that Staff appointments, both at home and abroad, should be limited to five years, and that no

1159
exception should be made in this respect to the Headquarters Staff of the Horse Guards. A short time ago he (Mr. S. Herbert) made a proposal that the exception should be discontinued in compliance with that recommendation, and the Commander-in-Chief agreeing, it was arranged that the Staff appointments at the Horse Guards should rest upon the same rule as other Staff appointments. When he made his statement on the Army Estimates he added that it was only fair that the officers at the Horse Guards who had accepted their appointments under a totally different regulation, and regarded them as for life, and many of them having filled their offices for a great number of years—indeed, one Quartermaster General had filled his for nearly forty years—that those officers, on their removal, should be immediately reappointed to other Staff employments. He considered such a course was both just to those officers, and politic as regarded the service—for if they made arbitrary regulations without in some degree consulting the feelings of those who were affected by them, it would be impossible to carry them out satisfactorily. With respect to the re-appointment of officers, he should observe that it was not the fact that all were re appointed, as was exemplified by the case of General Sir G. Brown, who had obtained a new appointment in Ireland, in the room of Lord Seaton. Lord G. Paget, who had been chosen to command the Cavalry at Aldershot, also, it should be recollected, had not held a command since he had been employed, with much credit to himself, in the Crimean war. Then there were also General Cameron and General Dalzell, who had been appointed for the first time. But it was quite obvious there must be re-appointments—for they could not tie up the hands of the Commander-in-Chief by any fixed rule, if they desired to maintain the efficiency of the service. Take the three recent appointments in India. Sir Hugh Rose had held a divisional command in that country, and was now promoted to the chief command in Bengal. No one would say that was an improper appointment. The same might be said of the promotion of General Mansfield, who had been appointed to the chief command in Bombay, and Sir Hope Grant, who had been appointed to the chief command in Madras. They were all experienced officers who had seen much service in India, and were peculiarly fitted for the appointments to which they had been promoted.
1160
The case of Colonel Connolly had been mentioned. He did not know the exact circumstances of that case but he understood that that officer, so far from having served his full time of five years on the Staff, has not served above a year, and is desirous of taking foreign service, and some consideration was due to him in that respect. With regard to Lord W. Paulet, he had commanded a brigade at Aldershot, and that being rather a school for Staff officers, the Commander-in-Chief said with justice that those who distinguished themselves in commands and had showed capacity there, had a just claim to Staff appointments as they became vacant. He fully concurred, however, with the spirit of the observations made by his right hon. Friend the gallant Officer opposite, that the one object to be kept in view was that the Staff offices should be open to as great a succession of officers as possible. At the same time, as he had already observed, they could not lay down a fixed rule that no man should be eligible for reappointment who had completed the period of service.
The next Question he had to answer had reference to the disembodiment of the 2nd Staffordshire Militia, and was put to him by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). The hon. Member made a double complaint as to the disembodiment of the Militia. It was, according to him, a hard thing for the English regiments to be kept embodied; and it was a hard thing for the Irish regiments to be disembodied. He would tell the hon. Member what the facts were. The Government began by taking the regiments to be disembodied in the order in which they had been embodied, and of the first five it so happened that four were Irish regiments. When, however, they came to the 2nd Staffordshire, though he had no communication with the colonel of the regiment, he received a communication from the Lord-lieutenant of the county, who was the father of the colonel, in which he had not at all expressed his disapproval of the disembodiment of the regiment, but had stated that as there was some uneasiness in the iron district in that quarter the regiment might as well not, if it were a matter of no great importance to adopt a contrary course, at once be disembodied. He (Mr. S. Herbert) had not, however, rested satisfied with that communication, but had laid the statement in question before his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the

1161
Home Department, who concurred in the expediency of acting upon the advice which the Lord-lieutenant of the county had conveyed. That being so, and it being matter of no importance whether the regiment were disembodied in April or in May, he had not disembodied the 2nd Staffordshire, but had placed both the Staffordshire regiments in the second class to be disembodied. He trusted this explanation would be sufficient to show that no injustice had been dune to either the Irish or the English regiments.
With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis), as to whether the Government intended to raise only one of the two brigades of Artillery announced in the Army Estimates, all he could say was, that at the time that announcement was made the Government had understood from Earl Canning that there was no probability that any British Queen's regiments then serving in India could be spared to be sent home for some time. He (Mr. S. Herbert) had consequently to meet the deficiency in the army at home by the augmentation stated. Since the Estimates were laid on the table, however, he had received despatches from Earl Canning to the effect that owing to the improved state of India there was every reason to expect that he would be enabled to send home three battalions of infantry immediately, three more battalions somewhat later, and another regiment of cavalry forthwith. This was, of course, welcome news to him (Mr. S. Herbert), as it enabled him to keep up the force at home with much less difficulty than by an augmentation which would have to be put down hereafter. They would, therefore, be enabled to disembody the militia regiments gradually, keeping up a certain number until the troops from India arrived in this country. It was also true that the contemplated addition to the Engineers was to be abandoned, but there was to be a small addition to the brigade at the depots, and also an addition of 100 men to the Coast Artillery. He had stated before, the view the Government took of the impolicy of employing a military force in time of peace. It was far better to have a regular soldier with a militiaman behind him than a militiaman with no regular soldier at all. They were stronger if they had the reserve behind the regular force to resort to in case of an emergency, than they were if they should employ that reserve when it was not absolutely necessary, and have nothing
1162
to fall back upon when the emergency arose. The Militia would never answer its purpose until it was distinctly understood that it was a force not to be embodied except in case of war.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether, as the North Staffordshire Militia were to be disembodied within a month or two, the clothing for the year 1860–61 would be issued to that regiment?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTreplied, that every regiment of Militia disembodied subsequent to the 1st of April would get their clothing or compensation, but those disembodied before that date would not.

TANGIERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, be rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware of the intended advance of the Spanish Army on Tangiers, and what guarantee he has received from the Government of that Country that there will not be a permanent or even protracted occupation of a place so essential for the supply of the fortress of Gibraltar? At present the contract price of provisions at Gibraltar had been raised, in consequence of the projected advance of the Spanish army on Tangiers, whence the supplies of Gibraltar had heretofore been derived. The permanent occupation of Tangiers would, no doubt, lead to war, but even its protracted occupation would be most objectionable and dangerous. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord would state, if not inconvenient for the public service, that he had received a guarantee from the Spanish Government that their occupation of Tangiers would not be protracted.
THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is in contemplation to bestow honours or promotion upon any Officers who have been recommended for such rewards, in consideration of distinguished services in the suppression of the late Mutiny in India, but who have not yet been so rewarded; and to call his attention particularly to the case of the 2nd Regiment of Bombay Light Cavalry. It would readily be understood that the number of officers whom it would be thought right to reward for the services they had performed during the mutiny in India must be very large; and he begged leave to say that the

  1163
  Government had been very liberal in giving rewards to so many officers. But the circumstances were very peculiar; indeed, he supposed there never was an occasion when there was so great a call for the recognition of distinguished military services. In the crisis of the fate of India, when it seemed probable that the greatest blow that could be struck at the prestige of England would fall on it, our supremacy in India was maintained by the gallantry of a very small force in that country; and he thought that Government could not be too liberal in rewarding the services of those who aided by their zeal and self-sacrifice in the suppression of the mutiny. If that was so, then those who by their energy, courage, and forgetfulness of self succeeded in averting the horrors of mutiny in any particular station were still more deserving of reward. One particular regiment, and more especially the commanding officer of that regiment, did the most signal service, as had, indeed, been stated in several de-spatches from India. He alluded to Major Taylor, and the 2nd Regiment of Bombay Light Cavalry. The regiment was employed with the central field force of Sir Hugh Rose, whose services had been so justly recognized in placing him at the head of the army in India; and the actions in which it was engaged since 1857 were all very formidable, namely, attack on the fort of Neimbara, attack on the fort of Jeerun, defence of Neemuch, storm of fortified village of Rowah, siege and destruction of Awah, siege of Kotah, action at Chota Dodypoor, action at Pertabgur, fight at Byrana, fight at Parkier, field service against Tantia Topee from the 1st of August, 1858, to the 24th of May, 1859. Major Taylor was specially thanked for his services in the Guzerat Horse by the Governor of Bombay in Council in July, 1857. He was also thanked for his services while in command of the Guzerat Horse, by her Majesty's Government, in a despatch to the Bombay Government, by the Secretary of State for India, dated the 31st of August, 1859. He was again brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for India, for promotion and honours, by the Governor of Bombay and the Governor General of India, in their Minutes dated 18th of August, and 17th of September, 1859, regarding the services of officers during the late mutinies, and addressed to the Secretary of State for India, as published in the London Gazette, December
  1164
  1st, 1859. He would, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a despatch of Lord Elphinstone, dated the 5th of December, 1859, on the same subject:—
  "I now come to the last category, military officers who have done good service in their military capacity otherwise than in the field. Among military officers the name of Major Taylor, of the 2nd Light Cavalry, who was wounded in arresting the mutineers who tried to excite the Guzerat House to raise the green flag and join the rebel cause, should also be brought under the notice of the Secretary of State for India."
  He thought that an officer who had performed such services, which had been noticed so favourably, was entitled to some reward.

THE ABOLITION OF THE NATIVE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, there had appeared in the morning papers within the last day or two a communication from Calcutta, to the effect that the whole of the Native Army in India was to be abolished, not only the remnant of the mutinous Army of Bengal, but the two loyal Armies of Madras and Bombay. The mischievous-ness of such an impression getting abroad could not be too broadly stated. Of course the friends and relatives of the thousands of officers who had read the statement would be in the utmost alarm; the officers themselves in India must have received it not only with alarm but with indignation, and there must be great agitation among the troops. He could not believe for a moment that any old Indian, unless his brains were paralyzed by a sun-stroke, would believe that a handful of Europeans would be able to rule two hundred millions of people in India except through their good will and with the assistance of a Native force. He could not believe, therefore, that there was any foundation for the assertion that was made, and he believed his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India would be glad of the opportunity of making a statement on the subject. As to the second part of his question, the officers to whom these returns related happened to be in this country with their regiments, and the returns were prepared, but unhappily they required the formality of going through the Adjutant General's office at Bombay. His impression was that they would comprise the cases mentioned by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson). He would therefore beg leave to ask the Secretary

1165
of State for India, Whether there is any and what foundation for the statements in a part of the newspaper press of the last few days, that the Native Regular Army of India is to be abolished, including the Armies of Madras and Bombay, whose recent loyalty and efficiency have been of such vital importance to British interests; and, when the Returns ordered by the House, of the services of the Bombay Regular Cavalry, and the Returns of all Officers recommended for brevets or honours during the late mutiny, will be laid upon the table of the House?
MR. TORRENSsaid, that reverting to the subject of the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Fergusson) he wished to remind the House that in the month of October last the right hon. Gentleman had authorized the publication of a despatch from the Governor General of India, which adverted in enthusiastic terms to the conduct of Sir Robert Hamilton and Colonel Durand. Sir Robert Hamilton had returned to this country in 1857, with the intention of retiring from the service; but when the mutiny broke out he resumed his post in Central India, and gave the greatest assistance to the Government in putting down that mutiny. The services of Sir Robert Hamilton had, moreover, been acknowledged by both Houses of Parliament, and the Earl of Derby in the other House, and the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, in that House, in conjunction with the present Lord Lyveden, had borne testimony to his great merits. The House, however, would hardly believe that, eminent as had been the services of Sir Robert Hamilton, they had yet received no substantial recognition at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and the Sovereign had not been advised to requite them with any mark of her royal favour. He hoped, therefore, that some explanation would be afforded on the subject.

OFFICIAL RETURNS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS,referring to a Return moved for by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and ordered to be printed on the 5th day of March [showing the comparative increase or diminution of Electors, and number of Members, for the periods 1832–3 and 1859–60], said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the inaccuracy of the Return (No. 129). His object was to point out certain important
1166
inaccuracies in the return affecting the town which he had the honour to represent (Banbury). In a scheme published in The Times Newspaper more than a year ago, for the Representation of England and Wales, "equitably adjusted with reference to population and assessment of property," Banbury was set down for disfranchisement, as a borough having 8,715 inhabitants, and an income tax assessment of only £16,998. Now, the fact was, that at the period in question, Banbury was assessed to the income and property tax at no less a sum than £41,000. In the Return to which he had referred, it was stated that the number of electors in Banbury in 1832–3 was 329, and in 1859–60 was 361; showing a difference of only 32. Now, the increase had been six fold as great as that stated; for, instead of 361 electors being the present number, the correct number was 561. It was obviously most essential, when the House ordered returns to be prepared, which were afterwards taken as supplying the data for important proposals, that every possible care should be bestowed to secure their accuracy.

THE PAPER DUTY.—QUESTION.
MR. BOVILLsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the Bill for repealing the Paper Duty, in order to avoid injury to Printers, from the probable stagnation of their trade during the next five months, the Government will consent to allow them a drawback of the Duty on their stock of Paper purchased and printed after the passing of the Bill, and remaining in sheets unbound at the time it was proposed that the duty shall cease, or whether the Government will consent to the Duty being repealed at a date earlier than the 15th day of August next? Unless that were done, he said, the necessary effect would be to suspend the operations of printers and publishers until the duty was abolished.
MR. SPEAKERobserved, that the question stood for discussion that evening on a distinct Motion, and it was not in order, on the Motion for Adjournment, to anticipate a Motion which was set down for discussion the same evening.
MR. BOVILLsaid, that in that case he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to state whether the Bill is to come on to-night?
MR. SPEAKER: I must repeat that the discussion on a subject which is spe-

1167
cifically to come before the House, cannot with propriety be anticipated on the Motion for Adjournment.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when the Government intend to introduce the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced by the late Government, and had passed through the House of Lords, and had been read twice in the Commons before the Dissolution of Parliament. Nobody would deny that the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, as well as in England, were in a state which rendered them utterly unfit to administer justice. In 1856 the present Attorney General for England drew a Bill dealing with the Ecclesiastical Courts both in England and Ireland. That admirable Bill was calculated to do as much good to the Church of the two countries as his Bankruptcy Bill was calculated to do good to the trading community. It was lost however in the Upper House upon a division, on which all the English Bishops voted against it, whilst all the Irish Bishops voted for it. That put an end to dealing with the subject by a single measure. Last year the present Lord Chancellor for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) drew a Bill which met with universal approval in Ireland. It was introduced into the other House and passed through the various stages, and it was afterwards read a first and second time in this House; but it was, as the Bills of many hon. Members, were cut short by the dissolution. He (Lord Fermoy) was now told that the official gentlemen of Ireland were too busy to give any attention at present to this subject. If the right hon. Gentleman in that House had his head and hands too full, why did he not have the Bill introduced in the other House? He found that there were three Irish Bills on the paper of the House. He would ask where they were? On the 9th of February last notice was given that these Bills would be introduced on the 14th, and then they were postponed to the 27th. On that day they stood first and second on the paper, and yet he found that instead of their being brought on they were "transplanted" to the 13th of March, and then another notice was given to the 22nd of March. On that day they
1168
stood 5th and 6th on the notice paper; but the House was counted out. They were consequently still again postponed to the 29th of March, when, in all probability, the Irish Members would be gone over to Ireland for the recess. Up to the present moment, on this most important subject, not a single idea had been given as to what these Bills contained. He would ask why these important measures had been deferred? Because, it would be said, the right hon. Gentleman was too full of business! Three weeks ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Serjeant Deasy had told his constituents in Cork, at his late election, that they were of the utmost importance. It was paltering with the country to act in that manner; and if the Government were not able to bring on their Irish measures in that House, they could bring them on in the other House, where there was surely some one who knew something about Ireland. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some good reason for not having brought on these Bills.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it was no doubt desirable that Parliament should pass some measure upon the subject, and the reason why Government had not yet brought in such a Bill was that they had had no opportunity of securing the attention of the House for it. With regard to the other Irish measures, he explained that they stood upon the paper the other evening when the House was counted out; he was in his place ready to move for leave to introduce them, and it was only that occurrence which prevented his doing so. They were on the paper for Thursday next, and if he then bad an opportunity of bringing in these Bills he should avail himself of it. If the evening were occupied by other business it would not, of course, be his fault that he could not proceed with the Irish Bills.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he did not conceive the right hon. Gentleman had given any answer to his noble Friend's question. He could not believe that the reasons given for the delay in the introduction of this Bill were the real reasons. There must he an objection on the part of certain persons to the principle on which the Bill was founded, else why should it not have been introduced, as it was last year, in the House of Lords? Under the latter Bill the Irish clergy were willing to give up a great amount of the patronage they possessed, and were thus setting a

1169
good example to the English clergy. The Bill had passed the other House of Parliament without opposition, and it had passed the second reading in the House of Commons. The Conservative Government had brought the Bill through these stages, and now this Government said it had not had time to continue its progress. He thought some better answer should be given by the Government than that just proffered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for people were found who were bold enough to say that the question of patronage had much to do with the defeat of the Bill of 1856 in the House of Lords. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) had changed his opinions? In 1850 he was Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the taking of ecclesiastical fees, and the right hon. Gentleman then questioned the registrars and judges of the bishops, and put some pertinent questions to them, and he declared that they had acted in defiance of the Acts of Parliament and Canons of the Church, and he stated that it was desirable the present system should be done away with before another Session of Parliament passed. But now the right hon. Gentleman held the office of Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and he (Mr. Seymour) supposed he represented the right rev. Bench in that House, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would presently get up and expostulate with hon. Members for not being satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. The agitation of this question was injuring the Church, and it ought to be settled at the earliest moment.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought it right to state that there was a question with reference to this Bill, namely, the question of compensation that had been claimed by the registrars of those courts, which might require some consideration. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) that the people of Ireland were interested in the Bills to which he had referred, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Government should withdraw their Reform Bill and proceed with those Irish Bills at once.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE TO FRANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State
1170
for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memoire sur les rapports entre la Suisse et la Savoie neutralitée, untranslated, if its length be considerable, which forms enclosure No. 2 in No. 9 of the Correspondence respecting the proposed Annexation of Savoy and Nice, presented to this House on the 28th day of February; and also the Map mentioned in No. 15 of the same Correspondence, having marked upon it, besides the military frontier alluded to by the President of the Swiss Confederation in the same Despatch, the frontier of France with regard to Savoy and Switzerland as it was fixed by the Treaty between the Allies and France in 1814, and the frontier of France as it will be if the whole of the present Province of Savoy be conceded to her. So early as last summer, when our Foreign Office was incredulous as to the intention of the French Emperor to annex Savoy to his dominions, the Swiss Government had the whole of their frontier surveyed and mapped. They sent a copy of the map, showing the alterations which would be required in the event of the annexation taking place, to our Foreign Office. They had also presented a copy of their memoir upon the relations between Switzerland and Savoy to our Minister at Berne. Both memoir and map were mentioned in the correspondence recently laid on the table, and, as the annexation of Savoy was now an accomplished fact, he thought the House should know what were the alterations which the Swiss Government wished in their frontier in order to preserve a neutrality guaranteed by Europe. This question appeared about to assume dimensions of greater importance from what he had read in the evening papers, as a report coming from Paris, that six Swiss regiments had marched to take possession of Faucigny and Chablais. Perhaps the noble Lord would state whether the report in question was true.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) if he will lay upon the table those portions of his Private Correspondence with Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris which are referred to in the Ambassador's published Despatch of the 5th of February, and which report certain observations of Count Walewski on the necessity of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Empire. The passage in Earl Cowley's Despatch, on which his question was founded, was the following:—

1171
"I had an opportunity of ascertaining from Count Walewski that he recognized the accuracy of the Report which I had sent to jour Lordship of his declaration to me in July last, but he reminded me that he had made that declaration in view of the strict accomplishment of the treaty of Zurich, and that he had more than once afterwards maintained that if Sardinia was to be aggrandized by the annexation of the Duchies, it must be at the cost of Savoy and the county of Nice, which must pass to France."
Earl Cowley went on to say:—
"This is perfectly true, and on more than one occasion I alluded to these observations in my private correspondence with your Lordship."
It would be remembered by the House that in the course of December-last a rumour from Paris, that Count Walewski was about to resign, formed a principal topic of discussion. The resignation took place on the 2nd of January, and on the 5th of January his successor was announced in the Moniteur. Therefore, it was plain that the important conversations mentioned by Earl Cowley must have taken place at the very latest in December of last year, and as it was not likely that questions of so much difficulty and delicacy would be handled by a Minister on the eve of resignation, it was probable these conversations took place at a much earlier period. This much, however, was certain, that in December last at the latest, Count Walewski made most important statements to Earl Cowley, and the noble Earl, as appeared from his despatch, duly communicated to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, but the latter took no notice of them whatever—in an official form, at least—until the 28th of January. In the same despatch Earl Cowley said:—
"It is not, however, to be inferred that I allowed Count Walewski to suppose that the realization of this scheme would be seen with indifference by Her Majesty's Government."
But if this passage actually represented Count Walewski's observations, how very feeble was the reply of Lord Cowley when compared with the spirited despatch of the Foreign Secretary, written in July last. The language of the Ambassador was different from that of his chief. The language of Count Walewski was very strong, but the language of Earl Cowley was feeble, while the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, met that language with official silence. Were they not then justified in thinking that the French Emperor had some ground for supposing that the Government of England, as represented by the tone of its Ambassador, had changed its views between
1172
July and December. It was impossible to forget that when Earl Cowley was using this feeble language and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was so unaccountably silent, the negotiations for the Commercial Treaty were actually in progress. What was the language now used by the Emperor's press? It was said openly that a Treaty of Commerce was a great concession to England, and not only so, but the Emperor had actually instructed his press to say that that Treaty was a measure by which he hoped to keep his noble Friend, the present Prime Minister in power, by obtaining for him and his Government the cordial support of the hon. Member for Birmingham and another Friend of the Emperor's and the French party. Such was the language of the French press, and he wanted to know whether the Emperor was likely to have made these great concessions, or have done these good offices for nothing at all, or even for "an idea." Certainly not. It was much more likely that he had acted as he had done in eon-sequence of the silence of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), upon this most important subject, and that the Emperor had gained, if not English neutrality, at any rate the forbearance of Her Majesty's Government towards his aggressive policy, and thus that course of conduct—the annexation—which in July was regarded as a matter of great concern, was in December looked upon with, if not indifference, at least diminished apprehension. He thought that this was a fair inference from the facts and papers before the House, but he was quite aware that further information might show them that this was an opinion hastily formed. He did not wish to prejudge the question, or say whether it was so or not. He knew the difficulty of stating the substance of three or four important conversations in a despatch; but though he admitted that difficulty, he thought they had a right to call upon the Government to give them information that would enable them to decide the point. He would not go into the question of public despatches and the duties of public servants, in reference to private letters written to each other. Before an important and delicate point was exhibited in a public despatch it ought to be discussed in private letters, and he knew that they could not at all times expect them to be produced; but the point in question had been discussed in several public despatches, and had then relapsed into private letters, and these

