Sitting of 26 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.— 1° Income Tax; Stamp Duties,
3° Consolidated Fund (£850,000).

BEAULAY AND NESS FISHERY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he should move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He contended, that, if passed, the effect of the Bill would be to confiscate the property of individuals who had as clear a right to their Salmon Fishings as any man bad to his estate. The object was not to promote any public advantage, but to absorb private rights for the benefit of one or two great proprietors. If the object were public, let it be accomplished by a public Act.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, he should support the Motion for the third reading. The measure would only prevent a species of fishing which would soon prove completely fatal to the breed of salmon in those rivers.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he objected to the Bill because it proposed to render illegal in two of the rivers running into the Moray Firth that which was left perfectly legal in the other rivers falling into that estuary.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, he could state that all that the measure did was to regulate the mode in which the right of fishing should be exercised, and the Committee were unanimous in the conclusion they had arrived at on the subject.
  THE EARL OF MARCHsaid, that if the House legislated at all upon the subject it ought to pass a general measure, and not one of an exceptional character.
  MR. MASSEYthought the House was not in a position to review the decision of the Select Committee, and he hoped it would not undertake to reverse that decision.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 93: Majority 55.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

THE ARMY.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he rose to move an Address for Returns of British Regimental Establishments for 1860–61, of all ranks; of Effectives, 1st day of April, 1860, of all ranks; of Indian Establishment for 1860–61; of Effectives, 1st day of April, 1860; of total number of Embodied Militia, 1st of April, 1860 of all ranks; and, of any transfers that might have been made, or of which notice had been given, from Indian Establishment to British, not shown in the Estimates.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that he had no objection to the early part of the Returns moved for by the hon. and gallant Member, and he took that opportunity of stating that owing to the return of some regiments from India, a considerable portion of the augmentation announced would not be carried into effect, because the regiments returning would absorb the number of men so voted, and would constitute a much more effective force than that which had been contemplated, which was merely an augmentation to make shift until these regiments returned. He wished also to state that though he had got a Vote for the men, he had got no Vote for the Money, and as the financial year ended on Saturday, it was necessary that the House should provide means to enable him to go on until after Easter, when the Estimates would be discussed. Therefore, as he apprehended that the House would not object to grant him Votes on account without discussion, and when the Estimates were again brought forward there would be ample opportunity for discussion on the part of those Gentlemen who had given notice of submitting any subject to the consideration of the House, he proposed to take the Votes on account on Wednesday, and to reprint the Estimates so that the House might clearly understand what stood for the year. With regard to the Returns now moved for, he had no objection to them with the exception of the last portion relating to transfers from Indian Establishment to British, because that would appear in the Estimates, and it would, therefore, be unnecessary to give it now.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that there could be no objection to the right hon. Gentleman taking the Votes on account, but it would be convenient to the House if some idea were given of the nature of the changes in the arrangements, and whether

  1241
  they would affect the general Estimates before the House.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the changes will not affect the general totals.

COLONEL CONNOLLY.—STAFF APPOINTMENTS.
  EXPLANATION.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, that a question was asked last Friday of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War respecting the changes made in the Staff of the Army; and he observed that he had seen a statement in a newspaper that an Officer had been moved three successive steps on the Staff, and asked whether that statement was correct. The gallant Officer in question, Colonel Connolly, supposed himself aggrieved by something be said on that occasion, though be took especial pains to avoid the expression of any opinion either with respect to the Officer, the appointment, or the transaction altogether, with respect to which he had thought it his public duty to ask an explanation. He was extremely sorry that the Officer in question supposed that any reflection on him was intended. He believed that Officer to be both very gallant and meritorious, and very fitly selected for appointment, though it had struck him that these successive changes of appointment required explanation.
POOR REMOVAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure in the present Session with a view of putting an end to, or, at least of materially mitigating, the hardships now entailed on Irish-born poor by their removal to Ireland by the parochial authorities of England, Wales, and Scotland.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the evils of the present system were universally admitted, and the Presidents of the Poor-law Board, in succession, had endeavoured, although hitherto unsuccessfully, either to remove or to mitigate those evils. The hon. Gentleman had taken so much interest in the subject, and so thoroughly understood it, that he need not repeat to him what steps had been taken. The right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board had already given notice of
  1242
  his intention to move for the immediate re-appointment of the Committee on the subject. It was likely that their labours would be soon completed, and that a Bill upon the subject would be introduced in the course of the present Session.

AUSTRALIAN MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOPEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether or not he is in possession of any information bearing upon a statement which has been made that an Electioneering Agent has been appointed a Justice of the Peace in one of the Australian Colonies, he being at the time, and having continued after his appointment to be, a hired servant in the employment of a resident in the district for which he has been appointed such Justice?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that no information had yet been received at the Colonial Office on the subject alluded to by the hon. Member. These subordinate appointments were not submitted to the Home Government, who had no control over them. He believed, however, that the Colonial Government of New South Wales had already under consideration whether they could not guard these appointments against party and political influences.

  DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS IN ITALY.—QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps it is his intention to take with regard to breaking up Diplomatic Establishments now existing at Florence; also, whether he intends to propose any and what change in the position of the Queen's Representative at the Sardinian Court, in consequence of the recent aggrandizement of that State?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have advised Her Majesty to abolish altogether our Diplomatic Establishment at Florence, and Her Majesty has been pleased to approve that step. I have accoringly directed Mr. Corbett to consider his Mission at an end. With regard to the Mission at Turin, I some time ago raised it to a first-class Mission—after the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont. I do not know whether it will be necessary to make any further change at present.

  BOROUGH VOTERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwould beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Returns of the number of Voters in Cities and Boroughs, at from £6 to £10, are not obtained from the Parochial. Rate Books, through the instrumentality of the Poor-Law Board, and are therefore founded on statistics of rating, and not of rental; and, if so, whether such Returns, so based on rating, can afford any correct estimate of the number of Voters that a Rental Franchise of £6 would add to the Constituency?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he understood that the Rate Books had a column for gross rental as well as for rateable value; but his right hon. Friend, the President of the Poor-Law Board, could perhaps answer the question more satisfactorily.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid he wished to inquire whether the figures taken from the Rate Books, which formed the basis of the noble Lord's calculation, in estimating the probable increase of Voters to be added to the Constituency by the Bill of the noble Lord, were taken from the rental column, or the rating column?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: One column, I believe, contains the rental, and the other the rateable value.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The noble Lord, I think, misapprehends my question, which was, whether his calculations were founded on the figures taken from the rateable value or not?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I understand not, from the President of the Poor-Law Board.

  COURTS-MARTIAL.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty upon what principle Officers in the Royal Navy, tried by a Court Martial, are unable to obtain a copy of the depositions of that Court until a year has elapsed from the date of the Court Martial?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the depositions were kept back in order to allow time for allaying animosities and ill-feeling; but any prisoner under trial was allowed to have the assistance of a friend. The whole proceedings took place entirely in public, and the prisoner and his friend had the opportunity of taking notes of all the evidence.

  MURDER OF THE CAPTAIN OF H.M.S. "VIXEN."—QUESTION.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the Government propose to take any steps in connection with the barbarous assassination of the Captain of the Vixen at Lima, and whether they have sent out instructions to the Naval Commander on that station to demand redress?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member would repeat his question on Thursday or Friday, he would be in a position to give him an answer.

FOREIGN POLICY.—THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE TO FRANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Resolutions reported.
  Resolution 1, read.
  MR. HORSMAN—Sir, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to make some remarks upon the foreign policy of the country, especially as to the position in which this House stands in discussing our relations with other Powers, both towards our Ministry at home and foreign Powers abroad. In doing this I shall not go prospectively into questions which are now the subjects of negotiation, but shall endeavour rather to vindicate the rights and privileges of the House as to the present than revive unnecessarily questions of the past. When Parliament met at the beginning of the Session it was well known that various questions, not of negotiation only but of diplomatic controversy, had given rise to serious differences between the Governments of England and France—questions respecting Egypt, respecting Spain and Morocco, and respecting China. No one can say that the Government has been hampered by any undue interference on the part of this House in connection with any of those matters. It was well known that there had been a controversy of so serious a nature on the subject of the Suez Canal that at one time, judging from the information given by the authorized French journals, it had caused considerable embarrassment to the English Cabinet. But it was stated that the Emperor of the French, not wishing at that moment to increase that embarrassment had postponed the question to a more convenient time. But although we know that such a postponement must sow the seeds of future

  1245
  difficulty to this country, not one word of information has been laid upon the Table by Her Majesty's Ministers as to the correspondence between the two Governments, and no question has been asked in this House concerning it. Again the outbreak of the war between Spain and Morocco excited attention. We know that in the first instance the English Cabinet took a high tone with Spain. The French Cabinet took an equally high tone on the other side in support of Spain, and we were again told by the official organs of the French Emperor that there had been what in diplomatic language was termed an animated conversation between the First Minister of England and the French Ambassador, which ended in the French Ambassador politely informing the English Minister that although the Emperor attached importance to the opinions of the British Cabinet, he was not to be diverted by their representations from the course on which he had already determined. Then we were informed by Her Majesty in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session, that efforts had been made to mediate between Spain and Morocco with a view of preventing the war, and papers on the subject were promised, but that promise has not yet been fulfilled, and not one question has been asked. Again, various difficulties occurred with the French Government as to the joint expedition to China. The officials organs of the French Government stated that it was the determination of France not to help England out of her difficulties in China unless England would help France out of her difficulties in Italy. The joint expedition, however, was finally arranged, though many persons believe it to be a great error and a source of much difficulty and embarrassment in the future. Not a line of the correspondence on this subject, again, has been laid upon the table, nor has a question been asked of the Government. I state these facts to show that on questions which are not urgent and do not require immediate serious discussion there has been no desire on the part of the House to embarrass the Government, or in any way to fetter their freedom of action. When, therefore, upon the question of Savoy greater anxiety was displayed, we had a right to expect credit from the Government for interfering only because it was a matter of great urgency, in which we thought that the functions of diplomacy were about being exhausted, and that the interposition
  1246
  of Parliament was absolutely necessary to avert consequences which the diplomacy of the Government had been too weak to deal with. As to Savoy, I wish to call the attention of the House to the points which have been brought more immediately before us in the course of the present Session. At the close of the last Session it may be remembered the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary stated that the Emperor of the French in making peace with the Emperor of Austria had voluntarily abjured all ideas of anything like territorial aggrandizement, and he remarked, in what seemed a very fair spirit towards the Emperor, that he thought it right to make the statement, because rumours of an entirely opposite character had been propagated. The House separated with that assurance. At the beginning of the present Session those disquieting rumours were again revived, questions were asked as to their truth, and the answer given was that no official information had been received on the subject. There then appeared no belief on the part of the Government in the existence of the designs imputed, and for the moment the House was satisfied; but immediately afterwards the organs of the French Government published an open and avowed declaration of the determination of France to annex Savoy. Again the Government were interrogated, and the answer was that, no doubt, France had indicated a desire to annex Savoy, but that Sardinia had determined not to give its assent, and without that assent it could be done. The House was again satisfied for the moment; but shortly afterwards the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Kinglake), supported by the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), showed that they were in possession of precise and accurate information that Sardinia had agreed to cede Savoy, and they asked whether the Government had not the same information. The answer was, that such information had been received by the Government, but it was coupled with the agreeable assurance from the Emperor, that nothing would be done without the consent of the population concerned, and that both the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia would abide entirely by their decision. After that communication there was another pause. But shortly after the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater came down to the House, and, supported by the right hon. Baronet, said he had reason to believe that a treaty between Sardinia and France was on the

  1247
  point of being signed by winch Savoy was to be ceded without the consent of the population. Again they received for answer that this also was quite true, but there was yet comfort, because the Government had obtained from the Emperor the gratifying assurance that the question should be submitted to the Powers of Europe, and that nothing should be done without their assent; and it was added that if the House, which had so far shown forbearance towards the Ministry, would only continue to exhibit that forbearance, and would place in them the same confidence which the Government reposed in the Emperor of France, Savoy might still be saved. This appeal was responded to with more sympathy and applause from the benches behind the Ministry than had ever been bestowed on his previous announcement. Whereupon the noble Viscount, the First Minister, elated by the enthusiasm displayed, so far forgot himself as to relapse into high encomiums upon the Emperor, reminding the House of his Majesty's first declaration that the Empire was Peace, going out of his way to assert that nothing which had occurred in the invasion of Italy was at variance with this declaration, and expressing also his opinion that the invasion of Italy was a noble enterprise. The House rested upon the assurance then given; but a few days afterwards the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Kinglake) got information of a still more precise and alarming character, which was to the effect that not only was the annexation determined on, but that deputies from Savoy were actually on their way to Paris to do homage to the Emperor. The hon. and learned Gentleman showed me his telegram, and did me the honour to consult me whether, considering the impatience—and, I may say, the intolerance—which had been shown in some quarters of the House, he should be justified in again intruding himself upon its attention after the repeated explanations of the noble Lord. My opinion was, that the statement which he had to make was so serious a one, that it was his duty again to bring the subject under the notice of the Government. He accordingly did so, and with what result? A despatch of the greatest gravity had just been received, as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs informed the House, and it announced, not only that the annexation of Savoy was determined on, but that the assent of the great Powers of Europe was not to be required; and the noble Lord, on the impulse of the
  1248
  moment, speaking as he did under great emotion, told us that as soon as he had written an answer to that despatch, and Her Majesty's approval had been obtained thereto, it would be laid on the table. That despatch has been written—it has been transmitted—but when we ask the noble Lord to let us see it, we are told that the Cabinet does not concur in the fulfilment of the pledge which he gave, and that despatch has not been produced. I must say, that this is to me only another indication that it is not the spirit of the noble Lord that guides the councils and rules the foreign policy of this country. What is the reason that is now given for the non-production of that despatch? We are told it would become subject to hostile criticisms. But any criticism that might follow the perusal of the despatch would naturally depend on its character and spirit. If it be a despatch in harmony with English sentiments and English feelings, no criticism need be feared, and the very fact of its being kept from our sight in order to shun criticism is not to my mind to the belief that it is favourable in accordance with the opinions of the people of this country. But, while we are not allowed to learn the nature of the despatch from our own Government, a description of it—but, I hope, not a true one—has been given to the world in the official journals of France. The character given of it is exactly that which the enemies of the Government abroad, and those who wish to make a tool of it, would give;—that it is a protest couched in the most friendly terms. M. Thouvenel wrote and published his despatch; he did not fear criticism—and why? Because the Emperor of the French knew that, by the publication of his despatch, he would produce a great effect upon Europe—that he would depress Germany—he would (or at least he hoped he would) dispirit Switzerland—he might cow Savoy, and coerce Sardinia. But while the people of Europe are looking for the counteracting despatch from this country showing what is the spirit and the policy of England, we are told that that despatch is to be kept back for fear the English public might indulge in disagreeable criticisms. Now, there is one indication, and I hope the only one, of a plea which is put forward in some quarters—that the action of the French Government has been precipitated by the discussions in this House. I can imagine how that might be in one way. I can

  1249
  imagine the Emperor saying to his Council, "As long as the House of Commons is weak and docile, neglecting its own interests, choosing to leave this question entirely in the hands of their Government, we may proceed at our leisure, because they will do our work as well as ourselves." "But," he may say, "I see notices of Motions by independent Members of the House, which, if carried, may be very embarrassing to the policy we are pursuing. They may rouse Germany, may inspirit Switzerland, may encourage Savoy, and may thwart and discourage the policy of France, and therefore it is for our interest to move rapidly, promptly, and to anticipate events which might be very inconvenient for us." I hold that the rule which ought to guide this House towards the Government in relation to its foreign negotiations, is a very simple one, and one that cannot be mistaken, and I hope the House will lay down for itself some rule by which it will vindicate the high privilege it enjoys of free speech concerning the Government at home and Governments abroad. The rule I take to be this—when complications arise and danger threatens, it is right to leave unfettered the course of the Government, and generously to conclude that the threatened evils may not be realized, and that the Government may be able to avert the danger. But it is a different thing when the opposing Power is not diplomatizing merely, but acting. When that occurs the point for Parliamentary forbearance has gone by. This question of the annexation of Savoy has passed through a succession of phases, each of which has been of itself a distinct and important act, and from the first disavowal of the design to this last apparent accomplishment, the artifices, and frauds of diplomacy have, one by one, been superseded by more effective action. The Emperor has made a speech avowing the accomplishment of that design, the Minister has written despatches to Europe in the same spirit, troops have been marched to Savoy, ships of war have appeared off Nice, and the event is actually accomplishing at the moment when Her Majesty's Government think they are still negotiating it, and they ask us still to forbear, to have that confidence in them which they have all along had in the Emperor of France, and then even at the eleventh hour they would persuade us Savoy may yet be saved. I must say, recollecting what occurred last Session as to the relations between this House and the Government, and contrast-
  1250
  ing the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater with that pursued by the Government, that contrast is as favourable to the one party as it is unfavourable to the other. The accuracy of my hon. and learned Friend, his early information as to the progress of events, his predictions of danger to be apprehended, the consequences which he said must follow, if not by timely action averted, the warnings he gave of events that have since occurred, combined with the earnestness and moderation of his statements, all, I think, contrast most favourably with the conduct of the Government—with their apparent ignorance, their reluctance to give information, their evasion of discussion, their blindness to events that were happening, and their neglect of every proper effort to avert the dangers of which they have been warned. I think my hon. and learned Friend is, for the past, entitled to the thanks of the House, and, for the future, to its confidence and support; but our experience makes it imperative upon us to watch vigilantly every single movement of the Government, and rigidly to inquire into every part of these negotiations, in which I am bound to say neither in courage nor in duplicity can they rival their Imperial Ally. So far as regards our relations with the Government at home; but there is another question—What is to be the limit of our privilege of free speech in this House in criticising the policy and the acts of Governments abroad? In the course of last Session, when I had occasion to enter at great length into the question of our relations with France on a Motion as to the state of our national defences, I laid down a rule which I have always observed when referring to the policy and acts of the Emperor of the French. I said then that the Emperor was the chosen of the French people; that they trusted him, admired him, obeyed him, and thought him a great benefactor, and that from a French point of view, he was entitled to their gratitude and respect, and, therefore, on his personal character and his acts, as far as they relate to the internal Government of France, I thought we had no business to make remarks. But I said, as to his external policy, it was the duty of this House never to turn its eyes from that policy. I described that policy as one of war, aggrandizement, and aggression. Two of these have been already fulfilled—the aggression has taken place, the aggrandizement is in course of accomplishment, and who can say how

