Sitting of 3 May 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Stamford, v. Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, baronet, Manor of Northstead; for New Windsor, v. Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare and Henry Labouchere, esquire, void Election; for Northallerton, v. Charles Henry Mills, esquire, void Election.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Representation of the People Bill (Harden Petition) nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Committee [R.P.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Companies' Act (1S62) Amendment.
Ordered— Rateable Property (Ireland)*; Curragh of Kildare*; Companies' Act (1862) Amendment.*
First Reading—Rateable Property (Ireland)* [135]; Curragh of Kildare* [136].
Second Reading—Drainage Maintenance (Ireland)* [113]; Land Drainage Supplemental* [125]; Inclosure*[126].
Committee—Crown Lands [98]; Convicts' Property [105]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [89].
Report—Crown Lands [98]; Convicts' Property [105]; Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) (re-eomm)* [89].
Considered as amended—Exchequer and Audit Departments [3].

HUDDERSFIELD ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That Thomas Pearson Crossland, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Huddersfleld.
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
House further informed, That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolution:—
That the Committee have no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Huddersfleld.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.—(Lord Naas.)

MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS IN SOMERSETSHIRE. —QUESTION.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the towns of Weston-super-Mare, Shepton-Mallett, Wellington, and Chard, co. Somerset, which have more than 5,000 inhabitants, have been omitted from the "Return of the names of Municipal Boroughs, &c, of 5,000 inhabitants and upwards, and which are not now represented in Parliament?"
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that the Returns were made out by the Registrar General, and he stated that the reason why these boroughs were not included were as follows:—That the borough of Weston-super-Mare had no defined boundaries, and that, according to the last information obtained, it had only 2,000 inhabitants; that Shepton Mallet had 4,868 inhabitants; Wellington, 3,689 inhabitants; and Chard, 2,276 inhabitants. Each of these boroughs, therefore, had a population of less than 5,000.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that the Returns quoted by the right hon. Gentleman differed very much from those which he (Mr. Neville-Grenville) had received.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the figures were not his, but those returned at the last Census.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (IRELAND) —LORD CHIEF JUSTICE LEFROY

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRYANsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a statement publicly made to the effect that the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, when passing sentence of death on a prisoner at Tullamore last year, was unable to read the sentence, although it was written for him in large handwriting, and that his Lordship required and had the assistance of some other person in the performance of that solemn duty, and whether that statement is substantially correct?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, he must beg to say that the statement to which the hon. Gentlemen referred was substantially correct.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words on behalf of his father, more particularly as he felt that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who was supposed to be a supporter of the law of the country, and therefore of its administrators, had failed in the performance of that duty to do justice to his (Mr. Lefroy's) relative. He would not on that occasion trespass on their attention with any evidence as to the competency of the Chief Justice, but would confine himself to the point now before them. The event referred to took place in August last year,
  354
  when a most important trial came on before the Chief Justice. It was the case of a young man who had been murdered, and the evidence was altogether circumstantial. The trial lasted two days, and he maintained that during that trial the Chief Justice was enabled to give constant and unremitting attention to the case. A legal objection was made on some point by the counsel for the prisoner. Not being himself a lawyer, he would not attempt to explain the point in question, but he would refer to the Report of a leading paper published in Dublin, the correctness of which had not been disputed—
  "Mr. Molloy stood up and stated that he had a matter of law to urge upon the Court, on behalf of the prisoner. All the evidence showed that the act was committed and the body found at the Tipperary side of the river, whereas the venue had been laid in the King's County. The Attorney General: I admit the fact, but by the 9 Geo. IV., the offence can be tried in either county, provided it occurred within 500 yards of the boundary. Mr. Molloy: I admit such as the law, but I contend that the fact should have been averred in the indictment to have been so. Counsel cited 'The King v. Browne,' reported in Crawford and Dix's Notes of Cases, where the late Chief Baron Joy decided that an indictment was bad for not averring such to be the case, and also referred to Hayes' Criminal Law, where that case was referred to and recognized. The Attorney General and Solicitor General replied, and contended that the words of the statute were quite plain as enabling the Court to deal with any case arising as aforesaid, and that the fact of being within 500 yards was mere matter of evidence, and need not be set out in the indictment. The Chief Justice said, that as the point had been ruled by so able a Judge as the late Chief Baron Joy, although he did not concur in that decision, yet he would reserve the case for the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Chief Justice proceeded to charge the jury. The jury then retired, and, after about half an hour's deliberation, returned into court with a verdict of guilty. Mr. Warburton, the foreman, stated that a majority of the jury wished the verdict to be accompanied with a recommendation to mercy. Mr. Montgomery stated that he had been requested to state that the recommendation was based on the fact that the prisoner, in committing the act, was strongly under the influence of drink. When the jury recommended the prisoner to mercy the Chief Justice said, 'Gentlemen, may I ask on what grounds?' The foreman said,' Some of the jury think he had taken too much whisky.' The Chief Justice said, 'I must decline to forward your recommendation, as, however anxious I am to pay every attention to the wishes of a jury in any case, and especially one of life and death, I must say I never heard one which from its nature and details less entitled the prisoner to such a recommendation, and it is new to me that the fact of a man wilfully committing one fault is to lesson his crime when he commits a greater one.'"
  The following statement was made by an eminent Queen's Counsel who was present on the occasion:—