1173
lattes had actually been referred to in a public despatch as an authentication of grave and vital facts, the knowledge of which was necessary rightly to understand the whole matter. The noble Lord told them on Friday night that the House would have to consider the conduct of the Government with regard to these matters, and to pronounce their verdict. He therefore wanted the noble Lord to give them a link which was wanting in the chain of evidence—a link which was of great importance, and which therefore it would well consort with the dignity, and interest, and honour of the Government that it should be supplied. Before sitting down he must express the regret with which he had heard the answer the noble Lord gave to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), who asked him to lay upon the table the despatch which had been received from Count Thouvenel, with his Lordship's answer. The answer the noble Lord now gave was hardly that which the House was entitled to expect after the expression used by the noble Lord on Friday night, when he stated that as soon as the answer he had written to the despatch should receive the approbation of Her Majesty, he would lay it before the House. He must say that, with the exception of what took place on Friday night, he thought the Government had shown a disposition rather to withhold information. He did not think that the frequent appeals which the noble Lord had made to the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater to withdraw his Motion were very creditable to him or satisfactory to the House. He did not indeed believe that the noble Lord was capable of writing anything he was ashamed of. But it must be remembered that the French Government were not ashamed of their despatches. The despatch to the Government of Berne, which they all read with so much emotion yesterday, appeared the day before in the Moniteur, and therefore he hoped that the answer to the despatch, as well as the other papers to which he had alluded, would soon be laid on the table of the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Several questions have been addressed to me in the course of this discussion, to which I shall now proceed to answer as distinctly as I can. In the first place, I must say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) who complained that I am not ready to give an account of the salaries and allowance to
1174
Lord Elgin and the officers going out in his suite. The gallant Officer explains his object to be that there should be only one mission to China, and that Mr. Bruce should be recalled on the Earl of Elgin going out. Now with regard to that measure, in the first place, I have always understood that when an individual undertakes a special mission, besides his salary his actual expenses are to be paid. The only time when we can obtain an account of these disbursements is after the mission is concluded, so that we cannot have it in the case of Lord Elgin till after the financial year is over. It is, therefore, impossible that I should make any estimate of the expense. But with regard to the recall of Mr. Bruce, I never could have gone to Lord Elgin and insult him by telling him that it was intended as a mark of degradation to his brother that I asked him to go out to China. Lord Elgin will go for the time—a short time, I hope—that his services may be necessary; and in the meantime the regular mission will be maintained there. Lord Elgin has recently been to Paris and has had an interview with the Emperor of the French, with M. Thouvenel, and with Baron Gros, and I am happy to say we have come to a general agreement as to the instructions to be given; and I hope that before long Lord Elgin will be able to set out on his mission, and Baron Gros, on the part of the Emperor of the French, will set out about the same time; and I trust this House will not be induced to diminish the efficacy of their mission by any discussion in the meantime. The next question referred, I think, to Morocco. The gallant officer who put it (Colonel Dunne) might have seen some months ago in the Gazette, and since in the papers laid before Parliament, the securities which we have taken with respect to Tangier. The Spanish Government when they contemplated asking from the Morocan Government reparations which Morocco was not likely to give, stated that their warlike operations could not be confined to any particular spot. We asked them that they should not attempt to take or to occupy Tangier. We said it was of great importance to us. And, therefore, while we took no part in the war, and did not mean to take any part, we could not interfere with the military operations of Spain but we asked in the most friendly manner that if Spain should occupy Tangier it should not be permanently annexed, and that it should not be retained as a gua-

1175
rantee for any indemnity to be paid after the ratification of peace. To that proposal the Spanish Government agreed. The correspondence on the subject has been already laid before Parliament, and I have no doubt that the Spanish Government will adhere faithfully to her engagements. The Moorish Government have lately proposed a large indemnity to Spain, and if the Spanish Government accept those terms and the ratification of the territorial boundaries of Ceuta, be settled in the manner Spain desires, the war will soon be concluded. If not, it is impossible for me to say how long Spain may occupy Tangier and the other points on the Moorish coast. The next question put to me relates to the memoir which the Swiss Government have sent to this country some time since. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) before asked me if that memoir would be presented, and an address has been ordered for it. It is now in the printer's hands, and, though it is of considerable length, I hope it will soon be on the table of the House. The map which accompanied it is one of great detail, and could not be produced without great expense and time; but we are endeavouring to give an' outline of it, showing the boundaries of the provinces as they stood by the treaty of 1814. I trust also that that map will soon be on the table. Now, the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) next asks me whether I will lay on the table extracts from my private correspondence. I cannot accede to such a proposition. I cannot lay on the table of this House parts of my private letters. But I think the hon. Gentleman, if he had looked to the papers on the table, would have found the substance of them contained in the public despatches. Thus, on the 4th of July, when Earl Cowley gives a report of a conversation he had had with Count Walewski, and he says:—
"I regret to say that his Excellency's language was not over satisfactory. He stated, indeed, that he could give me the positive assurance that there was no understanding whatever upon the subject between France and Sardinia, but he did not deny that the Question had been more than once discussed, and that the Emperor had entertained the idea that if Sardinia was to become a large Italian kingdom it was not unreasonable to expect that she should make territorial concessions elsewhere."
The language of this despatch is more than once repeated. Lord Cowley always spoke of Count Walewski as maintaining that if
1176
Sardinia should become a large kingdom he should not consider it unreasonable that the French territory should be strengthened by the annexation of Savoy. Still further, on the 27th of January, speaking of an interview with Count Thouvenel on this subject, Earl Cowley says—
"I mentioned the matter this afternoon to M. Thouvenel. I said that I had no authority from your Lordship to speak to him, but that as Count Walewski had, some months ago, given me a solemn assurance that the idea of annexation, if once entertained; had been abandoned, I could not avoid asking, in the midst of all the rumours that were in circulation, whether His Excellency had any information to give me."
Therefore Lord Cowley stated that on the 27th of January this idea of annexation was abandoned, on the signature of peace. Count Walewski always maintained that the peace of Villafranca, and, after that, the Treaty of Zurich, obliged the French Emperor to use every means, short of actual force, to restore the Archdukes of Tuscany and Modena; and then he went on to say—
"But if that should not be effected, and if the King of Sardinia should have his territories very much increased, recollect what I before told you, that some territorial concession on his part will be expected."
That, therefore, was mere conversation, it did not allude to anything that was going to be done. What was going to be done was to call a Congress, and before that Congress I had no doubt that, among other things, Count Walewski would have brought the question of the restoration of the Grand Duke and the Dukes of Modena and Parma. If he had made any proposition at all, that undoubtedly would be the proposition he would have made. Therefore it was not immediately in question whether the King of Sardinia should cede Savoy; for if the Grand Dukes had been restored there would have been no question whatever of the annexation of Savoy to France. I do not see that the production of my private correspondence would add anything to this information. The hon. Gentleman says further, that he regrets I will not produce the despatch we have received from M. Thouvenel, and the answer of Her Majesty's Government. Well, I certainly said, when I informed the House I had received the Despatch, that I hoped to be able to produce both it and the answer immediately afterwards. But I am obliged by a sense of duty to act inconsistently, because other negotiations have since intervened. Switzerland has made an appeal to us, which I received only this morning;

1177
and the production of a despatch in the midst of negotiations would be like inviting the House to dictate the answer before the other papers are properly considered. Such a course would, not only be contrary to precedent, but contrary to every principle recognized by the constitution. The question, I repeat, is still matter of negotiation, for it is necessary that we should communicate with the different Powers of Europe. It is, therefore, impossible for me to produce those papers in the midst of such negotiations. As soon as I can produce them consistently with my sense of duty I will do so, for I have no inclination to keep back from the House any part of this correspondence. The hon. Gentleman says that the French Government have published their despatches. But I think he must be aware that the position of the French Government is somewhat different from ours. M. Thouvenel's despatch is no doubt printed in the Moniteur, but there is not an assembly there where discussions can be raised upon it, nor newspapers to make free comments on it. It remains in the pages of the Moniteur no doubt for the consideration of the French people, but certainly it is not exposed to the freedom of hostile criticism. I do not think that is a benefit. In this country the case is wholly different, and I am glad that it is so, but still it is prudent, under such circumstances, that the English Government should display some reserve.
MR. DISRAELI: I am quite sure, Sir, that no Minister will appeal in vain for the forbearance of the English Parliament whilst important negotiations are pending, and, therefore, after what has fallen from the noble Lord, I should not have offered a single observation on the subject to which he has alluded; but he has made a statement as to the intimation given by the French Government, and his official silence between June of last year and January of the present year respecting this annexation, which appears to me so calculated to mislead the House—of course unintentionally—that I cannot allow it to pass unnoticed. During the discussion the other night, I understood the noble Lord to vindicate the apparent neglect with which he treated these intimations throughout, because he was of opinion that they were, in fact, intimations of no great authority—of a threatening character, no doubt, but not seriously practical in their bearing. But the First Minister, who followed the noble
1178
Lord, did not seem to be satisfied with that position, and took the ground that it was the then expected Congress which was the reason why these intimations were not attended to with the sedulous care which might have been expected upon a point of such importance. Accordingly, the noble Lord has now changed his position, and has adopted that taken by the First Minister. In order to explain and vindicate his apparent neglect, the noble Lord now says—"A Congress was expected, and there it was we thought that these questions would be settled." But the noble Lord can hardly suppose that the House of Commons will accept, as a conclusion which is to influence their judgment on this subject, the statement that these important points were to be decided at a Congress. We all know, practically, that a Congress is not a deliberative assembly. What should we think of the noble Lord, if, not having brought forward a Reform Bill, and being called upon to redeem his pledge, he were to say, "We have no such measure prepared, because we knew that Parliament was going to meet, and could do all that is necessary?" Now, a Congress was never yet called together without previous discussion by the Ministers of the different Powers of the principal questions for settlement there, or otherwise the Plenipotentiaries could do but little. A Congress is called upon to settle details and register decisions; and if in this case a Congress was expected, it is only natural that, long before it met, the utmost communication should take place between the English and French Governments, in order that an understanding should be arrived at on the chief points of difference between them. I cannot, therefore, either from the First Minister, or from the noble Lord, accept this as any excuse whatever for their still mysterious silence. The very fact that a Congress was about to take place, furnished an additional reason why, some time before it met, much more frequent, precise, and earnest communications should have taken place between the two Governments than are to be found in the papers, in order that when our representatives went to the Congress, they should be prepared for so startling a proposition as that for the annexation of these provinces. If that proposition had been made for the first time in a Congress, it could have led to nothing else than a break up of the assembly. Besides, all expectation of a Congress had vanished towards

1179
the end of the year, and therefore we have heard no sufficient explanation of the silence and seeming negligence which have been adverted to. I must now, also, refer to another point, and that is the question of private letters. I lay it down, as a principle in the management of affairs, that there ought to be a complete record in the Foreign Office of all the transactions of the Government. Upon that principle the House ought to insist. The noble Lord says he will not lay his private letters on the table. Sir, we do not ask the noble Lord to produce his private letters. All we ask of the Government is, that they should keep a complete diplomatic record during their tenure of office, and that they are bound to furnish. There are instances in the blue-book respecting Italy, placed on the table by the late Government, in which extracts from private letters are printed. The noble Lord is, in my opinon, equally bound to give in the present papers extracts from his private letters, but those extracts ought to have been registered in the Foreign Office for the guidance of those who come after him. So far as I can gather from the noble Lord's observations on this most important topic, there is at this moment no complete record of the transactions in which the country has been engaged respecting this very grave subject. The noble Lord retains his private letters in his despatch-boxes, and they give him all the information he requires; but I maintain that as there is no public despatch on these points, and as the results of these private letters have been intimated in the despatches on the table, it is the noble Lord's duty to place in the Foreign Office a complete narrative of the diplomacy of the country for the information of his successor. The noble Lord speaks as though it was a violation of confidence to publish an extract from the private letters of an ambassador; but he has not, generally speaking, Shown an over-sensitive delicacy on such points. In the third part of the Italian papers is a despatch, dated Berlin, March 3, 1860, from Lord Bloomfield, and if ever there were a diplomatic communication which should have been withheld, this is one. It gives—what could only have been known to Lord Bloomfield in the strictest confidence—a narrative by the Prussian Minister of a communication which he had received from the French Minister at Berlin, Prince de la Tour d'Auvergne. To my great surprise, and to the astonishment, I should think, of all
1180
the diplomatists in Europe, this letter is given; and what communications will ever be made to the present Government by the representatives of foreign Powers after such a publication^ very doubtful. Compared with it the private letters of Ambassadors are nothing, and yet this is quietly published. The noble Lord, therefore, has shown that he is not influenced by a too delicate susceptibility; and, indeed, in the very last papers issued, bearing on the state of Naples, there is a letter of menace addressed virtually to the King of Naples, which His Majesty cannot at this moment have received, and which has yet been laid on the table. I make no comment on the Neapolitan papers at present. I take it for granted that, having placed them on the table, the noble Lord challenges by that act our decision with respect to them. I think that decision must be given. I think it necessary that this portion of the noble Lord's diplomacy must be examined; and that for the sake of dignity and decorum in our intercourse with foreign and independent Sovereigns the letter to the King of Naples should be fully considered by this House. However, I shall pass over that point now, merely rose to point out that the reason given by the Government to show why they took no notice of the intimations made by the French Government—namely, the expected meeting of a Congress—rather aggravates their negligence than excuses it, because, believing that a Congress was imminent, it was even more decidedly their duty to have arrived at such an understanding with the French Government as would have ensured that the Congress would not break up without coming to any decision at all, which it would certainly have done if the noble Lord's view as to the mode of conducting public business had been adopted.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot allow the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman respecting the functions of a Congress to pass unquestioned. "Everybody knows," he says, "that a Congress is not a deliberative assembly, and that it meets only to record decisions." Now I take leave to say, with submission, that the functions which he ascribes to a Congress are precisely those which a Congress does not perform. The special duty of a Congress is to deliberate. It is for that purpose that the representatives of different Powers meet, in order to discuss and consider round a table matters which, if discussed by correspondence between the re-

1181
spective Cabinets, never could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion,. Indeed, the very invitation which in this case was sent to the different Powers implied deliberation, because the Congress was to take cognizance of the Treaty of Zurich and also to deliberate upon measures for establishing for the future the external and internal independence of Italy. That was a question for deliberation, and, if there was not to be deliberation, there was no need of a Congress. The right hon. Gentleman says it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to settle beforehand with France this question of Savoy, in order that, having settled it, a Congress might ratify the arrangement thus come to. Now, whereas upon that question France held one opinion and England another, if a Congress were called together our object would have been to enlist on our side the opinions and the influence of the other Powers represented in the Congress. And it is obvious that such a measure would be more likely to induce the Government of France to yield something upon this question than to expect England and France, meeting together and discussing the matter between themselves, should come to a decision such as we should wish the result to be. Therefore it is quite plain that if your object is, in any question between England and a foreign Power, to induce the foreign Power to yield an opinion and to ferego an intention, the best method of doing that is to wait until you meet in the presence of four or five, or a greater number of other Powers, because it would be easier for the Power whose opinion was changed to yield its opinion in deference to the wish of the assembled Congress than to give way to the wish of a single Power. The right hon. Gentleman has, therefore, misled the House as to the nature and functions of a Congress, and of the expediency of the course that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government. Now as to private letters. According to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman every private letter should be converted into a public despatch. [Mr. DISRAELI: "No, no."] I say yes—any private letter that contains anything of public matters. [Mr. DISRAELI: "No, no."] I repeat my assertion. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in office, and from the office he held must have followed the course of diplomatic transactions carried on by his noble colleague the late Foreign Minister, must know that every
1182
packet from abroad bringing public despatches also brings from the Minister who sends the despatches private confidential letters referring to circumstances not sufficiently certain or not sufficiently important to be placed in the formal shape of a despatch, in which communications are made of circumstances learnt from conversations, and which it would be impossible for the person who receives them to lay before Parliament without placing the agent who wrote those letters in a position that would exclude him thereafter from all means of information which it is essential he should obtain. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has established the doctrine that my noble Friend has departed from the usual course in drawing a marked line of separation between private letters and public despatches. The right hon. Gentleman, in his argument, very easily changed the word applicable to the matter of which he was speaking. He said, "Here is a letter from Naples, and here is another from some other Foreign Court. You produce them but you do not produce the letters from Earl Cowley." But they are not letters, they are despatches; and the right hon. Gentleman should remember to apply the proper word to the proper thing. What my noble Friend produces are despatches placed upon the records of the Foreign Office. What he declines to produce are confidential letters, which it was his duty to receive, and which it is equally his duty not to lay before the House.
MR. DISRAELI: What I said was this:—That no Minister should lay papers upon the table of the House referring to private letters without producing them, if they relate, of course, to public affairs. A Minister may receive twenty private letters a-day and give no account of them; but, if in the papers laid upon the table of the House there is a reference to private letters, then the Minister is bound to produce those letters or extracts from them.
MR. HORSMAN: Sir, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Foreign Minister at the conclusion of his speech that the Government were about to enter into communication with the other Powers concerning the protest of Switzerland. The whole of this question about France and her territorial aggrandizement is of European interest, and we ought to know that Her Majesty's Government have not treated it as a question simply to be discussed between England and France, but one in which the joint action should be invited

1183
of all the Powers that were parties to the treaties of 1815. I agree that, in a case where negotiations are pending, the House of Commons cannot be too forbearing in pressing for information, but the withholding of information may be carried too far because there are cases in which it is the duty of Parliament to interfere. I felt long ago that the question of the threatened annexation of Savoy was one of those cases. We know that the French Emperor is very amenable to public opinion, and particularly to the public opinion of England. We know that any expression on the part of this country carries greater weight on the Continent, both in deterring the strong and encouraging the weak, than the despatches of any Minister or any Cabinet. I believe that if at an early period of this question a discussion had been allowed to take place, and an expression of opinion to be given strengthening the policy and views of the Administration, it would have had a great effect in averting some of the events which we are now all deploring. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater came forward weeks ago and warned us of the direction in which events were marching, and he was always stopped by being told of the responsibility he would incur by interfering, and which this House would incur by forcing on a discussion. We were told to allow the Government to deal with the French Emperor unincumbered by the assistance of the House of Commons. The House of course, was obliged to how. But now matters have progressed—what might have been averted has come to pass, and the fact of Her Majesty's Government being in communication, and properly so, with the other Powers, shows that we are approaching something similar to what may be called a crisis, which I think an earlier discussion in this House might have prevented. But while the House is thus forbearing, those in authority ought also to be forbearing. I heard a speech of the noble Lord the First Minister last week with surprise and regret. He went out of his way to become not only the apologist, but even the eulogist of the Emperor of the French.
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is out of order in referring to a past debate.
MR. HORSMAN: It was a debate upon the same subject.
MR. SPEAKER: It was an incidental discussion on a Motion for the adjournment of the House. In the progress of a Bill
1184
reference may be made to debates on former stages; but that rule does not apply to debates raised in this way on Motions for adjournment.
MR. HORSMAN: We are discussing the correspondence upon the affairs of Italy. The noble Lord the Secretary of State has himself alluded to a despatoh which he told us he received last week from M. Thouvenel, and I was about to allude to the speech he made then. I believe I am in order in saying that on Friday last we were informed by the noble Lord that he had received a despatch from M. Thouvenel, which he said was of great gravity, in which it was announced that the annexation of Savoy was about to take place, and that the consent of the other Powers would not be required. We had received just before from the noble Lord at the head of the Government a very different declaration, in the expression of his belief that the annexation of Savoy would not take place without the assent of the great Powers. That was in the middle of last week, at a time when no one in this House had received information that the annexation was determined upon, and when all the newspapers in Europe spoke of it as an accomplished fact, and yet we were told by the First Minister of the Crown that his firm belief was that the annexation of Savoy would not take place without the consent of the great Powers. He strengthened that opinion by reminding us of the previous career of the Emperor of the French—his assurance that "his empire was peace," and also telling us that the campaign in Italy was not at variance with that declaration. After that—
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is transgressing the rules of order.
MR. HORSMAN: Then, I will only say that while, on the one hand, we are refraining from discussing this question, and have been refraining for a whole month at the request of the Government—while we do that, we ought to be sure that the Government will not, on their part, give expression to views against which we feel it our imperative duty to protest.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, ha could not but express his deep regret that there had been no discussion on this subject to elicit the feeling of the House. In confirmation of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Stroud, he would read an extract from a letter from Nice, dated the 20th inst., in which the writer said—"Nine-tenths of