  1251
  distant is the war? During the administration of the noble Viscount, and under the very peculiar, and, I might say, unprecedented relations between him and the French Emperor, there has been a new doctrine laid down—that we must frame our speeches, not according to what we consider to be for the interest of England, but according to what may not be hurtful to the feelings of the Emperor of France. That is a doctrine which I hope this House will at once and for ever repudiate and set at rest. As to the Emperor, his views, and our manner of discussing them, I think our course is clear. As long as the Emperor refrained from action, I think it was right and reasonable to give him credit for honourable motives, but when it is notorious to all the world, except to the Members of the Cabinet, that he is proceeding to the accomplish- of his designs, then I say it would be not merely folly but hypocrisy on our parts if we were not to characterize, as it deserves, the policy he has pursued. Silence in such a case implies indifference, if not complicity. Can it be said for a moment that because we are characterizing, as we believe it deserves, the policy of the Emperor of the French, that we are doing that which is irritating? I say we are acting in self-defence. It is the only way to bring him before the tribunal of opinion which he dreads. He cannot complain that in the Parliament of England his policy is discussed. The Ministers of England should be the first to vindicate the right of free speech which is the highest privilege we possess, and with which we will never part. At this time any attempt to suppress the expression of opinion here, when Ministers cannot defend facts, would degrade us to a state of moral weakness and acquiescence in wrong, and justify the imputation that is made abroad against us of unworthy sycophancy; and the more adulation is heaped upon the Emperor of the French from that (the Ministerial) bench, the more necessary it is that truth should be heard from other quarters of the House. It is for that reason that I vindicate in this Assembly the right of free speech, which there has been an undue attempt to fetter, and that in the exercise of my privilege as a Member of this House I denounce the recent policy of the Emperor of the French in Italy as a policy of deceit. I say that he has deceived the English Ministers, and has made them his tools for deceiving the English Parliament.
  1252
  I say that he has treated them with a duplicity which they had not the candour to acknowledge, and a contempt that they had not the spirit to resent. And, speaking of his proceedings in Savoy and Sardinia, and the manner in which he has announced his policy to Europe, I say he has added insult to aggression, and perfidy to injustice. Am I to be rebuked from that bench (pointing to the Treasury bench) for this language? Why I look along that bench, I see such an array of Ministers as never sat there before, associated with Parliamentary censures and "horrible and heartrending" disasters. Let me remind them that in 1855 there was a Cabinet occupying that bench apparently stronger than the present, and with quite as reliable a majority, though I do not think it was quite so intolerant of all who differed from them as the majority which now sits behind them; but in one night a storm of indignation arose, and that Cabinet, by an unprecedented majority, was censured and ceased to exist. In 1858 the noble Viscount was at the head of a still stronger Cabinet, but it was stated openly that he had truckled to France, and because he had done so he was censured, and his Cabinet was swept away. And now I would warn those who would attempt to fetter the freedom of speech in this House, that the spirit which on two occasions came to the rescue and vindicated the honour and interests of the nation yet survives, and it may inflict a third penalty as sudden and more severe than any which has preceded it.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has raised up a great many spectres, with which he has fought much more than he has combated with any reality that exists. First of all he supposes that we have been continually complaining of the freedom of speech in this House, and endeavouring to suppress it. That is an entire imagination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he has given us to-night a tolerable specimen of the manner in which the freedom of speech may be exercised, whether as to Ministers at home or Sovereigns abroad. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, has imagined that we have been continually rebuking the House for the freedom with which its Members speak of foreign affairs. I do not think that we have so presumed with regard to the freedom of speech in this House. I think, on the contrary, with regard to hon. Gentlemen op-

  1253
  posite, we have every reason to be satisfied with the forbearance that has been shown, and with the unwillingness they have for the most part displayed to enter upon any general discussion of foreign affairs, or, at all events, to impede the action of negotiations that might be actually pending. I thought at one time the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald) unbecoming the position he had held and the responsibility that consequently must attach to his words, but on a subsequent occasion the hon. Gentleman made a speech full of moderation and, if he will allow me to say, of good intention, and I have no reason to find fault with him. But I must say that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud has given us so much warning and advice, and so much objurgation, I may be permitted to give him one piece of advice,—that, seeing there is on the other side of the House an indisposition to enter upon any violent course of opposition, or any factious misrepresentation, I wonder that he does not himself take his place on the front seat of the Opposition bench, and endeavour to show to the shame of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite what faction can effect. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly imagined a good many anecdotes with which I was perfectly unacquainted. He tells us with respect to Morocco that we intended to lay the papers on the table of the House, which we have failed in doing, and that there was a very animated discussion between my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury and the French Ambassador respecting the affairs of Morocco. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I never heard of that discussion, nor do I think that any warm discussion has occurred between this Government and the Government of France with respect to the Spanish expedition to Morocco. We thought the war was an unnecessary war on the part of Spain; that opinion was very ill taken by Spain, but it gives me much pleasure to say that I believe that war is now approaching a termination. Then with regard to China, the right hon. Gentleman says we asked for the assistance of the French in China, and that we were told the French Government would only give that assistance if we assisted their policy in Italy, and that a bargain was thereupon made. That is another specimen of imagination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; but whether it is his own or whether he has picked it up from some
  1254
  of those telegrams which fly about the world, and have little authority, I know not; but, at all events, the House should not be misled by taking everything for certain that the right hon. Gentleman said. Then with respect to this great and important question of Savoy, I have more than once told the House the state of our information on that subject. I told the House what had passed between our Ambassador in Paris and the French Foreign Minister, and what our Minister at Turin had reported of his conversation with the Minister of France. I never considered myself bound to vouch for everything that was so reported, as to the way in which the project was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman says that I assured the House to its very great satisfaction not only that the Emperor of the French would consult the great Powers of Europe, but that he would be guided by their opinion. The noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), endeavoured to extract from me an opinion whether the Emperor of the French intended to consult the great Powers of Europe in the sense of explaining to them his views with regard to Savoy, and then to act as he thought fit, or whether he meant to abide by the decision he might receive. Not being certain myself, I never could state to the noble Lord in what sense the Emperor of the French meant to consult them; but the very moment I received a despatch explaining in what sense that consultation was to be made I came down to the House and told them I thought it was intended in the sense of exposing the reasons of the Emperor of the French, but at the same time not supposing the great Powers should decide upon the question, but that the Emperor himself should decide. Well, as regards that subject I said, however, that I thought if it met with the unanimous disapproval of the great Powers—if they should feel the course the Emperor of the French meant to pursue with respect to the annexation of Savoy was an alarming step for France to take, and might betoken future aggression, I did not believe that that plan would be proceeded with. Whether I was right or wrong in that opinion cannot now be ascertained, but I know that with respect to the great Powers the Austrian Government said in the first instance that the annexation of Savoy to France was not worse, at all events, than the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany to Sar-

  1255
  dinia, and that it was a question in which they had less interest. But we know besides that the Emperor of Russia has said that it was free to the King of Sardinia to give away his own province, and that it was free for the Emperor of the French to receive it; and therefore it was impossible that a foreign Sovereign could interfere. Well, then, I say with regard to any opinion that we might give, we could not expect that it should have the same weight as if it bad been the opinion of the four Powers unanimously given and expressed—if not in the same terms, in terms of strong disapprobation. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we are ashamed of the despatch we sent in answer to that of M. Thouvenel. I can assure him the Government are not at all ashamed of that despatch, and when it is produced I think this House will be of opinion that we have no reason to be ashamed of it. But, then, Sir, there are other questions connected with this subject, especially one that must be of great importance to Europe; and to this country, as a free country, to this Parliament, as a free Parliament, must be one of surpassing interest,—I mean that which is connected with the independence and neutrality of Switzerland. Some days after the despatch of M. Thouvenel we received a representation from the Government of Switzerland complaining of the disposition about to be made with regard to the neutralized territory of Savoy. This, Sir, is a question of a different nature from that of Savoy, because, with regard to Savoy, it may be said, as with regard to Tuscany, it was part of the settlement of Europe in 1814 and 1815 that Savoy should belong to Sardinia, and that Tuscany should belong to the Grand Duke of Tuscany; but there was no guarantee on the part of the other Powers with regard to the possession of Tuscany by the Grand Duke and of Savoy by the King of Sardinia; and therefore the transfer by the King of Sardinia of his rights over Savoy to the Emperor of the French is a question on which those Powers may, or may not, think it right to remonstrate or go further. But, with regard to the independence of Switzerland, that is a matter of interest to all Europe, being guaranteed by the great Powers of Europe. Indeed, not only is the territory belonging to the Confederation guaranteed, but there is a part of Savoy which is declared to be neutralized, and with regard to which it is provided that,
  1256
  if war should break out between the neighbouring Powers, the troops of the King of Sardinia shall evacuate that territory, and a Swiss military force shall hold it till the termination of the war. Now, it is obvious that the transfer of that territory from the King of Sardinia to the Emperor of the French is a great change in the condition of that territory; and, though not within the letter of the treaty, it does bear in an important respect,—it may be indirectly—but it does trench in a very important respect upon the independence of Switzerland. For that reason, as M. Thouvenel has applied, on the part of the Emperor of the French, to the various Powers of Europe, and has received, as the French Government say, favourable answers from several of those Powers, so, on the other hand, Switzerland has applied to the Powers of Europe with a view to maintain her neutrality intact, and with a view to her future independence. Now, this is a question which does not require merely an answer on our part to the despatch of M. Thouvenel, but, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it does require that we should endeavour to ascertain what was the opinion at Vienna, what was the opinion at Berlin, and what may be the opinion at St. Petersburg upon this subject. We have ascertained, so far, that without having arrived at any concert, without any decided course of conduct being agreed upon, the Courts of Berlin and Vienna do attach the highest importance to the neutrality of Switzerland; and we see by what has appeared in the newspapers today—of which we also received a summary in our despatches, that the Powers of Europe will be called upon to say whether the position of Switzerland be safe under the Treaty made by the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia. Well, I will say that I do not think this is a negotiation that could be carried on by this House as a body. I do not think that the Members of this House, voting by a majority, could undertake to make the communications that must be made to Berlin, that must be made to Vienna, and see whether, with Vienna and Berlin together, we may not obtain some co-operation with the Court of Russia. The right hon. Gentleman despises our ability; he thinks we are objects of contempt to the Emperor of the French; and so far as we are concerned the right hon. Gentleman thinks there should be a vote of want of confidence. But this House has not taken

  1257
  from us its confidence, and till such vote takes place we shall think ourselves entitled to carry on this negotiation and place before the House, when concluded, its results. For these reasons, Sir, with a view of giving more information to the House than I can do at present, I have meanwhile withheld the answer to M. Thouvenel's despatch. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman in his depreciation of the character of the Emperor of the French; but it is obvious that the course he has pursued, as I expected, and as I said from the first, frankly and fairly to the French Government, has already produced a great deal of distrust. I believe myself that if when the war was begun last year the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia had said openly to the world, "The King of Sardinia has to sustain a great war against the empire of Austria; he cannot sustain it alone; the Emperor of the French has determined to help him, but the Emperor of the French expects, and has stipulated by treaty with the King of Sardinia, that if the territories of that King are very much increased in Italy that portion of the territories of the King close neighbouring on France and on the French side of the Alps shall be given to the Emperor of the French"—if that bargain, not so unlike many others which have occurred in the history of Europe, had been openly declared, I will not say what amount of indignation would have been entertained in regard to it; but I must say, looking to the circumstances under which the question has been brought forward, and with which it has been attended, especially after the declaration of the Sardinian Government that they would neither sell, exchange, nor surrender this territory, the course that has been pursued has produced great distrust in this country, and I believe it will produce great distrust all over Europe. Sir, I very much doubt whether strong Resolutions, or even strong language, on the part of this House would have produced any great effect upon the ultimate issue of this affair. We have been told that the passionate language held in this House made it necessary for the French nation to insist on their Government doing what has been done. That is rather a pretext than a true representation. It is evident that it is a plausible pretext to say, "We would have negotiated or conceded this point, but the insulting language used is such that our honour is at stake and we can no longer give
  1258
  way." I say that is a plausible pretext; but, be this as it may, there has been declared from the beginning of these discussions, immediately after the first debate that took place in the House of Lords—and the declaration was carried by The Times newspaper all over Europe—that, although strong language might be used on the subject, there was no intention of going to war on account of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) said in one of his speeches that we might be quite sure no man in this House wished to go to war for Savoy; now, if there had been entire liberty to Her Majesty's Government to negotiate on this subject—although certainly they would not have threatened war—although they would still less have pledged the Government and the country to go to war, still it is a different thing, not saying anything on the subject, and declaring from the commencement of the negotiations that whatever may be the issue we will not go to war. Sir, my opinion as I declared it in July and January I have no objection now to repeat—that such an act as the annexation of Savoy is one that will lead a nation so warlike as the French to call upon its Government from time to time to commit other acts of aggression; and, therefore, I do feel that, however we may wish to live on the most friendly terms with the French Government, and certainly I do wish to live on the most friendly terms with that Government—we ought not to keep ourselves apart from the other nations of Europe, but that, when future questions may arise—as future questions may arise—we should be ready to act with others and to declare, always in the most moderate and friendly terms, but still firmly, that the settlement of Europe, the peace of Europe is a matter dear to this country, and that settlement and that peace cannot be assured if it is liable to perpetual interruption—to constant fears, to doubts and rumours with respect to the annexation of this one country, or the union and junction of that other; but that the Powers of Europe, if they wish to maintain that peace, must respect each other's rights, must respect each other's limits, and, above all, restore and not disturb that commercial confidence which is the result of peace, which tends to peace, and which ultimately forms the happiness of nations.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: The ready cheer which rang through the whole House

  1259
  when the noble Lord commenced the concluding portion of his speech, must have been very gratifying to the right hon. Gentleman as furnishing a complete justification for having initiated this discussion. I cannot say, for one, with what pleasure I heard that statement of the noble Lord. I hail it as an augury of a return on the part of Her Majesty's Government to those alliances and that friendly co-operation with the other Powers of Europe which, in my opinion, ought never for one moment to have been disturbed. Sir, I feel that the announcement of the noble Lord is of such paramount importance, and is a cause of such sincere congratulation to all lovers of their country, that I am quite content to overlook nearly every thing that might raise a controversy, in what fell from the noble Lord in the previous portion of his speech. But the noble Lord having appealed to me to confirm his statement as to the tenor of two answers he gave to questions I put to him, he must permit me to say that, speaking from memory, my recollection does not tally with his. I certainly was under the impression, from his first reply, that he wished us to understand that having studied the despatch from Paris, and having further had the opportunity of holding a conversation that morning with the French Ambassador, he was of opinion that it was still the intention of the Emperor of the French to consult the great Powers of Europe previously to the annexation of Savoy and Nice. I understood the noble Lord, on a subsequent occasion, to give a similar answer; and I understood the noble Lord at the head of the Government to give, on a still later occasion, a distinct assurance of a similar character. The noble Lord will therefore forgive me if I cannot corroborate his statement of the effect of those replies. But having heard the statement which the noble Lord has now made, having heard from him that the independence and neutrality of Switzerland are occuping the most serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other great Powers of Europe, and having heard the gratifying announcement that Her Majesty's Government is honestly endeavouring to re-establish friendly and cordial relations with those Powers I am not disposed to press this matter further than to say, as the noble Lord has taunted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud with imagining that the House of Commons
  1260
  had already withdrawn its confidence from Her Majesty's Government, that I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to make any such assertion, nor, indeed, to imply anything of that nature. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Her Majesty's Government, by their own admission, and by the acknowledged course of events, stood in this position, that they had failed, either from want of information or of a right appreciation of the information they had received, to understand the true bearings of this important case; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman claimed for the House of Commons for the future perfect freedom of discussion, and the right to exercise the greatest vigilance over both the language and the action of Her Majesty's Government respecting foreign affairs. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to go further, and I think that previously to the concluding statement of the noble Lord there could be very few Gentlemen on either side of the House who did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in the language he made use of, and who did not feel the necessity of that vigilance which he recommended to the House of Commons. For the reasons I have given it is not my wish to enter into the controversy that has been raised; but having from the first taken the deepest interest in this question, I cannot sit down without tendering my thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), for the patience, perseverance, ability, and thoroughly English spirit they have manifested in bringing this subject before the consideration of the House. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) also has touched a chord that will vibrate from one end of England to the other, and I trust if it ever be our duty to discuss these great questions again we shall discuss them in the spirit of those concluding observations of the noble Lord, and that hereafter the country will feel that its foreign policy is safe in the hands of those ministers to whom for the time being it has been entrusted.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I am unable to say exactly how many times this subject has been before the House during the last month, but I am sure it has been more times than was convenient for the House,

  1261
  or for the despatch of public business. I may not be able to quote accurately or to remember all the speeches that I have heard made, nor to recollect all I have read of those which I have not heard on this subject; but I have come to this conclusion, that those hon. Gentlemen who have been so anxious to introduce this question to the House have entirely avoided that which appears to me the most important point, namely, what clear and direct interest this House and this country have in the matter under discussion. I contend that we are here for the interests of England. I repudiate altogether the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, whose interest is clearly of the warmest with regard to Switzerland. I repudiate the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater, who has taken Sardinia under his particular care. [Mr. KINGLAKE: No, no!] Now that Sardinia is proved to be the only Power that is not trustworthy in this matter the hon. Gentleman probably wishes to discourage discussion. I repudiate the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Horsman), who appears to find every question a suitable one for attacking the Members of the Government; I am here as the representative of a great English constituency, who have no kind of business with this question except in so far as it affects the honour and interest of England. I can conceive men, being great Englishmen—and I am astonished that it has not struck some of these ingenious Gentlemen in their researches on this question—viewing very favourably the transfer of Savoy to France, and I will give one reason why I think England should rather be glad at it. Sardinia agrees to the transfer as a compensation to France. Has it not been matter of talk among Englishmen and in all the clubs during the last year that by the success of France in the Italian war Sardinia has been placed in the power of France, and that in consequence France has been aggrandized by the acquisition of Sardinia in an almost perpetual alliance? But if Sardinia be able by the cession of what may be called politically a worthless province ["Oh, oh!"]—understand me, I say, "worthless" politically only—if Sardinia has compensated France by the cession of that territory, and has, therefore, disengaged herself from any feeling of what I may say created that supremacy of France in consequence of what
  1262
  France had done for her in the Italian war, then I say, on your own principles and the policy of the noble Lord, that England should be glad that the score had been settled in this manner rather than that for the future Sardinia should consider herself greatly indebted to France, and bound up in a perpetual political alliance with that country. France is now acknowledged even by the right hon. Gentleman near me (Mr. Horsman) to have acted in the transaction with perfect good faith. ["Oh, oh!"] I thought I was stating that which was admitted on both sides of the House the last time this matter was discussed. I heard it said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), though I see that Gentlemen opposite have no faith in his statements; but that he did say so I call the right hon. Gentleman himself to witness. This House, the English people, and the English press have for the last nine months been exciting the English Government to take that precise course which rendered the cession of Savoy inevitable, and I take it for granted therefore we are not in a position to complain of what has taken place. Then who is it that is to be alarmed at the issue things have taken? For that, after all, is the principal point to be determined. The noble Lord has told us in a manner perfectly charming, when we recollect the somewhat hot despatches he has written, and the hotter despatches Gentlemen in this House have desired him to write, that he has communicated with all the Powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna. It is a delightful thing when all the Powers of Europe slumber at their posts that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater should be wide awake. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite fully appreciate the course he has taken. But the noble Lord tells us that Austria in reply says—what? Why, that nobody cares about the treaty of Vienna, that when her provinces were wrested from her they were not taken by treaty, but by force of arms, and that Europe looked quietly on, while the English Ministers almost applauded, and the English people welcomed with enthusiasm every intelligence that was received of the destruction of an Austrian army in Italy. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, not only is Lombardy taken from Austria, but those pet duchies over which Austria has exerted so much influence are also gone, and that patrimony which is held