  355
  "I received your letter of inquiry by this day's post. It is a mistake to say that the Lord Chief Justice at Tullamore was unable to read a sentence written in large handwriting. He does not even use spectacles. I have spoken to the Deputy Clerk of the Crown of the King's County, and, from what he says, and my own recollection, the occurrence at the assizes was thus:—The Deputy Clerk of the Crown always has in a book before him entries of the different forms of oaths, and of the form of sentence in capital cases, &c, and from the first circuit the Chief Justice went, to the present day, whenever a prisoner was to be sentenced to death, a copy of the formal words of the sentence, with a blank for the day of execution, was invariably placed before the Judge on the bench. In the case in question, during the address of the Chief Justice to the prisoner, it occurred to the Judge when he approached that part where the day for execution is named, that in consequence of a point being saved for the Court of Appeal, it became necessary, instead of the usual time, to fix a day after the Dublin Commission, which was then close at hand, and sufficiently remote to enable the other Judges to attend in the Court of Appeal, and although he had previously determined on the day, he had not any memorandum of it, and was obliged to refer to an almanac, which occasioned some delay. I have no note of the trial, and nothing occurred at the time to attract my attention to any defect in the conduct of it, so as to fix it on my mind. Of course I could not see what was before the Judge on the bench, although I was nearer to it than any other of the counsel, but I believe this account of the transaction is perfectly correct. The Chief Justice had previously sentenced another man to death for murder at the same assizes, so that he must have been familiar with the form, and, from all that I have heard or seen, I have no doubt that Mr. Bryan's informant is in error."
  MR. COGANsaid, he rose to order. Whilst the hon. Member was confining himself to the particular point of what had been said in reference to his distinguished relative, he had no doubt that the House would listen to him with patience; but if he went into the general conduct of the Chief Justice it would lead to a discussion of the whole question, which would be highly inconvenient.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has extended his observations to an unusual length. I thought it was the pleasure of the House, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to hear him; but the hon. Member will, no doubt, now see fit to put some limit to his observations.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he wished to make one more observation if the House would allow him to do so. The Chief Justice, when he returned to Dublin, assembled the Judges, and brought before them this point of law as to which he had himself given an opinion contrary to that of Chief Baron Joy. The Judges having fully con-
  356
  sidered the matter, agreed with the Chief Justice in opinion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, that the House would believe him when he said that he never in his life had to dischrge a more painful duty—
  MR. WHITESIDErose to order. There was no question before the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, that he would conclude with a Motion.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, he also rose to order. He wished to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the adjournment of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Up to this time there is no Motion before the House.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Then I will move the adjournment of the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, he must repeat that he had never discharged a more painful duty than when he now rose to answer a question which had been put on the paper without his knowledge; but having been the prosecuting counsel in the case which had been referred to, it was impossible for him to do anything except to answer the question briefly and with a desire to avoid discussion as much as he could. But as the hon. Member had cast a doubt upon the correctness and accuracy of his statement he would state simply what occurred in his presence on the occasion in question. The day on which the execution was to be carried out had been arranged beforehand, and the Officer of the Court wrote out in large writing for the Chief Justice the sentence to be pronounced, and the Chief Justice proceeded to pronounce it, but was totally unable to do so in the legal form. He omitted in the sentence a material direction, the omission of which would have rendered the sentence bad in point of law. It became, upon this, his duty as Attorney General, prosecuting for the Crown, to call the attention of the Chief Justice to the irregularity and the omission in the sentence; and he was obliged himself to stand near him at the bench, and ask him to repeat over again in legal form that sentence, and he actually dictated to him the sentence in the legal form, which the Chief Justice delivered. These were the simple facts, and his statement of them could be verified by those present.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he felt it to be his duty to make one observation on this