1185
the population of Nice are opposed to the annexation." The result of the conduct of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in deprecating discussion, has been that we have entirely lost all prestige with the Piedmontese, for they say—"It is evident that the English Government is truckling to the French Emperor, and that is the opinion of every individual I have seen," As the Easter vacation was approaching, he (Mr. Cochrane) thought the noble Lord ought to assure the House that an opportunity would be afforded for a clear expression of its opinions before the annexation of Savoy to France became irrevocable.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I may be permitted to say, on behalf of my noble Friend, who is precluded from again addressing the House on this question, that he is not aware that, in expressing his opinions with respect to it, he has ever done more than state what is unquestionably a matter of fact—that there was a declaration made by the Emperor of the French to the effect that it was his intention to consult the great Powers of Europe in reference to the proposed annexation of Savoy. My noble Friend merely added that the construction which he should put upon that declaration was, that it was the purpose of the Emperor, in consulting the great Powers of Europe, to do something more than simply state his intentions in the matter. I think it also necessary that I should, on the part of the Government, say a few words in reply to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, (Mr. Horsman), because any one who listened to him might suppose that during the last month or six weeks the name of Savoy had never been mentioned in this House. Now, it is quite true that there has been on this subject of the annexation of Savoy no full discussion, terminating in a clear and satisfactory expression of the opinion of the House of Commons with respect to it; but my right hon. Friend, as well as the hon. Gentleman opposite, would appear to be unaware of the fact that the question has been repeatedly raised of late in the course of our proceedings. The fact is, that within the last few weeks we have heard speeches delivered within these walls, in which the strongest language has been used in reference to the whole question, and judgments have been pronounced, and epithets employed, which, in the opinion of Her Ma-
1186
jesty'a Government and others, might have hereafter the effect of exercising a detrimental influence on the state of public feeling in a neighbouring country. I cannot, however, suppose that my right hon. Friend is really unaware of this fact, for he himself has taken a leading part in the discussions to which I allude. No hon. Member, indeed, has been so precipitate as he in his treatment of this question, so far as the use of language is concerned, which could have no other effect than to inflame, exasperate, and, in the natural course of things, produce angry feeling in the minds of the French Government and people, who would be likely to be urged on rather than impeded in the pursuit of a particular line of policy, by having insulting expressions employed with respect to the course which they were taking.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid: Sir, the private Members of this House are placed in a difficult position, particularly with regard to foreign affairs; for when negotiations in reference to a particular question are pending we are told it is too soon to discuss the matter, and then when the question is almost settled we are told we are too late. A statement which has just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, however, I think, to be placed before the House and the country in its true light. He has told us that the noble Lord at the head of the Government expressed it to be his opinion that the Emperor of the French would not proceed to the annexation of Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe, and that he would not be contented with simply stating his intention on the subject. Now, all I can say is that at this very moment I believe the question of annexation to be settled, and settled, too, without any reference whatever having been made by the Emperor of the French to the great Powers of Europe. Let the House, then, judge for itself as to the value which ought to be attached to statements emanating from that quarter (the Treasury bench). For my part, I held such statements very cheap even before this evening, but after the very candid acknowledgment which we have just had from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, there is no term which I could use sufficiently expressive of my estimation of their utter worthlessness.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to make an explanation in reply to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said

1187
that he had made use of exasperating language.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may make an explanation of anything which has fallen from him if his words have been misunderstood; but he cannot, in accordance with the rules of the House, reply to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. HORSMAN: I was merely going to observe that when the right hon. Gentleman imputed to me the use of insulting language.—[Cries of "Order, order!"]
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he trusted that under present circumstances the debate would not be allowed to go on. He had long believed that the annexation of a large part of Savoy to France was inevitable. There was now, however, before Europe a great question of public right with respect to the frontier and neutrality of Switzerland. he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to that point, and that they would consult with the other Powers of Europe in order to secure the neutrality of the provinces on the Swiss frontier.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would take advantage of the opportunity at length afforded him of replying to two questions which had been put to him in the early part of the evening. He would first refer to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Fergusson) as to the rewards to military officers, though he must decline to go into the case of individual officers. The Government at home were mainly guided in bestowing rewards for military services in India by the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief in that country. The rewards which were conferred on military officers consisted, for the most part, of promotion and the Order of the Bath, and he might state that every officer who had been recommended by the Commander-in-Chief for brevet promotion had obtained that reward. With regard to the Order of the Bath he had to observe that the number of officers who had been recommended for it was so great as to exceed the proportion in which that honour was allotted to officers in the Indian service. It had, however been conferred on some, and the remainder had been brought under the notice of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, with the view of their obtaining the distinction when the reduction of the number enjoying it had been brought below the appointed level. Nothing, he might add, could be more distinguished than
1188
the services of the 2nd Bombay Light Cavalry, and two of the officers of that regiment had consequently been raised to the rank of major. In the case of the Civil Service, some delay in conferring the honours which it was in contemplation to bestow had arisen. That delay had its origin in the fact that a despatch had been received from Earl Canning which contained only a partial report as to the persons whom he desired to recommend for reward, while he at the same time announced it to be his intention to send a supplementary despatch embracing, in conjunction with the first, the names of all those persons. It had been deemed the more satisfactory course, therefore, to de-for taking any stops in the matter until that despatch had arrived, and now that that was the case he trusted no further delay would take place.
The next question was, that of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Sykes)—whether there was any foundation for the report that the whole Native army of India was about to be abolished? Well, his answer was that there was no foundation whatever for the statement. He was very much grieved to see such a statement in the newspapers, which would, no doubt, cause great excitement among the officers of that branch of the service in India. But he repeated there was no foundation for the report of any reduction being made in that force. He was afraid his hon. Friend (Colonel Sykes) would be alarmed in another direction when he told him that the military expenditure in Bombay was higher this year than last, while the expenditure in Madras was no less. They could not go on long with an expenditure exceeding the income. A portion of the returns moved for by his hon. Friend could not be made out without reference to India; but as to another portion he might say that two additional clerks had been employed in their preparation ever since they were ordered, but he was afraid it would be some considerable time yet before they were completed.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONbegged to state that he had used the case of Major Taylor merely for the sake of illustration.

CONDUCT OF DEBATE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. KINGLAKE: Sir. I rise only to express my great astonishment at the charge which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought proper to throw out against ray right hon.

1189
Friend the Member for Stroud. Sir, I hold that one of the great duties of a Member of Parliament is to observe due decorum while speaking in this House of foreign potentates, and my right hon. Friend would have been grievously wanting in his duty had he indulged in any improper language with reference to the Emperor of the French. But, Sir, I have been present during all the discussions, on this Savoy question, and I can declare that I know of nothing said by my right hon. Friend that justifies the charge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to throw out against him. And, before I sit down, Sir, I must express the great dissatisfaction with which I heard the appeal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to couple with this charge. He seemed, as I understood him, to endeavour to influence the mind of this House by suggesting to it something like a fear that the language used by Members hero may give displeasure to the Emperor of the French. Sir, I protest against the notion that language in this House is to be adapted to the taste of the Emperor of the French.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would confess that his inclination was to draw closer the tics that existed between this country and Franco. At the same time he could not help thinking that on several occasions since the commencement of the Session there had been something like moral intimidation used by Ministers towards independent Members of that House. He admitted the difficulties of the Government with reference to the Savoy question, arising not from their conduct, but from the lust of dominion manifested, and the changing views of other parties; but Ministers ought not to forget the deference they owed to the independence of the House from which they derived all their authority.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.—INCOME TAX.

  COMMITTEE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would take that
  1190
  opportunity of calling attention to a very serious subject in connection with the collection of the income tax which had been brought under the notice of the House by a petition from the inhabitants of one of the largest parishes in the metropolis. The matter did not interest them merely, but the whole country—for similar proceedings might occur in any parish in the country. The management of the income tax in the parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, was under Commissioners appointed by the Crown; and a surveyor was also appointed by the Crown. The petitioners stated further that a conspiracy had been entered into between the surveyor and the collectors to defraud the inhabitants and the Government. The nature of the conspiracy was that, the collector should deliver to the inhabitants notes of charge, while the surveyor should make a return of charge to the Commissioner very much less than that which ought to be made on the inhabitants in respect of their income; and that the charge so entered on the roll, having been approved by the Commissioners, then a note should be delivered demanding a higher rate from the taxpayers. Thus a difference being established between the roll delivered in to the Commissioners on the one hand, and the claim made upon the inhabitants on the other, there would be a sum which, if they could collect it, would be put into their own pockets without accounting to the Crown. In pursuance of that system the inhabitants received the usual note, stating that they had been assessed at a certain sum, while the surveyor made the roll bear a much smaller amount. The larger sum was demanded from and paid by the inhabitants, the smaller one being accounted for to the Crown, and the balance was divided between the collector and the surveyor, and appropriated by them to their own advantage. That was a most extraordinary mode of collecting the income tax, and showed that a door was open to the perpetration of fraud in any part of the kingdom, if the duties of the Commissioners, the surveyor, and the collectors might be discharged as they had been in the parish of St. Leonard's, which had presented its complaint. When these malpractices were discovered the serveyor absconded, but it did not appear that any effective measures were taken either by the local Commissioners, or by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, to follow him, and he had hitherto entirely escaped. One of the collectors,

  1191
  however, among the rest was seized, taken before a magistrate, and prosecuted. He had been subsequently indicted for obtaining money under false pretences, by demanding from an inhabitant a sum which he was not entitled to demand according to the roll of assessment. That indictment was tried in the usual way at the Central Criminal Court; but in so serious a case, involving an extensive system of fraud upon the public revenue, adequate steps were not taken by the Government to carry on the prosecution in an efficient manner. The case was not entrusted, as it ought to have been, to any counsel of the standing and experience necessary for conducting it; and the result was that on a technical point the collector was acquitted. No one else had been punished; no proper course had been pursued for probing these frauds to the bottom; and the inhabitants of the parish had been brought to the conclusion that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were really desirous of throwing a veil over these unpleasant transactions, and, in short, wished to hush them up. Any such proceeding must be detrimental to the public interest; for it was obviously of the highest importance that if surveyors and collectors of taxes were guilty of these delinquencies they ought to be punished to the uttermost. That, then, was the complaint deliberately made by the inhabitants of the parish of St. Leonard's under their common seal. He had communicated their petition to Her Majesty's Government, who had had an opportunity of making inquiries into its accuracy; and he was very anxious to hear what measures had been adopted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to examine into these frauds and prosecute their perpetrators with effect. Had those Commissioners taken steps to prevent the recurrence of these delinquencies? For it seemed plainly in the power of any surveyor and collector, combining together in the manner he had described, to take advantage of the reluctance of the income tax payer to undergo the vexation and exposure of his affairs incidental to an appeal against surcharge, and thus to put into their own pockets the excess over the sums returned in the assessment roll furnished to the Government. Under these circumstances he had felt it incumbent on him to bring under the notice of the House what appeared to be a neglect of duty on the part of the Government authorities.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am sure no person could
  1192
  think of finding fault with the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to a subject of this nature. There are, if I understand him, two points of view in which he is disposed to consider it; but to one of them I do not attach great importance, because I am not aware that there is any evidence to lead us to suppose that any grievance has been suffered by the inhabitants of this parish. They have undoubtedly been subjected by certain officers to an assessment higher than the amounts paid over in respect of their incomes to the Government. But it does not appear that they have been assessed above the sums legally due from them, or that they have suffered any loss in this particular case any more than the rest of the community. I am far from complaining of their petition. On the contrary, I think it important that the inhabitants of every district in the kingdom should take an interest in the collection of the revenue of the country; and therefore, I hold that their conduct in this respect is laudable. But there is no reason to suppose they have been overcharged. Indeed, whatever may be the grievances incidental to the collection of the income tax, I do not think over-assessment is one of them. But the hon. Gentleman points out the great loss sustained by the public treasury from the frauds of those engaged in collection. It is certainly to be regretted that the public revenue has suffered that loss, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that all the persons guilty of these frauds were appointed by the Government. The surveyor is certainly one of these persons, and was an officer appointed by the Government. But the collector, whom I take to have borne a much more important part in this matter, and another individual, who may be called an under clerk, were both of them the officers of the local authorities. This question is of great importance, inasmuch as it directs the attention of the House to the way in which the public revenue is occasionally jeopardized, perhaps from the want of that control over the collectors of the Queen's taxes which the Government might possess if those collectors were in their apppointment. The hon. Gentleman rather seems to charge the authorities of Somerset House with indifference, or even opposition, to the due collection of the revenue, and with a desire to hush up cases of this kind. This is the first time I have ever heard any insinuation of want of zeal thrown out against those gentlemen in the discharge of their

  1193
  very arduous duties; and I do not think there is any colourable ground for complaining of them in this instance. The surveyor has absconded, and it has been found impossible to lay hands on him. That is a misfortune that may happen without implying any lack of energy or vigilance on their part. The prosecution against the collector failed, and failed, as the hon. Gentleman says, on a technical point; but there is not the slightest reason for attributing that failure to any blameable conduct of the Revenue Department. They felt it their duty to take the highest legal opinion as to the means available for doing justice in this case; and the unfortunate result is not duo to any want of prudence or diligence shown by the Board. It is my intention at a later—but I hope not a very late—period of the Session, to propose to Parliament a Bill which may have the effect of giving satisfaction to a feeling which appears to prevail to some extent in the country—namely, that the collection of these taxes should be brought, at least in certain cases, under the direct control and responsibility of the Government. At present the control possessed by the Government is very imperfect, their responsibility being imperfect in the same proportion. I shall not, however, forestall that subject. I only mention it to show that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it and the other important topics which this petition raises.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobserved that he was glad to hear the announcement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The petitioners might not have suffered any special grievance in this case; but the payers of taxes had a direct interest in the honesty of the collectors, and in the prosecution of any defaulter by the Government, because there were instances in which, owing to such frauds, persons had been called upon to pay their assessed taxes over again. He rejoiced that there was a prospect of an early remedy for these serious irregularities.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he had heard many statements made in that House about the injustice and impolicy of the income tax; but he was convinced, after a most careful inquiry of the whole question that upon every ground of fairness, policy, and justice, that tax ought to be continued. At the same time he thought it ought to be so levied as to press equally on all classes. He contended that the poor man who in-
  1194
  dulged himself at the close of his day's work with a glass of spirits and water, or a pipe of tobacco, contributed by doing so a larger proportion of his earnings to the revenue than the more opulent classes did. The same remark applied to the case of tea and sugar, cocoa, and other colonial and foreign articles of produce. The revenue derived from these indirect sources of consumption amounted in the aggregate to £36,000,000, and of this sum a much larger amount was contributed by persons of £150 a year and less, in proportion to their incomes, than the wealthier classes of the country. This fact should, in his opinion, reconcile the rich merchants and landowners to a somewhat higher rate of income tax, in order to relieve those who could so ill afford it, and who could only pay it by denying themselves the few luxuries, and even some of the necessaries, they enjoyed.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should put the Resolution relating to the income tax into the hands of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair, without any lengthened explanation, because, in point of fact, in the various discussions on the Budget and the Commercial Treaty almost all the general topics which bore on the subject had been considerably dealt with. The exact state of the case was, that according to the calculations he made on the 10th of February, which be believed were the safest possible at that period, the anticipated revenue, in case of the House should vote all the regular charges, and should vote the income tax, as expressed in the Resolution he held in his hand, would leave a probable surplus of £400,000. A reduction of the tax proposed in that Resolution would result in a deficiency of probably the same amount. He should be most happy to give any explanation on the subject in answer to any observations that might fall from Members of the Committee, but he must decline at that moment to enter into a discussion of the general question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,
  "There shall be charged, collected, and paid, for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April, 1860, for and in respect of all property, profits, and gains, charged or chargeable under the Act

  1195
  passed in the 16th and 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, for granting to Her Majesty duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices, either by assessment, contract of composition, or otherwise, the following rates and duties, that is to say: Upon any assessment on the annual value or amount of any property, profits, or gains (except property, profits, and gains chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the rate or Duty of Ten Pence for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of all such property, profits, and gains respectively; and for and in respect of the occupation of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act, the rate or duty of Five Pence in England, and of Three Pence Halfpenny in Scotland and Ireland respectively, for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value thereof."
  LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, that the proposition to limit the operation of this tax to one year was a mere delusion. He would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman had said in his financial statement that the only way in which the income tax could be affected was by the reduction of our military and naval expenditure; but could any one suppose that, under existing circumstances, such a reduction would take place? Looking at the unsettled state of Europe, and to the consequences which might be expected to result from an attempted or accomplished act of spoliation and aggrandizement, no one could help arriving at the conclusion that henceforth our only security for peace would be in the maintenance of an armed watchfulness and continued state of military and naval preparation. So long as that expenditure was necessitated the income tax must be kept at 10 d. It was therefore a mere delusion, and an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people to endeavour to persuade them that the income tax would only last a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, in his anxiety to carry his Budget, was quite willing to throw the responsibility of continuing the tax upon some future minister. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown away a large amount of money derived from indirect taxation, and it must be quite obvious that no further reduction could be in ado except by impairing our strength. It had been stated that the estimate for the military expenditure was not quite sufficient for this year, and also that the Government had not taken money enough to pay for the Chinese expedition, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer trusted to some clever arrangement and ingenious mystification—to some hocus pocus arrangement between the Indian Treasury and the
  1196
  Downing Street Exchequer to provide for the deficiency. After it was all over the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House and say he had made a mistake, and that the expenditure had exceeded the income, but as the money was all actually spent it was necessary that they should make it good. The present measure was not a wise and well-considered measure, after the example of the late Sir Robert Peel, who looked to the interests of futurity, but a mere patching up of the present revenue at the expense of the future. The right hon. Gentleman used formerly to sit on Conservative benches, and act on Conservative principle, but certainly this was not a Conservative measure. On the contrary, it was a proceeding quite in harmony with the rash and imprudent conduct of the ministry with respect to the whole of their financial arrangements. He could no see how it was possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out any well-founded hope that the income tax would not be required next year; but if he had he trusted he would explain the grounds of it to the Committee.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, that he did not see any reason why the naval and military expenditure should necessarily remain at their present high figure—namely, £10,000,000 more than in 1857, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power and when he could not but suppose that, I according to their view, the public service was efficiently provided for. He looked upon this extra £10,000,000 as so much capital invested, and which had become necessary in order to place our navy and our army upon an efficient footing as compared with the military forces of other powers, which had of late years, been making great exertions in that direction. But it was not to be supposed that we should be going on every year increasing the number of our steam war-ships, or adding to the stock of Armstrong guns and Enfield rifles. Next year, or the year after, the House must look this subject of the military expenditure of the country in the face, and decide the limit to which it should, under ordinary circumstances, extend; and whether they had ships enough, and weapons enough of a proper description, £20,000,000 a year would not be sufficient to cover all the charges of our army and navy. The income tax was in all respects objectionable. It was inquistorial and unfair between one man and another, and of which, after the repeated pledges

  1197
  that had been given, the country was heartily weary. He agreed to it on the present occasion, regarding it as, in effect, a war tax, and limited in its duration, according to the present intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the present year, and to be reduced or totally abolished next year. It might seem absurd to some hon. Gentleman that he should expect this, but they must remember that the £10,000,000 increase in the military estimates since 1858 exactly represented the whole of the tenpenny income tax, and if he was right in supposing that that £10,000,000 might be regarded as so much invested capital, and not as a permanent charge, there was no reason why next year or the year after the tax should not be abolished, unless, indeed, it was the pleasure of the House to make it a part of the permanent system of taxation. He now supported the income tax as a war tax, because they virtually had war Estimates; but he reserved to himself a full right to oppose it in a future year.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, he was not sanguine enongh to suppose that this tax would be abolished next year, and he had therefore given notice of his intention to move an Amendment, which it would be his duty at some future stage to bring under the notice of the House. As that Amendment stood upon the paper, it proposed to extend the 7d. rate which was to be allowed for incomes under £150 a year to all incomes under £500; but since giving notice of it he had come to the conclusion that considering the large amount of revenue the adoption of that proposal would sacrifice, it ought not to apply to incomes of above £300. His object was to relieve as many persons as possible, with the least loss to the revenue. It appeared that, according to a Return laid before Parliament last year, No. 119, taking schedule D, the number of persons paving on incomes between £150 and £200 was 41,031; from £200 to £300, 33,611; but if they exceeded this amount, and came to incomes between £300 and £400, there was a great and sudden drop in the number of individuals paying on them. The immediate decrease in the number, by the return, was 50 per cent, the number of persons possessing incomes between £300 and £400 being 15,524; whilst of incomes between £400 and £500 there were only 7,528. In Schedule E the diversity of incomes was even more remarkable. By extending the
  1198
  exemption he asked for, to incomes of £300, the revenue would lose £231,720 under these two Schedules. With the surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated on, he would ask him whether he could not afford to make this exemption. Probably he would say he could not; but he had hoped that he would have even extended it to incomes of £200. For, in 1853, when he was holding out a hope of the income tax ceasing, the right hon. Gentleman himself extended the tax to incomes of £100. Sir Robert Peel fixed the charge on incomes of £150, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it on the lower income, alleging the advantages the payers had derived from the remission of duties on articles of indirect taxation. His chief object in proposing the exemption was to decrease the pressure of the tax on persons of moderate means and precarious incomes.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he wished to warn the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Martin) that there was no chance of the income tax being reduced or ceasing. The House must not fancy for a moment that the expenditure for the navy would be a shilling less next year than in the present one. They might even make up their minds that it would be more expensive. In 1857 the navy had got to a very low state. The right hen. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had put it on a bettor footing. But we had been obliged to build an entire new navy. It was a wooden navy, and they had obtained some very fine ships. But what guarantee had they that this navy would be permanent? He had no notion that it would be so. Then they had to provide new guns for the whole navy; they would have to expend enormous sums in Armstrong's and Whitworth's guns. The sums charged this year would not give guns to more than one or two ships. France had six new iron frigates; the English Government was building two. If some arrangement could be made by which France would stand as she was as to ships, and England stand fast also, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer might hold out some hopes of the income tax ceasing next year. But England was compelled to build ships faster than the Emperor; England had more colonies, and it was impossible she could remain with only the same naval force as France and be in a state of safety. Then they had been told by the Secretary of the Admiralty that France had the means of