  1263
  by Austria to be sacred—the patrimony of the Pope—is in part wrested from the Papal Government; and all this is transferred bodily to Sardinia, which has tripled in extent since this time last year. All this has been done with the sanction of the English Government and the English people. [Mr. BOWYER: No!] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite, or does the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater, think that the Austrian Government would join in a quarrel about Savoy when they had not a word to say when Austria was dismembered? Then you go to Russia, and you ask her to join you. Russia replies, "As there is no question involved affecting the principles on which government rests, it does not concern us." And then, if you look back seven years, is there any man such an idiot as to suppose that the Russian Government would step out of its tranquil path to join you upon a miserable question like this, remembering the course you took with regard to Russia seven years ago? Then, I suppose, the noble Lord appealed to Prussia, and the Court of Prussia is particularly allied to the Court of England, and is, for many reasons besides, rather disposed to side with England. Well, what in reality is the answer of the Court of Prussia? I am not sure that the noble Lord has stated exactly that answer tonight, but the general impression is that, as the French Government do not insist upon what are called the natural boundaries of empires, Prussia has no interest in this question, and does not desire to take any steps with us. Then it comes to this, that no one has any interest in this matter but England; and yet every one will admit that whatever interest England has is necessarily smaller than the interest of the other Powers of Europe, for it is sheer folly and childishness to say that we who live in this island have a greater interest in this small question of boundary than the great nations which inhabit the continent of Europe, and which are nearer to that point where the boundary touches. But I ask, who in England is so far interested in this matter? I have looked in vain to the English press to find any considerable alarm on this question. There is, of course, some following of the rumours spread in this House, and there is one newspaper in London which is celebrated—I should rather say notorious—for a mixture of piety and ruffianism which has never before been equalled in the press. Day after day that newspaper endeavours to stir up the pas-
  1264
  sions of this country by vituperating everything connected with the French people and the French Government. I do not hesitate to express here the suspicion that has filled my mind. Let the House and the people of England remember that there is in France at this moment, as there was here 150 years ago, the great question of dynasty. Remember that the partisans of a dynasty deposed are restless and unscrupulous, and I am not certain at all that there are not means taken by those who have no friendship for England, and who never had any when they were connected with the Government of France—I am not certain that means are not taken which do not come to the light of day for influencing the press and public opinion in general throughout England against the existing Government of France—not for any object good to England or to Europe, but for objects good only to a family or faction—who, when in power, were not able to maintain themselves there, and who have no claim on the strength or influence of this country to replace them in the position they have lost. I cannot, I say,—I do not believe that the House is alarmed about the matter. Europe has given the question up, and it seems that England has also given it up. The House of Commons is willing to give it up, and now the only persons who are in a state of trepidation are the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and one or two others. [Cries of "No."] Well, that is my opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud made use of one expression to-night which I think it is a pity he did, not explain further. The right hon. Gentleman defended the freedom of speech, which I am not about to contest. The House allows me to use that freedom of speech here, and I do not complain that any one else uses it. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he saw diplomacy exhausted he wished to give power to Parliament to do what diplomacy had failed to do. What do Parliaments and Governments do when diplomacy fails? They either retire and succumb, and say that their reasons have been misunderstood, or they go forward to another mode of compulsion, different from that of diplomacy. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that? No; for he told us on another occasion, that he did not wish to have a war with France. But, though the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to go to war with

  1265
  France, he is quite determined to have a war with the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. I have not the least objection to the right hon. Gentleman making war on the Treasury Bench. But, if he will allow me to give him a piece of advice—and the right hon. Gentleman has given us a good deal of advice on this and on other occasions—I would suggest that if he wants to make war upon the Treasury bench he should not begin those assaults when the Treasury bench is in the right. I have been opposed to Governments, and I have done something, I hope, to make their position unpleasant. But I always went upon this plan. All Governments, even the Government of the Earl of Derby, have sometimes done things that are right, and then I was very willing to support them. On the other hand, every Government, even the Government of the noble Viscount, makes mistakes. Now I attack the Government on its mistakes. The right hon. Gentleman not only makes war on the Government, but he attacks the party on this side of the House, with whom for twenty years he has been supposed to be acting. He makes war on all the past of his own life; and for a Gentleman of his power of debating, his power of comprehending public questions, and of being useful to the House of Commons and the country, I say that it is a lamentable thing, and that the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. Now, with regard to the main question at issue, I am against the House putting itself in the humiliating position which it is invited to take up, and barking where it does not intend to bite, and making itself not the guardian of the affairs of Europe, for that would be foolish and impossible, but making itself the common scold of all Europe. There is nothing more humiliating, nothing more hopeless, than placing yourselves in such a position, and I am not sure that these debates, among their other pernicious effects, have not rather affected the judgment of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I was not able quite to understand the observations with which the noble Lord closed his speech; but the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) always glad to ally himself with that from which civilization day by day is departing—namely, privilege and despotism, rose to compliment, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and say—what he never said before—how grateful he was for the opinions the noble Lord had
  1266
  expressed, and the course the Government were about to take. Now, the House knows that upon this question of the French alliance I have more than once expressed the opinion that a close personal alliance between the Sovereign of this country and the Sovereign of any European country is not, in my opinion, advantageous for England or indeed for Europe. I think the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs means to take a course which we must all hold, if impartially taken, to be wise and good—namely, that the policy of England ought not to be such as to estrange this country in future from any of the Governments of Europe; that we should not side with France on the one hand, or Austria on the other, in such a mariner as to make one the embittered enemy of England, but that we should take an impartial course among the Governments of Europe, and only give our opinion on questions not immediately affecting us when our opinions are asked upon them. If this were the proper occasion I should take the noble Lord to task for the course he has taken in regard to Naples. I believe nothing more firmly and unchangeably than this—that the past policy of the English Government with regard to various matters connected with the continent of Europe has been a policy not tending to her honour, not good for her people, disastrous to her finances, and, I am sure, most needlessly meddling, and of no advantage whatever to Europe. I am not now asking for a policy of entire and absolute isolation, but I believe that even a policy of isolation would be better than a policy of incessant meddling. I hope the noble Lord will take that course to which I have referred. Move with France where you have to move with her, clearly, firmly, honourably, and in a manner that cannot be mistaken. The noble Lord will truckle to no Power in Europe, I am sure; but let him so conduct the foreign policy of this country that all the nations of Europe shall say, what, I believe, they hove not, heretofore, said, that England is a Power regarding her own great interests mainly, not interfering in Europe when it can be avoided, and, when interfering, doing so, not for the sake of degrading one Power and exalting another, but in favour of those great principles of justice and moderation which are necessary in the transactions of the great Powers if the peace of Europe is to be preserved.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he

  1267
  confessed when the hon. Gentleman first rose to address the House, he thought he was about to deprecate the tone which the present discussion had taken. He supposed that he was going to follow up his former declaration of "Perish Savoy!" with the further declaration of "Perish Switzerland!" Having listened to him, however, for some time, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) must own he did not think the hon. Member himself or any one who heard him could tell what was the precise object the hon. Gentleman had in view. It was true he repudiated the opinion that the hon. Member for Bridgwater was one who represented in his speeches upon this matter the people of England. Certainly the hon. Member himself (Mr. Bright) in no degree expressed the opinion of the English people on this question. The French proverb was, "Ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute;" and the danger was that if we acquiesced in silence in things of which we disapproved, we should, by such a course, be giving direct and palpable encouragement to further progress in the same direction. For this reason he conceived that the hon. Member was not in the slightest degree justified in saying that this was not a matter which affected the honour of England; and, on the contrary, he thought that England would be most deficient in her duty if she did not express her strong disapprobation of what was taking place. When the hon. Member contended that this annexation was one of no political importance, was he deaf to the representations of the Swiss Government! Did the hon. Gentleman, the professed admirer of liberty, wish to see that glorious Republic, long the asylum of freedom, which had baffled the schemes of tyrants, sacrificed to the ambition of the great military Power on her frontier? Was it the business of the hon. Member for Birmingham to express an opinion like that which he had uttered, and then to say that such was the opinion of the general public? He (Lord Claud Hamilton) utterly denied this assumption, and ventured to state that the hon. Member would never be able to carry the British public with him in reference to this flagrant violation of the public law of Europe. As to the assertion that Europe looked on with indifference at what was happening, it was much to be regretted that those to whom the honour of England was confided had neglected sooner to raise their voice. If Her Majesty's Government had acted with greater promptitude we might have escaped
  1268
  the grave complications and serious entanglements in which we are now involved. Nothing could have been more distinct than the promise that the great Powers should be consulted on the annexation. That assurance, however, gradually frittered down into the proposal—first, that the population should be consulted; next, that the feeling of the municipalities, not of the population, should be taken; and lastly, they found a treaty signed in which the annexation was to come first, and the reference to the great Powers, to the municipalities, and to the population to come afterwards. If we remained mute while such a mockery was perpetrated in the face of Europe, we must for ever hold our peace when future aggressions were meditated. Our silence would make us participes criminis in such a policy, and would be thrown in our teeth in the most embarrassing manner when its present success tempted the same great Power to make further advances. All the efforts of France to seduce the population of Chablais and Faucigny into anything like an expression of opinion in the least degree favourable to her had failed. He did not wish to go into this matter, but he must say that, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater more truly represented the people of England upon this subject than did the hon. Member for Birmingham. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of his speech alluded to the difficulty of England in taking an active part in the question; and he stated, too truly, alas! that there was no sympathy for England on the part of other Powers, as shown in the expression of their opinions. But ought the feeling thus manifested to cause astonishment or surprise, for had not the policy of the noble Lord at the head of the Government been of a character that had irritated and alienated all the old Allies of England? That noble Lord might be perfectly justified in his policy, but still it was the fact that since 1830, when he entered the Foreign Office, he had been constantly charged by Foreign Governments with a policy of irritation towards them, and we were now reaping the natural fruit of this foreign policy. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary now happily saw the necessity, in consequence of recent events, for drawing closer the ties of alliance and friendship with other States. But if he would succeed in his object, he ought carefully and dispassionately to study the causes which

  1269
  had alienated the sympathies of those States with a view of avoiding in future the policy that had created such general distrust. It was a remarkable circumstance, and one pregnant with the most serious reflections, that the noble Lord should have now discovered—only three weeks after the House had so loudly cheered the conclusion of the treaty which was to bring us into such intimate and cordial relations with France—that it is not well for this country to keep herself apart from the rest of Europe, and that this announcement should have been received in a crowded House with cheers no less general or enthusiastic than those which so recently greeted the Address congratulating Her Majesty on the signature of the Treaty.
  MR. KINGLAKE: I can assure the House, Sir, that I had not the slightest intention of addressing it upon the present occasion, nor should I have been induced to do so but for the observations which the hon. Member for Birmingham thought proper to make upon my conduct with regard to these transactions. Sir, the speech of the hon. Gentleman was truly characteristic of the man. I say it was truly characteristic of the man because it displayed in every sentence that firm reliance upon the infallibility of his own opinions, and that total ignorance of the views of others which so peculiarly mark the character of the hon. Gentleman. He began by imputing to me that I discussed this subject in the character of a person interested on behalf of Sardinia. Why, Sir, if he had only done me the favour to lend to the statements which I have made to the House even the most languid attention, he would have known that I was the man who informed the House of the existence of that pacte de famille which I disclosed to the House for the purpose of inviting its opinion, not only upon the Emperor of the French, but also upon the King of Sardinia, who was a party to that pacte. The hon. Gentleman also said that it is a defect in the arguments of those who have interested themselves in this matter that they have never shown how England has any kind of interest in the question. Again, I must say that if the hon. Gentleman feels capable of making such a statement as that, it can only be because he never did myself or my hon. Friends the favour to give us the least attention, for we have argued—ineffectually perhaps, but certainly, most patiently and laboriously—to show that the regard due to the faith
  1270
  of treaties, that military considerations, and many other reasons, do make it of the deepest importance that England should prevent this unsettlement of Europe; and among other instances of that singular audacity which characterizes the hon. Gentleman, I find him coming forward to-night to give the House that which I shall venture to call a military opinion, because, speaking with that confidence which seems never to desert him, he has said that Savoy and Nice are worthless provinces. Well, Sir, when we talk of the worth of provinces of this kind for the purpose of discussions such as that in which we are now engaged, of course we allude in a great measure to military considerations. I believe that there are military Gentlemen in this House who will give strong opinions upon that subject, but when the hon. Gentleman says that a province is a worthless one, he means, I suppose, that it is worthless in a military sense, and he must forgive me if I say that upon such a question I cannot be guided by any opinion of his. [Mr. BRIGHT: I said politically worthless.] Politically worthless! I suppose that the value of a province politically depends upon the degree of strength which it may give to the nation; and the degree of strength which it may give to the nation may be, and in this case realty is, a military question. I say, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is not justified in saying that these provinces are politically worthless, unless he has so completely informed himself upon the military question as to be able to contradict all the military men in this House, and to assert that Savoy and Nice are worthless as military acquisitions. The hon. Gentleman said that there is great danger that this House will degenerate into the position of being the common scold of Europe; and I have no doubt that he thinks that his demeanour, his gestures, his diction, are exactly those which he should assume in order to dissuade the House from sinking into such a position. Having thus dealt with the observations of the hon. Gentleman I will do no more than express the heartfelt gratification with which I have heard the statement of the noble Lord. I can assure the noble Lord that it was gratifying to me beyond expression; and I feel great satisfaction in thinking that, however imperfectly I may—in the Motion of which I gave notice—have expressed the opinion which I entertained as to the desirability of our entering into communication with the great

  1271
  Powers of Europe, my view was the one which has happily been entertained by Her Majesty's Government. I have only to thank the House for the kindness with which they have listened to me, notwithstanding the great difficulty which I have experienced in addressing them.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he rose, not to continue the discussion with regard to Savoy, but to say a few words upon the income tax, which was more properly the question before the House. He did not mean to follow the example of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs when in 1842 he announced his intention of opposing the income tax on the Resolution, on the Report, and on the first, second, and third reading. He should, on the contrary, accept the Resolution as carried, and as an expression of opinion in favour of a temporary income tax, though in a full House it was doubtful whether the decision might not have been against the proposition. In 1842 there was a promise that when the deficiency in the revenue was made up the tax should cease; and again in 1845 the noble Lord, with zeal equal to that which he had displayed on the former occasion, opposed the renewal of the income tax as not being a fit tax. The noble Lord insisted then, and he (Sir H. Willoughby) insisted now, that it was the duty of the Government to correct the inequality of the tax if they could do so. The House was aware that the income tax was extremely unequal in reference to various classes of the community, and he wanted to impress on the Government the advisability of removing two hardships which pressed on persons assessed under Schedule A. Those possessed of houses and lands paid on their gross rental, and this was clearly an act of gross injustice on all the owners of such property. In order to make the assessment fair there should be a reduction of ten or twenty per cent from the gross rental. He believed that such a provision would be consistent with common justice and with common sense. There was another question in reference to mines and the like property, when worked by the owners themselves. In such cases they were assessed on the profits, but, as he understood, were allowed no power of appeal. He wished, therefore, to know whether they would be allowed an appeal to the Commissioners? He would simply state the points, and he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say how far he agreed with him.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies in reference to the points which have been brought under his attention, there are one or two other points respecting the income tax on which I think it desirable that he should give to the House some further explanation than we have yet received. I agree that it appears to be the pleasure of the House of Commons to give its assent to that tax which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with most extraordinary inconsistency, proposes this year to double; this being the very year in which, on account of the frauds and immorality attending the income tax, he proposed to do away with it altogether. But as the right hon. Gentleman is now going to require an income tax of 10 d., I think it desirable that we should be better informed than we now are as to what is to be the actual produce of this tax. The right hon. Gentleman states as clearly as possible what we are to pay, but not what he is to receive. The right hon. Gentleman will possibly explain what appeared to me to be a discrepancy in his original statement, my impression being that he put down the produce of the income tax at various amounts differing from each other considerably. He first estimated the production of the half-year at 5d., now to be raised, at £2,400,000. Well, Sir, that would give a sum of £960,000 from each penny of the income tax. But a few sentences later in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he told us that the actual amount which the income tax, the whole year's income tax produced, in 1859, was £6,140,000. I do not clearly recollect whether he meant the year ending on March 31, 1859, or whether he meant the coining year. I presume he meant the year ending March, 1859. His statement was that the actual produce of the income of 5d. for that year was £6,140,000. Well, Sir, that would give for each penny of income tax an amount of £1,228,000. Then as to the three quarters of the increased tax which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to collect in the ensuing financial year. The right hon. Gentleman estimated the three quarters of the tenpenny income tax at £8,472,000, which should be added to that anticipated from the fourth quarter of the existing income tax to be received at the commencement of the ensuing year, which would amount to £2,250,000. That gives an aggregate income tax for the ensuing year of

  1273
  £10,722,000, which makes each penny of income tax £1,082,000. Well, Sir, the difference between the estimated receipt from the income tax in the ensuing year and the sum which the right hon. Gentleman told us it actually produced in 1859 is very considerable—it amounts, I think, to £148,000 on each penny of income tax, The result would be, then, that if the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in stating that the actual produce of the income tax at 5d. was £6,140,000, the difference on each penny of income tax is so great that the 9d. proposed on a former evening by my hon. Friend (Sir H. Willoughby) instead of 10 d., would actually have produced a larger revenue than the revenue which the right hon. Gentleman naw estimates from the 10 d. I have endeavoured to make my figures as clear as possible. I have no doubt there is some mode of explaining the apparent discrepancy, and I shall be very glad to hear that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, and what is the sum he really expects to receive from each penny of the income tax as now levied. These are one or two other points upon which the right hon. Gentleman has not yet given any explanation, and I trust in the course of the evening he will do so. One is as to the mode in which he proposes to collect the three-quarters of the income tax within the year. It appears to me that there will be considerable practical difficulty in collecting three-quarters in the year instead of half, as is usually the case, I shall be glad to hear some explanation upon that, and would also suggest that some alteration should be made in the percentage now received by the income-tax collectors. I believe at present it is a very profitable office, and when the income tax stands at double its present amount, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will make some reduction in the per-centage. These are points on which I shall be glad to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he wished to express the great disappointment he felt at the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Last year the right hon. Gentleman on a Motion hostile to his scheme being made, had stated that the tax was entirely temporary—that he looked forward to a period when the financial system of the country should be thoroughly examined and remodelled; and he held out, in the strongest terms, that the House might expect to see that done this year. It was
  1274
  with great regret, therefore, that he found the right hon. Gentleman now shelving that question. He, for one, was not satisfied to leave the consideration of the permanent imposition, as it appeared it would be, of the income tax to a new House of Commons, to be elected under a new constituency. It was impossible to separate the consideration of the Reform Bill from the consideration of the Budget, and believing that the Reform Bill, if carried out as it then stood would alter very materially the constituencies sending Members to that House, which had hitherto been recognized as representing different interests, he anticipated with the greatest possible alarm the future financial condition of the country being placed in the hands of new constituencies.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, the House would not be justified in drawing an inference as to the probable produce of the income tax from what it had produced in past years. Owing to irregularities in the collection, it was exceedingly difficult to estimate what would be produced in any one year. A million for each penny of tax was probably a near calculation; and if the tax yielded more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated, the House ought rather to be gratified, than the reverse. He considered the Budget a great, though a bold one. It was most desirable to avoid a deficiency of revenue, as that seriously affected the public securities. He hoped to see the whole question referred to a Select Committee next year.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that the income tax, as then levied, pressed with undue severity on the commercial community, and with undue lenity on the agricultural classes, and he would suggest that in any future arrangement the trading and commercial classes should receive equal consideration with the farmer. As matters stood, while the one escaped, up to a certain point, the others were assessed in the strictest manner.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he hoped that as regarded Ireland the income tax would not be levied on a larger assessment than was strictly required for the necessities of the State, and that on three of the schedules at least—namely, A, B, and C—the tax should not be levied on the assessments of former years. If it were levied on these assessments a great injustice would be done, as the parties under these schedules would have to pay not 10 d. in