  357
  question, which, if it had been fully brought forward instead of by a dark question, would have appeared to be a most miserable ground of cavil raised nine or ten months after the facts occurred. Now, what were the facts? The circumstances, as he understood them, were these:—An officer who went out to shoot was inhumanly assassinated by the person who accompanied him in the boat, and the assassin was prosecuted by the officers of the Crown. After the Chief Justice had completed the assize business he was asked to adjourn the assizes and to return again to Dublin to try this important case, and though this was not a very pleasant tiling, he said that he would do so, and the trial took place. The notes of that trial, in his own handwriting, filled twenty-two pages, and contained every word of the evidence in the case. The prisoner's counsel, as all prisoner's counsel did when they had a point of law, laid by until the end of the trial, and then he said that the indictment was inaccurate, as the man had committed the crime within 500 yards of the county, but not within the boundary of the county in which the venue was laid and that there ought to have been an averment to this effect. A discussion arose immediately before it was now said that a fit of incompetency overtook the Chief Justice. Cases were quoted, and he was told that Chief Baron Joy had decided in favour of a prisoner under similar circumstances; but the Chief Justice said that he did not agree with the Chief Baron, but as there had been a decision the other way he would reserve the point for the Court of Criminal Appeal. The proceedings went on, the Chief Justice delivered a long and feeling address to the prisoner; but when the formal words of the sentence were placed before him he in going through them, as he had already done in the case of another prisoner, noticed that the point raised by the prisoner's counsel would alter the time fixed for the execution. The learned Judge himself said that when he came to the date he hesitated; and the gravamen of the charge against him was that he who had conducted this long trial hesitated when he took up the paper. When this occurred it was past seven at night, and he believed that the Court House was not very brilliantly lighted. The Chief Justice delayed for a moment before he completed his judgment. The same Judge who did that—who mistook what was on that piece of
  358
  paper—had the capacity immediately to state the whole circumstances to the Secretary of State, and to request him to have the question discussed before the Judges, so that justice might not be delayed. The Chief Justice presided in that Court, gave his opinion, and the other Judges deferred to his judgment, and the prisoner was executed. He (Mr. Whiteside) had rather a curious interview with the Chief Justice. Chancing to be in Wicklow he called upon him, in the month of August, and found him engaged upon an Act of Parliament. He told his Lordship that he should have thought that he had had enough of law before that period of the autumn, but he told him (Mr. Whiteside) that he was engaged upon a point of law, and he also told him in a most clear manner what it was. He (Mr. Whiteside) could not but think that it was strange, this matter having occurred in August, should be brought before the House only in May; and he confidently put it to the House whether they thought that there had been any substantial defeat of justice in the case.
  MR. BRYANsaid, he must beg to explain that he had put the Question in consequence of a speech in the other House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the Votes he would see upon them a Motion which he (Mr. Bryan) intended to bring forward on an early day, on going into Supply, in order that the whole subject might be properly ventilated. He could assure him that he had not taken the subject up in the light of a personal matter, and he would pledge himself to submit his Motion to the House at as early a period as possible.