  1199
  manning a fleet—that England had not; that was a serious question for the House of Commons to consider. New establishments in which to build iron ships would be required, and new docks for them afterwards. What hope could the Chancellor of the Exchequer have of reducing the income tax? If the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had followed up his own views, and, when negotiating the French Treaty, made an arrangement that each country should only possess a certain number of ships of war, then both might be relieved from an immense expenditure, and they might have some hope of the income tax ceasing. But he believed the expenditure of the navy would be £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 in the next year. Then against the iron ships of war it was proposed to place iron forts all along the coast; there was a model of one in the Tea-room of the House, and if forts like it were to be built all round the country they would cost £12,000,000. A vote of £850,000 had been taken for the Chinese war; it was ridiculous to suppose that the war would be put an end to for that sum. They were sending 20,000 men and a large fleet to China; could they expect that £850,000 would do it? It was useless to think that the income tax would be reduced. They might make up their minds on having to pay 1s. in the pound next year. Europe was in a most unsatisfactory state; no one could tell to what lengths the Emperor of the French might go; he believed he meant mischief, and England must maintain a strong army and navy.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could not help regretting that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had departed from the understanding that before discussing the income tax they should have made some greater progress in the Estimates, in conformity with the rule generally laid down of voting supply before they came to discuss Ways and Means. It was not only a good rule in general, but there were particular reasons this year why it should not have been departed from. The House would then have proceeded to discuss the Ways and Means with minute information of what the expenditure would be. They were making a considerable change in the financial system, and it was important to know whether the Government could rely on the small surplus estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only Vote yet taken on account of
  1200
  the Army and Navy was that agreed to a few evenings since, a Vote on account of the Chinese war, amounting to £850,000; but even that Vote was not for the year 1860–61, but for an excess in the year 1859–60. That Vote was taken late at night, and the explanations which were then afforded had not proved satisfactory to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) and others. That a discrepancy existed between the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Secretary for War was evident, for in bringing forward the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that the amount of excess in relation to the Chinese expedition, which would have to be provided for in the Army and Navy Estimates for the year 1859–60, would be £1,170,000, whereas a Vote for £850,000 was all that had been taken. There was great difficulty in dealing with calculations of this description, and from his own experience at the Treasury he would say that Estimates coming from the War Office ought to be looked at with great caution. Parties there, if they had money enough for the purposes of the moment, were very much disposed to say that all was right, and to overlook claims which were outstanding. On one occasion the authorities at the War Office, he knew, had been extremely reluctant to admit that there was any deficiency at all, and yet it turned out that there was a deficiency of not less than a million. He should, therefore, rejoice if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury could give an assurance that they had looked into the accounts and had satisfied themselves that the excess to be provided for was in reality not more than £850,000. Any additional payments, whether to the Governor General of India or otherwise, would most seriously affect the surplus on which his right hon. Friend had counted. He wished also to know whether there was any truth in the statement that a large sum was to be raised by way of loan for the purpose of fortifying the country. If such were not the case, an assurance to that effect ought to be given; but if it were intended that a sum of anything like £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 should be raised, it was very desirable that the House should know how this was to be accomplished, and what was the amount of interest which it would be requisite to pay. Otherwise, if such a measure were in contemplation, it would render necessary a

  1201
  Supplementary Budget later in the year, a course which was always inconvenient to the House, as well as distasteful to the country. His right hon. Friend had indulged in one anticipation of a more agreeable character, to the effect that in the present year there would be a diminution of about £325,000 in the Civil Estimates. If this were really a diminution, it would be very important as laying the foundation of judicious retrenchment; but, on the other hand, if these were mere unexpended balances which were applied in payment of certain Votes, the diminution spoken of was only apparent. The House would doubtless feel that it was justified in being a little critical, owing to the peculiar character of the Budget which his right hon. Friend had introduced. He would not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any intention to "make things pleasant," as it was called; but he had certainly brought forward the Budget in such a way that the burdens which the country would have to bear did not at first sight appear in full force, and their extent could not he appreciated without looking very closely into the matter. They were not only called on to throw away sources of revenue, but the wants of the present year were made good by the employment of what might be called revenue, but which was in effect a forestalling of capital. £1,400,000 were taken up in this way on the malt and hop credits, and an additional million of Exchequer bonds were postponed or renewed. The income tax likewise was a burden of which the weight had not been fully estimated. It was regarded as a tax at the rate of 10 d. in the pound levied in the usual way, but the severity of the impost was increased by the fact that they were about to pay the amount for three-fourths of the year in the same period in which one-half was ordinarily levied. Under the old system, if a 5d. income tax were imposed, there would be a balance of £2,400,000 at the commencement of the next financial year; by doubling the rate to 10 d., therefore, the balance ought in like proportion to be £4,800,000; but the fact was, that in 1861–2 the sum remaining to be received would be only£2,150,000—so that an income tax virtually amounting to 15 d. in the pound was drawn this year from the pockets of the people. If this sum had been professedly and avowedly laid on, not only would there have been a larger sum in hand, and a smaller deficit to be encountered next year, but the people would have
  1202
  known the full weight of the burden which was to be laid upon them. As regarded the mode of its collection, the class which would suffer more severely than any other would be the tenant farmers, for whose benefit it had been stated this Budget was especially brought forward; because, not only would they have to pay their own income tax, but they would have to pay that of their landlords a quarter of a year earlier than usual. The right hon. Gentleman had given the House some very interesting statistics with regard to the increase of wealth in the country, more particularly that of the landed interest as represented in Schedules A and B, Since then the noble Lord the Member for Herefordshire (Lord W. Graham), and others had called attention to some of the fallacies, as they deemed them, in the calculation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This, at all events, was clear,—that the produce of taxation had increased in much greater proportion under the Schedules A and B than under any of the others, for it appeared that while the produce of taxation under Schedule D had only grown 9 per cent, that under Schedule A had grown 11, and that under Schedule B 19 per cent. The large increase in the local expenditure which had taken place likewise fell on these very classes, who, by the change in the system of taxation, were now called on to support much greater burdens than in former years. It should be remembered that a very large proportion of English capital went out of the country and found remunerative employment abroad, thereby freeing itself from the scope of taxation. This was a result of free trade, and to the same end there was every reason to believe that the recent Treaty with France would largely contribute. Under the new system there would be a great temptation to English capitalists to invest their capital in French manufactories, because they would have the command both of the French and of the English markets free of duty; whereas, if they invested in English manufactories, though they would still have command of the English markets, they would have to pay a duty of 30 per cent before their goods could be admitted to the French market. How far that would operate and on what class of manufactures he could not say, but he had no doubt that it would tell to a considerable extent, and his opinion was shared by men of practical experience. Of course, English capitalists were entitled to invest their capital wher-

  1203
  ever they pleased, but it was clear that if English capital went out of the country to any great extent our direct taxation would fall with increased seventy upon the capital invested in land, which could not leave the country. There was another consideration, and one of a very painful character. In 1853 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in comparing the pressure of the income tax upon Schedules A and B and Schedule D, pointed out that there were instances in which considerable frauds were committed by those who had to assess themselves under Schedule D. That statement was perfectly correct, and it so happened that, as a Member of a Commission appointed by the late Government, it fell to his lot to look into cases which had given him an insight into the way in which those self-assessments were carried on. Two years ago he was employed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Durham in investigating the claims of persons connected with the Ecclesiastical Courts for compensation in consequence of the abolition of their offices. Those claims were generally preferred with great fairness, and were substantiated by the production of books and accounts; but when he came to compare some of them with the returns which the claimants had made to the income tax he was astonished by the most painful disclosures. One gentleman, who stood very high in the profession to which he belonged, had paid income tax for some years on an average income of £3,000; but it was proved satisfactorily that his actual income had been double that amount, and in one year it had been £9,000. That gentleman, before he applied to the Treasury, paid to the Income-tax Commissioners arrears to the amount of £609, in order to enable himself to come into court. A very respectable firm proved that in five years they had made £31,432, but the amount they had returned to the income tax in the same period was no more than £8,800. In another case a gentleman claiming between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, and who was proved to have made more than £2,000 by his profession, had assessed himself for one year at £200 per annum. Afterwards his return rose to £1,161, and when questioned he stated that he had fixed upon that amount because he thought an odd figure would look better than a round sum. No doubt these were exceptional cases, but it was obvious that very considerable frauds were committed, and that the higher the in-
  1204
  come tax was raised the greater would be the temptation to persons who assessed themselves under Schedule D. This, at all events, was a matter which the Committee ought to consider before they resolved to retain the income tax as a permanent impost. But they were told that relief was to come in the shape of a reduction of expenditure. He was afraid that those who used that language were labouring under a delusion. Nobody who had listened to the speeches of the Secretary for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty, in introducing their estimates for the year, could believe that we had arrived at the limit of expenditure with regard either to the navy or to the army. There had been a large expenditure on the Armstrong gun, but it turned out that the Whitworth was better, and must be had, and perhaps in another year there would be something better than that. They were told that the introduction of improvements in naval warfare rendered a change necessary in our system of defence, by the substitution of screws for paddles, then gun-boats, then floating batteries, and then iron-cased frigates; and who could tell with all these new and great inventions cropping up, where the limit could be assigned, or what new improvements and inventions would not have to be taken advantage of? Then it was said the strength of our navy must bear a certain proportion to the strength of the navies of France and Russia. It would, therefore, be impossible to stop in the career of expense. On the other hand, could we even be sure, after what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that we had reached the limit of sacrifice in respect of the casting away of sources of revenue? It was clear that next year we should have to take off, at least, the war duties on tea and sugar—very possibly more; and, therefore, even though our expenditure might, to some extent, be reduced, we could by no means reckon upon the maintenance of our present income. But it was said that we should soon have a Reformed Parliament—a Parliament of an economical character—which would put an end to aristocratic extravagance. Upon what was the expectation grounded that the working classes, if they were really to have a predominant voice in the Legislature, would be more economical than the middle classes? The working classes had happily much improved in condition, through the whole

  1205
  period during which our financial and commercial reforms and our great increase of expenditure had been going on. They had derived great benefit from the increase of our expenditure, coupled with the reduction of indirect taxation; and though it was true, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that expenditure had advanced more rapidly than wealth, it was equally true that wealth had advanced in a much greater ratio than population; and the effect of this was a rise of wages. The effect of our recent expenditure on the army and navy, had been to take a larger proportion of the labouring classes away from the industry of the country, to employ them as soldiers and sailors, and thus to increase the price of labour. In 1841–2 we raised only 164,000 men for the military services, while the population was 27,000,000; but in 1860–1 we were raising 301,000, exclusive of the Militia and reserve, while the population was 30,000,000. In 1841–2 the per centage of armed men in the population was 6 in 1,000; in 1860–1 it was 10 in 1,000. The population since that period had increased only 11 per cent, while the Army and Navy had increased 34 per cent. That was one way in which the expenditure on military services had raised wages and benefited the population. No doubt the bounty offered to seamen entering the Royal Navy, had had the effect of raising the wages of merchant seamen; and whenever men were withdrawn by active recruiting from the manufacturing or agricultural districts, the effect must be to create a scarcity of labour, and thus to raise the rate of wages. In a volume of miscellaneous statistics lately issued by the Government, there was a table of the comparative rate of wages in Manchester (prepared by Mr. D. Chadwick), and the neighbourhood for the last ten years, from which it would be seen that the wages in the cotton and silk trades, and in the mechanical trades, had considerably increased within that period—some of them to the extent of nearly 45 per cent. The comforts of the labouring classes, therefore, were increased in every way, They had higher wages, shorter hours of labour, and provisions at a reduced price. Was it reasonable, therefore, to suppose that a Parliament elected by them, would be particularly anxious to keep down expenditure, by some parts of which they, to a certain extent, greatly benefited? What he was more afraid of was, that such a
  1206
  Parliament, leaving expenditure where it was, or even calling for more, would be inclined to throw the burden more and more on the upper classes, and on realized property, which could not escape from it. That danger was aggravated by the practice of voting the income tax from year to year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself objected to this practice in 1857, and expressed his opinion that it marked the transition from a solid and steady system, to a vacillating and merely provisional system of finance. He was ns anxious as any one to maintain the credit of the country, and, as the House had agreed to throw away certain sources of revenue, and as there seemed no present prospect of cutting down expenditure, he was ready to vote the income tax at the rate asked for by the Government; but he hoped this would be the last time the House would be called on to vote it for one year only; a form which had the effect of disguising from the country the full extent of the sacrifices which it was called on to make.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he had received an unusual number of letters from his constituents on the subject of the income tax. They did not so much object to the tax itself as to the mode in which it was levied. If it were to be continued there should be a thorough and sifting inquiry into the mode of its assessment. He was aware that difficulties beset the question, but if they could not have perfect justice let them have rough justice. He should propose three gradations of incomes—those arising from fixed property, those arising from trades in which capital was largely employed, and those obtained from employments where no capital whatever was employed. The latter source of income was of all others the least to be depended on; few professional men attained to a large income till the close of their career, and at their deaths little was left for their families. Before another year he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House would look to the question carefully and fully. The Budget had been described as a peculiar one. No doubt it was so; but he believed that no measure of the kind had ever been presented that was so acceptable to the country. Several persons had individual complaints; but there was a universal approval of the measure as a whole. The hon. Baronet (Sir S. Northcote), had spoken of the Chancellor of the Exchequer throwing away sources of income. He (Sir M.

  1207
  Peto) did not agree with him in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply followed in the steps of his predecessor. He had done that which would enable the country to bear taxation to a larger degree than ever. He had only thrown away such sources of revenue as had bound the energies of industry. Then the hon. Baronet had expressed a fear that unfixed capital would leave this country. There was no fear of that, and as to the idea that it would be invested in foreign manufactories, the English manufactories paid too well to allow such a notion possible. There was no disposition on the part of capitalists to invest in foreign countries. An auctioneer had told him the other day that those who generally bought landed estates were men who had realized large incomes in trade and manufactures, chiefly those from Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Scotland, and as to the position of the tenant farmers referred to by the hon. Baronet he believed that no class in the country lived so comfortably as the tenant farmers, or supported their families at so little expense. But the Budget could only be contemplated as a whole, and, so considering it, he had determined not only to accept it, but to vote for the full amount of the income tax; but he felt he should not be doing justice to his constituents if he did not warn the Government that in a future year he should expect, before it was reimposed, a full and fair investigation would be entered into for the purpose of devising a more equitable mode of levying the tax.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that there were two questions that he was anxious to submit to the Committee, namely, first, whether the Committee had before it sufficient grounds for the expenditure upon which they were about to enter, namely, £70,100,000; and, secondly, assuming that such an income must be raised, whether a tenpenny income tax was the proper mode of providing the funds. The Committee should bear in mind that that was not a time of war, or any great crisis, requiring the imposition of an income tax, or rather an addition being made to an existing income tax, but the alleged necessity for this addition arose from a deficit which had been artificially and intentionally created by Her Majesty's Government. He had not thought it right in any way to oppose the arrangements of Her Majesty's Government as
  1208
  far as the repeal they proposed of various taxes was concerned, because when the Government, backed by the revenue officers determined on repealing a tax it was useless for that House to resist. But notwithstanding all that had been said he had his own opinion that, with respect to some of those taxes, revenue had been thrown away. Were they not, he would ask, throwing away revenue on the higher classes of wines and brandies? Were not the taxes on those commodities taxes on a sort of monopoly? And yet they were all to be thrown away, but the prices would not be reduced, and the difference would only go into the pockets of the producers. Nor did he think it politic to concentrate all the revenue upon a few articles. He also objected to throwing away the paper duty. It was certainly to some extent productive of inconvenience, but it was a growing revenue, and knowing this it was unwise in a moment of peace, when there was a positive deficit, to abolish a paper duty. But passing these matters over, he would put it to Her Majesty's Government whether, having repealed all these taxes, they were not bound to find a fair and just equivalent? A more unjust and unfair equivalent than the inquisitorial income tax could not be found. What was the conduct of the Whig party in 1842? What did the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) do when Sir Robert Peel first introduced the income tax? At that time Sir Robert Peel had some justification for the tax, because there had been a chronic deficiency for five years of £10,000,000. But the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said he would resist the Resolution and the Report, and he would fight the Bill at every stage. And the noble Lord has kept his word, for the House was detained in Committee many days, and there were two or three divisions. Upon one occasion the noble Lord himself moved an Amendment which concluded in words of this description, that it was a tax inquisitorial in its nature and unequal in its pressure, one which had always been considered as a reserve by the nation in time of war, and one which was not then justified by any necessity. In that Motion the noble Lord was supported by the whole Whig party, who lavished, and most justly, every invective on the tax, and there never had been a battle better contested than the resistance then offered to that unequal tax in a time of peace. But he thought the House should have a little more information as to the

  1209
  real extent of the expenditure for which provision was required to be made. It was assumed to be £70,100,000; but what ground had the Committee for that but the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? They had only passed one money Vote as yet; they had not even passed one money Vote for the army; they had not taken the ordinary course of considering whether they could make any reduction. He could not, certainly, as far as he was concerned, concur in all the observations that had been made in favour of entering into a race of expense in our dockyards with France or with any neighbouring country. On the contrary, he contended that the evidence on the table of the House showed that they ought to look another way; for that evidence showed that the dockyards had been scenes of great extravagance. He did not grudge a single ship nor a single man that was found to be necessary; but he did most heartily condemn the system of expenditure in the dockyards which the report of the Committee appointed by the Executive itself had established as having been pursued. That Report proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the expenditure in the Royal dockyards, as compared with the expenditure in private yards, was as three to one, and that in the building of ships of the same kind, the difference between the various dockyards themselves amounted to 40 per cent. For instance, a certain class of ship at Woolwich cost £10,000; at Sheerness, £9,000; and at Chatham, £6,000. Therefore, he contended that before imposing an extra income tax the House should inquire into the manner in which the expenditure had been carried on in their departments. They had already had Committees to investigate the question, and these Committees had proved that those departments were not under proper control, that the expenditure was often left to subordinates, while an audit of a most feeble character, and scarcely of any—if of any—use at all, was the only check upon their proceedings. He should like to know, indeed, what effort the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to cheek this expenditure? If the right hon. Gentleman would only show half the energy in that direction that he exhibited in adding to the taxes his exertions would result in some good. All that he (Sir H. Willoughby) had said of the navy would apply with equal force to the army. It was clear that in every department of the army great and
  1210
  grievous expenditure was incurred. With regard to the Civil Service Estimates the only effort made in the way of economy was the appointment of a Committee, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford, with the view of reducing the expenditure, and even that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not supported. He contended that it was the duty of the Government to do something to obviate this extreme income tax, and he was quite sure that the portion of the tax to which his Motion referred might be accounted for. There was another point, and that was in reference to the collection of the revenue. In the account given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the cost of collection the amount for this year was £4,700,000; and it was difficult to understand why it should be now so much, when last year it was only £4,300,000. He believed that under this head considerable reduction might be made. Then, again, let them look at the cost of useless Commissions, and at the enormous compensations which the country was called upon to pay. There was nothing so alarming as to hoar a speech of an Attorney General going to improve the law; for it was quite sure to end in a charge upon the public of some £20,000 a year, and they were fortunate if they got off at such a price. It made him tremble at any proposal for the amendment in the law. He contended that it was the duty of an honest Government revising the Estimates to see if they could not first reduce the income tax. Another thing struck him as curious—the extent to which our income was usually understated. The policy of Chancellors of the Exchequer in their financial statements for the last five or six years seemed to be to understate the income. In the year 1856–7 the public income was understated to the amount of £700,000; in 1857–8 to nearly £1,500,000; and in 1858–9, speaking of the Estimates given at the beginning of the year, and the results as they came out when the financial year was concluded, there was an understatement to the extent of £2,300,000. In the year 1859–60, the year just concluded, he found there was an under-estimate to the extent of £1,118,000. Under these circumstances, he must respectfully infer that the income for 1860–61, for which year the ordinary income was estimated at £60,700,000, was understated; and, therefore, he made his proposal for a reduction of the income tax without the slightest fear or flinching. But