  1275
  the pound, but 1s., 1s. 4d., and 1s. 6d. respectively.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had listened to the various points mentioned in the short conversation which had just taken place. The difficulties attending the opening of the question of the inequalities of the different schedules had been made apparent in that conversation. The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) complained that the present arrangement bore unjustly on Schedule A, while the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Blake) opened another source of complaint, one that was much more rife, and much more serious and difficult to deal with, whenever the subject was fairly broached, its unequal pressure upon Schedule D. The truth was, that the great battle of the income tax was between Schedules A and D. The question of remissions in favour of the farmers under Schedule B was a very small one; the real question was between Schedules A and D. If the hon. Baronet made the Motion which he promised, with a view to improve the terms for Schedule A, he would find other hon. Members on his right and left up in arms for Schedules D and E; and he might be left to be dealt with by those hon. Gentlemen. No doubt this tax was full of inequalities, but he would submit to the hon. Gentleman that there would be no advantage to any particular interest in considering the question of inequality, except at a time when the House could give the subject an attention hearing some proportion to its extreme difficulty, its vast importance, and the immense financial and social dangers which he did not hesitate to say would infallibly attend any precipitate proceeding with regard to it. He was not afraid of such precipitate proceeding, if they endeavoured to keep in view the extremely critical and perilous nature of the whole question, which would, in point of fact, open something like a scramble between class and class throughout the country. The responsibility which would attach to such a proceeding, he, at all events, was not disposed to incur, while he was perfectly prepared to admit that the subject was one, to the elucidation of which any hon. Member might legitimately turn his attention. If, however, the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) made the Motion he proposed, it would be convenient to both Houses, with regard to the progress of the public business, if be would make it either that evening, or on the Report of
  1276
  the Bill. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman who bad last spoken, he had simply to state that the proposal which he had made in reference to the assessment was meant to operate in favour of the taxpayer. It had reference exclusively to Schedule B; and the object was not to increase the burden on leaseholders. The hon. Member for Evesham had also asked him if an appeal would be granted under Schedule A for the tax levied on mines. He had not had any recent application on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded in such general terms, and he felt some difficulty in understanding the precise nature of the question; but he should be happy, either in or out of the House, to hear any statements which might give an opportunity of adjusting the tax in proportion to the receipts of the owners of mining property. In speaking of the unfavourable result that might happen to Schedule A, from a general discussion of the subject, he was quite aware that the matter was a grave one. He himself had laboured in that House to show that the tax fell upon Schedule A much more heavily than was generally supposed, as all house proprietors in particular were aware, for on them it fell with a weight that was really extreme. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) had adverted to two points. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with a breach of promise with regard to the income tax. Now, he would venture to quote a few words of what he stated in the year 1853. The right hon. Baronet appeared to think that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had promised that some measures would be positively taken in 1860, irrespective of what might happen in the meantime, and irrespective of the demands of the public service. If he had made such a rash promise, it was quite evident that it would have been the act of an insane man to have attempted to have kept it. But he did not find, in the authentic records, that he was ever guilty of such an excess of folly. What he said at that period was this;—
  "I think it also would be desirable that effectual measures should be taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. By that I do not mean mainly or chiefly that I would commit the Government to an abstract opinion as to a future year. My own opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the tax, as a permanent ordinary portion of our finances; but while I state the wish of the Government to propose it as a temporary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their word to hind them or ourselves, irrespective of what may occur in the interim, as to what you will do under all circum-

  1277
  stances at the expiration of the term, which we propose to fix for its continuance now."
  The right hon. Baronet would find that such was the general tone in which the proposal at that period was considered. The answer to those who insisted that the expectation ought be fulfilled, was to point to the fact that since that period the expenditure had increased 14 millions. How far that was a satisfactory answer, he pretended not to say; but it merely showed how foolish it would have been in the Government of the day to make such a pledge, or in the Parliament to accept it, supposing they had done so. Now, with regard to the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the amount of the tax. He thought he should be able to show how all the figures quoted by him were strictly accurate. He was not aware that he had referred to the proceeds of the tax in the financial year 1858–59; but he had no doubt he might have done so; nor did it at all surprise him if he stated that the proceeds of that year were £6,140,000. But perhaps the right hon. Baronet would allow him to remind him that he was rather misled by assuming that because, in 1858, the tax was allowed to drop to 5d., therefore the result of the tax in 1858–59 represented the value of a fivepenny tax. It really represented the value of a seven-penny tax for the first half-year; and a fivepenny tax for the second half; so that, assuming it to have produced £6,140,000, it was a tax of 7d. for the first half, and 5d. for the second. He had then stated, as was very truly said by the right hon. Baronet, that there was due to the present year, in respect of the law expiring on the 31st March, a sum of £2,400,000. He also stated that they would obtain out of the tenpenny income tax, if it should be voted by the House of Commons, for the three-quarters within the year, a sum of £8,412,000; and he likewise stated that a sum, he believed of £2,250,000, would remain to be collected after the 1st April, 1861. There was an apparent discrepancy, but the reason of it was the collection not being quite equal. It varied in the three countries. In Scotland the whole tax under schedules A, B, and D was collected within the year, and at once, in the month of January. Again, a great deal depended on the time at which the tax could be collected under schedule C. Owing to the lateness of the period at which the financial statement was made last year, the July dividends, that ought to have
  1278
  paid 13 d. in the pound, escaped with a tax of 5d. It was necessary, therefore, not only to estimate the general amount of the tax as so much for every penny, but the amount in reference to the precise period when it was enacted. This disturbed the calculation, and presented an apparent discrepancy. In fact, the Government would obtain more than three-fourths of the tax within the financial year, owing to the arrangements under which it was paid in Scotland. If £2,250,000 were one-fourth of the whole tax, then £9,000,000 would be the produce of the whole year's tax, whereas he took credit for the whole year's tax on an aggregate receipt of £8,472,000 within the year, and of £250,000 beyond the year, making together, £10,722,000. These were the causes of the apparent discrepancies in the figures. With respect to the collection of three-quarters in lieu of one-half the tax within the year, there was no alteration in the law, and its collection was not by law uniform as it now stood. In some places it was paid quarterly, in others half-yearly, and in Scotland once for all over the whole year. The payments by Scotland were most favourable to the Exchequer, because there were the smallest average arrears, but the regulations that had to be made were such as were required by the present law and were not attended with inconvenience either to the collectors or the parties. Another question upon which he would not enter fully, but which was one of considerable importance, was the percentage allowed on the collection. There was only one change the Government proposed to make in the mode of collection, and that was to transfer the assessment of the railways from the head offices of the companies to Somerset House. Hitherto the location had been by accident. The chief station of the North-Western Railway was in the parish of St. Pancras, but the property the company held in that parish was comparatively small. It was, therefore, almost absurd that the collector of the St. Pancras district should obtain all the profit on the collection of the whole of the company's assessment. The Government, therefore, proposed to make it a matter of direct arrangement between the companies and the Government; and no doubt, as the percentage would be high, it would afford the collector a liberal commission. The whole subject of remuneration and poundage to collectors required revision, and ought to undergo that revision whenever

  1279
  the House of Commons felt itself to be in a position to vote the income tax for a term of years. When the income tax stood at 5d. the poundage was insufficient to give adequate remuneration; on the contrary, when it was 16 d. during the war it was much larger in proportion. It was very desirable to adopt a different and better balanced system. The reason the Government did not propose a general plan of revision of the mode of collection was because the House was only asked to vote the tax for a single year. But in the present Session he should propose a measure bearing on the important question whether the Queen's taxes should continue to be collected by the local authorities or by officers directly responsible to the Government. He should not propose any general or compulsory change in the present system, but there was such a desire on the part of local authorities to get rid of the duty of collection, and bring it under the control of the general Government, that he thought it advisable to propose a measure enabling those local authorities to transfer the duty to the Government. The manner and degree in which this plan might be acted on, would have a bearing on any change in the mode of remunerating those engaged in the collection.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he believed he might now understand that the right hon. Gentleman estimated the amount of a penny in the pound at about £1,100,000.
  MR. DISRAELI: The House may remember that I disapproved of the financial scheme of the right hon. Gentleman when he originally introduced his Budget to the House. I then thought, and I still think, that it was an improvident and an unwise one even under ordinary circumstances, but under existing circumstances, I thought that it was even dangerous. But having had an opportunity, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Du Cane), of expressing my opinion by my vote, upon the general policy of the Budget, and having had subsequently an opportunity of voting against the repeal of a particular tax proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and the House having on both occasions conclusively approved of the policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the repeal of the particular tax, which was one of the most important proposals that I think was ever made to Parliament, I did not feel myself justified in voting against the proposition of the Government to vote for
  1280
  the public service a tenpenny income tax. Although I can understand the conduct of hon. Friends of mine, who took the same course in both these instances that I did, in supporting the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) in his proposal the other night, I cannot understand the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen in the position of the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes), who voted, I believe, in favour of the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He voted certainly not against the repeal of the tax upon paper, and now he seems to be very much alarmed at the dangerous financial position of the country. The hon. Member for Kent is one of those, as may be proved on many occasions, who is always ready with warnings against the consequences of events which he himself always assists to accomplish. We are again discussing this subject of the income tax, that has for so many years engaged our attention, that has been the subject of such bitter controversy and the theme of such long Committees, and that has occasioned in its time even the fall of Governments. We are called upon to vote an income tax to a very great amount, with no prospect—so far as I can judge from any observation that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—with no prospect of a relief or release from what I still believe to be a most unpopular burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, has referred, and not for the first time, to a passage in his speech of 1853, to prove that he entered into no compact with the country or with Parliament for the absolute termination of the income tax in this year, when, by a most unfortunate coincidence, he stands in the position of the Minister who has to make the proposition for its continuance and its increase. No one, of course, pretends that any Minister on such a subject can enter into an absolute compact, that he is to be held to the letter of the bond, that he is to be superior to all political circumstances of the times and all the financial considerations of the moment, and that whatever may be the state of the country he is to be called on to carry on its affairs without levying an income tax. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoting his own speech, cannot pretend to say that the whole scope of his policy in 1853 was not that in 1860 the termination of the income tax should take place. He must feel, and he must admit that on the

  1281
  acceptance of that policy by the country generally he has enjoyed for seven years a great reputation. And when he tells us now that our expenditure has increased; that the cost of Her Majesty's service is now so many millions more in amount than at the time he held out these prospects, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to forget the calculations and the estimates he made in 1853, by which he arrived at the sanguine conclusion that probably in 1860 this income tax would cease. Then he particularly referred to the falling in, in the present year, of the terminable annuities—amounting to more than £2,000,000 per annum. The right hon. Gentleman's opinions were not founded on transient and illusory speculations, but he induced Parliament and the country to believe in them on the credit of definite calculations; well, he has not apportioned that two millions per annum for the relief of the country, by reducing the income tax, but he has opened up a new scheme of finance which, under all circumstances, would be imprudent, improvident, and unsafe, but which, under the circumstances in which the country finds itself, is, I think, replete and rife with danger. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman redeemed his promise with respect to the terminable annuities? That perplexing point has not been answered. It is one of the main causes of the public dissatisfaction, and it is a point always avoided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the consideration of the subject.
  I cannot help contrasting the present position of affairs and the present opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what took place at the memorable end of the year 1852. I still remember the fierce denunciations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the Government of that day on account of their policy with respect to this particular tax, and their particular financial propositions on that occasion—propositions that to a considerable extent gained the general support and sympathy of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman called upon the House to crush the Budget of 1852 mainly on three grounds. First of all he contended that it was an immoral and dangerous proposition to apportion to the services of the year £400,000 which had not been furnished by the revenue of the year. Society, he said, was not only in danger, but would be dissolved, fall to pieces, and be destroyed if a financial principle of this character were
  1282
  adopted. But what do we find now? Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually proposing that to the service of the year should be appropriated not a sum of £400,000, but a sum of upwards of £1,500,000, which is not furnished by the revenue of the year. That was one of the chief grounds on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer assailed the Government of 1852. Then with regard to the income tax, he said that no Minister was justified in proposing its continuance without providing for its final termination. What position are we in now? Here is an income tax nearly double that of 1852, and is there any one who will pretend to say that there is any provision for its final termination? The third charge against the Ministry of 1852 was that they proposed some difference between the rate of assessment in Schedule A and Schedule B, but on this condition that all exemptions should be put an end to, and the assessment to be as low as on incomes of £50 a year. I was, therefore, much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit that, when this important financial law should be taken into consideration next year, he would be willing to consider the policy of increasing the whole scheme of exemptions and of reducing the rate of assessment on the different classes. [The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER dissented.] If you did not say that you must have said something like it, although I admit I was not in the House at the time. But if it be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to tax the rich and poor on different principles, anything that we proposed in 1852, in point of danger compared with such a principle, shrinks into an insignificance I can scarcely describe. The hon. Member for Kent, who has made a speech to-night that would justify the most uncompromising opposition to the financial propositions of the Government, has called our attention to the very perilous position in which this country is now placed with respect to its finances for the coming year and the possible occurrence of important political events. No one doubts that it is a serious complication—a very grave conjuncture, and I am only surprised that with such opinions the hon. Member for Kent is so ready to give his support to the Government, though I am not surprised that the coming danger has created in the hon. Gentleman such a degree of spirited opposition that while denouncing the policy of the Government he begged, in humble terms, permission of the Chancellor of the

  1283
  Exchequer to make his observations, and trusted they would be received without offence. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has embarked in as important an enterprise as any Chancellor of the Exchequer can undertake. He is about to substitute, and I am afraid he has succeeded in substituting, direct taxation for indirect taxation to a very large amount. He has laid down principles which if followed out will lead to consequences still weightier, and at the same time he boasts that he is a member of a Ministry that next year will have to meet a deficit varying from £12,000,000 to £15,000,000, and that the principles on which that deficit is to be supplied are to be settled (to use the right hon. Gentleman's own language) by the representatives of the masses who would then possess the franchise.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was not my language.
  MR. DISRAELI: Does the right hon. Gentleman contradict me with respect to the term "masses."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I contradict you entirely as to the phrase.
  MR. DISRAELI: It is rather inconvenient to have this running commentary from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which the right hon. Gentleman seldom spares; but what he said was that the masses were about to possess the franchise, and he should be ashamed of himself if he sanctioned any arrangement calculated to deprive them of the opportunity of settling the new principles on which the taxation of the country was to be settled. That is a very serious state of affairs when you are promised a financial system which is mainly to depend on the payment of direct taxation, and at the same time are informed by the same minister that the new constituent bodies about to be created are not to be payers of direct taxation. A position more dangerous to the country than this cannot he contemplated. We have had a discussion as to whether the Emperor of the French was influenced in his policy by what was said in this House, and whether he might not he offended or irritated by it, and I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Stroud made the observations that he did, for they were the necessary consequences of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, in which he intimated to the House the
  1284
  probable course the French monarch had taken in consequence of the sharp comments made on his conduct in this House. For my own part I do not think that the Emperor of the French has any cause to complain of the House of Commons. It appears to me that the House of Commons are probably doing his work as expeditiously and as completely as any Ministers of his own can do it. A system of direct taxation in England, and that taxation not to be put upon the great majority of the constituent body, appears to me to be a policy which, if anything can break down the free spirit of this country, and all the salutary influences of ancient property and prescriptive right, which have so often exercised a beneficial power in guarding and vindicating our liberties, the Emperor of the French has that prospect fairly before him, and I cannot believe that with such a policy pursued by Her Majesty's Ministers, and supported by the House of Commons, the Emperor of the French can feel any irritation with anything that is expressed in this House. On the contrary, I believe that he watches our career with complete and interested satisfaction; and when we look at the financial system proposed to be established on these new principles, and at the political system existing in such perfect unison with it, when you find that the revenue is to be raised by the representatives of bodies who do not contribute to taxation, I say that Necker himself, in all his glory, never accomplished a consummation so promising to the endurance of a monarchy or so conducive to the prosperity of a kingdom!
  MR. LAINGsaid, that all the visionary pictures which had been for some time in circulation had been brought to a climax by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. They had been told that they were throwing away all that indirect taxation which formed the mainstay of our revenue, and substituting direct taxation to the extent of confiscation of the rich as against the poor. But in speaking on matters of finance there was only one sort of figures allowable, and those were figures of arithmetic. They were told that they were throwing away an immense amount of indirect taxation in their Budget, but the fact was, that the amount of indirect taxation levied during the next year would be greater than ever had been levied in any financial year in the history of the country. Let them for example go back to the year 1856–57, when taxation was at its maxi-