CHOLERA IN CORK HARBOUR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to avail himself of the Motion for adjournment to bring a matter of great importance before the House. The authorities of the city of Cork had been in communication with the Irish Government as to placing an old man of war in that harbour as a floating hospital. That recommendation was made some weeks since, and he had during the last three or four days been in communication with the Secretary for Ireland on the subject. He had just received the following telegram, which induced him to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government:—"Cholera

  359
  is on board an emigrant ship which has arrived in Cork harbour. There are two deaths among the passengers. There is no convenience for quarantine. I have ordered her back to Liverpool." He appealed to the Government to take prompt measures for meeting the emergency. There was a large garrison in Cork, there was a fleet in the harbour, and great numbers of emigrants were constantly assembling at that port; so that the breaking out of cholera there could not fail to be a most calamitous occurrence. In 1833 application was made to the Government and they placed at the disposal of the authorities in Cork an old man of war, the Inconstant, which proved to be of great service in preventing the spread of the disease. He hoped, as the danger was now so imminent, he should receive something more from the Government than general and vague assurance.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished that the Mayor of Cork had telegraphed to Her Majesty's Government as well as to the hon. Gentleman who had brought this subject under the notice of the House. The Government had heard nothing from Cork; but about an hour before they had received a telegram from the Mayor of Liverpool, stating that a ship on its way to that port had touched at Queenstown with cholera on board, and pointing out the dangers which might arise if that ship entered the Mersey. On receipt of the telegram, which was to be followed by a letter, he at once communicated with his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Privy Council, who immediately saw the President, and directions would be given forthwith for the adoption of such precautions at Liverpool as it might be advisable to take under the circumstances. Had the authorities at Cork communicated with the Government similar steps might have been taken as regarded that port at even an earlier period; but he had no doubt that since it was now known to the Government by means of the communication from Liverpool, and the statement of the hon. Gentleman that a vessel with cholera on board had touched at Queenstown, the Privy Council would give such directions as might be desirable in the case of that port also.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, that for the last week the authorities at Cork had been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the subject of cholera, and he himself had been in communication
  360
  with the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the same topic for the last three days.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Government had received no information of the cholera on board a ship at Queenstown, except that which had been received from Liverpool.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information on the subject of cholera from Londonderry. There was considerable alarm there.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: No information whatever.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must express his opinion that it was outrageous cruelty to put cholera patients into a ship or to keep them in one.

SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. READsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to continue, by Order in Council, the slaughtering Clauses of the Cattle Diseases Act of 1866 after the 12th of May, and whether any special exemptions from slaughter of diseased animals would be made for the purposes of testing the effect of chloroform, or any other supposed curative treatment?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to issue an Order in Council extending the period during which those clauses were to remain in force beyond the 12th of May. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question, the decision of the Privy Council must await the Report of the Cattle Plague Commission. As the hon. Gentleman himself was a member of that Commission, he must know when the Report was likely to be sent in to the Government.

  THE TURNPIKE ACTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. READsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any objection to the introduction of a general Clause in future "Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance Acts," that in cases where the toll-houses do not encroach upon the road the first offer be made under the Act the 3 Geo. IV. c. 126, s. 89, to the persons entitled to preference under that section; and that upon their refusal (and not before)

  361
  the pulling down of the toll-house shall be imperative; and if this be objectionable as a general Clause, whether a special case may on application be made the subject of a provision in the Clause which provides for the Continuance of Acts, &c.; and whether there is any provision contemplated that, where the toll-houses at present encroach upon the road, so much of the site as is necessary for the removal of the encroachment shall be thrown into the road when such toll-houses are pulled down?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he did not think there was any objection to the introduction of such a clause. He thought it might usefully be inserted in the Annual Continuance Bill of this year. The clause relating to encroachments in the 4 Geo. IV. c. 95, was not very clear, and he thought it was desirable that some provision on this subject should also be inserted in the Annual Continuance Act.