  1211
  he should not do justice to his case if he did not rest it on another ground; that this tax was so thoroughly unjust, iniquitous, and odious, that those who tried to impose it were called upon to make out their case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his remarkable Budget speech had stated the income for the last twenty-seven years. He said that in 1842 the expenditure was £68,500,000, of which £13,000,000 was local; it the next epoch it got up to £71,000,000, and in 1859 to £87,000,000, of which £17,000.000 was local. Let the Committee ask this question—upon whom did the great sum of local taxation rest? and they would find that it rested almost entirely upon those who held houses and land, the persons who were taxed under Schedule A. Now, was it fair or just that they should, whilst under no great pressure, and as a sort of luxury, fling to the winds £1,500,000 of paper duty, to which, whatever might be its in-conveniencies, every person in the community contributed, and cast the burden on the particular class which paid income tax. It appeared to him that it was impossible to do so with any appearance of justice. He was disinclined to trespass on their attention at greater length, when he thought his case was so clear and unanswerable, and he should, therefore, conclude by putting before them his Amendment that in the income tax Resolution the word "ten" should be left out, and the word "nine" inserted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This debate has been so discursive that it is less difficult to say what questions connected with income and expenditure, or the circumstances of the country, have not, than what have been introduced. There are some few points however, and those were urged against the proposition of the Government, on which I wish to say a few words. The noble Lord who commenced the discussion complained that it was a delusion to ask for a vote of income tax for only one year. It would have been a delusion on the part of the Government to ask for the income tax for one year if they had asked it with the profession that they saw their way to a likelihood of its abolition at the close of the year. But they make no such profession. On the contrary, the reason why it was asked only for one year was very clearly and fully stated, in order that they might by so doing preserve to Parliament the fullest control over the expenditure of the
  1212
  country; and it is quite obvious that, if they had asked for it at 10 d. this year, and at a declining rate for subsequent years, without sufficient warrant, they would have given countenance to the notion that they saw their way to its extinction; whereas, if they had asked for it at 10 d. for a term of years, the answer would have been justly made, "You are not entitled in time of peace to request Parliament to vote for so high a rate except you are quite certain it is necessary." It may be error of policy or not, but as no expectation has been held out no delusion can take place. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Martin) has certainly given utterance to a very sanguine expectation, for he says he votes for the income tax this year with the expectation of its ceasing altogether next year; and, on the other hand, the gallant Admiral who represents a metropolitan district (Sir C. Napier) has pretty effectually corrected whatever of excess there was in that too sanguine expectation, by the view which he takes of the finances of the country, according to which, if his very confident prophecy be fulfilled, apart from the contingency of wars, there must be successive additions every year of several millions to the Navy Estimates; and each year we are told in stronger terms that the provision is totally insufficient for the ordinary and necessary service of the country. I do not think I am bound to accede to either of those extreme views—not to that of my hon. Friend, still less to the extravagant view, as it seems to me, of the gallant Admiral, because the gallant Admiral does not take into account that there are limits to the patience and power of the people to bear taxation, and seems to think that the sole end for which the race of man was created was to provide these huge, gigantic, and never-ending armaments. I think our duty plain, in a state of considerable uncertainty as to the future, to take that course which will least interfere with the free judgment and action of Parliament, and will best preserve its control over the expenditure. It is not to create difficulties for the future that we ask for the income tax for a year only, but on the definite principle that we think that the power of Parliament to apply itself to the reduction of expenditure, if such a reduction be possible, should be preserved full and unimpaired. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) made a very discursive and ingenious speech, and he has represented in very

  1213
  lugubrious accents the state of things to which we are tending. According to him we shall find on all sides increasing demands and uncomfortable prospects, and the only thing which I miss in his speech is the only thing which would be useful in these speeches—namely, the recognition of the primary but constantly forgotten truth, that taxation and expenditure must go together, and that efforts ought to be made, where they can be made, to reduce the expenditure of the country. If I had heard as much as a word in his speech which showed that he thought the reduction of expenditure was an object worthy a moment's consideration, I should say it was a useful contribution to our debates. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down lays the blame on me. He says it is the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the expenditure is not reduced. I must say, that if there be a charge which my worst enemy cannot make against me, it is the not having laboured for a reduction of expenditure. He accused me also of not supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise); but the reason why I objected to it was, that it would have led to the institution of a general Committee, which I thought would prove a delusion. I told the hon. Member then, and I have told him since, that if he was able to conduct such an inquiry, every aid which could be given to him should be freely given. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) wishes to know whether I admit that the mode of levying and assessing the income tax is a fair case for inquiry by this House? I have not the least hesitation to answer that it is. I should consider, however, it the grossest breach of duty if I pretended the possession of any means by which a reconstruction could be safely and satisfactorily effected. But I do not presume to say that others may not be more fortunate. I think they are entitled to ask that it should be again the subject of Parliamentary inquiry, and, if such be the desire of the House, there will not be the slightest opposition on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Garnett) referred to a notice for the partial exemption of incomes under a certain amount. It is not possible to make any modification of that kind, in the tax for the present year without causing a serious defalcation of revenue, and I do not think in the condition in which we now stand, inasmuch as every reduc-
  1214
  tion on one class will require an augmentation on another, that it is convenient or expedient to enter upon a consideration of that proposal. But I frankly own that it is my opinion, especially if it is found impracticable to adopt any plan of general reconstruction, that the House should consider in a future year (should the income tax continue at a high rate in time of peace), of some extension, in some form or other, of a mode of mitigation or partial relief to the lower class of incomes. There is no doubt that the subject is one of great difficulty, because on the one side it is a severe tax, as it affects the lowest class; on the other hand, we touch on very delicate ground indeed when we enter largely on the question of mitigation. But the principle of mitigation has been applied in former years, and at a former period up to a higher point than the point to which we now extend it, because in the time of Mr. Pitt, the principle of mitigation went up to £200 a year. Therefore, I consider it quite open within safe and moderate limits to apply the principle of mitigation. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) asks on what grounds we think the expenditure of £70,100,000 is necessary. Well, I may put the same question to the hon. Baronet. No doubt, if I could make over to him the regulation of the year's expenditure, he would contrive so to handle it as to bring it within bounds. But he has seen the view and temper of the House; he knows that the House has passed the most important Votes of the Military and Naval Estimates—the number of men in the two services—those being the votes on which the general scale of expenditure depends; and he must have seen that the House of Commons, so far from showing any disposition to make reductions in those estimates, seems to wish to push on the Government in its expenditure. In the Miscellaneous Estimates we ourselves propose considerable reductions. I will not attempt now to give a more particular explanation of them than I have already endeavoured to state in general terms to the House; but what ground is there to suppose that by means of any number of Dockyard Committees or Commissions a great saving can be effected in the expenditure of the coming year under this head? In my opinion, he must be a very sanguine man if he expects any such saving. I say again that it is upon the tone and temper of the people that reductions depend. It is public opinion and the

  1215
  national sentiment which in the main determine our scale of expenditure; it is not by instruments like those suggested by the hon. Baronet, which are subordinate and secondary, that any great or early economy will be effected. There is no ground, then, to suppose that my statement of the expenditure necessary for the service of the year is an extravagant one. On the contrary, the prevailing tone of the discussion to-night is that our financial provision is altogether insufficient, and that our actual expenditure will be much more than £70,100,000. The gallant Officer opposite (General Peel) complains that our provision for the expedition to China, which may or may not have to carry on war, is by no means large enough. Well, then, if that be so, it is at any rate a good argument with which to answer the hon. Baronet, who thinks it is too large. Then the hon. Baronet says that the revenue is systematically understated, by which he means underestimated, though the two things are totally different. Now let the Committee see how this stands. It is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is so recognized by them all, to be bound in his estimates of revenue mainly by the authorities of the permanent civil service. It is his duty to lay before the House estimates in the realization of which he feels a reasonable confidence, and, subject to the condition of their being safe estimates, they are to come as nearly as possible up to the probable revenue. That is the principle upon which such estimates are made. But then the hon. Baronet says they are underestimates. Well, it is very true that when you have a flourishing state of trade, when you have employment very active, when you are blessed with a good harvest, there is a tendency in the national revenue to exceed the expenditure, but it has always been a sound and recognized principle of statesmanship in this country to call on Parliament to provide some amount of surplus revenue in order that by a steady process, though by slow degrees, we may work for a reduction of our debt. Does the hon. Baronet adhere to that principle? Because, if so, I must tell him that I could not go beyond my estimate of revenue except upon grounds merely speculative, and upon assumptions, not of average circumstances, to which we are bound to look, but of the most favourable circumstances possible. If, therefore, the Committee accedes to his Amendment on such
  1216
  grounds it will be a departure from all safe and prudent principles of finance in making the provision necessary for the service of the year. Then he complains that I am asking for an extravagant sum for the revenue departments. That is an error. The sum taken last year under this head was £4,740,000, not £4,300,000; and he ought to remember that although in some portion of the revenue collection it is possible to proceed steadily in the way of reduction, as regards the most costly of the revenue departments—namely, the Post Office, where an enormous service has to be maintained in order to realize the revenue at all—the expenditure is an expansive one. Then, again, will the cost of our law reforms justify the hon. Baronet's Motion? The Attorney General's proposal will in the first instance throw a possible charge of £20,000 upon the Consolidated Fund. If the hon. Baronet thinks the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits such charges as these as matters of course without inquiry or examination, let him take the trouble to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and he will find that in this case there has been pretty full examination. Has the plan proposed been received with disfavour? On the contrary, it is regarded as one worthy the distinguished powers of the man by whom it has been framed, and this possible charge upon the Consolidated Fund is a just and necessary portion of the plan. Take it at its worst. Suppose we have to defray this £20,000 a year. Does that afford any reason why the hon. Baronet should cut away £800,000 or £900,000 of revenue, and should leave the Exchequer with an absolute deficit! I am by no means prepared to admit that the charge imposed by the Bankruptcy Bill is an extravagant one. My hon. and learned Friend convinced me that at the present moment the enormous cost to which suitors in bankruptcy are subjected is driving business out of the court, and that consequently while the suitors suffer great hardships the country would probably soon be obliged to assume a very heavy charge if the present state of things were allowed to continue. He has likewise shown the high probability that by a timely and judicious reform of the Bankruptcy Court you will bring back such an amount of the business now transacted outside as will entirely meet the estimated charge. I submit, then, that the hon. Baronet has advanced no valid reasons why the Committee should accede to his Amend-

  1217
  ment. It amounts to this—that whereas I have proposed to proceed with the very low surplus of about £400,000, he proposes, instead to leave us with a deficiency of about the same amount, upon the speculative ground that possible reductions may be effected in the public expenditure during the year. But the hon. Baronet regrets the sacrifices of revenue we have made, and says—"Why throw away £1,500,000 on the paper duties?" Now, the right hon. Baronet has spoken with less than his usual accuracy on this point. [Sir H. WILLOUGHBY: I quoted a Return.] In the first place, he quoted a Return which showed a gross income from the paper duties of only £1,400,000; and next, he should have remembered that this includes the drawbacks which will have to be paid on paper exported, the expense of collecting the revenue, £50,000 or £60,000, which is about the amount of duty on paper used in the public service, so that the deductions to be made from this £1,400,000 are very considerable. At the same time it is, I admit, a large revenue, and the House has determined to part with it by a large majority. I do not intend to enter upon the question now. I put it to the candour of the Committee whether our having parted with that revenue is any reason at all for not making adequate provision for the service of the year? That is the question which is now before the Committee, and I tell you that that provision cannot be made without the income tax on the scale on which we propose it. I grant that, in our anxiety not to make the proposal too heavy, under the circumstances of the year, we have thought it allowable to apply to the service of the year sums derived from the malt and hop credits. That is a matter you may discuss and impugn. You may, perhaps, censure the Government in that respect; but it is at least a proof of our desire not to bear too hardly or suddenly on the taxpayers of the country. I put it to the Committee that the provision proposed to be made in the Resolution now on the table is absolutely necessary in order to enable us to go with credit through the service of the year, which, including among other matters a very costly military expedition to China, is involved in a degree of uncertainty as to the precise amount which is very unusual in a time of peace. One word as to the service in China. The Committee must be aware that it is absolutely impossible in the nature of things for the Government
  1218
  to propose certain estimates with regard to the cost of the expedition. It may be an expedition without any operations of war, or it may lead to a war which may continue throughout the year; and the difficulty is to form an estimate not more than sufficient for the first, and, at the same time, fully sufficient for the second contingency. We have endeavoured to form the best estimate of that service in our power, and have made provision for it on a scale which is exceedingly large as compared with the scale on which any military expedition has heretofore been provided, because the change in the Government of India has thrown on the Government of this country at once a great deal of the expenses which used to be borne, in the first instance, by the East India Company, and which only in subsequent years came to be accounted for by the Treasury. The sum we shall have expended on account of China in the present year, together with the sums we propose to vote for the next year, is not less than £2,500,000; and it is also to be remembered that a very considerable charge was borne by us before both on account of troops and ships for the service in China. That is a very large sum; but, considering the possibility of there being no war, I do not think we should have been justified in asking for a larger amount. Here we have again to apologise, not for asking too much, but for not asking a larger sum. I have only to repeat, I do not think the proposal of the hon. Baronet consistent either with the principles of prudent finance, or with the expectations entertained in regard to the present year.
  MR. VANSITTARTconfessed that, placing reliance upon the repeated assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at former periods, he, in common with the public, generally, looked for the reduction if not the total remission of the income tax this year; instead of which it had been doubled. For his own part, he protested against the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in laying his hands upon and appropriating moneys hitherto applied to certain purposes, and absorbing them into the expenditure of the current year. Neither could he approve the rashness which had led him, instead of providing for the liquidation of the actual deficit of £7,300,000, to create a fresh deficit of nearly £4,000,000, in order to conciliate certain gentlemen connected with the Manchester school, He maintained, moreover,

  1219
  that the country and the public had an undoubted right to the £2,100,000 a year, which would fall in in a few days by the terminable Long Annuities. How gracefully the right hon. Gentleman might have distributed that amount—one-half towards the reduction of the income tax, and one-half towards the reduction of the war duties on tea and sugar. By that arrangement he would not only have afforded very great relief to a vast number of his suffering countrymen who experienced the greatest difficulty in realizing a precarious income of £100 a year, but he would have enabled the poorer classes to obtain the necessaries of life at a much cheaper rate. But, instead of doing that, in his anxiety to remove duties on luxuries which the rich had no objection to pay, he was obliged to retain a heavy tax on the poor man's beer and tea; and, by his scheme of taxation, generally, he had sown the seeds of a discontent which before long would find utterance in a cry that would resound from one end of the country to the other.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGwished to say, in a word, that he should vote with the hon. Baronet, because he believed the income tax to be one of the worst taxes ever imposed on the people, and because he did not think the reduction of the other taxes worth an increase of so objectionable an impost.
  Motion made, and Question put,—"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "There shall be charged, collected, and paid, for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April, 1860, for and in respect of all property, profits, and gains, charged or chargeable under the Act passed in the 16th and 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, for granting to Her Majesty duties on profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices, either by assessment, contract of composition, or otherwise, the following rates and duties, that is to say: Upon any assessment on the annual value or amount of any property, profits, or gains (except property, profits, and gains chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the rate or Duty of Nine Pence for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of all such proporty, profits, and gains respectively."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 187: Majority 55.

  List of the AYES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Baring, A. H.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Bernard, hon. Col.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Bond, J. W. M'G.

  Bective, Earl of

  Bovill, W.

  1220

  Bowyer, G.

  Longfield, R.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Lovaine, Lord

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Brooks, R.

  Miller, T. J.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Milnes, R. M.

  Butler, C. S.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Cave, S.

  Morris, D.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Close, M. C.

  Mundy, W.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Naas, Lord

  Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

  Newport, Visct.

  Cole, hon. H.

  North, Col.

  Collins, T.

  Onslow, G.

  Cubitt, G.

  Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Curzon, Visct.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Damer, S. D.

  Patten, Col. W.

  Deedes, W.

  Paull, H.

  Dickson, Col.

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  Du Cane, C.

  Pigott, F.

  Duke, Sir J.

  Potts, G.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Dunne, Col.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Edwards, Major

  Rolt, J.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Seymer, H. Ker

  Farrer, J.

  Shirley, E. P.

  Fellowes, E.

  Sibthorp, Major

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Smith, Montagu

  Gard, R. S.

  Smith, Abel

  Gavin, Major

  Smyth, Col.

  George, J.

  Somerset, Col.

  Gilpin, Col.

  Spooner, R.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Greenall, G.

  Stirling, W.

  Greene, J.

  Steuart, A.

  Gray, Captain

  Stuart, Major W.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Sullivan, M.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Hardy, G.

  Taylor, Col.

  Hassard, M.

  Thynne, Lord E.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Tomline, G.

  Holmesdale, Visct.

  Torrens, R.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Upton, hon. Gen.

  Howes, E.

  Vance, J.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Vandeleur, Col.

  Johnstone, hon. H. B.

  Vernon, L. V.

  Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.

  Walcott, Adm.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Kendall, N.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Knight, F. W.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Knox, Col.

  Whitmore, H.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Wise, J. A.

  Lanigan, J.

  Wyld, J.

  Leeke, Sir H.

  Wynn, Col.

  Lefroy, A.

  Lindsay, hon. Col.

  TELLERS.

  Lockhart, A. E.

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Vansittart, W.

  List of the NOES.

  Alcock, T.

  Bagwell, J.

  Andover, Visct.

  Baines, E.

  Angerstein, W.

  Baring, T. G.

  Antrobus, E.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Atherton, Sir W.

  Bazley, T.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Beale, S.

  1221

  Bellew, R. M.

  Harcourt, G. G.

  Bethell, Sir R.

  Bardcastle, J. A.

  Black, A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Blackburn, P.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Blencowe, J. G.

  Herbert, rt. hon. S.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Botfield, B.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Howard, Lord Edward

  Bright, J.

  Humberston, P. S.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Brown, J.

  Ingham, R.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  James, E.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Buchanan, W.

  Johnstone, J. J. H.

  Buckley, Gen.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Bulkeley, Sir R.

  Kershaw, J.

  Buller, J. W.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Buxton, C.

  Kingscote, Col.

  Caird, J.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Campbell, hon. W. F.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Laing, S.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Langston, J. H.

  Castlerosse, Visct.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Cavendish, hon. W.

  Lawson, W.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Lennox, Lord H. G

  Clay, J.

  Locke, Joseph

  Clifford, C. C.

  Locke, John

  Clinton, Lord R.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Clive, G.

  Mackie, J.

  Colebrook, Sir T. E.

  Mackinnon, Wm. Alex. (Lymington)

  Coningham, W.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Martin, P. W.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Martin, J.

  Crook, J.

  Miller, W.

  Crossley, F.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Dalglish, R.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Davey, R.

  Monson, hon. W. J.

  Davie, Col. F.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Deasy, rt. hon. R.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Norris, J. T.

  Dodson, J. G.

  North, F.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Northcote, Sir S. H.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Padmore, R.

  Dundas, F.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Euston, Earl of

  Pease, H.

  Evans, T. W.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Ewart, W.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Pilkington, J.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Fenwick, H.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Pritchard, J.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Proby, Lord

  Finlay, A. S.

  Puller, C. W. G.

  Foley, J. H.

  Raynham, Visct.

  Forster, C.

  Ricardo, O.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Ridley, G.

  Freeland, H. W.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  French, Col.

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Rothschild, Baron L. de

  Garnett, W. J.

  Roupell, W.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Russell, Lord J.

  Gifford, Earl of

  Russell, H.

  Gilpin, C.

  Russell, A.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Salt, Titus

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Scholefield, W.

  Hadfield, G.

  Seymour, Sir M.

  Hanbury, R.

  Seymour, W. D.

  Hankey, T.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  1222

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Walter, J.

  Smith, J. B.

  Warre, J. A.

  Smith, M. T.

  Watkins, Col. L.

  Smith, Augustus

  Western, S.

  Smith, Sir F.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Whitbread, S.

  Steel, J.

  White, Col.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Stuart, Col.

  Willcox, B. M'G.

  Taylor, H.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Thompson, H. S.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Woods, H.

  Turner, J. A.

  Verney, Sir H.