  1285
  mum, and the Russian war at its height. In that year the amount raised from the Excise and Customs was £41,486,000, and in the same year the income tax was £16,089,000. Now, in the Budget as prepared this year the amount of indirect taxation would be £42,970,000, being a million and a half more than in the great year of the Russian war, whilst the amount of direct taxation, which had been described as something so extraordinary, would be £10,900,000 against £16,000,000. That was to say, there would be, in round numbers, an increase of a million and a half on the amount raised from indirect taxation, and a decrease on the income tax imposed of five millions and a half. The great object of these alterations in the tariff was to increase the fruitfulness of indirect taxation, experience having shown the beneficial effects resulting, in a financial point of view, from the steps taken to relieve industry and to simplify commercial transactions. In 1842, when the new system was entered on, the amount derived from the Customs and Excise duties was less than £36,000,000. Since then indirect taxes to the extent of £12 000,000 had been remitted, and the result was that the revenue from indirect taxation now stood higher by £8,000,000 than when the process had commenced. The course which the Government were now proposing was in accordance with the principle which had been acted on for the last twenty years; and they recommended it with the full conviction that the indirect taxes, which were now more productive than at any former period, would, in the course of the next five years, in like manner, yield an increased revenue greater than could be procured by any mere increase of the taxes themselves. When the provisions of the Budget had passed into law the system of taxation would be simple, and, with regard to all classes of the community, as equitable as it was possible to devise. The raw materials of industry and the primary articles of food would all go untaxed, and the sum of 42 millions would be levied by indirect taxes, mainly upon what he might call nervous stimulants—articles such as spirits, tobacco, and beer, which were luxuries, and not absolutely necessaries of life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in referring to the Reform Bill, had merely done so with a view of pointing out that when large classes of the community were about to be newly admitted to the franchise it was of the ut-
  1286
  most importance to show them that the system of financial legislation hitherto had not been partial or one-sided—had not favoured the rich at the expense of the poor, but that it had been applied, with due allowance for the difficulties which must necessarily be experienced in all schemes of taxation, in as equitable and humane a spirit as it was possible to conceive. In the course of a large personal experience among working men during strikes and at periods of great excitement he had always found one argument that exercised a most powerful effect upon their minds; and this was, when he contrasted the statements made by demagogues, about the oppressive disposition of the aristocracy, with the fact that these very classes had submitted to the income tax in order that the repeal of the corn laws might be effected, and the poor man relieved from indirect taxation of a very injurious nature.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he still retained the strong feeling of dislike to the income tax which he had avowed in 1853. At that time no one could have expressed more emphatic condemnation of the tax than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nothing could have appeared more unlikely—after the repetition of similar arguments in 1855 and 1857—than that the right hon. Gentleman in 1860, with scarcely a word of apology, should first require payment of 1s. 1d. instead of 9d., for the half year which had just elapsed, and should then, in the very year of expected release, impose an increased taxation equivalent to 57 per cent. More than that, they were told that the country could not expect to get rid of any portion of the tax at the end of the year; although in 1853 a solemn pledge had been given that the terminable annuities should be devoted to the reduction of the income tax. Such a breach of faith was eminently calculated to destroy that confidence in the professions of public men, which it was of the utmost importance to maintain. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) had stated that the ratio of direct to indirect taxation had not increased, in proof of which he had instanced the incidence of taxation during the Russian war. But that was an exceptional period when the upper and middle classes, for the purpose of carrying on that contest, had cheerfully consented to bear the burden of a sixteenpenny income tax; but those circumstances were wholly changed. The right hon. Gentleman need

  1287
  not suppose that this was now a popular tax. Popular it perhaps might be with the great manufacturers who expected through its means a vast increase in their trade—an expectation which he believed would not be realized; but to persons of small incomes, who formed the great bulk of those on whom direct taxation pressed, the impost was hateful and intolerable. Under Shedule D, 260,000 persons were assessed, of whom 200,000 had incomes of less than £300 a year. "What do we care about the reduction of the wine and the abolition of the paper duties? was the complaint which these persons raised, and justly so, for among them the income tax produced the greatest inconvenience and suffering. Even as regarded the working classes, it was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding on a sound principle of finance when he violated the pledge entered into for the reduction of the war taxes on tea and sugar in order that he might take off taxes on articles which the working classes did not consume. He was no enemy to the principle of free trade when that principle was properly applied, but he must deny that it was properly applied by Her Majesty's Government. The abolition of the paper duty was a mere delusion. It was a tax which nobody felt, and which presented but few impediments to trade, all the alleged difficulties of collection having been cleared away by the evidence; and what was the result? The French Emperor had agreed to remove the prohibition on the export of rags, and instead of a prohibitory duty had laid on a duty of 100 per cent. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Has he?"] It was so announced. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER indicated that he was unaware of any such imposition.] At all events, it was to be a very heavy duty. Russia, too, was about to prohibit the export of rags; all Europe would no doubt combine, seeing that there would be a greater demand for this material in England; and the consequence would be a sacrifice of £1,200,000 of revenue, and paper dearer than before, in the same way as leather had risen in price since the duty on that article had been removed. When the right hon. Gentleman stood so positively pledged to take off the income tax it would have been better that he should have ceased to be a Minister rather than not fulfil his pledge. As it was, it was to be hoped that if he lived to be a Minister in the reformed Parlia-
  1288
  ment, when the middle classes might be no longer in a position to protect themselves, he would then act as their protector, and would preserve something like a just proportion between direct and indirect taxation.
  MR. PIGOTTsaid, he was anxious to get some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman respecting a future re-adjustment of the tax, which, while it pressed but lightly on the wealthy men of Manchester, was heavily felt by the members of small trading communities. In towns such as that one which he had the honour to represent (Reading) the amount of the tax was a matter of very great importance.
  MR. BARROWobserved, that he thought no time should be lost in bringing forward the question of the re adjustment of the income tax, so as to do away with the inequality with which it bore upon different classes, which was its most objectionable feature. The present mode of assessment, particularly with respect to Schedule D, the tax on trades and professions, caused much dissatisfaction, and a great deal of injustice had also been caused by the mode of assessment of mines under Schedule A. The assessment upon mines was somewhat like the assessment on professions. It was in effect an assessment on capital, but with this disadvantage, that whereas in Schedule D there was an appeal to the Board of Inland Revenue, in the case of mines the Commissioners had stated that being an assessment under Schedule A, it was entirely in the control of the local Commissioners, and that the Board of Inland Revenue could not interfere. That certainly was an injustice, and he was sure that on its being properly pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would interfere and remedy it. He quite concurred in the opinions which had been expressed that if possible the mode of assessment should come under their consideration this year.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that the imposition of the income tax this year was in consequence of the failure of all other resources, and, therefore, although he fully concurred in the opinion that as at present levied it was most unequal in its pressure he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no other option under the extravagance of the country but to continue it, as the only effectual means of raising the revenue. It might be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to

  1289
  have taken off the paper tax, or disposed of the terminable annuities as he had done; but the House had already condemned the paper duty, and looking to the Budget as a whole, the right hon. Gentleman had made the best possible investment of the terminable annuities which had fallen in.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he thought the income tax one of the best taxes which they had. He hoped they should always have an income tax. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to have a majority in the next Parliament to support the tax, he must be prepared to take means to ensure that it be levied more justly. He was willing to agree to the tax as proposed for this year, because he believed it to be absolutely necessary. He trusted that the operation of the Treaty with France would be such as to lead the Government of that country to substitute low instead of high rates.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it was plain to him that if the House had made up its mind that the system of raising the revenue by the imposition of an income tax was to be perpetuated, it was absolutely necessary that something should be done to make the burden fall more equally than it did now on the various classes of the community. Several years ago he had sat upon a Committee before which the question of the income tax as a means of raising revenue was investigated, and notwithstanding all the arguments and all the calculations which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) and the late Mr. Hume produced in favour of a graduated property tax in lieu of an income tax, and in lieu of indirect taxation, the Committee came to the conclusion that the great difficulty which beset this form of taxation was the difficulty experienced by Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, when they considered the feasibility of establishing an income and property in just proportion, not merely to income, but to the nature of the sources whence that income is derived, namely, the difficulty of graduating it according to the relative proportion of capital and means upon which it is now levied as an income tax. He did not wish to detain the House, but they would allow him to put one case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that case was the case of mines which had been alluded to, and it was one of the simplest cases which must be considered. Clearly in that case the income tax was levied on capital, because it was a tax levied upon the return which a mine pro-
  1290
  duced, which was exhausting the capital of the estate; and as the tax was intended to touch income only, it was perfectly clear that when the capital of the estate was being exhausted, the charge ought to be levied on the interest of the capital only and not on the capital. Having studied this question deeply, he confessed that he had been unable to surmount the difficulties which had defeated Mr. Pitt, and Sir Robert Peel. He did not believe that they could establish a just system of graduation, or define strictly between those accumulations of income which created or returned capital and income itself. The House had launched into a system of taxation which was fraught with injustice, and he felt it his duty to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the task which he had undertaken. He had undertaken a task which defeated Mr. Pitt, he had undertaken a task which defeated Sir Robert Peel, for he had undertaken the task of adjusting an income tax according to the relative proportions of income and capital. The right hon. Gentleman having undertaken that task in defiance of the opinion both of Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped that the House would not be satisfied with the abandonment of other sources of revenue unless that task were adequately fulfilled. He had said that the country had been launched into a most dangerous system, and it had been launched by a coup d'état—it had been launched in the dark, and the right hon. Gentleman would not think him unfair if he asked for an explanation of the means by which the right hon. Gentleman intended hereafter to levy an income tax that should be just as between capital and income. He was too well acquainted with the inequalities of the income tax to concur in its perpetuation. The hon. Member for Birmingham was much more the fair and honest of the two, for he was willing to make the attempt to establish a graduated property and income. That he fail, would he (Mr. Newdegate) believed, but that was a matter of opinion. The House had no right to continue as a source of income a tax which Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel considered only justifiable as a subsidy in time of war, owing to the injustice it occasioned, which they felt themselves unable to redress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—Sir, I just wish to explain, after what the hon. Gentleman said who has just sat down, that I was certainly not aware

  1291
  that any person was under the impression that I had undertaken to re-adjust the schedules of the income tax. That is a task far beyond my strength, and the utmost I said was, that if there was a disposition on the part of the House to institute an inquiry into the subject, it would not be my duty or that of the Government to oppose it.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEremarked, that he had always understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he thought it almost impossible to make such an adjustment of the tax as that referred to. He thought, however, that some attempt ought to be made to lessen the pressure of the tax on those least able to bear it, such as clerks and small tradesmen. The taxation of incomes of £100 a year was carrying the tax a great deal too low, and therefore he regretted that the hon. Member for Lambeth had not proceeded with the Motion of which he had given notice on that subject.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had not yet had the opportunity.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, it was a question which ought to be considered, although he admitted it could not be carried out without deranging the whole financial measures. His belief was that some of the larger tradesmen did not always pay income tax to the amount they ought to do. Those who had anything to do with compensation claims for goodwill of a business knew that the returns, for income tax were extremely inadequate as compared with them. He knew of a case in which a man had returned to the income tax Commissioners an income of £500, although he had made a claim for net income of £5,000. Over and over again he had known cases of £200 or £300 returned to the income tax, and as much as £1,500 claimed for compensation. On the other hand the small traders were arbitrarily assessed, and in many instances actually paid for larger profits than they made. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he could not make a general equitable re-arrangement of the whole system, would at least consider the undue pressure with which the tax bore upon small incomes.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSbegged to say that when the Bill went into Committee, he should take the opportunity of moving that the charge of sevenpence on incomes from £100 to £150 should be altogether abolished.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he had not changed his opinion of the Budget or of the Treaty which was the key to the whole scheme, and the main cause of all the difficulties by which the Government were surrounded. It was perfectly obvious that if they gave up all their means of indirect taxation, they would have no other resource than an income tax; and that tax was made more unjust and demoralizing by the manner in which it was imposed. So with respect to the minor taxes in the Budget, he was quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel that they would be no small infliction upon the commercial world. The hon. Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Laing) had spoken a great deal about loosening the strings of industry and liberating trade. Phrases of that kind were exceedingly expressive, and if true they would be valuable; but in this case they were no counterpoise to the small taxes which, while they caused great annoyance to the trader, added little or nothing to the revenue of the country. With respect to the 11th Article of that Treaty, whereby we bound ourselves for a certain number of years to permit the free exportation of coals, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said it was not the policy of this country to levy an export duty upon any commodity. He would call the attention of the House to the able administration of Mr. Wilson in India, and contrast it with the administration at home. Mr. Wilson had abolished the export duty on hides, wool, and grain, and he had done rightly, for no man in his senses, seeing the competition which existed in those articles, would dream of continuing a tax on such exports from India. On the other hand, he had imposed an export duty on saltpetre, in the production of which India had had a natural monopoly; and again he had done right, for while he had acted on the just principle of removing taxes which discouraged trade, or which induced foreign competition to a dangerous extent, he had retained and imposed taxes which yielded a revenue to the exporting country at the cost of the Foreign consumer. Did the French Government, when they bound this country not to lay an export duty on coals, bind themselves not to lay an import duty on them? Not at all. On the contrary, they bound us not to impose an export duty that they might be able to lay an import duty on them. Even with the modifications which they proposed in their

  1293
  tariff they were about to lay a tax of 1s. 2d. a ton on coals when introduced into French ports. That duty of 1s. 2d. per ton on coals if levied here, on the 6,000,000 tons exported from this country, would have produced to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the comfortable sum of £350,000, which would have relieved him from the disagreeable duty of imposing those petty and annoying imposts he was now forced to levy on the operations of commerce. But he must apologize to the House for allowing himself to be diverted from the subject of the income tax, on which he had risen to say a few words, because it was a subject to which he had long given close and constant attention. He must say, with all due regard to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Newdegate), who had spoken as if it were treason to question the policy of Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, that be did not rate these examples so very high or regard them as cases from which be ought under no circumstances to deviate. He could not entertain any great regard for the financial policy of the times which witnessed the establishment of a sinking fund—one of the grossest delusions that was ever practised on a people by a finance Minister, and, therefore, he was not disposed to rate very highly the precedent set them by Mr. Pitt, or to think that because he had recourse to an income tax it was therefore a financial measure for all time. He had still less respect for the example of Sir Robert Peel, because that statesman on this subject distinctly proposed the income tax as a temporary measure in order to effect a great national purpose. And that had been the excuse of every succeeding Minister, not excepting his right hon. Friend who was now at the Exchequer. Parliament was therefore nowise bound to the income tax by a consideration of any of its antecedents. At present, however, they were in such a position with regard to the public revenue and expenditure that unless they trusted to some extent to direct taxation he did not know where the national revenue was to come from. They could not retrace their steps; they could not reimpose indirect taxation; and the inevitable result was a resort to direct taxation. For his own part, he saw no objection to the principle of the income tax, except its inquisitorial character. Its demoralizing tendency, of which so much had been said, depended on the feeling of injustice which men entertained when it was applied to them. If a man was
  1294
  asked for a tax which he thought himself reasonably bound to pay, he would meet the demand fairly and honestly; but if he thought it was a tax unjust in its incidence, he had a strong temptation to apply a remedy of his own to the grievance. He (Mr. Hubbard) contended, therefore, that no Minister was justified in continuing the income tax year after year without endeavouring to devise a remedy against its demoralizing tendency. It was his deliberate conviction that there would be no more difficulty in remedying the evils of the tax than there was in the arrangement of his right hon. Friend's succession tax. That tax involved far more intricate calculations and computations than would be necessary for an equitable income tax. It proceeded on the principle of taxing the capitalized value of real property on its transfer from one person to another, and that principle was equally available for the taxation of income from year to year. A tax which was levied on yearly income ought to be juster and more equitable than a tax which was levied once only in a generation. He, therefore, contended that the succession tax was a precedent, and an example to be followed in the income tax, while he believed that the income tax would not require an equal I amount of deep and intricate computations. He trusted that another year would not pass before the income tax was seriously dealt with by the House, and that they would not be tempted to deviate from their resolution by the opinion that the difficulties which Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel failed to grapple with were insuperable. To his mind it was incredible that in these days of scientific investigation it should be admitted that the income tax was full of inequalities, and yet that it should be declared in the same breath that it was impossible to find a remedy. He said that a remedy could be found, and that it was quite possible to make distinctions, not, indeed, between individuals of the same class, but between different classes. If they attempted that, he had no doubt they would succeed. If they did not, he believed they would fail in making the income tax a permanent source of the revenue of the country.
  LORD HARRY VANEremarked, that no man could have sat, as he did, on the Income-Tax Committee, of which the late Mr. Hume was chairman, without coming to the conclusion that the difficulties in the way of a fair and equitable adjustment of

  1295
  the income tax to all classes were absolutely insuperable. Such at least was the unanimous opinion of the Committee. He believed, however, that the principle of graduation, if they were to graduate, was possible to a certain limited extent. Favourable as he was to a certain amount of direct taxation, he viewed, nevertheless, the present financial measures of the Government with some alarm, looking to the state of foreign affairs, to the general uncertainty with regard to political events, and to the possible tendency of the debate of that night. He confessed he was sceptical as to the possibility of any very early reduction of the naval and military expenditure, and so far was he from thinking, with speakers at public meetings at which the provisions of the Budget had been discussed, that the income tax would altogether terminate in the year, he apprehended that next year the House would be invited to continue the tax at a still higher amount than 10 d. in the pound. It was admitted by all who had philosophically considered the subject, that if the income tax were levied for a long period of years at one rate the injustice of it would disappear. He would not be a party to holding out any prospect that they would be able to diminish the amount of the tax next year, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to convey the impression that he contemplated making any difference between different sources of income. At the same time he trusted some means would be devised of making the burden lighter on persons of limited income.
  MR. CROOKsaid, that a portion of his constituents entertained the profound conviction that the income tax was only rendered necessary by the enormous and unjustifiable amount of the naval and military expenditure. The tradesmen with whom he was familiar entertained the opinion that it was thrust upon them by the ambition of clergymen and professional men to see their sons dressed in red flannel and green flannel. They were the men who were fond of military display and of wars, not for freedom, but for despotism all over the world. They were the persons who sanctioned a most aggressive policy on the part of this country towards every State with which we came in contact. They had in support of the most odious of all despotism—the despotism of Mussulmans—led us into a war in Russia, not with Russia, for Russia never declared war against
  1296
  us; she would have scorned to make war for such a purpose. Our policy was one of annexation and aggrandisement, and we had just been fighting to the death for the annexation of fresh provinces in India, while our conduct in China had been such as to outrage every moral and national law. If our policy were a policy of peace, and for the encouragement of freedom, he believed a million would be enough for our military expenditure. He hoped next year would witness a large reduction in the expenditure of the army and navy.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to make one observation which had been forced on his mind on this subject, and to which he wished to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he knew his mind was directed to the subject of the income tax. If the tax was to be made perpetual and really fair, the greatest difficulty in the whole matter must be overcome—the difficulty of self-assessment, and the frauds to which it gave rise. He would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether it was possible to discontinue the assessment as a secret assessment; because he believed that publicity was the only remedy for the frauds now perpetrated, and that if they could not solve that difficulty they must give up the tax as a permanent source of revenue. He was not prepared to give an opinion on the point then, but he wished to point it out to the attention of his right hon. Friend, because, undoubtedly, if the tax were to be continued, the mode of assessment must undergo consideration.
  Resolution 2.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been charged with making a running commentary on the speeches of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, but he should be much obliged to him if he would do so on the remarks he was about to make. The subject to which he wished to draw his attention was one which he had on a former occasion been desirous of bringing under the notice of the House, but was prevented from so doing by the lateness of the hour. The Resolution now before them was that upon "every note, memorandum, or writing, commonly called a contract note, or by whatever name the same may be designated," &c., there should be charged a stamp duty of one penny. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to include in that arrangement

  1297
  what were called "time bargains" on the Stock Exchange, and to allow them to be ratified and legalized by the imposition of a 1d. stamp. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER signified his assent.] The first two lines of the Resolution were, "Provided the restrictions on dealings in the public funds contained in the Act of the seventh year of George II. shall be repealed." But did the House know what that Act was? It was an Act passed originally for a period of three years by way of experiment, but found to work so beneficially that it was made permanent. It was still in operation, and to carry out this Resolution the right hon. Gentleman proposed, he understood, to repeal it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes, by bringing in a Bill for the purpose.] The preamble of the Act set forth that
  "Whereas great inconveniences have arisen and do arise by the wicked, pernicious, and destructive practice of stock-broking, whereby many of Her Majesty's good subjects have been and are diverted from pursuing and exercising their lawful trades and avocations, to the ruin of themselves and families, the great discouragement of industry,"
  and the Act provided among other penalties upon gambling in the funds, that a fine of £500 should be imposed on any person who bought or sold stock not actually standing in his own name. It was well known that the practice of "time bargains" had long been sanctioned by custom if not by law, but he apprehended that the sanction of custom had not removed many evils connected with the practice. Now, there were many other things which society tolerated but which the Legislature could not sanction. The Government had for many years past taken stringent measures for the suppression of gambling practices of every description, and he wished to know on what possible ground the police were to be authorized to break into houses, in order to discover whether gambling was being carried on, and take any persons so employed before a magistrate to be mulcted in heavy penalties, when at the same time sanction by legislative enactment was to be conferred on a species of gambling by many degrees the most expensive and ruinous ever invented by the ingenuity of man? The name commonly given to gambling houses was one not mentioned to ears polite, but it was ten times more applicable to the Stock Exchange, which, as far as "time bargains" were concerned, was little better than a vast Pandemonium. So far from encouraging such a system by legis
  1298
  lative sanction, every means ought to be taken to suppress it. The proposal came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented one of the first constituencies in the country for piety and virtue; but was the right hon. Gentleman carrying out the principles of piety and virtue when he sanctioned in the manner now proposed one of the most mischievous practices of gambling? For his own part he could not understand how such a proposal was consistent with public morality and the good order of the State, and therefore he gave notice that when the proper period for doing so arrived he would oppose by an Amendment the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would in the first place answer the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk. It was true he represented one of the Universities, and he would assure the hon. Gentleman that although his constituency were undoubtedly among the most distinguished supporters of piety and virtue, yet they had not—and they numbered 3,800—sent him a single remonstrance against the proposal, which had been published to the world for a length of time, to repeal the Act of 7 Geo. II.—Sir John Barnard's Act. Whether it would have the effect which the hon. Gentleman imagined he did not know, but the principle upon which the Government had acted was this, that it was not wise to keep on the statute-book a pretended prohibition, which was constantly violated by the sanction of that branch of the community which stood in connection with those practices. There was an evident confusion of ideas in what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman lamented and deplored the great temptations offered to young men on the Stock Exchange, and no doubt many resorted to that place who had less discretion than means, from a desire to acquire a fortune rapidly. That no doubt was to be regretted, but the truth was that those persons continued to ruin themselves by turning to a bad purpose means that were not in themselves essentially bad. It was not in the case of time bargains only, but in every description of dealing in the funds, in mining speculations, and in joint-stock banks also, that such individuals might find the way to ruin. All these dealings involved the principle of gambling when taken to by persons who had, from their limited knowledge and

  1299
  means, no business with them. With regard to time bargains, the question was whether they were so bad in themselves that the Legislature ought to interfere with private discretion and to prohibit them. The first objection to legislative interference was that it was totally in effective—that the law was a dead letter, and had been a dead letter almost from the day it was enacted. For the sake of the respect in which laws should be held by the whole community the laws ought, practically, to have some force in them; they ought not to be passed by the Legislature as mere expressions of abstract opinion, but as instruments of Government. The question was not whether foolish persons might be tempted to ruin themselves, both in their fortunes and morally, by dabbling in these time bargains, but whether they were so essentially immoral as to make it proper to proscribe them, like the practices carried on in a gambling-house. Even the transactions in a gambling-house were not easy to define or describe, when it was sought to put down the evil by law, and as no great philosophical nicety could be attained, it was requisite to include everything which bore a resemblance to the evil in question. With regard to these time bargains, he was not prepared to say, on the face of the facts within the knowledge of everybody, that there was anything essentially in the nature of a time bargain which was vicious or immoral, so that it ought to be proscribed by law. As for the class of gentlemen who dealt in money, he did not believe there was a more respectable class of men in the commercial world than those who were immediately connected with the Stock Exchange in London; and time bargains were a part of the regular business of the class of gentlemen whoso business it was to deal in money as their trade and daily occupation. These transactions could not be divided by any difference of principle from transactions in the funds. No doubt that they involved a greater degree of hazard, but that was just as the insurance of high risks involved greater hazards than low risks. At the time when Parliament attempted to proscribe these time bargains, an idea prevailed that all dealings in the stocks and funds were deserving of reprobation, and therefore stock-jobbing was called "a wicked practice," and it was so designated in the Act to which the hon. Member had referred. But who supposed now that stock-jobbing was
  1300
  a wicked practice? The time was also when forestalling and regrating were considered immoral; but we know that no class of men were more beneficial to the community than the forestallers and re-graters, who bought up grain for a time of scarcity, and by raising the price induced economy in consumption when the time of scarcity actually came. These things were quite elementary, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was almost ashamed to dwell upon them; but if the hon. Member wished to bring matters back to the condition in which they were in the good old times of Geo. II. should direct his opposition not against time bargains only but against every description of trading that implied risk and against the entire system of stock-jobbing so strongly reprobated in. the time of Geo. II.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not quite understand the state of the law. He would remind him that in the eighth and ninth year of the present reign an Act had been passed to prevent contracts by way of wager or gaming being enforced in courts of law, and the legislation against time bargains, which it was now proposed to repeal by a simple Resolution, was based on the same principle. It was not therefore simply a question of repealing Sir John Barnard's Act, but of reversing the whole course of legislation down to the present time, for the purpose of preventing gambling speculations. The speculations in opium in India ought to operate as a warning. Wagers were once carried on in that article to such an extent that one mercantile firm "stood to win," or "stood to lose," a million and a half of money on a single operation. At the same time many commercial houses were placed in jeopardy by such practices. The legislature of India had put down these wagering practices; and he (Mr. Bovill) protested against a Resolution which was to sweep away the whole legislation on the subject.
  Resolution 5.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he thought the language of the Resolution extremely large, and, although he believed it was not intended to include coupons or dividend warrants, it would be very satisfactory to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Resolution would not in the slightest degree affect the question raised with regard to the liability of

  1301
  coupons or dividend warrants to pay the 1d. tax. A question was raised on the law as it stood under the Act introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, but the law, he believed, was against the liability, and no attempt had been made to enforce it. It was not intended by the Resolution to affect the law at all. He believed it did not affect the law, and when the Bill was drawn the form of the clause would make this clear.
  Resolution 11.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he understood the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this proposal was to catch property which passed by will under a power of appointment. Now, he desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman a distinction which would exist under the new law, which ought not to be allowed. French Rentes, or Pensylvanian Bonds, when bequeathed in execution of a power of appointment, would be subject to duty, but the same kind of property, when absolutely belonging to the testator, would not be so liable.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject was one of considerable difficulty, and the heads of the Department and his learned Friend the Attorney General did not think it could be summarily dealt with in the few words allotted to it in the Resolution. It was a difficult matter to know where to draw the line as to the liability of property not entirely in England, and, therefore, the subject well deserved further consideration. However he thanked his hon. Friend for calling attention to the matter.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill or Bills ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, MR. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. LAING.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(who rose with Mr. AYRTON) said, he was sorry to interpose between the hon. Member and the House, but he believed he was in order in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to urge the postponement of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman
  1302
  might move the postponement after he had addressed the House.
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in possession of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this is not the first time I have heard the language of the petition just presented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Mr. J. Ewart), that this is a Bill for confiscating the property of the Licensed Victuallers of this country. It is very difficult to discuss this question without more or less indicating an opinion with regard to the present system under which drinking houses are licensed and managed in this country. I am afraid that, as far as my opinion is concerned, it is very unfavourable to that system, but at the same time the Government have been very anxious in framing this Bill to keep in view a particular and limited object, so as to avoid anything that could be fairly described, in the language of the petition from Liverpool, as a confiscation of property—to avoid, in fact, every interference with the interests of the Licensed Victuallers or of those who hold licences for the sale of beer, by any legislation, direct or indirect, beyond that which is absolutely necessary to the scope and success of the particular measures before us. There was much pressed on us by the sellers of beer, there was great authority due to the Report of the Committee of this House, which must become at some time or other a question of serious consideration, and which proposed to deal with the whole system under which the sale of strong liquors is regulated in this country. Our whole object was, as we were not able to undertake this year to propose a complete and final settlement of that important question, to proceed as far as possible without prejudice to any of the interests involved, and entirely to avoid, as we hoped, any occasion of hearing the Bill described in the terms which the Licensed Victuallers of Liverpool have thought proper to adopt. I can assure the House that the Bill has been framed in the spirit that I have described. Now, Sir, this is a Bill of very great practical importance, and one into which no considerations of party spirit or purely political motive ought to enter. It is a measure of importance as a fiscal measure, and takes its rise immediately from a fiscal proposal, for it would have been absurd to propose a great diminution of the wine duties, involving a sacrifice of the public revenue, and to hold out any

  1303
  hope to the House that that revenue would recover rapidly, unless we were prepared at the same time to submit a measure by which the channels for the sale of wine, and for carrying it to the houses of the consumers, could be enlarged and altered. But, although fiscal considerations formed the immediate necessity for the measure, I will admit that it is not to be decided upon entirely fiscal grounds. It has important bearings on the social condition of the community, upon the great question of public sobriety, and the ground on which I earnestly commend it to the House, is, not its importance for fiscal ends or for fiscal; security, but on the ground that it is a good and wise measure, not only with regard to the comforts of the people, but also, in the second place, for the promotion of temperance and sobriety as opposed to drunken and demoralized habits. In the discussions I have had with various parties who view this measure with suspicion and aversion, I have found it necessary to hold firmly by those two conditions. Those parties have been two, and although they have for the moment acted in partial conjunction, yet it appears to me almost to be a jest to mention them together in the House of Commons. One of those parties has been the Licensed Victuallers of this country, who represent in some humble degree the sale of beer, in some greater degree the sale of wine, and far above all, the sale of ardent spirits, because that is the main, and I am afraid I must say the favourite, portion of the trade. The other of those parties is a body of gentlemen of whom I cannot speak either here or elsewhere without profound respect, as gentlemen who are earnestly endeavouring to lay the axe, as they think, at the root of a great social evil. I mean the members of temperance societies. I must at the same time avow a broad difference of opinion with them, and a belief which I presume to entertain as an individual, and which this House has always acted upon in its legislation, that so far as wine is concerned there is a use of wine as apart from the abuse, whereas those gentlemen draw no distinction between the use and the abuse of wine, and in their view it is just as easy to talk of the legitimate use of theft and perjury, as to talk of the legitimate use of wine. I am bound to say that of these two classes of opponents I cannot I doubt from which the most formidable opposition is to be expected. I frankly own that those who represent the National Temper-
  1304
  ance Society have it as much in view to acquit their consciences, to liberate their souls, and to wash their hands of all responsibility as to prosecute a real and earnest opposition to the Bill of the Government. They do not hesitate to say that they object to anything that is calculated to increase the means of access to wine or other strong liquor, but they admit also that this Bill is a great improvement upon any legislative system that exists with respect to the sale of spirits or beer. I am sure that the House will pass a fair and just judgment on this Bill upon grounds of public policy and public morality. Those who have made representations adverse to the Bill have varied, both in their grounds and in their proposals. But the answer given to them on the part of the Government has been this,—that there are two conditions from which we cannot depart. We cannot consent to leave the increased importation of wine at the reduced duties dependent only on those channels of access to the consumer which now exist. That is one of the fundamental propositions on which the Bill has been based, and that proposition rests on grounds that may be shortly and simply stated. In the first place, the channels for the distribution of wine are in some respects most improperly, nay even ludicrously restrained. Because, setting aside for the moment the question of what facilities the House should give for the consumption of wine on the premises where it is sold, the system is highly restrictive with regard to the sale of wine not to be consumed on the premises; and it is absolutely necessary to afford greater facilities for the sale of wine as an article of retail trade not to be consumed on the premises, but for ordinary family use. The other fundamental ground on which we proceed is that the channels for the sale of wine are unduly restricted in proportion to the channels for the sale of other descriptions of strong liquor. A very numerous and influential deputation of licensed victuallers who came to plead the sufficiency of the present channels for the sale of strong liquors said, "What can you desire? Why, there are now 63,000 of these licensed houses." And certainly, when one hears such a number as that named, it sends a kind of shudder through the frame; and it certainly does appear at first sight reasonable, without entering into the question of quality, that the quantity of the existing channels should be found sufficient. But when we

  1305
  come to examine the state of the case we discover that, including about 40,000 or 50,000 now licensed for the sale of beer, there are in this country considerably over 100,000 houses licensed for the sale of strong drink to be consumed on the premises. But then we are in this strange predicament. One would say, if you look at beer, wine, and spirits, that the scale ought to adjust itself in this way:—Beer is the great national drink of the population, and evidently requires much the largest number of houses to be licensed for its sale. But next to beer I should think those who are anxious for public sobriety would naturally desire that greater facilities should be given for the sale of wines as compared with spirits. On the contrary, such is the state of your law that at this moment no man can have licence for the sale of wine unless he has a licence for the sale of spirits also. You give a positive preference to the sale of spirits, because a man may have a licence to sell spirits without one also for selling wine, but he cannot have a licence to sell wine without one also for selling spirits. I appeal to the advocates of temperance whether it is possible to justify legislation so absurd as that. And how does it work? Is it only a theoretical distinction, whereas in practice all those who sell spirits sell wines also? On the contrary, those who are licensed to sell spirits exist as spirit-sellers to the extent of 63,000; and only 25,000 of that number hold licences to sell wine at all. So that you have in this country 38,000 persons licensed to sell spirits who are not licensed to sell wine. It is under these circumstances that with the most confident anticipation of the favourable judgment of the House I ask them to join us in considering and digesting the provisions of a measure offering increased facilities for the sale of wine. And I am bound to say, with regard to the quality of the wine supplied to the public, that I think it indispensable to alter the channels of distribution, so as to introduce that principle of competition which is so essentially necessary in this country. By enlarging the sale of wine through new channels, we shall improve the wine sold through the old ones. We all know what sort of an article is sold as wine in this country. Excepting hotels of a certain class, where at very high prices the most excellent wines are to be obtained, and speaking generally, what pen or tongue could adequately describe the liquors now
  1306
  sold as wine in ordinary public-houses to the British community? Why, the white wine is a mixture of fire and water, while the red wine sold as port, is made of the juice of the sloe, and various other products, perhaps not so harmless, together, no doubt, with a considerable infusion of some kind of spirit. We have seen, then, that it is absolutely necessary to provide new channels for the sale of wine; and the second proposition that I have laid down as fundamental for any useful and salutary measure is this—that, whatever we might do with regard to establishing the control of the magistracy and police, the Government will not be reponsible for reproducing, in a new form, the evils existing in the present licensing system. It is no reproach to the magistracy, to say that when the provisions of this Bill are examined, it will be found that they have been framed in a spirit of ample, I might add, unlimited, confidence in the general competence, intelligence, and integrity of the justices of the peace of this country—a confidence which, I believe, they well deserve. There may be exceptions, there maybe particular quarters where private interests come directly into play; but what I state is, that this measure proceeds on the principle that you may safely repose in the magistracy any powers which fairness of intention and ability of mind will enable men to exercise in a satisfactory manner. But your present licensing system imposes on magistrates duties which it is impossible for them to discharge. It makes them judges of the quantity of liquor that a given number of human beings ought to consume. How absurd is that; and how absurd the inequality it produces! In a particular place the magistrates frame a certain estimate of the capacity of human organs to receive, digest, and dispose of strong liquors; and if they are inclined to form a narrow estimate of that capacity, they determine that the number of public-houses shall be a fixed and limited number. In another place the magistrates, taking a different view of the question, and thinking that with an increasing population there should be increasing facilities, go on enlarging the number of licensed houses. In Manchester one view prevails, and, accordingly, in that city there is now a smaller number of these houses than there was, I believe, twenty years ago. In Liverpool, on the other hand, the magistrates do not look at the subject in the same light; and although the population does not greatly

  1307
  differ from that of Manchester, there are threefold more public houses than in that city. There is, then, an inequality dependent on private and personal discretion which ought not to exist. The matter ought to be regulated on intelligible principles, operating with something like uniformity in different parts of the country, and producing contentment by its equal dealing with one district as compared with another. Not only, however, is the present licensing system unequal, but it engenders the greatest heartburnings and suspicions. I am not about to enter into that evil. I only mention it as one of the reasons why the Government are unwilling to be responsible for reproducing it in a province where it does not now exist. For moral purposes, I must say, the system is entirely inefficient. What do the licensed victuallers of Liverpool, who oppose this Bill, tell us as to the operation of the public-house system in that town, the magistrates of which, it may be remembered, petitioned for its alteration. In their printed statements they declare that in Liverpool there are 1,526 licensed public-houses, and that there are public-houses known by the police to be the resorts of thieves and prostitutes, but still annually licensed by the magistrates to the number of 178. That is the system with which, upon moral grounds it may be, we are requested not to meddle. It has also a tendency to create monopoly; and it is evident that where there is monopoly, proprietary—or what is called "vested"—interests grow up in the licence of every public-house. There is a property in every public-house in respect to the licence, apart from the other elements which make up its value in the market. The existence of that property constitutes the most formidable impediment to the exercise of police and magisterial control, and renders it almost practically impossible to apply that control on account of these vested interests. Well, when it is proposed to roar up a new class of houses, having licences given in a similar manner, subject to similar arbitrary restraint, the answer is obvious, that if we were to accede to that proposition, these wine licences, like those of the licensed victuallers, would become the root and nucleus of a new mass of vested interests, and would also effectually obstruct the authority wielded by the police, and the magistracy for the maintenance of good order and the prevention of social evil. That I think is a conclusive reason why we should
  1308
  decline to present to the House any Bill, which, while attempting to provide a system of licences for the sale of wine, should subject those licences to the kind of discretion which is now exercised by magistrates with regard to public-houses. Short of these two propositions—the one that we should rest contented with the present licensing system, and the other that we should create a new licensing system dependent simply upon the discretion of the magistrates—there is no proposal tending simply to giving stringent powers of control and punishment both before and after, both by way of prevention and by way of penalty, for the maintenance of good order, that we shall not be ready to entertain, with every desire to adopt it. Having said thus much of the general views with which the Bill is undertaken, I will now describe its main objects. These objects are three, and with regard to two of them I anticipate perhaps even the unanimous concurrence of the House. One of them A is to give enlarged means for the sale of wine not to be consumed upon the premises. I think there can be no doubt I that the sale of wine in that way, where it would merely enter into families for the domestic use of the people is, generally speaking, both unexceptionable and I desirable. We shall, therefore, propose that, subject to the payment of a moderate licence duty, retail shopkeepers shall be entitled to take out licences for the sale of wine, not to be consumed upon the premises. I do not intend to argue that part of the question, because I apprehend that the reasonableness of the proposal will, in all likelihood, be universally admitted. I pass on to what undoubtedly is socially a more important part of the Bill. The Bill proposes to attain one great and important object of police control, which has no connection whatever with strong liquors. We propose that all houses whatever, in which any description of refreshment is usually and ordinarily sold, shall be brought under the control of the police, and shall with that view be made liable to the payment of a small licence duty. The ground on which that proposal is made is that many of these houses are both the receptacles of disorderly characters and the scenes of very disorderly transactions. It is likewise stated with some probability of truth, that in many of them strong liquors are surreptitiously sold. I do not think it necessary to enter into any detail upon this subject, because I