  TELLERS.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Waldron, L.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEsaid, that not having had an opportunity of addressing the House on the question, he felt it to be his duty, even at that late hour to intrude for a few minutes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had altogether failed in showing any adequate reason for changing the whole course of policy which he adopted in the year 1853. He had listened attentively to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, but he had found that no one single reason had been given why he came down to Parliament with this extraordinary demand upon the indulgence of the House. The right hon. Gentleman told the House in 1853 that he proposed the duty on the succession of real property as a means of enabling him to abolish the income tax in the year 1860. He had enjoyed all the advantage of the succession duty, yet he had now asked for an income tax into the bargain. The right hon. Gentleman ought, at all events, to reduce the income tax to the peace fate of 7d. in the pound, instead of laying on what he would call a war 3d. A strong feeling existed among all classes in the country that this was an ambitious Budget; nay, more, that it was an unjust one. The right hon. Gentleman might have reduced the duties on tea and sugar, instead of which he had given the people cheap wine and cheap brandy, which they did not care about. It had been said that the Budget was to conciliate France, and she had shown her appreciation of that by annexing Savoy. He looked with apprehension to the measures of the Government, believing them not only calculated to entail financial difficulties at home, but distrust, want of confidence, and loss of influence throughout Europe.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he proposed to proceed

  1223
  with, the Resolution relative to contract notes.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "Provided the restrictions on dealings in the Public Funds contained in the Act of the seventh year of King George the Second shall be repealed, for and upon every note, memorandum, or writing, commonly called a Contract Note, or by whatever name the same may be designated, whereby any contract or agreement is made or evidenced, for or relating to the sale or purchase of any Government or other Public Stocks, Funds, or Securities, or any stocks, funds, or securities, or share or shares of or in any joint stock or other public Company, to the amount or value of £20 or upwards, there shall be charged the Stamp Duty of One Penny."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the Resolution was one upon which he wished to make some remarks, and as it would likely give rise to discussion, he should move "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must appeal to the hon. Member not to persist in his Motion. The business of the evening had not been begun till nine o'clock, and it was necessary that the Bill to" be founded on the Resolution should be passed before Easter, otherwise a considerable amount of revenue would be lost. This could not be done unless the Resolution received the sanction of the Committee that night.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to appeal to that side, as the Government had allowed the House to be counted out on Tuesday, though the Reform Bill stood on the paper.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not consider himself responsible for the difficulties in which the Government might have involved themselves, and must persist with the Motion for reporting progress. He had some observations to make which would occupy some time.
  In reply to SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the intention of the Resolution was to include time bargains; to do that it would be necessary that time bargains should be legalized; and with that view he proposed to repeal the Act commonly known as Sir John Barnard's Act.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that it was for the public convenience that they should be allowed to proceed with the business before them. The present was only a preliminary stage, and the hon. Member
  1224
  might make his observations either then or at a future stage. The House on Tuesday was not counted out on the Reform Bill, for there were notices before it which would have occupied the whole evening.
  In answer to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the contract notes in this Resolution had been withdrawn as regarded sales of produce, and the only difference that existed in opinion was on the subject of dock warrants, which those interested thought ought to be limited to a penny. He, however, thought they should remain as they were in the act, but the matter could be discussed at a future stage.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he would not vote for reporting progress if the right hon. Gentleman said the question was purely one of revenue; but, if the object was merely to enable them to go on with their Reform Bill on Monday, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Norfolk.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that great inconvenience would be the result if the Act of which the Resolution would be the basis was not passed before Easter. His proposal had no reference to the business fixed for Monday, for he proposed to fix the adjourned discussion on the Reform Bill for Friday, and to take the wine licences on Monday.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he wished to ask if he rightly understood, that in consequence of fixing the discussion on the wine duties for Monday, the adjourned debate on the Reform Bill was to be postponed till Friday next?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Report on the income tax would be brought up at half-past four on Monday, when it might be fully discussed, and in order to have Monday evening for the discussion of the financial questions, the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill would not be taken till Friday next.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved,
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon any warrant or document, commonly called a Dock Warrant, or any other writing or document, by whatever name the same shall be designated, which shall evidence the title of any person therein named, or his assigns, or the holder thereof, to the property in any goods,

  1225
  wares, or merchandise lying in any dock or ware-house, or upon any wharf, such writing or document being signed or certified by or on behalf of the company or person in whose custody such goods, wares, or merchandise may be, there shall be charged the Stamp Duty of Three Pence."
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask whether the checks passed by the dock company, for every single part of a cargo on which a single delivery order had been originally issued were to be called dock warrants and bear a duty of 3d. each? If so, the duty would be extremely onerous.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he had presided at a large meeting of persons in London connected with the colonial and various other interests, who concurred in thinking that if the proposed tax on dock warrants was not reduced to a penny it would be exceedingly onerous. There was a large portion of the trade of London on which dock warrants were not taken at all, and the tax could be constantly evaded. Dock warrants were taken out for the purpose chiefly of enabling parties to borrow money upon them; they were valuable documents, and he did not object to see a tax imposed upon them; but so high a tax as 3d. would be evaded. He should move an Amendment that the tax be one penny instead of threepence.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon any warrant or document commonly called a Dock Warrant, or any other writing or document, by whatever name the same shall be designated, which shall evidence the title of any person therein named, or his assigns, or the holder thereof, to the property in any goods, wares, or merchandise lying in any dock or warehouse, or upon any wharf, such writing or document being signed or certified by or on behalf of the company or person in whose custody such goods, wares, or merchandise may be, there shall be charged the Stamp Duty of One Penny."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not pretend to say that any charge, whether it was threepence or a penny, on dock warrants was a good thing in itself; but he might remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Hankey) that immense sacrifices of revenue had just been made for the general benefit of trade with the general concurrence of the House, but upon the understanding that trade should bear in another shape a portion of the burden which that change would render necessary. He was therefore of opinion that the charge was a most legitimate one, and, contrasting dock warrants, which were a symbol of value on which money could be
  1226
  raised, with delivery orders, maintained that a charge of three pence on the former was not higher, their average value being taken into account, than of a penny on the latter.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, there certainly existed a difference of the description stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between a delivery order and a dock warrant; and in consequence of that difference he was prepared, in conformity with the views be had heard expressed upon that subject in the City, to vote against the Amendment.
  MR. HANKEYintimated that he would not press the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed to insert, after the words "value of Forty Shillings and upwards," the words "lying in any dock or warehouse, or upon any wharf."
  MR. MITCHELLasked if the Resolution applied to the whole system of inland transfer, and how—it being proposed to exempt all goods under the value of 40 s.—their value was to be ascertained?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he proposed in the Bill to insert a provision to the effect that goods should not be delivered without the stamp duty, unless the order bore on the face of it that either seller or purchaser valued the goods above 40 s. There would be no difficulty in working this provision. There would only require to be a general indication of value. It would be impossible to exempt inland transfers in the Resolutions, but practically a Resolution of this kind would limit itself by reference to the mode in which business was carried on; because delivery on sale or transfer of property out of a warehouse or wharf was not usual, unless in ports in connection with seagoing trade.
  In reply to Mr. HANKEY,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the Resolution would not apply to the delivery order of a person desiring to obtain his own property out of the docks.
  MR. CAVEasked if the Resolution would apply to deliveries over the side, of the ship, as well as from the wharf?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there should be no distinction in such a case. The Resolution would apply.
  Resolution agreed to.
  4. Resolved, That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon any writing or document commonly called a Delivery Order, or by whatever name the same shall be designated, entitling or intended to entitle any person therein named, or his assigns, or the holder thereof, to the delivery of any goods, wares, or merchandise of the value of' Forty Shillings or upwards, lying in any dock, or warehouse, or upon any wharf, upon the sale or transfer of the property therein there shall be charged the Stamp Duty of One Penny."
  On the Resolution with reference to Bills of Exchange and Bank Checks.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that he meant the Resolution to apply to all checks paid over the counter, though made payable to the drawer. But in the Bill he intended to exempt letters or orders between bankers and their customers.
  Resolution agreed to.
  5. Resolved, "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,
  "For and upon every Bill of Exchange, Draft, or Order for the payment of money exceeding £4,000, now chargeable with the Stamp Duty of £2 5s., there shall be charged for every £1,000 or part of the £1,000 of the money thereby made payable the Stamp Duty of Ten Shillings.
  "And in the case of any Bill of Exchange drawn in a set of three or more for the payment of money exceeding £4,000, where every Bill of the set is now chargeable with the Stamp Duty of 15 s. there shall be charged for and upon every Bill of the set for every £1,000 or part of £1,000 of the money thereby made payable the Stamp Duty of Three Shillings and Four Pence.
  "And Bills of Exchange, Drafts or Orders, drawn or endorsed out of the United Kingdom for the payment of money on demand, shall be charged with the same Stamp Duties as Bills of Exchange for the payment of money otherwise than on demand, according to the amount thereby made payable respectively.
  "And all Bills, Drafts, or Orders for the payment of any sum of money, though not made payable to the bearer or to order, and whether delivered to the payee or not; and all writings or documents entitling or intended to entitle to the payment of any sum of money any person whatever, whether named or designated therein or not, or whether delivered to him or not, shall respectively be deemed to be Bills, Drafts, or Orders for the payment of money chargeable with Stamp Duty as if the same had been made payable to bearer or to order."
  6. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon every Certified Copy or Extract of or from any Register of Births or Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths, or Burials, there shall be charged the Stamp Duty of One Penny."
  7. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon every note, instrument, or
  1228
  writing requesting or authorizing the purser or other officer of any mining company conducted on the Cost Book system, to enter in the Cost Book any transfer of any share or shares, or part of a share, in any mine, or any notice to such purser or officer of any such transfer as aforesaid, there shall be charged and paid the Stamp Duty of Six Pence."
  8. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "Money secured on heritable property in Scotland, and money secured by Scotch Bonds in favour of heirs and assignees, excluding executors, shall be held and interpreted to be moveable property, and shall be included in any inventory to be exhibited and recorded in any Commissary Court in Scotland of the estate and effects of any person deceased entitled thereto, and in England and Ireland respectively shall be deemed to be estate and effects for or in respect whereof any probate of will or letters of administration shall be granted; and every such inventory, probate, and letters of administration shall be chargeable with Stamp Duty in respect of such moveable property."
  On the Resolution with reference to Stamps on Agreements,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must protest against this proposition, on the ground of the inconvenience of imposing a duty upon small transactions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this measure was one of relief; and as a proof of the spirit in which it had been received, he must state that though the Resolution had been on the paper for the last six weeks, he had received no remonstrance in regard to it. It was a reduction from a high charge to a low charge, for the double purpose of narrowing exemptions, and of increasing the revenue by imposing a lower duty. It was suggested that adhesive stamps should be used, but there were some good reasons against them. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue had an objection to adhesive stamps; but he would consider, before bringing up the Report, whether the suggestion, which he considered a good one, could not be adopted.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, there would be no relief, unless the penalty which was imposed before an agreement which was not stamped could be read in evidence, was lowered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, a corresponding reduction would be made in the penalty.
  Resolution agreed to.
  The remaining Resolutions were then agreed to.
  9. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,

  1229
  "The respective Stamp Duties now chargeable upon any Agreement, or any Minute or Memorandum of an Agreement, made in England or Ireland under hand only, or made in Scotland without any Clause of Registration, and not otherwise charged nor expressly exempted from all Stamp Duty, where the matter thereof shall be of the value of £20 or upwards, whether the same shall be only evidence of a contract, or obligatory upon the parties from its being a written instrument, together with every schedule, receipt, or other matter put or endorsed thereon, or annexed thereto, shall cease; and in lieu thereof there shall be charged for and upon every such Agreement, Minute, or Memorandum as aforesaid, where the matter thereof shall be of the value of forty shillings or upwards, the Stamp Duty of Six Pence.
  "And where the same shall contain 2160 words, then for every entire quantity of 1080 words contained therein over and above the first 1080 words, a further progressive Duty of Six Pence.
  "Provided always, That where divers letters shall be offered in evidence to prove any Agreement between the parties who shall have written such letters, it shall be sufficient if any of such letters shall be stamped with a Duty of One Shilling."
  10. Resolved, That, towards raising the supply granted to Her Majesty,
  "Every Agreement for a lease or tack of any lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects, for any term not exceeding seven years, and every Agreement, Minute, or Memorandum of Agreement, containing the terms and conditions on which any lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects are let, held, or occupied for any such term as aforesaid, shall be chargeable with the Stamp Duty payable on a lease or tack for the term, rent, consideration, and conditions mentioned in such Agreement, Minute, or Memorandum.
  "And any lease or tack of the same lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritable subjects, afterwards made in pursuance of, and conformably to, any such Agreement, Minute, or Memorandum, which shall have actually paid the Duty payable on such lease or tack as aforesaid, shall not be chargeable with any higher Stamp Duty than 2s. 6d. exclusive of Progressive Duty."
  11. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "The Stamp Duties payable by Law upon Probates of Wills and Letters of Administration, with a Will annexed in England and Ireland, and upon Inventories in Scotland, shall be levied and paid in respect of all the personal or moveable estate and effects which any person hereafter dying shall have disposed of by Will under any authority enabling such person to dispose of the same as he or she shall think fit."
  12. Resolved, that, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty,—
  "For and upon every Declaration in lieu or in the nature of an affidavit, in any case where, if the same were an affidavit, it would be chargeable with any Stamp Duty, there shall be charged the same Duty as would be chargeable on such affidavit."
  The House resumed. Resolutions to be
  1230
  reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Divorce Court. 2a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Royal Assent.—Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000); Probate and Administration (India); Valuation of Rateable Property (Ireland); Medical Acts Amendment; Packet Service (Transfer of Contracts); Administering of Poison.

ELECTIONS, &c.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE,in moving that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for Returns respecting Persons qualified to vote at the election of Members of Parliament, the noble Earl said, that his Motion as originally drawn had likewise proposed to include the number of qualified voters assessed to the income and property tax; but he had received a communication from the Board of Inland Revenue to the effect that it would be impossible to furnish such a Return he had therefore abandoned that portion of his Motion. He presumed there would be no objection to the Returns in the shape in which he had now framed them; for all their Lordships must perceive the importance of having the information he now sought. As it was probable their Lordships would shortly be called on to consider a Bill which had been introduced into the other House to amend the representation of the people, it became very desirable to ascertain what effect the proposed alterations would have on the electoral body, and also, if possible, to obtain some conception of the extent to which these electors would be affected by the operation of direct taxation, which appeared likely to form a permanent part of the national system of finance. It was very desirable to see what proportion of the electors paid direct taxes, and what proportion did not pay them. He thought the Returns for which he moved would be sufficiently accurate for practical purposes, and it might fairly be assumed that those voters who paid the inhabited house duty, and who occupied houses of the value of £20, were also subjected to income tax and other direct taxes; and that the great majority of electors occupying £10 to £20 houses did not contribute in like manner to the national revenue. In a speech made not very long ago the present Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that in general the houses rated at from £10 to £20 were occupied by persons whose incomes varied from £50 to £150 a year. It was, then, only reasonable to suppose that as we descended towards £10 occupiers the proportion of voters who did not pay direct taxes would be much larger. If they ex-

  1111
  amined the Returns of the number of persons assessed for poor rates on £6 to £10 ratings, it would be founds that the number of occupiers increased very largely as they descended in this scale. Of houses from £9 to £10 in value there were 42,000 occupiers; £8 to £9 houses had £51,000 occupiers; £7 to £8 houses were held by 78,000 persons, and £6 to £7 houses by 98,000 occupiers, or more than double the number of those holding premises of the next higher value; and it appeared that the occupiers from £10 to £20 followed the same rule of proportion. The subject was important, not merely in itself, but from the language which had been held by a leading member of the Government. In a speech lately delivered the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated in very plain language his conviction that Parliament, as at present constituted, was disposed unduly to favour the rich classes at the expense of the poorer; and that it was therefore more disposed to indirect than direct taxation. This was a charge of a very grave nature, and one which it might not seem respectful to the Lower House for their Lordships to discuss; but he must observe that there was certainly a very remarkable coincidence between the language thus held and the opinions so often expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, who, since the introduction of the present Reform Bill, had become a warm supporter of the Government. He did not refer to the speeches which the hon. Gentleman, had lately delivered within the walls of Parliament, because he thought it must have struck any who paid attention to the subject that the speeches of the hon. Gentleman recently in the House of Commons had been singularly guarded, and that he was now supporting those to whom he had not hitherto shown himself disposed to evince any great degree of deference. But it would be found that during the recess, both by speeches and a letter, making allowance for varieties of expression, his sentiments were very much the same as those to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer so recently gave utterance. In the speeches of both there was an assumption that the indirect taxes were paid almost wholly by the poorer classes, that they were levied to favour the rich, and that the richer and middle classes contributed but little to the amount which those indirect taxes brought into the revenue. The sentiments of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Mem-
  1112
  ber for Birmingham threw much light upon the Government proposal and their intention with regard to reform. He did not suppose that the Government had thrown that Bill upon the table as an isolated measure; but there were few who considered the subject who did not think that taxation and representation went somewhat together. The Reform Bill and the financial measures of the Government were certainly in harmony; for as one, if it were to pass, would to some extent overthrow the present electoral system, the other was calculated to revolutionize the fiscal policy of the nation. Perhaps he might be permitted to establish this point, and to make one or two observations on the Budget. Over and over again it had been alleged that the financial policy of the Government was identical with that of Sir Robert Peel, and that the objections urged against one might be applied with equal force to the other. But in reality the same resemblance existed between them as was borne by a caricature to the features which it was said to represent. That principle which actuated the measures of Sir Robert Peel was, to use a modern phrase, "conspicuous by its absence" in the proposals of the Government. If any one principle were laid down more strongly than another in the plans of Sir Robert Peel, it was that the expenditure of the year should be defrayed out of the current revenue. In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel entered upon his great work, he had to encounter a deficiency left him by his predecessors of more than 2,500,000, yet he reduced the taxation by £1,200,000. He did not count upon future years to bear the burden of the current year, nor postpone the obligations of that current year, but, by imposing an income tax and other taxes, he was enabled to make good that deficiency. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel carried still further the work he had begun, reducing the amount of taxation by upwards of £3,000,000; but in all his operations it was a cardinal point with him not to incur debt for the purpose of remitting taxes. He always maintained that the expenses of the year should be met by the revenue of the year. When in 1852 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) proposed to make both ends meet, after reducing certain indirect taxes, by applying to the purposes of the year a large sum of money which could not be said to be part of the revenue of the year, his proposal was objected to by Mr. Gladstone on the

  1113
  ground that the expenses of the year ought to be met out of its revenue. But the same right hon. Gentleman now proposed to make up a narrow surplus of £460,000 by calling up the malt and hop credits, putting to the credit of revenue half the Spanish debt, and postponing the payment of £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds; in fact, by appropriating pretty nearly £2,000,000 to the service of the year which had nothing to do with its revenue. When he read the financial statement he was struck with astonishment at it, and, as a supporter of the Government, he was most anxious to hear what plea they could put forward in its justification. Her Majesty's Ministers did not seem very desirous of discussion, but it was impossible altogether to evade putting forward some kind of reasons for this proposal, and, as far as he could learn, the chief argument put forward in its favour was that, as Sir Robert Peel had remitted taxes in the face of a deficiency, and Mr. Gladstone did the same, therefore the financial policy of this Government was identical with Sir Robert Peel's. But no attempt was made to account for the difference which was pointed out—that Sir Robert Peel, before he remitted taxes, always took care to cover the deficiency, which this scheme entirely omitted to do. He would not stop to inquire whether the circumstances of 1858 were parallel to the circumstances of 1860, or whether measures, which were justifiable when the country was slowly recovering from the effects of a very serious commercial crisis, could in any way be justified when it was admitted that the country was in a state of unexampled prosperity. The Budget now proposed was directly at variance with the principles which Sir Robert Peel laid down as the basis of a sound system of finance. When the Army and Navy Estimates were moved it was said that we were in a state of transition, and that there were large calls this year because great changes had to be made. That might be a good reason for asking for large sums, but it was no reason for forestalling the means of the year to come. In fact, we had been in a state of transition for the last twenty years; but if every Government had postponed some portion of their liability on that ground the floating debt would by this time have accumulated to an enormous amount. There was nothing in the state of Europe which justified the expectation that there would be any large reduction in the Army and Navy Estimates,
  1114
  in which alone any really large reduction could be made. At this moment all Europe was looking to a quarter where a deed was being perpetrated of which he would not trust himself to speak. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said, that if Savoy should be annexed to France, France would become an object of distrust to Europe; and on the 28th of January he wrote to Lord Cowley in the same tone. When an act was said to excite suspicion among the States of Europe, it implied warlike preparations and counter preparations—in fact, a state of armed neutrality. Yet, in the face of that state of things, the Government had introduced a Budget which would only be excusable if they were able to show that there was reason to expect that next year they would be able to effect a large reduction of expenditure. He thought he had a right to ask the Government the same question as was asked by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1852, when he asked, were they anxious to vote for a Budget which endangered the credit of the country? That was the language held by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire; yet the only substantial difference which he (the Earl of Airlie) could see between the two Budgets was, that whereas the Member for Buckinghamshire proposed to advance £400,000 to the service of the year which was not properly part of the revenue of the year, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to apply in the same manner upwards of £2,500,000. He knew that the Budget had received the sanction of the other House by large majorities; but the issue whether it was a good one or not had never been raised. It was inseparably connected with the French Treaty, and many who approved the Treaty voted for the Budget lest they should lose the Treaty. There was another point to which he wished to refer. No one had complained more loudly or more frequently than the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the tendency of Parliament to encourage lavish expenditure; but it appeared to him that the measures the right hon. Gentleman had recently proposed removed the only practical guarantee against that evil—namely, that the expenditure ought to be defrayed out of the revenue of the year. With the one hand the Government protracted the expenditure, while with the other they remitted various sources of revenue, and left

  1115
  the future to make up any deficiency which might arise. It was a question well deserving the most serious consideration whether or not the effect of the Reform Bill proposed by the Government would be to give an overwhelming preponderance in the representation to those classes whom direct taxation did not reach, and leave the minority, who seemed marked out for taxation, with no control over the fiscal arrangements of the country. It was necessary that, before they were asked to take that measure into consideration, they should have the fullest information on the points he had mentioned; and he hoped the Government would not object to the Returns he asked for. The noble Earl then moved an Address for—
  "Return of the Number of Persons charged with the Inhabited House Duty and qualified to vote at the Election of Members to serve in Parliament within each of the Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs in England and Wales: Also,
  "Return of the Number of Persons entitled to vote for Members of Parliament in respect of Houses of the respective Rentals of £10 and under £15 per Annum, £15 and under £20, £20 and under £25, £25 and under £50, £50 and under £100, £100 and upwards, in each and every separate Borough:" And also,
  "Return of the Number of Householders in each Borough inhabiting Houses of the Gross Rentals respectively of £6 and under £7, £7 and under £8, £8 and under £9, £9 and under £10, £10 and under £15, distinguishing the Number in each Class (1) not rated to the Poor at all, (2) rated only through the Landlord, and (3) excused from Payment of Rates from Poverty or other Cause."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the Government had no objection to the Returns moved for by the noble Earl; A portion of them had, in fact, been already presented to the House of Commons.
  Motion agreed to.

ANNEXATION OF NICE TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was so sensible of the very serious condition of affairs on the Continent that he was not about to endeavour to extract any hasty expression of their views from Her Majesty's Government, or elicit, by any premature discussion, the opinion of their Lordships' House. The question he had to put was one that related simply to facts; and, though it might suit the convenience of despotic Governments to impart only such information as they chose on the progress of events, with such comments as it pleased them to permit, it
  1116
  would be absurd for their Lordships to shut their eyes to the true character of those events, or accept as a correct account of them statements which they knew to be inconsistent with the truth. Both the Government and Parliament must soon pronounce their opinion upon what was taking place, and he would not touch upon questions of so delicate a nature at that moment. It was obvious that if we were to maintain a sincere and cordial amity with any country, there must exist between the Government of that country and our own the most loyal, frank, and thorough confidence. Some weeks ago there appeared a statement in a foreign newspaper to the effect that there were negotiations going on between the Governments of France and Sardinia for the cession of the districts of Savoy and Nice to France. When the announcement was first authentically made, the French Government were at great pains to impress upon the Government and people of this country that such annexation would be made only with the free consent of the King of Sardinia, and also with the free consent and goodwill of the populations concerned, and after communication with the great Powers of Europe. On two of those points he had nothing to say; he only wished to touch upon the facts connected with the consent of the people whose soil was to be annexed. He left wholly out of view the question of Savoy, because it would be impossible to deal with it without going into questions of much delicacy upon which he for one would not raise a premature, hasty, and, it might be, mischievous discussion. He should confine himself solely to the question of Nice. He need not dilate before their Lordships on the soundness of the principle that any such transference of allegiance as was talked of should be essentially founded on the goodwill and consent of the populations concerned. There was no mote formidable doctrine connected with despotism and what was called the "right divine of Kings" than the idea that their subjects belonged to them as a right, and that any portion of them could be handed over from one to another as they pleased. It would be absurd to dwell upon the falseness of that principle before any body of Englishmen, and it was the more unnecessary in the present case as the French and Sardinian Governments had rested their conduct on the efficacy and validity of the popular will in such matters. The transference of the town and county of Nice from

  1117
  Sardinia to France had been announced, and already appeared to be considered an accomplished fact between the two Governments. But so far was it from the truth that the measure commanded the consent and free will of the population, that it was known to all the world that the municipal body of the town of Nice had only the last week, after a long deliberation, sent a deputation to the King of Sardinia to express their desire to remain under his rule, and to implore him, if separation must take place, to plead for them that the town and county should be constituted a neutral territory, which, as would be evident to those of their Lordships who were acquainted with the country it was well adapted to become. Into the propriety of the annexation he would not enter:—it might be a matter for negotiation between the Governments. All they had to consider was the necessity of having on the part of the French Government on this subject, as on others, frankness, fair dealing, and an adherence if not to promises at all events to announced statements. He observed that the Emperor of the French, in his address to the deputation from Savoy, introduced the question of Nice, without the slightest pretext, because no deputation from that district was present. He said:—
  "In fact, it is neither by conquest nor by insurrection that Savoy and Nice will be united to France, but by the free consent of her legitimate sovereign, supported by popular consent."
  He begged leave to say that this was not a correct representation of the state of things, and he said this on the authority not only of the inhabitants of Nice, but also of Englishmen resident there. Her Majesty's Government had first been told that there would be a general voting of the population, and afterwards that the votes of the municipalities would be taken. There bad been, neither. The French Government had no occasion to announce anything to Her Majesty's Government, so far as regarded the popular will in those countries; we had no right to ask for any promise or pledge that the wish of the people should be consulted; but if certain intentions on so grave a matter were voluntarily announced they ought not to be abandoned. If confidence and goodwill were to be established between the different Powers there must be sincere and frank relations between them. He was informed that the first wish of the inhabitants of the town and county of Nice was that they should remain under the sceptre of Sardinia, and
  1118
  the second was that the territory of Nice should be neutralized. There were obvious reasons connected with the prosperity of the town why they should be anxious not to be annexed to France. He wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Ministers had received any communication from the Sardinian or from the French Government of the recent vote of the municipality of Nice relative to the cession of that town and its county by Sardinia, and to its absorption into the French Empire.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, his answer to his noble Friend's question was that Her Majesty's Government had not received any communication either from the French or Sardinian Government relative to the vote come to by the municipality of Nice. The noble Marquis had commenced by saying that he would not touch on the very grave and delicate question of the cession of Savoy to France. Their Lordships would, therefore, agree with him that he had better confine himself to a simple answer to the question of the noble Marquess, and not enter upon a subject which was under the most serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

MUTINY BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPON EARL DE GREY AND RIPON moved, that the Bill be now read 2a
LORD PANMURE,in rising, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present state of promotion in the army by the sale and purchase of commissions, said he would take the present occasion to draw their Lordships' attention to the military administration of the army, and to a matter connected therewith of grave anxiety and importance. Their Lordships were no doubt aware, from the history of the proceedings of "another place," that the subject of promotion by purchase in the army had been discussed at considerable length by the House of Commons. He confessed he was somewhat surprised and disappointed to find the result of that discussion to be an announcement on the part of his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department, that he was about to recommend to Her Majesty a change in the system that had so long existed, and under which, with all its defects, the British Army had attained a position of which this country might be proud—a change, too, which, in his opinion, would strike a heavy

1119
blow at the root of that system. Her Majesty's Government had given the House of Commons to understand that, acting on the recommendation of a Commission appointed two years ago, they intended so far to alter the rule and system of the sale and purchase of commissions in the army as to exclude from the category of commissions to be sold or purchased the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The Government did not proceed to condemn the whole system of promotion by sale and purchase; they only proposed to lop off one of its principal limbs. If that limb, however, went, he was perfectly certain that all the rest would follow until nothing of the body would be left. Now, 'on what grounds, he would ask, was the system of purchase pronounced to be so faulty as to be dealt with in this summary manner? He would admit that there were blots in the system, which every one must wish to see removed. Still, their Lordships should never forget that ever since we had a standing army the system both of the sale and purchase of commissions had existed in connection with promotion. He believed, indeed, that during the reign of William III. the system was abolished for a time; but the inconvenience was found to be so great that, in the reign of Queen Anne, it was again restored and recognized, and it had ever since prevailed. The sale of commissions in the British army had been originally instituted, not for the purpose of introducing youths into the army, but to enable those who had got to the top of the tree to leave the army, and to open the stream of promotion, so that the officers of the army might not be a senile and antiquated body of men. The system of purchase had operated to that end. It had, moreover, not only introduced into the army a steady stream of promotion, but had also established an impartial system of promotion, under which an officer who was prepared to purchase was secure of his step in spite of all the interest that might otherwise have caused other officers to be put over his head. He would undertake to say that under this plan of promotion by purchase the British Army had attained to a system of appointing officers which, with all its defects, was not only the envy of every other army, but was superior to that of any army in the world. One of the defects complained of was that, whereas the regulations declared that certain prices should be paid for commissions, it was a notorious fact that prices far higher—in some cases almost double the
1120
regulation amount—were constantly paid for those commissions. He would admit the fact. Every one connected with the administration of military matters must know it. Every Secretary at War and Secretary of State for War, and every Commander-in-Chief for years past, had given their attention to the subject, and had endeavoured to check the practice, but they had been unable to prevent money being given for money's worth, and they had all been obliged to connive at it. It was said that this advance beyond regulation prices was a scandal, and that it was dishonourable on the part of an officer to pay the excess. He could not admit that. The word "scandal" implied something that was dishonourable; but he contended that to pay an extra price for a commission was not a dishonourable act. If it were dishonourable to pay the advance how many gallant officers had been guilty of it, and how many successive Governments had connived at it; how many Commanders-in-Chief had been obliged to shut their eyes to it? He asserted that the practice was no scandal, but that it was an inconvenient practice, which he should be glad to see checked. Then it was said that the result of the system of purchasing and selling out was that young men made the army a plaything for a few years, and that having suited their convenience and passed their time agreeably they sold out, threw up their commissions, and never returned to the service. He was surprised that any one should mention this as an argument against the system. To his mind it was an argument in its favour. Any system which favoured the introduction into the British Army of young men able to pay for commissions, which made them for a number of years amenable to discipline, which taught them all that was to be learnt in a regiment, and which qualified them when they sold out and went back to their counties to become officers of militia, officers of volunteers, or to connect themselves with any military matters in their localities—such a system, he said, conferred advantages on the country for which it ought to be grateful; and as regarded the young men themselves it was one of the greatest advantages that could be conferred upon them. It was said that the system stood in the way of those who could not rise in the army by purchase, and prevented their promotion. Here, again, he totally differed from those who would change the practice now in force, because he knew, from

1121
his own experience, that men wholly unable to purchase a single step of promotion had risen to the head of their regiments, through vacancies caused either by death or resignation, far sooner under the system of purchase than they ever could have done if the principle of promotion by seniority alone existed. He thought, therefore, that the three objections he had named, with the exception of the first, were no objections at all; and if no greater accusations than those can be brought against the system, the Government did wrong in interfering in any way with it. But it appeared that the Commission and the Government had doomed the system to a very serious change. The Commissioners consisted of ten individuals, six of whom joined in the Report; but three signed a counter Report; and he had reason to know that the fourth individual—Colonel Wetherall—would have joined in that counter Report if he had not been sent to China. After all, then, the Report of the Commission was the Report of only six of its Members; and when it was considered who the four dissentients were—that one of them had been an efficient Secretary at War in his day—he meant Mr. Ellice, the Member for Coventry—and that the others were officers of great distinction in the army, one of them, General Wynyard, having himself hardly ever purchased a step by which he rose, he thought their opinions should have prevented the Government taking any sudden and rash steps on the subject. It was proposed, as he gathered from the speech of the Secretary for War, that purchase of the rank of lieutenant-colonel should no longer take place. Then, having rendered the rank of lieutenant-colonel no longer attainable by purchase, how was it to be reached? He believed the Commission and the Government had given up the idea of promotion by seniority. They found, he apprehended, that by the system of seniority promotion might fall upon men whose qualifications for command nobody could ascertain, and that it would end in placing at the head of regiments men of long service, but who had too many years on their shoulders, and who were unfit for actual command. But he presumed it was not meant to interfere with the right of majors to become lieutenant-colonels—that if a lieutenant-colonel died it was not intended that the senior major should be deprived of his right of promotion which he now enjoyed. Therefore, he would confine his observations to those cases in
1122
which a lieutenant-colonel was disposed to sell out. It was proposed that if a lieutenant-colonel disposed of his commission, he should be succeeded by an officer to be selected by the Commander-in-Chief from the active body of majors in employment throughout the service. Now, it appeared to him that if ever there was a plan devised which would have the effect of throwing an apple of discoid into the different regiments, and which would interrupt the harmony that existed in those regiments—which it was their bounden duty to encourage—it was the system of calling upon the Commander-in-Chief to exercise this odious and invidious selection of officers, to be carried over the heads of the majors in the regiment, and made their commanding officer. The senior major in a regiment might not be the very best major the Commander-in-Chief knew of in the army, and the invidious duty was put on him of naming another major to take the command of the regiment, and, from that moment, the senior major stood marked as an incompetent man and unfitted to command. Was that a position in which it was fair to put a British officer? Perhaps the senior major was a favourite in his regiment; and in that case how would the officers regard the introduction of a stranger as lieutenant colonel, and in what spirit were they likely to render him obedience? This would destroy at once the whole regimental family system, that had been the foundation of the glory of the British Army, that had bound all together, upwards and downwards, in one friendly compact, and furnished a key to the secret that had enabled the British Army to achieve so many successes. It was said, why not put the army on the same footing as the navy? His answer was that the two services were totally dissimilar. When the officers were brought together in a ship they had never, perhaps, seen each other before; they might perhaps know each other's names from the Navy List, and no more; and while they remained in the ship together they did not make one family. The commanding officer was a family by himself, the wardroom officers formed another family, and the gunroom officers a third, and these three families were totally distinct and separate. But in a regiment the officers were essentially one family, from the lieutenant colonel downwards; they blended into one mass, and that harmony and discipline and high tone prevailed, for which the British Army had so

1123
long been distinguished. Now, if the head of that family were to be introduced in the way now proposed, it would do more to break down the system he had described than any other that could be devised. He would take another instance. Suppose a regiment was in Hong Kong, and the lieutenant colonel retired from the service—the Commander-in-Chief, in the exercise of the duty imposed upon him, might select a major who had distinguished himself in some other part of the world, and nine, ten, or twelve months might elapse before he was able to join his regiment. Under whose charge was the regiment to be in the meantime? It would be under the charge of the senior major, whom it was the intention of the Commander-in-Chief to supersede. These were points which he thought the Government would do well to consider before they gave effect, in the shape of a warrant, to the proposed change. The only other point to which he would allude was the financial part of the question. If a lieutenant colonel applied for leave to sell out, how did they mean to treat him? Did they mean to tell him that there was no objection to his selling out, but that the only sum they could give him was the bare amount recognized by the regulations of the army. The Commander-in-Chief knew that the lieutenant colonel had given £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000 more than the regulation price for his commission; but, notwithstanding that his paying those large sums had been winked at, was it intended to withhold from him the surplus amount he had so paid? To do so would be an act of robbery. They must calculate on great loss if they wished to do justice to the officers of the army by repaying the sums they had laid out, and this would continue till the time came when these officers were put on their guard against giving the large sums they had hitherto been accustomed to pay. With those observations, he should leave this matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government; but he earnestly hoped that before they finally decided upon taking such a step as he had referred to, they would well weigh what the British Army had become under the existing system, and the risk they would run of destroying its prestige by adopting another.
EARL DE GREY and RIPONsaid, nothing could be more natural than that the noble Baron should have availed himself of that opportunity of bringing the
1124
question of the sale and purchase of commissions in the army under their Lordships' notice; because it was the noble Baron himself who appointed the Commission for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the whole subject, and it was in consequence of the Report of that Commission that the consideration of the Government had been specially directed to the question. The first part of the noble Baron's address was directed against the idea of those who desired the total abolition of purchase; and his speech would have been appropriate had it been made in the other House of Parliament on a recent occasion; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War then stated that it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps for the abolition of the general system of purchase, but that on the contrary, Government would view this abolition with alarm, it was not his intention to enter into a general discussion on the merits or demerits of the purchase question. Sure he was however that the system could not be dealt with as a whole, in the manner proposed by some, without leading the country into the expenditure of a large sum of money to compensate officers who were prohibited from purchasing, and to provide pensions on retirements, in order to prevent the promotion of the army from stagnating, and to supply the facilities for advancement that purchase gave. The Government entertained no such scheme as the noble Baron suspected. The question was, whether the system of purchase, such as it now was, was one that ought not to be dealt with at all, or whether its evils were of a character to call for the application of a remedy. The first evil was one the existence of which was not now denied—it was the giving high and exorbitant prices for commissions beyond those set down in the regulations. The noble Baron said there was no ground for any charge of scandal or dishonourable conduct; and far be it from him (Earl de Grey) to use any such words in speaking of a practice that prevailed almost universally among officers of the army. He was glad that the noble Baron had not taken the line taken by some, of denying the facts of the case in reference to high prices. It was a prevalent and general practice even in the infantry to give prices very large, sometimes exceeding as much as 50 per cent on the prices authorized by the regulations. But in considering these questions they must not forget that these prices were

1125
given in direct contravention of the law; it should not be forgotten, that there was an Act of Parliament in existence that strictly prohibited this, and provided punishment and cashiered any one guilty of the offence. The words of the Act were recalled to the attention of officers in the Queen's regulations. It was passed in 1805, and could not be said to be obsolete, seeing that it was put into operation the other day for the punishment and imprisonment of parties who had contravened its provisions. The Mutiny Act, moreover, which was annually passed by Parliament, and of which he had just moved the second reading, contained a clause especially referring to the matter, and provided other penalties for a transgression of the regulations. Therefore they stood in this position with regard to high and illegitimate prices; they had a law and a code declaring that to give or receive them was illegal; and yet, as the noble Baron said, officers in the army still carried on the system, and successive Commanders-in-Chief were aware of the fact. That was unquestionably true; and the reason why no active steps had been taken to put a stop to the practice was, that successive Commanders-in-Chief had found it impossible to lay their hands on any individual case (and the illustrious Duke on the cross benches would confirm it) in such a manner as to justify proceedings under the Act of Parliament. But there still remained the evil of giving these large prices at all. He believed it might be shown to be the opinion of the best and highest military authorities that it would not be desirable to abolish the regulations that exist, and to throw open the market for commissions; and the evidence before the Commission, including that of Sir J. Scarlett and others went to show that the practice of giving these large prices "was a most injurious and ruinous practice." Recently they had had strong illustrations of this. In the cavalry, at the commencement of the year, there were sixty-five vacant cornetcies, which there appeared to be no prospect of filling. This resulted from the high prices of commissions in the cavalry and the great general expenses of that branch of the service, which were suited to the class of men that alone were able to enter it. The result was that by consultation between the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War an order had been issued at the Horse Guards to reduce the price of commissions in the cavalry to
1126
the same as those in the infantry, and the consequence had been that there had been more applications for commissions than they had had in some months past. These questions were now no longer matters of theory or of conjecture, but of fact. But these were not the only grounds that rendered it necessary to deal with this subject. There had taken place recently in the system of promotion in this country certain changes of great importance applying to officers who had risen above the regimental ranks, and which he thought must be considered in connection with this question. The effect of them had been that whereas before the war in 1854 there existed a system of promotion by brevet, so that an officer having once attained the rank of captain, went on progressively though slowly to a higher rank, that system had been altered with general approbation, and now there was no means of getting to a higher rank in the army except by having served in certain regimental positions or on the Staff. Another most salutary alteration bad been made, by which after a short period no officer would obtain one of these staff appointments except by undergoing tests of a severe and important character. The consequence of these changes was that the position of the man who could not purchase was rendered more difficult in consequence of the orders of 1854–58 than under the old system. The evil of high prices was one which had attracted considerable public attention, and the question now was, whether the other changes did not render a consideration of the whole system of purchase desirable; and whether the plan proposed by the Commission was worthy of approval or not. The noble Baron had said truly that this Report of the Commission was signed by only six members of it: that three other members signed a different Report: and that the other member, though he did not hear the whole of the evidence, expressed his readiness to sign the Report of the minority. But nobody could say that the names which were appended to that Report were names not entitled to respect, for they were all names of persons of influence, either as military men or as civilians whose opinions were well entitled to consideration. What were the objections which the noble Baron urged against the plan proposed? He did not understand the noble Baron to say that if the plan were adopted it would not have a great tendency to lower the

1127
price of commissions; and he (Earl de Grey) took it, indeed, that that effect must be admitted as likely to follow. The illegitimate prices which were given were given mainly for commissions of field officers. But then it was said that the tendency of this change would be to injure the regimental system of the British army. He certainly was the last person who would feel inclined to say one word against the advantages of the regimental system of the British army, for no doubt that system was the strength and life of our army. The question was how far the changes now proposed could be said to militate against that system. It must he borne in mind that under the present system officers did not always succeed to the command of their own regiments, and that the system of exchange brought in persons from other regiments to take the command. The fact was that one-fourth of the regimental lieutenant colonels were persons who had bought into their regiments from other regiments; and this calculation did not take in the case of majors, many of whom had also in the same manner come from other regiments. He had not heard that the regiments in which this was the case were less efficient than those in which promotion had gone on more directly. When it was said that this system of selection would have the effect of entirely preventing the possibility of promotion going in the regiment, he denied that such would be the effect; it did not substitute a system of general seniority, and there was nothing in the proposals of the Commissioners to prevent a Commander-in-Chief from promoting an officer in his own regiment. The noble Baron said that the difficulty of exercising selection would be enormous, and that if it were exercised it would create great dissatisfaction. But it must be remembered that in regard to all the higher appointments in the army it was necessary to exercise the principle of selection. The question was, whether the position of a commanding officer of a regiment was one of sufficient importance to make it necessary to have a selection—for it was admitted that for positions of great importance there must be selection. He could not help thinking that the position was one of such importance that the person charged with the duty of selecting commanding officers of regiments should have his power of choice as little fettered as possible. What was wanted was, that if there were an inefficient man in a regiment you should
1128
not be prevented from passing him over; and it would be easier, under the proposed plan, to say, "Here is a man more fit," than to say, "You are so unfit, that though the rule is to promote by seniority, still I cannot promote you." The hardship pointed out by the noble Baron in reference to the senior major, at Hong Kong for instance, taking the command of a regiment for months and then being superseded, was a hardship which might occur under the present system in the event of the senior major not having money to purchase, and therefore being passed over. He could assure their Lordships that, in approaching this most difficult and important question, he was deeply impressed with the necessity of proceeding with the utmost caution. It was necessary in taking any step so closely affecting the interests of the British army that caution should be used, and that whatever might be determined on should be well considered, and determined on only after consultation with military authorities, and hearing all the objections that could be urged against it. In the other House his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had recently been called upon to state his opinions, and he had done so fearlessly; and for himself, he (Earl de Grey) ventured to think that the reason which induced the Commission to arrive at their conclusions and the Government to adopt the conclusions were reasons of great importance. He believed that the step proposed to be taken would not decrease the efficiency of the army, and would remove from it evils of a mischievous and objectionable description.
THE EARL OF LUCANsaid, he was very glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Minister of War had not yet made up his mind on this very important question, and that he would confer previously with the military authorities. He (the Earl of Lucan) did most earnestly implore the Government to consider well before they adopted a step which, in his conscience he believed, would prove fatal to the interests of the British Army. He frankly admitted the evils which arose from the large sums spent upon commissions; but these were given in excess of the regulations, and were no arguments against the purchase system. His belief was, that those evils might be easily cheeked, as they were when he first joined the army. There was nothing so grating to the ear, and so unpalatable, as to be told that public employment, and particularly commissions in