  1309
  think I may say that there is a public opinion established to the effect that it would be desirable to bring the whole of this class of houses within the sweep of the special control of the police. There is, however, in this part of the measure, one point to which I wish to invite the attention of the House. We propose to exempt all houses below £10 in value, in places containing less than a certain population. In villages and even in small towns, there are often a number of houses in which certain slight articles, which may be called refreshments—ginger beer and oranges—are sold, but the sale of which does not constitute a trade such as to make them the resort of any persons at all, or to render it necessary to subject them to the control of the police. I think that whatever may be the proper limit to this exemption, as to which there may be some doubt, that the reasonableness and propriety of the exemption itself will be generally admitted. The third part of the Bill is that which refers to the licensing of eating-houses for the sale of wine; and here I must be permitted to draw a very important distinction, because an idea has gone abroad that all refreshment houses are to be licensed for the sale of wine. There could not be a greater error. On the contrary, it is a fundamental principle of this Bill to draw a distinction between refreshment houses generally and those refreshment houses which are really eating-houses, and that for reasons upon which I will presently dwell for a moment. In licensing eating-houses for the sale of wine we have had in view the creation of a system more healthful, more sane, and attended with much less even of the contingency of evil than any part of the system which is now established by law. It appears, Sir, to be pretty obvious that in the case of man nature intended that the functions of eating and drinking should be carried on together, or in immediate connection one with another. You have contrived, however, a system of law which does everything short of absolute enactment to separate them one from the other. You have, therefore, got in England some 70,000 or 80,000 drinking-houses that are not eating-houses at all; and not only that, but what else have you done? You have constituted a monopoly in the sale of drink, and to those who hold that monopoly you have not given a monopoly of the sale of victuals. What has been the consequence? That the trade in drink has been fostered, favoured
  1310
  and prosecuted by those who have the monopoly of it, to the comparative neglect of the trade in victuals, which, not being the subject of a monopoly, has gone forth and become the property of a different set of parties, the social result of which is, that you have done everything in your power, by the construction of your law, to separate the business of eating from that of drinking. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the constitution of human nature, and perhaps my opinion that the functions of eating and drinking ought to be joined together, may, in the view of some gentlemen, be open to dispute, although it appears to me to be a reasonable one; but, at any rate, I see this, that persons of the upper class who have power to make arrangements for themselves take care to make provision for it through the medium of their clubs. That which I am now going to ask for the people we, who sit in this House, and those of our station in life have taken very good care to provide for ourselves. We are not content, if we want to drink a glass of wine, to be dependent upon that which is purchased from a licensed victualler. We can buy for our 4d., 6d., or 1s. a glass, half-a-pint, a pint, or whatever quantity we want; and not in London only, but in Liverpool, in Manchester, in Edinburgh, and I know not where, the upper classes, recognizing the reasonableness of this arrangement, have, by means of clubs, formed for themselves that system which, as far as possible, we have by our laws placed beyond the reach of the common people and of the middle class. Well, Sir, with respect to these eating-houses, is it not perfectly obvious that the old system of separating eating and drinking is the most unwise one that we could possibly pursue if we want to promote sober habits? People who go to eat are not permitted to drink at the place where they eat,—that is to say, there is a complicated machinery of sending out to the nearest public-house for the particular jug or glass of this or that, which imposes impediments, obstacles, and trouble that operate almost as a prohibition, and practically we know that, except in inns and hotels, in all eating-houses properly so called eating and drinking are, as a consequence of our laws, effectually disjoined. What is the consequence of that? You do not get rid of the desire for drink; you cannot quench or extinguish that by forbidding a man to get drink where he eats, but you compel

  1311
  him in order to indulge his desire for drink to go to a place of which drinking is the special business. If you wanted to contrive and devise a scheme for promoting drunkenness would it be possible to devise a better one than is presented to you by such a state of the law? Then, I am told that this Bill ought not to be supported because the Beer Bill has failed. Why, what was the Beer Bill? It was totally different in principle from this measure. The main object of this Bill is to reunite the business of eating and drinking; the object of the Beer Bill, on the contrary, was to create new houses, of a different description from those which existed, but still essentially, and, indeed, almost solely, drinking-houses. I may here venture to mention to the House what I have learnt, and I think it is a fact of some interest, with regard to what has lately taken place in Sweden. We all know that the Swedes are a people of very great intelligence, and one with whom Englishmen are very glad to claim a kindred of blood; but they are also a people among whom the vice of drunkenness has very extensively prevailed. Of late years great efforts have been made, with very considerable success, to restrain that vice, and one of the measures which have been adopted for that purpose has been a provision or a plan which has, I am told, been universally adopted in that country, that spirit should not be sold in any house except those where victuals also are retailed, and I am glad to be able to quote a case of experience of that sort in support of the principle upon which this Bill is founded. Besides reuniting the business of eating with that of drinking, from which it has by a fatal error been separated, there is, I think, undoubtedly great advantage in the substitution of milder for stronger drinks. I do not believe that the extended use of wine will act very powerfully in limiting or restraining the use of spirits, still less do I believe that it will act powerfully in limiting or restraining the use of beer. We have an increasing population, we have a population that is not only increasing in numbers, but is growing, and has been rapidly growing, in wealth; and with the increase of numbers and of wealth, there is a legitimate sphere for an increase in the consumption both of wine and beer, apart from any trenching of the one upon the other; but still, comparing strong liquors with weak ones, I think is an advantage in this Bill that it will give to
  1312
  the people a much easier access to a mild liquor than they have hitherto enjoyed. I have read to-day a long letter addressed to me, complaining that there are many drunken people in Paris. I should be very glad to exchange the drunkenness of London for that of Paris. I would gladly take the drunkenness of Paris, if we might be permitted to make them a present of the drunkenness of London in exchange. In fact, it is a universal principle that no country where wine is abundant and cheap is a drunken country. On the other hand, it is, I am afraid, almost equally safe to assert the converse—namely, that countries where wine is not abundant and cheap, but where the use of other liquors extensively prevails, are universally, in Europe at least, drunken countries. Besides the advantage of reuniting eating and drinking, which is the main principle of our Bill, it provides a much better and more effective system of control than any which exists at present, whether with respect to licensed victuallers or with respect to beer-houses. Let me state the leading provisions of the Bill relative to that control. Every one who keeps a refreshment house, subject to certain limited exemptions, will be compelled to take out a small licence, and will so come under the control of the police. All those who keep eating-houses will be entitled to apply to the Excise for a wine licence, but before it issues, the officer of Excise must make known the fact to the magistrates, who have power under the Bill—very large and even arbitrary power, I admit—power which cannot be justified unless you have confidence in their integrity and intelligence—to object to the issue of the licence, and to put an absolute veto upon it, provided they can assert either that the house is not an eating-house within the meaning of the Act, or that it is a house kept or frequented by disorderly persons. The reason why I have given such a power with respect to the application by the magistrates of the definition of an eating-house is, that if you were to entitle the parties themselves, upon undertaking to sell bread and cheese, to call themselves eating-house keepers, and to invest them on that ground with a title to take out a wine licence, the effect would be that you would give licences to drinking-houses under the name of eating-houses. The object of the Bill is to give a wine licence only in cases where the business of drinking is so far subsidiary to the business of eating that the house can be declared to

  1313
  be kept open for the purpose of selling victuals. It is necessary for that purpose that the magistrates should have stringent powers, and therefore we have given them powers which, though large, I hope the House will in the main approve. Moreover, we have given them an equally stringent power with respect to anything of a disorderly character appertaining to a house; and I propose also to give them power to object to the licensing of a house on the ground that it does not correspond with the rental or value provided by the Act, or that the tenant has been disqualified in some other place under the provisions of the Act. These, I think, are efficient restraints upon any undue facility in the first issuing of the licences. Let me now state what the Bill provides in regard to the subsequent management of houses. In the first place, the licence must be renewed from year to year, and, though it would not be just to impose upon the party who wants a renewal of his licence the necessity of going through the same process of giving notice that he had to pursue when he first obtained it; yet the Bill, duly requiring the magistrates to take the initiative, gives them the same powers, to be annually exercised, if they think fit, in the case of renewals of licences, as they are to exercise upon notice received from the party in the case of the original granting of a licence. I mention these stringent powers thus particularly because they are so large and considerable that the House ought not to confer them without having its attention drawn to them in the plainest and most pointed manner. They are justified, I think, by the nature of the case, especially in making the first trial of a new system; but they are stringent to the last degree, and, I believe, will prevent persons from applying for wine licences who are not conscious that their conduct is beyond suspicion or doubt. So much for the first issuing of the licences, and likewise for the restraints upon renewals. There is, besides, in the Bill a system of penalties. This portion of the Bill has been copied in general from the Beer Acts, which contain very severe penalties; but they have been improved and made more workable by changes of various kinds. I intend myself to propose an Amendment at the commencement of the 26th clause, of which the necessity will at once be recognized. The words of that clause have been taken from the Beer Act, and provide that everybody licensed under the Act who
  1314
  shall permit any person to be guilty of drunkenness or disorderly conduct in their houses shall be subject to certain penalties; but, oddly enough, the section which makes it penal to permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct does not make it penal to be guilty of drunkenness or disorderly conduct. I propose, in Committee, to make an Amendment to that effect. The House will see that I have endeavoured to make the penalties as effective as possible, but I shall propose, in Committee, to introduce a form of penalty which does not appear in the Bill as it now stands—namely, the disqualification of houses under certain circumstances as well as the disqualification of persons. This provision may undoubtedly be attended with a good deal of difficulty, as a landlord may sometimes be unfortunate in a bad tenant who has misconducted himself, and may wish to displace him by a good tenant carrying on the same trade in the same place; but, on the other hand, there has been so much evil attending the substitution of men of straw for men who have been disqualified on conviction that, upon the whole, I think it better to give the magistrates power to disqualify houses as well as persons. We have also provided that the penalties shall be absolute, without appeal, except upon the third conviction. I am persuaded that, if the penalties err, they do not err on the side of lenity. They may be thought too stringent in some cases, but that is a matter for consideration in Committee. I have now explained the general scope and effect of our Bill, and the principal provisions which it contains. As I said at the commencement, so I say at the close—I do not propose this Bill with the intention of making it the precursor of an attack upon the privileges, if they be privileges, now enjoyed by licensed victuallers or by beerhouses. That question stands upon distinct and independent grounds, and, no doubt, will some day or other call for the attention of the House. The present Bill I recommend as a Bill which will have a decided tendency to the promotion of habits of sobriety among the people, and which will have that effect both by the establishment of a far better system of control than any which now exists, and especially by offering the people the means of reasonable access is the refreshing influences of liquor in conjunction with the meals they are required to take. It is, therefore, not only a wise and judicious fiscal measure, but a measure well calculated to encourage

  1315
  among the people habits of no common importance with respect to all their social and moral relations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WYLD MR. WYLD moved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  MR. AYRTONsupported the Motion for Adjournment on the ground that the Bill gave effect to the imposition of certain taxes which had not yet received the sanction of the House. If the House should not give its assent to those taxes, it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a very different Bill from that which he had just submitted to its consideration. The best way would be to take the taxes first and the Bill afterwards. No more important financial question could be proposed to the House than that of levying a tax upon the keepers of shops of a certain class. He trusted the House would allow the debate to be adjourned, until, in accordance with the usual course, a Resolution had been passed in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion if he could agree to his premises. There could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that this was a taxing Bill. The licences were wholly incidental to the great social objects which the measure had in view with respect to the use of wine; and it would be absurd to consent to a tax of this kind until the House had had an opportunity of considering the plan of granting the wine licences. Under these circumstances, he could not consent to the adjournment.
  MR. LIDDELLthought that when the Government proposed a Bill of this kind involving a totally new system of taxation they should show some cause for it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this Bill was intended to promote the public convenience and comfort; but he (Mr. Liddell) contended that the public themselves were the best judges upon that subject. There were upwards of 1,100 petitions objecting to this measure, and there had not been one petition in its favour. He therefore disputed the locus standi of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was a Bill to promote the public convenience and comfort. He believed that this was a Bill not required, and that ample
  1316
  channels at present existed for the sale of intoxicating liquors. They all knew that in the kind of houses now proposed to be licensed a vast quantity of illicit liquors were sold; and those channels would be enlarged by this Bill. He believed also that the Bill was an injustice to existing interests.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, this was in its terms a money Bill, for it proposed to inflict a tax on refreshment houses whether wine was sold or not; and he believed that the objection taken by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was perfectly tenable.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that he thought the objection taken was a valid one; but whilst he was of opinion that the Government had been guilty of an informality, the real fact was that they had abandoned a certain portion of revenue, and they wished to recoup themselves by a new tax. The inducement to this Bill was not really that these wines should come into general use, for the reduction of the duty would effect what was required; the Government wanted revenue, that was the real point, and all the restrictions and other things in the Bill were only intended to sweeten the new tax.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that the measure was one which required the most serious consideration. If the trade in the sale of beer were to be thrown open, let that be avowed; but he believed that the feeling of the country was the other way. He himself had presented a petition from his constituents, who had assembled in public meeting, with the Vicar of Sheffield in the chair, to protest against it. He thought that the Bill would diminish the control of the magistrates over the sale of liquor, and would prove as pernicious as the Bill which permitted the establishment of beershops. At any rate the measure was too important to be discussed at nearly midnight.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was of opinion that no one could read the Bill without coming to the conclusion that it was a money Bill, though introduced under the disguise of a measure for the promotion of social benefit. The words of the Bill were that for making additions to the public revenue "the following duties should be charged." It seemed to him that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was right in his facts, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, according to his own proposition, agree with him in his conclusion.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman could only have formed his idea from his inexperience of the forms of Parliament. The House was precluded from considering, on the second reading, the taxing clauses, which were printed in italics on that very account. In fact, technically speaking, they were not then a part of the Bill, and omitting those clauses, the Bill did not come within the category of a taxing Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 150: Majority 28.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, if the Government intended to press the debate on the Bill he should move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the hon. Gentleman desired to discuss the Bill, of course the Government would not oppose the adjournment of the debate, though they must oppose the adjournment of the House. The Government had opposed the hon. Gentleman on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, because it was raised on the objection that the Bill was a taxing Bill; he was glad the House had supported him against that proposition. But nothing was more reasonable than that those hon. Members who opposed the measure should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions. He had, therefore, no objection to the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now propose that the debate be adjourned, and would suggest that the House should meet on Thursday at twelve o'clock to resume it.
  MR. HARDYpretested against meeting at twelve o'clock on Thursday. A great many Members were sitting on Committees, and it was too much to ask them to have a morning sitting before Easter.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the reason given by the hon. Gentleman would be a reason against a morning sitting at any period of the Session. It was always the practice to have morning sittings when business was pressing. He therefore trusted the House would agree to the proposal.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must protest against the course proposed as unconsti-
  1318
  tutional. He knew no case of a morning sitting being required before Easter. As far as he could calculate, there was ample time, without sitting on Thursday morning, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry before Easter all the real and pressing business of the country; but if the Government chose to bring in measures in which he believed neither the House nor the country were at all interested, it was naturally a matter of grave consideration whether the business of all the Committees should be suspended, in order that the attention of the House might be given to a question of that kind. No doubt they could do their business as Committee men and all the other business, without being deprived of the Easter holidays. The truth was, there was other business before the House—nobody cared to inquire why it was introduced, or wanted to know what would become of it—and which interested the feelings of only one or two individuals; and this impeded and embarrassed the real business of the country; and now the House was called on to suspend the valuable labours of all the Committees in order that this caprice of legislation might have another opportunity of being held up to the scorn and derision of the country. The farce, he thought, had already been carried to too great a length. He was not himself of opinion that the Bill before them was a Money Bill, and he wished to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer every support in carrying the measure, but he could not agree that they should suspend all the valuable labours of their Committees in order to meet on Thursday morning.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would remind the House that Her Majesty's Government were asked at beginning of the Session when they would introduce their Reform Bill, and were warned that delay would be productive of embarrassment. Instead of having a great constitutional measure laid in time on the table of the House, they had been engaged for night after night in discussing the duty on corks squared for rounding, and other such like matters. This had embarrassed the business of the House, and he did not think it fair that hon. Members should now be seriously inconvenienced because the Government had delayed to introduce this great constitutional measure.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTobserved, that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire did not state what measure it was which he considered of such slight import-