1129
the army, could be obtained by purchase. But he must observe that it could scarcely be truly said that commissions in the British army were purchased. A certain regulated sum of money was deposited when an officer received his commission, which might be held, to a certain extent, as a security for his good conduct. It was only by permission he could recover it. There was no transaction between one officer and another. On quitting the service, the officer retiring did not ask for permission to sell his commission to any particular officer. He asked leave to retire, receiving the sum he had originally deposited; and it was for the Commander-in-Chief to select his successor. When he (the Earl of Lucan) first came into the army, nothing was more common than for the Commander-in-Chief to select an officer from one regiment to fill the vacancy in another, especially when promotion had been too rapid in the one, and too slow in the other. It was a very ordinary practice; he thought it a very wholesome one, and that it would be wise to revert to it. The system of purchase, he believed had worked efficiently and well; he believed that no system in any ether army had worked more or even equally so. He was satisfied that there were no regiments in the world superior to British regiments. Foreign officers might be more scientific, but for honour, for fidelity, or for bravery they were not surpassed, if equalled, by those of any Foreign army. In using the word bravery he was only doing justice to his own feelings. When he recited a conversation he had held with Marshal Canrobert subsequent to the Crimean war, that distinguished general said to him "Je dis—et j'ai tonjours dit—qu'il n'existoiant pas dans le monde de plus brave soldats ques les soldats Anglais, à l'execption de leurs officiers," or that there were no braver soldiers in the world than English soldiers, unless it were their own officers. Much had been said about the ages of officers, he (the Earl of Lucan), was convinced that throughout the English army officers of the different ranks were ten years younger than in Foreign armies. This arose from the purchase system, which, though answering its purpose so well, they were about to tamper with. It was proposed, he believed, to abolish purchase for the future after a certain rank. Since the noble Lord gave notice of his Motion, he had applied himself to reading the evidence taken before the Commission
1130
on whose recommendation the Government's intentions to abolish purchase after the rank of major was founded. He would undertake to say that in the whole of the evidence there was nothing to support the contemplated alteration; he was unable to put his finger on a single expression of any officer which could be adduced in support of such a course. If they were to judge from the questions put by the Commissioners, it would appear that they had made up their own minds before entering on the examination; for, not content with examining, re-examining, and frequently cross-examining their own witnesses, they pressed them so hard as to torture them into the admissions they were anxious to procure. Sir Colin Campbell, Sir Duncan M'Dougall, and Lord West, supposed to be generally opposed to the system of purchase, were examined; though favourable to particular alterations, they were unanimous in condemning the plan recommended by the Commission. He should like to know whether the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary for War, or his chief, had considered the difficulties likely to accrue from the change proposed. No officer entering the army in future is to be secured in his advancement beyond the rank of major, in either the infantry or cavalry. What rule did the noble Lord propose to adopt with respect to the Guards? Would he allow officers to purchase their companies and obtain the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and so be able to ascend to the highest ranks in the profession, at the time that officers, entering the cavalry or infantry, could not be sure of attaining a higher rank than that of major? If such were the intention, did the House believe the country would tolerate it? If there were no other objection, in his opinion, that in itself sufficed to render the scheme impracticable. What was to be done with the Artillery? There was no selection in that corps, every officer must become a lieutenant-colonel in process of time; was it to be tolerated that artillery officers were to obtain, by seniority, that rank which would enable them to succeed to the highest grades in the army, while the officers of cavalry and infantry could only obtain it by selection? That was a difficulty which he saw no way of getting over. If once the principle is established that majors of other regiments are to be selected, the regimental major, as a rule, must be made ineligible, otherwise, there would be such a slur on his character and capacity,

1131
that he would be compelled to leave the service. He believed that there was no officer in the service so sensible of the extraordinary difficulties of the scheme as the Commander-in-Chief himself. He had had no conversation with the illustrious Duke on this subject; but he had read his evidence, and to almost everything that had fallen from him he entirely subscribed. The Government were attempting to lay upon the Commander-in-Chief a duty which it would be impossible for him to discharge. There was nothing in the world so difficult ns to know beforehand who would make a good lieutenant-colonel. It rarely happened that a major had any opportunity of showing that he possessed the qualifications requisite for the command of a regiment; the illustrious Duke must be always doing injustice, for he defied the Commander-in-Chief to say that he had sufficient means for forming an opinion as to the relative merits of the officers from whom he would have to choose his lieutenant-colonels. The illustrious Duke knew that he had not, and he had, in fact, told the Commissioners so; and the consequence would be that he would have to fall back upon the worst of all systems—promotion by seniority. With one exception there was not a single word in the evidence given by the Commander-in Chief before the Commission to which he (the Earl of Lucan) and every officer in the army would not subscribe. The illustrious Duke said that it was so unusual to veto the appointment of an officer he could not exorcise the power, unless he received an unusual amount of support from the public. With great respect he must say that it was the fluty of a Commander-in-Chief to consider the interests of the service before he thought of the individual. It had been stated before the Commissioners that under the present system improper persons were placed in the command of regiments; under what system must that not occasionally happen? It was nevertheless, surprising how few cases had been brought forward. Sir James Simpson mentioned two; but he did not state how they had obtained their rank—whether by seniority, purchase, or selection. One had died in the service, and the other, for anything he knew, might be in it now. He (the Earl of Lucan) felt bound to say that the Commander-in-Chief, whoever he might he, neglected his duty if he allowed an inefficient officer to remain at the head of a regiment. By the reports of the Inspectors the Commander-
1132
in-Chief became acquainted with the capacity of all commanding officers; when one was reported unfit, he should intimate to the officer to withdraw. The illustrious Duke says that that was already done; but the Commander-in-Chief did not discharge his duty if he went no further. Unpleasant as the step might be, he ought, on the officer declining to retire, to send down two General Officers to verify the report and at once act upon their decision. They were told that in the French army the lieutenant-colonels were selected; but the Commissioners probably did not know that in that service the chef de bataillon performs the duties of our lieutenant-colonels; and these are not selected, and in their commands they can prove their qualifications to be selected for the higher rank of lieutenant-colonel. Majors in the English army seldom have the opportunity of showing their qualification for command. With regard to the seniority system, it was unnecessary for him to say a word. The Artillery, in which that rule prevailed, had actually memorialized in favour of purchase; for promotion in that service was so slow that it was hardly possible to keep it supplied with officers of an age fit for active service. Had it not been that seven or eight new battalions had been added, the efficiency of the corps in the field would have been most seriously injured by what he might almost term the senility of its officers. Again, to give promotion, £60,000 or 70,000 a year were spent in retiring allowances. He did hope that the Government would not attempt to carry out the scheme laid down by the Secretary for War without first giving it a most careful reconsideration.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the noble Lord who had introduced this subject to their notice (Lord Panmure) had expressed himself strongly in favour of maintaining the purchase system in its integrity. The noble Lord had expressed surprise that the Government should have taken another course, although well aware that two members of the Cabinet had subscribed their names to the Report of the Commission which proposed to modify the system. He was surprised that the noble Lord, if his mind was made up that the purchase system was excellent, should have raised the question by the appointment of the Commission. Why was the whole question opened, if the noble Lord was confident he was right? He (the Duke of Somerset) had never agitated the ques-

1133
tion, but it now seems that the noble Lord wanted to stifle an inconvenient question, and so appointed a Commission. He (the Duke of Somerset) had spoken in the other House against the exaggerated notion of the evil effects of the purchase system, which, although it had some evils, had great advantages. The noble Lord asked him to be at the head of the Commission and appointed other Commissioners. Why was that done? He called it hardly fair conduct on the part of the noble Lord. The Commission was "to inquire whether promotion in the army is to be advanced by the purchase of commissions at a fixed price, and to report whether it is expedient to make any change in the existing system." Why, if the noble Lord was convinced that change was not wanted—why in the world did he appoint the Commission? The Commission was appointed: was it intended that they should make a heavy blue-book and hang up the question—at least while the noble Lord was Secretary of State. But when the Commissioners carne to look honestly into the question they came to results that did not at all suit the noble Lord. The Commission arrived at the conclusion—and he was prepared to defend it—that the command of a regiment was a most important trust and one which ought not to be bought and sold. That was the position which he (the Duke of Somerset) took, and he wanted to see it confuted. He said that the command of a regiment was a matter of deep importance to the honour of the country, because the issue of a battle might depend upon it. But further than that he believed it was admitted by every one that not only the whole management and efficiency of the regiment, but the health of the men, depended on the commanding officer. It was stated that the mortality in the Crimea varied very much with the efficiency of the lieutenant-colonels in command. Was it right then that they should allow a man, because he had money, to be put in command of a regiment, in which position he might sacrifice the lives of the soldiers and the honour of the country, rather than interfere with the system of purchase? He said the command of a regiment ought to be made by sleection, and he was prepared to show that there were means of making that selection. It had been stated over and over again, and it was stated by the noble Lord himself, that there are at the Horse Guards what are called confidential reports, which are open only to the eyes of the Com-
1134
mander-in-Chief, of the character, conduct, and acquirements of every officer in the army. General Sir George Brown said: "The Commander-in-Chief has the means of knowing the character for efficiency and intelligence of every field-officer in the army if he chooses to go to the Adjutant-General's office to get the information." These were the means of making selection, and yet they had been told by Sir James Simpson that men had often and must under a system of purchase rise to the command of a regiment who were totally unfit for it. They could not be passed over. The veto of the Commander-in-Chief was a very difficult and serious thing. They had the advantage of the evidence of the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief, who told them how invidious it was to put a veto on the appointment of an officer; and the illustrious Duke also said that he felt it desirable to exercise that power, but that it was necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to be supported by public opinion if he should ever have resort to it. The power to veto an appointment does exist, but it is not exercised. That showed that some alteration in the existing state of things was required; and he said that it was far better to select in the first instance than veto an appointment when made. To veto a person appointed was far more invidious to the individual than to select another, because when they selected they did not say to him, "You are very bad," but only "There is somebody else who, under the circumstances, we think preferable." The real question involved was whether they were to consider the interests of the individual officers or the interests of the public service. In this country, with the House of Commons and the public strongly taking up individual cases, it was very difficult to decide individually for the interests of the public service; but the command of a regiment was so important that it ought to be done. There was no difficulty about noncommissioned officers. They were always selected. But it was said that, if it were attempted to apply the principle of selection to officers high up in the service, it could not be done. He believed the Commander-in-Chief had the means of doing it, and, if the illustrious Duke would permit him to say so, he thought he ought to do it if the declared opinion of Parliament called upon him to undertake the duty. No wonder foreigners thought us a nation of shopkeepers when they found us bargaining

1135
as we did at present about the command of our regiments. Even the Duke of Wellington in time of war, as is stated in the evidence of the Commission, when he wanted to name a man to a command, could not do it, because that officer did not possess the money. There was a practical evil and the Commission had indicated the remedy which ought to be applied—the opening of a wider field for selection. He would not go into the question how that ought to be done. That was a matter which the Commission did not proceed to consider, because, when it was found that the members of it were divided, it was thought best not to go further into details, but to set down their opinions on the general question and leave them for the Government to deal with. They only indicated the general opinion that selection ought to take place in nominating to the command of regiments. The noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Lucan) said that no officer had been in favour of the recommendation. Well, but what of Sir James Scarlett, who considered that the principle of selection might be resorted to in all the higher ranks above that of captain? Up to captain it was proposed that when they came into the army by purchase they should be permitted to sell out. One great advantage of purchase was that it opened a way to retirement, and thereby tended to recruit the lower ranks with young men. Were the principle of selection adopted, he entertained very little doubt but it would be judiciously carried out by the illustrious Duke. The illustrious Duke had not only the advantage of position, but he was placed high above all the strife of party; he would not be hampered by the various relations of society, and he would be able to exercise the principle of selection so as to give real efficiency to the British army. There was no other army in the world where the principle of selection was not acted upon, and more especially in the command of regiments this was the case, even in the Indian army. As to making regulations against excess prices, those regulations would be futile—the only way to deal with them would be to adopt some such system as had been proposed by the Commission. High prices were not given until they came to high places. Of the existence of the evil there could be no doubt. Again, he said here was the evil—there was the remedy. A noble Lord had asked what if a regiment should be sent to China, and its commanding officer should
1136
be sent invalided home? How meet that case? Would you send out an officer to take the command? He (the Duke of Somerset) had just done that very thing. A regiment of marines had been sent out to China, whose commanding officer had been invalided—the junior officer had the command for six months. He (the Duke of Somerset) tried to get the best man he could find. He told those whom he consulted he must have the best man to send out there. Well, he sent him. He hoped he had done right, though, according to what the noble Lord (Lord Panmure) said, it would appear as if he had not done so. As to selection, the whole merit of it would depend upon the ability and fitness of the scheme or plan devised for carrying it out. Let them lay down the general principle that all commands of regiments were not to be given according to money but according to fitness. He knew the Horse Guards possessed the means of carrying out this principle, and that it might be adopted. The Commission had laid down only the general plan; but the details of any scheme would, of course, require the grave and serious consideration of the military authorities, assisted by the advice of officers of experience in the different services. He had thought right thus far to express his opinion, having been a member of the Commission whose proceedings had been so much canvassed during this discussion.
EARL GREYagreed in the expendiency of not prolonging the debate. He would only say a few words at this time of the evening, and as the House was so thin. The noble duke spoke of the importance of the office of commanding a regiment. He entirely agreed with him, and that the importance of obtaining the best men for that command could not be exaggerated. The noble Duke said, men ought not to be placed in such high posts merely because they had money to buy them. He (Earl Grey) replied, certainly not; but the question was how they were likely to get the best men for the command of regiments. The noble Duke said, by the system of selection. Well, but, in his opinion, however speciously the plan of selection sounded in the abstract, still its exercise implied an almost superhuman amount of knowledge and firmness—knowledge, to be rightly aware of the abilities of each officer, and firmness to resist all the influences which would be brought to bear directly and indirectly on any Commander-in-Chief. Such knowledge no Commander-in-Chief could

1137
ever fully possess—he must necessarily trust to the reports furnished to him. And would there be no danger of bias, or partiality, or envy, or other motives, in those reports? Could he—how could he be sure he had the most correct data to go upon in his selection? The Commander-in-Chief might be willing to do his best; but doing his best he must still trust to, and be to a great entent guided by, the opinions of others. But how was it possible, when a vacancy occurred in the command of a regiment, for any Commander-in-Chief, especially in time of peace, when officers had no great opportunity of showing their respective qualities, to obtain proof, satisfactory not only to his own mind, but to the mind of the public, that there was some other major in the army so decidedly superior to the senior major of the regiment in which the vacancy occurred that he ought to have the preference? The present system was a system of seniority qualified by purchase. But the practical effect of the system of selection would unquestionably be to substitute for the present system of seniority, qualified by purchase, a system of almost unmitigated seniority, for the habit would soon become established of giving vacancies in command to senior officers except in the case of marked and glaring disqualification. That was his own opinion, and, judging from the evidence of the illustrious Duke before the Commission, such was the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief also from his experience in that high office. Would they, under the new system and the proposed manner of its working, get better officers? He (Earl Grey) would reply, certainly not. The noble Duke was quite wrong in saying a man was made lieutenant-colonel merely because he had money, for it was the bounden duty of the Commander-in-Chief to see that no unfit person was allowed to make the purchase. Moreover, the system of purchase gave great facility to the Commander-in-Chief for passing over those officers who, in his opinion, were not efficient. It was difficult to say to a man against whom there is no positive fault to be found, who has discharged his duties honestly but is deficient in the qualities required for the command of a regiment, "Remain in the service; I must pass you over—casta slur upon you, and blight your prospects, and you will be exposed to the disrespect of all your brother officers; but still you must remain." Whereas by the purchase system he might say in a friendly
1138
way to this officer, "I advise you to sell out. I cannot promote you. I feel it to be my duty to appoint some one else, therefore take my advice as a friend and sell out." He knew that bad been done. This prevented unfit men from being promoted to the command of regiments. Let it be borne in mind too that the British military service was one of the hardest in the world. We sent our regiments to the most distant parts of the globe—to the most unhealthy climates—they had no opportunity of distinguishing themselves—Were they then to promote an officer to whom chance afforded an opportunity of distinguishing himself, over the head of an equally brave and efficient officer, who might have been quite as much or more capable, but who had not been afforded the same opportunity of bringing himself into notice? The system of selection, too, would, in his opinion, cause much jealousy, and might, perhaps, lead to appeals to public opinion—to attempts to depress brother officers in the estimation of the press and the public, and to increase their own importance, than which nothing could, in his opinion, be more pernicious. They had seen a little too much of that already. He feared that officers would be desirous of increasing their own importance at the expense of others in the same service, which would be, he repeated, a most serious misfortune. There were two courses open to them, either to adhere to the system of purchase or to abolish it altogether. A great deal had been said, and perhaps might be said, in favour of each of these courses, but with respect to the proposal of the Commission he confessed he could see nothing to recommend it, on the contrary it ingeniously united the objections to both the other plans without the merits of either, and he had never heard any man, not a member of the Commission or of the Government, who was in favour of the scheme. In his opinion it would be better to abolish the system of purchase altogether than to adopt their recommendation. It had been argued that abolishing the system of purchase as to lieutenant-colonelcies and retaining promotion by purchase in all the inferior ranks would put an end to the practice of paying what were called illegitimate prices for commissions. Notwithstanding all that had been said on this point his opinion was that there was no objection whatever to these high prices except that they were in contravention of a certain law

1139
or regulation. That regulation ought, in his opinion, to be altered. It would be necessary to have a regulation price, for it could not be permitted to an officer to carry on an auction for the sale of his commission. There ought to be a regulation price, and then, if the senior officer said he was ready with this sum, he ought to have the commission; but if by mutual agreement between the parties a sum beyond the regulation were paid for a commission, he saw nothing to condemn in the arrangement. What was the objection to it? Whom did it injure? If it was done by common consent, instead of being an injury, it was an advantage, since it promoted the greater frequency of those transactions and kept the army young. If the reason for this change was to compel lieutenant-colonels to go out, taking the regulation price, then it was a plan of downright robbery. He advised Her Majesty's Government, if they made the change proposed, not to shirk the honest obligation to meet existing interests. He knew, and all the world knew, that the payment of prices beyond the regulation had been the general practice for years with the sufferance, to say the least, of the highest military authorities. In former years he believed there had even been cases in which negotiations for the sale of commissions beyond the regulation price had actually been carried on through officers at the Horse Guards. To turn round upon officers who had been thereby encouraged to pay high prices for their commissions now and say they must go out with only the regulation price would be nothing better than robbery. If the Government made any change in the existing arrangements they were bound to ask Parliament for the means of making a fair compensation to officers whose interests would be affected. He should advise Her Majesty's Government, if they wished to abolish the system of purchase gradually, rather to begin at the lower end than the higher. An ensign never paid more than the regulation price, and there would be no objection to say to the ensigns, "The public will pay you the money you advanced;" and then in a few years they might get rid of the system of purchase without injustice; but, for his own part, he deprecated the change altogether, and believed the system to be attended with great advantages. In the first place it was most desirable that the officers of the army should be of a younger age than they could be otherwise kept, without going to an enor-
1140
mous expense for retiring pensions. Then in the next place, the political advantages of the present system were most important. It was highly useful that gentlemen of wealth, who were afterwards going to occupy important situations in the country, should in their younger days be placed under the control of military discipline. The system of sale and purchase also prevented the army from being too exclusively professional in its character. He was old-fashioned enough to think that to keep up a large standing army was, under any circumstances, rather a dangerous thing to a free country. It was formerly regarded as a political axiom that standing armies were dangerous to free institutions, and he believed that what had rendered an army compatible with our free Government was that it was officered by gentlemen closely connected with the general society of the nation, having interests in common with the rest of their countrymen, and not looking to promotion as their only object. A body of officers who had their profession only to trust to would be animated by very different feelings, and would naturally be very favourable to war. The system of purchase had mainly contributed to preserve our army from this spirit, and we had thus avoided many serious evils existing in other countries; our system had both ensured a rapid succession of officers in the army, and a community of interests between those officers and the gentlemen of the country.
THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think it would be respectful to your Lordships if I allowed this discussion to close without saying a very few words to this effect—that in my peculiar position it would be very indelicate in me to enter into any arguments on this subject, inasmuch as my opinions are known. They have been given before the Commission of which my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) was the President. Those opinions were given before this question was under your Lordships' consideration. They were given in the most unbiassed manner to the Commission, and I request to say that I have not changed them since. This is all that I will observe; except to add thus much, that, whatever may be the decision that may be come to, I can assure the noble Duke, I can assure this House and the country, that as far as I am personally concerned, it shall be my earnest and anxious endeavour—difficult as it may be, and, as I may perhaps consider it,

1141
impossible—to carry out that decision in such a manner as to promote the best interest of the army, and if of the army the best interests of the country also.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEwished to express the opinion that the compromise proposed by the Secretary for War would not work satisfactorily. He thought it had been clearly shown by the two noble Earls; who had spoken that evening, and by the noble Lord who had introduced this discussion, that such a system would lead to heart burnings and to great dissatisfaction in the army. The result would be that political pressure and private friendship would be brought to bear upon the authorities, which it would be very difficult to withstand, and that esprit de corps, which ought to exist among the officers of the British army, would be destroyed. He had at one time entertained the opinion that the principle of selection by merit was one that might be introduced into the service with advantage; but after reading the evidence of the noble Earl opposite and of His Royal Highness on the subject he confessed he had changed his opinion, and he was now of opinion that it could never be fairly or practically carried out. The Commander-in-Chief had stated before the Commission that if a vacancy occurred in a regiment in the West Indies, and a major were sent out from home to supersede all the captains in the regiments, it would be a great hardship upon those officers who had been serving there in a bad climate with their colours. Then, what was to be the test of selection—was it to be the fact of an officer being a good drill, or being well acquainted with the interior economy of his regiment, or was it to be scientific acquirements? On all these points every Inspector of a regiment in their reports would differ. Then, what did the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) say? He said he would not enter into details, and could not explain how those were to be carried out; but when the Secretary for War came down to the House, and propounded so crude and imperfect a measure, the House had a right to ask how those details were to be carried out? The Secretary of War had stated he viewed with alarm and apprehension the total abolition of the purchase system. He (Viscount Hardinge) hoped the Under Secretary for War shared somewhat in that alarm, for in the House of Commons he made able speeches in favour of total abolition. The late Lord Raglan stated before the Commis-
1142
sion of 1840, that he should be very sorry to see the system of selection introduced into the army under any circumstances, because he thought it would lead to every possible abuse. The scheme of the Government he considered very objectionable, and he trusted, if it were not too late, that the Government would reconsider the question, and not introduce into the army any sweeping measure or hastily considered changes.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that an accusation had been made against him by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that he had had a Committee or Commission appointed for the purpose of shelving this question. He entirely repudiated that accusation. He appointed the Commission, not because he was convinced that it was necessary, in order to promote the character of the British officer, but in order to satisfy the demands that had constantly been made for it in the House of Commons. He must say he thought that Commission had taken evidence in a most extraordinary manner. For example: the whole evidence of Sir C. Trevelyan consisted of questions and answers, the whole of which were written by that gentleman himself and placed in the hands of the Commissioners, and in many cases the witness corrected the questioner.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETexpressed his regret if be had said one word that would cause pain to his noble Friend, or that could be deemed an imputation upon his personal character.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.