  1319
  ance, and which he and the country regarded with such entire scorn and derision that he could not now accede to the proposal for a morning sitting. The House would recollect, however, that there was a measure introduced last year by the late Government, having reference to that despised question, the representation of the people; and the right hon. Gentleman must remember that he held the measure of such importance that he not only demanded its discussion, but put hon. Members to the inconvenience of a general election on the subject. He hoped that the House of Commons would have the decency to show that it did not look on the question of the representation of the people as trifling, paltry, and utterly contemptible, but assent to what was necessary for the conduct of business—a morning sitting on Thursday.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that the measure of the late Government to which he referred was a Bill for the real reform of Parliament; but, looking at the way in which the Reform Bill of the present Government had been introduced, and how it had been deferred night after night by the Government themselves, it was no unreasonable assumption to suppose that neither the Government nor the House regarded it as important, or thought it necessary to read it a second time before Easter. He deemed the proposal to have a morning sitting to consider the important Bill relating to refreshment houses and wine licences as most astounding. The noble Viscount, it was true, had treated it with that charming indifference with which he treated most questions; but it was a proposition quite unusual, and would be most inconvenient to the members of Committees.
  MR. BEAUMONTremarked that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire spoke with contempt, not of the representation of the people, but of the Bill introduced by the Government. He had voted last year for the Reform Bill of the late Government, but he could not help thinking that the present Reform Bill was not one which should be forced on to a second reading before Easter. He objected to meeting on Thursday morning in order to enable the Reform Bill to be afterwards unduly pressed on.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would remind the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) that the Reform Bill of last year, which he called a real one, had been rejected by a large majority of the House of Com-
  1320
  mons; while to the second reading of that introduced by Her Majesty's Government not the slightest opposition had been attempted, though the unprecedented course was resorted to of endeavouring to defeat by delay what could not openly be attacked.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had thrown new light upon the subject. Her Majesty's Government, it appeared, were invited and pressed to introduce the Reform Bill, and he could well conceive with what reluctance and pain, they had brought forward the measure which had turned out to be an abortion. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth quite mistook what had taken place. The Bill of the late Government was not rejected; the Gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury benches refused to allow that Bill to be discussed, and, in the spirit of enlightened liberality, for which they were so distinguished, they carried an abstract Resolution against its being heard. They then brought in a Bill themselves, but would have been delighted to escape from the necessity for doing so, and they would be equally glad to escape from their own Bill at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman said hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House wished to delay the measure. They wanted to discuss it. There were twenty-five Gentlemen of ability and eloquence who were most anxious to discuss it; and though the right hon. Gentleman himself had been heard, there were other Members who were desirous of acquiring more detailed information with regard to those classes which it was proposed to enfranchise. If the Government had set their hearts on carrying this measure, let them throw aside all other business, foreign and domestic, and discuss the Reform Bill day by day; but they certainly should not be at liberty to change the constitution of the country without hearing the opinions of that party whom they were determined not to hear when their Bill was before the House. He recommended the right hon. Gentleman to preserve that good temper which he always exhibited, and to allow them to meet in the usual way and to separate at the usual time before Easter; and, in the meantime, the confident opinion which he entertained of the good sense of Ministers led him to believe that the House would hear nothing more of the Reform Bill.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, Her Majesty's Government had only themselves to blame

  1321
  for the present complication of public business, having needlessly postponed the introduction of the Reform Bill for six weeks at the commencement of the Session. He desired to have a discussion on the Bill, he did not agree with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Bill of the late Government was a contemptible Bill, and the present Bill was all that was good. He thought they each of them contained something that was good, and something altogether the reverse. With regard to the day sitting on Thursday, it was impossible that hon. Members who, like himself, were acting on important Committees, could also take part in the deliberations of the House, which were to proceed simultaneously.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the proposition of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey), that because there had been no division on the second reading of the Reform Bill, therefore there was to be no discussion, was a most monstrous one. The existing difficulties had arisen entirely from the inefficient manner in which the Government conducted the business of the House. Members were quite in the dark as to the probable result of the Reform Bill, if carried, and the details which had been given by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, he believed, would prove altogether erroneous. He was a Member of an important Committee which sat at one o'clock on Thursday, and he could not be in two places at once. He therefore protested against a morning sitting before Easter as quite unprecedented.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, that he regretted the difficulty into which the Government had got by the delay in introducing the measure, but he much more regretted the semi-contemptuous tone in which Members on both sides of the House spoke of a subject of such vital importance as Reform in the representation of the people. They had had discussion enough about corks, about French wines, and lately they had heard from day to day about the inconsiderable territory of Savoy, and no time appeared to be too long to discuss these and similar subjects; but when the question was Reform, when the subject was the representation of the people, the enfranchisement of the working classes, the toiling millions of their fellow-countrymen, then (he said it with a feeling of shame) the House on all sides seem to recollect that it was close to Easter; and time, and convenience, and Committees, became all-im-
  1322
  portant, and Reform and the people were to be put aside, The hon. Member said that this was not the time to go into the merits or demerits of the Government Reform Bill. He could not say much more in its favour than it was a step—a hesitating and feeble one—in the right direction; but, anyhow, it ought to be discussed, not shelved, and he, for one, would, at any sacrifice of time or personal inconvenience, devote morning and evening to the consideration of a question which was all-important. If the Government had the moral courage to divide upon this question, he should go in the lobby with them cheerfully.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHlikewise expressed a hope that the Government would not persist in forcing a morning sitting on Thursday on the House.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he also protested against a morning sitting on Thursday, which would interfere with many important Committees.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the question of the Treaty took up more time than an ordinary Budget, and after all it was only a scheme for robbing Peter to pay Paul. He objected to the proposed morning sitting, as, considering the Money Bills which must be passed before Easter, it was impossible even with that assistance to discuss so important a measure as that of Parliamentary Reform.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would accede to what appeared the general feeling of the House against the morning sitting on Thursday. This Bill would, therefore, be proceeded with on Monday. It might become necessary in consequence to sit on Wednesday, or even on the Thursday before Good Friday, but probably the House would not object, under the circumstances, to this arrangement.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Marriages (Extra-Parochial Places); Consolidated Fund (850,000).

INDIA.—MR. WILSON'S FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked whether the Government were prepared to lay on the Table of the House the financial scheme of which mention had been made in the newspapers as having recently been submitted to the Legislative Council of India, and also whether that scheme had obtained their previous sanction. He was the more anxious to obtain information on those points, because it appeared to him that there must be some mistake in the details which appeared in the newspapers. If, however, that statement were correct, income tax would have to be paid by every private soldier in Her Majesty's Cavalry and Artillery in India; the non-commissioned officers in the Infantry would also be liable to it, and he was not quite sure that it would not have in some instances to be borne by the privates themselves—at any rate they would only escape by the difference of a few shillings. But that was not all; every commissioned officer in the Native army, as well as privates in the Native Irregular Cavalry, would also come within the scope of the scheme; so that nearly all our troops in India, Native as well as European, would be combined together with the people by considerations for their own interest in opposition to the plan. And he might add, what everybody knew, the difficulty if not the impossibility of obtaining trustworthy Commissioners to hear and decide appeals from over-assessments.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that having received no notice of the noble Earl's question, he was not prepared to give to it an explicit answer. He might, however, observe that if his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India had received the financial statement to which the noble Earl al-

1231
luded, it must have been since he last saw him, inasmuch as he had not then been officially informed of its details. He earnestly hoped the noble Earl, as well as others, would abstain from making any observations which might create prejudice against the plan of the Government of India until it had been fully stated and explained to Parliament, inasmuch as there might be many mistakes as to its details contained in the accounts which had been received. It was, he might add, physically impossible that the plan could have obtained the previous sanction of the Government at home.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthought it would be convenient to the House to state the course of public business Her Majesty's Government proposed to take before the Easter recess. There were five financial Bills in all; but two of them it was very essential to the public service should be passed before Easter; these were the Income-tax Bill and the Stamps Bill. These two measures he hoped would come up from the House of Commons on Thursday next, and in that case he proposed to take the second reading on the following day. But if unfortunately they should not come up till Friday, he hoped their Lordships would have no objection to take the second reading on Monday next, and the third reading on Tuesday, so that they might receive the Royal Assent before the House adjourned for the recess. If any of their Lordships wished to discuss the general question involved in the proposals of the Government, there were three other Bills which would be introduced after Easter—the Customs Bill, the Paper Duty Bill, and the Wine Licences Bill. On these measures the whole question might be raised if desirable.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, whatever objections his side of the House, and indeed the other side also, might entertain, he was not disposed, after the statement which the noble Duke had just made, to offer any opposition to the course he had suggested, large as was the addition to the taxation of the country, and objectionable as was the particular tax that would be brought before them. These Bills were especially connected with the other measures, and as it appeared that after the Easter recess they were to have a discussion on
1232
the other Bills, that would probably be sufficient for those noble Lords who wished to take part in a financial discussion. He wished, however, to ask the noble Duke whether there was any foundation for a rumour that had reached him out of doors that Her Majesty's Government had felt it necessary to withdraw the Army Estimates, and to lay upon the table other and larger Estimates than were at first supposed to be necessary? Such a report was in circulation. He would be glad to hear from his noble Friend that there was no foundation for it. On the other hand, if new and enlarged Estimates were in course of preparation, he was glad to hear from the noble Duke that the Government did not intend to bring forward the Paper Duties Bill till after Easter, because in the present state of the revenue the retention of the revenue derived from that source might be found to be necessary.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the information which had reached the noble Earl was in some respects correct, and in others not. It was true the Government were about to withdraw the Army Estimates, and to present new, but not of increased amount. The present Estimates were based on the supposed number of troops that were expected to arrive from India. Since the Estimates were framed a considerably larger number of troops—more than seven regiments—have arrived beyond the first calculation. A revision of the whole Estimates, therefore, had become necessary, and they were to be withdrawn for rectification to meet the altered circumstances, but not with the view of any increase in the amount.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then we are to understand that there will be no in-crease?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: No increase whatever.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that in discussing the financial scheme generally of the Government some arguments might be adduced against the Bills which would be passed before the recess, and it would only be fair towards those who might desire to raise any question that they should be allowed to do so. He hoped it would not be held that by passing the Income Tax Bill and the Paper Duties Bill before Easter, any noble Lord would be precluded from raising a discussion on these measures in connection with the other financial propositions of the Government.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that

1233
there could be no objection to fully discussing all the financial plans of the Government on the three Bills which would stand over until after Easter.

PIERS AND BREAKWATERS.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved for Returns of all Public Monies granted or advanced for the erection of Piers and Breakwaters on the Coasts of the United Kingdom since 1810. The noble Marquess said, that the subject to which his Motion referred was one of grave importance, and up to this time the professional men who had taken it in hand had more or less failed. Since he had first moved for Returns connected with this subject, a Paper had been issued, which, so far as shipwrecks were concerned, gave sufficient information for his purpose; and to that document he invited their Lordships' serious attention. A more melancholy record he had never read. It appeared from the Report of the Harbour of Refuge Commissioners, that the state of the harbours on the coasts of the United Kingdom was a disgrace to the nation; and it was stated in the Returns of Wrecks and Casualties made by the Board of Trade, that the annual loss of property upon the coast had been £1,500,000, and the average loss of life during a period of six years amounted to 780 souls; but in 1854 there perished on the coast no less than 1,549. During last year there were no less than 1,461 wrecks of vessels of different classes; and the number of persons on board these vessels was 10,538, nearly 4,000 of whom were in imminent peril of their lives, and out of that number 1,645 were lost. And all this had occurred notwithstanding the increased application of science to navigation, and the high state of perfection to which shipbuilding had been brought. Was this a visitation of Divine Providence, or was it one of those misfortunes which, under the blessing of God, might, through human agency, be averted or mitigated? He believed that if proper pains were taken, they might, by well-directed efforts, prevent many of the casualties which occurred. If that were so, there rested upon the Government, upon Parliament, and the nation generally, a most heavy responsibility, not only as regarded the safety of our maritime population, but as regarded our own interests. Our glory, our safety, and our greatness,
  1234
  mainly depended upon our maritime population. No doubt some efforts had been made to give shelter to the shipping on our coasts, but those efforts had been insufficient and ill-directed. The greatest diversity of opinion existed upon various experiments that had been submitted to the public for the construction of piers, harbours, and breakwaters; but the upshot had hitherto been only a persistence in the old system—that system which had existed for 3,000 years, probably among the Greeks, and certainly among the Romans, which last people had even adopted some improvements which we had neglected. Among the plans which had from time to time been proposed for affording increased protection to shipping, there were two projects which had attracted especial attention. That of the Rev. Mr. Glover, for the erection of artificial islands at the mouth of tidal rivers, had been submitted for years past to the opinion of many eminent authorities, and no opinion directly opposed to the principle of the invention appeared to have been given; while it had received the countenance of Sir John Burgoyne, Admiral Warren, Mr. Cubitt, and a number of other highly distinguished individuals. He by no means advocated the adoption of this plan or any extended scale without previous investigation; but when they perceived by the wreck chart the enormous loss of life that took place along the coasts of Norfolk and Suffolk, which, from their sandy character, would be particularly adapted for the formation of such islands, it was not too much to expect that the efficacy of the plan should be tested by experiment, the cost of which would bear no comparison to the life and property annually thrown away on that dangerous coast. The other proposition, by Captain Adderley Sleigh, for a floating breakwater, had been patented, and received the support of Sir T. Hastings, Colonel Rutherford, Admiral Hathorn, Sir E. Belcher, Colonel M'Dougal, and a great number of other distinguished persons. The invention, surely, was worth a trial, for if one large vessel yearly were saved through its instrumentality, the outlay incurred would be more than repaid to the nation. Some years ago the people of Folkestone were very anxious to have this invention tested, and they applied to the Admiralty for a loan of anchors and chains for the purpose. If the experiment succeeded, full remuneration would have been insured; and if, on the other hand, it proved a

  1235
  failure, the cost to the country would have been scarcely appreciable. The decision of the Admiralty, however, was adverse to the application, and the experiment, from which so much benefit might be anticipated, remained still without having been attempted. Whether good or bad, these inventions ought to be tested, if there appeared a possibility of saving by them more lives from shipwreck. There had been two or three Select Committees on this subject. One was in 1857, which recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into harbours of refuge. He did not blame the Harbour of Refuge Commissioners for disapproving of plans where they assigned reasons for disapproval, as in the case of several recommended for Dovor, but what he did disapprove of was, their rejecting plans apparently sound in principle, without assigning any reasons at all. The floating break-water which had been supported by the highest authority did not come directly before the Commissioners, and they were therefore not responsible. The principle of the invention was that of deflection. By the slope which it would give to the floating breakwater, the deflection would be so considerable that not only would protection and shelter from storms be afforded, but it could also be made applicable to floating batteries, for the deflection of the slope would, to a great extent, throw off the hall of the enemy, so that even one of Sir William Armstrong's guns at a comparatively short distance would glance harmless off a battery. He repeated, that the state of the coast was a disgrace to the nation. Look at the mouth of the Mersey, and they would find it on the wreck chart studded with wrecks. The great impediment, no doubt, to the testing such experiments, was the expense. But we were now going to a most absurd and extravagant expense in constructing harbours and piers acknowledged by every one to be faulty, and to be failures in many instances. In 1857, a Select Committee of the House of Commons had recommended the voting of a large sum of money for harbours of refuge; they recommended an expenditure of no less a sum than £2,000,000. They also recommended the appointment of a Commission; but the Commission also, instead of finding out any more economical way than hitherto of making harbours, adhered to the old plan, and proposed to extend the expenditure to £365,000. So that at this moment there was to be expended upon
  1236
  these works £2,765,000. And some of the works upon which this money was expended were held in such low estimation by nautical men that they were called "ship traps" and "wreck pools." The works at the mouth of the Tyne had already cost £300,000, and it was proposed to spend £250,000 more during the next year; and yet there was not one single man of science to be found who would say that these works would be of lasting use. It was with a view to discover how much had been spent by the State on useless works of this description that he had moved for this Return. To the first part he understood there would be some objection, on the ground of the time it would take in making up, and he would therefore draw it up in a different form; but to the second part there could be no objection.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House,
  1. Return of all Public Monies granted by Parliament, or lent or apportioned in aid of other Contributions towards the Construction or improvement of solid Stone Piers or Breakwaters (not including works of Fortification) at any Port or on any of the Shores of the United Kingdom, since the Year 1810; specifying the Sums granted and expended in each Case, and the estimated Cost of each such Work according to the first Demand and alleged Expectation; and stating how much had been repaid by Harbour Dues or otherwise in each Case of Loan: and also,
  2. Return of any Sums granted or lent for Experiments upon floating Piers, Breakwaters or Sea Barriers, or artificial Islands, or other Inventions for the Protection of Shipping or the Facility of Traffic, during the same time.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the only objection he had to make to the Returns was that he believed they would take an enormous amount of time and labour, and could not be produced before the end of the Session. It was obvious that going back for fifty years would involve immense labour, for there were a great many places round the coasts where small contributions had been made in aid of trusts, where stone piers or other works were being built, and which, if all the returns asked for by the noble Marquess were to be furnished, must be all gone into. He had a few words to say regarding the expenditure that had been made through advances by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. The noble Marquess was in error on this point. The Exchequer Loan Commissioners were not in existence in 1810—not until 1817. They had advanced since that time to different towns in Great Britain for the construction of harbours and docks,

  1237
  £621,000, all of which had been repaid except £88,000. So that the public would be, in the end, no losers. As to Ireland the case was not quite so satisfactory. In regard to that country canals and harbours were classed together, and £152,000 had been advanced for their construction; and of that sum £135,000 still remained unpaid. With regard to the second part of the Return, the opinion of naval men was against expenditure upon experiments, which could only be really tested when a violent storm came, such as occurred, perhaps once in ten years, and the return of the Admiralty would, under that head, be "nil." If the noble Marquess would make an alteration, so as to limit the return within a reasonable time, he should be happy to give any information which the Admiralty could supply.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the great loss of life from shipwreck had naturally excited a strong and painful interest in the public mind on the subject of harbours and breakwaters. Parliament had testified its feeling on the subject by the appointment of Committees, whose inquiries were directed to measures of prevention; but when it was suggested that large sums of money should be spent in the construction of harbours, and when we consider the enormous power of the ocean against anything that could be constructed, it became matter for consideration whether the Government should undertake large outlays for such purposes. The harbours that had been eminently successful were those which had been constructed without any engineer, but by the deposit of stones which nature had been left to place in their proper position. Such a one was the Plymouth Breakwater. He could speak from personal and familiar knowledge of the manner in which it was constructed. After a considerable quantity of stone rough from the quarries had been deposited or dropped at Plymouth, the ocean rushed in under pressure of a storm, and those stones which before had appeared above water were no longer visible; but the work was persevered with; the area became enlarged, and the stones ultimately stood above the ocean, a monument of human labour such as the world had never witnessed before, and a breakwater as secure as one of nature's own islands. Reference had been made to the Cherbourg Breakwater; but there was this difference between it and that of Plymouth—the latter had to with-
  1238
  stand the Atlantic and its heavy surge, while the former had only to meet the waters of a Channel some fifty or sixty miles in width. When there was a quarry of proper stone near at hand, and nature was allowed to be the engineer, there was no doubt of success. This was the case at Portland; but wherever they attempted to make harbours by an engineer setting stone upon stone, and in a place behind which there was no river, these contrivances would only become mud traps and ship traps. Such works must be always unsatisfactory, the more so because those harbours were generally tidal harbours. Without two certain data he should never recommend the construction of a breakwater; one was the existence of a quarry near at hand; the other that the engineering should be left to nature, the inspection of the deposits of stone to be committed to those possessing a knowledge of the action of winds and floods. As to the experiments alluded to by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), there were two descriptions which he thought worthy of consideration: that of making a bar such as that which would be formed by a silt deposit might be tried at the mouths of many rivers; of the other, that of floating breakwaters, he would observe that if they could secure a floating breakwater, no doubt it would be very serviceable. But would the floating breakwater be more secure than the floating body behind it? The objection to this description of breakwater was that it must be held by anchors and cables, which were as liable to part as those of ships', in which case the breakwater would be driven on the fleet behind, and breakwater and ships and all would be destroyed together. An experiment might be made in a place like Lyme Regis for about £10,000, which would be sufficient to test the merits of the plan. He had thought it right to say this much on the matter as it was one to which he had paid no small attention, and on which it was desirable that naval men should state their opinions.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion, and leave it to his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) to see what portion of the information he could present to the House in the shape of a return.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.