SCOTLAND—SHERIFF'S SUBSTITUTE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the Sheriff Court Returns called for by the hon. Member for Montrose in 1863, laid upon the table of the House, and ordered to be printed during the present Session; and whether it is his intention to recommend to Her Majesty's Government, or submit to Parliament, any measure to remedy the inadequacy and inequalities in the salaries of some of the Sheriff's Substitute, as apparent in these Returns?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply, said, a great deal of the information required by the Returns was not to be found in the offices. It was not necessary to introduce any Bill for equalizing the salaries of sheriff's substitute. That might be regulated by the Treasury without any Act, and was at the present time under their consideration.

IRELAND—DEEP SEA FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why the Report on Irish Deep Sea Fisheries has not been presented, which should have been done in January last, as directed by the Act 5 & 6 Vict.?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, that the Question ought rather to have been put to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. No doubt the Report ought to have been presented, and he should take care that it was presented.

GAS WORKS AT VICTORIA PARK.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If it is true that a Bill is before Parliament which will sanction the erection of Gas Works within a short distance of Victoria Park; and, if so, whether it is his intention to oppose that Bill?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that, by a Standing Order of that House any Bill which authorized the erection of gas works within 300 yards of any house should be preceded by notice of such erection to the occupiers of such house. That Standing Order did not, however, apply in the case referred to by the noble Lord; but the Imperial Gas Company's Bill contained a clause prohibiting the erection of their works within 300 yards of Victoria Park. He was of opinion that there was no good case for alleging that the noxious influence of the proposed works would extend to the Park. If the manufacture of gas was carried out in a proper and careful manner, no noxious results would be felt in a place at a distance of 300 yards from the works. The effluvium came from the refuse—from gas tar, ammoniacal liquor, and the lime used in purifying the gas. The right course in these cases was to have in the Bill clauses to prevent the accumulation of such noisome refuse; but he did not think they could oppose the erection of the works.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had given notice of a question on the same subject, and as he did not think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman very satisfactory, he would ask it. He wished to know, Whether, if the report be true that it is proposed to erect Gas Works, covering twenty-seven acres, in close proximity to Victoria Park, he is prepared to take steps for the protection of that important place of public recreation?
  MR. COWPERreplied, that his Department had no locus standi in the case; but he should ask the promoters to introduce such clauses as that Department deemed to be necessary.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, seeing that Commissions have been issued to investigate the Reports of Committees to the effect that illegal practices prevailed in certain Boroughs at the last General Election, he will promise that if any Commission shall report that illegal practices have prevailed in a Borough extensively, and on many occasions, the Government will bring in a Bill to disfranchise such Borough?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be impossible to make such a promise. He had already expressed his opinion that if the result of any of those inquiries proved that corrupt practices prevailed in a borough the House ought to be more ready to apply the penalty of disfranchisement than hitherto it had shown itself to be. Till the Report of the Commission was in the hands of the Government it would be impossible for them to decide as to what steps should be taken on it, and the evidence upon which it was based.

ENGLISH AND FRENCH FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DU CANEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any answer has been received from the French Government relative to the proposed International Commission on the subject of the English and French Fisheries Convention Act; and, if so, whether he will have any objection to communicate to the House the general tenour of such answer?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that an answer had been received from the French Government in reference to the Fisheries Convention; but, as negotiations were still pending, it would not at present be expedient to state the substance of that reply.

  THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any Committee of the Privy Council has been appointed to superintend the operation of the Orders in Council on the subject of the Cattle Plague; if no such Committee has been appointed, whether any and which Mem-
  364
  ber of the Administration is responsible for the consideration of questions relating to the movement of Cattle and the supply of Meat; and whether there is any Officer of the Government to whom suggestions as to the working of the Orders in Council and of the Local Authorities may be addressed with a prospect of their being considered?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that no special Committee of the Privy Council had been appointed to superintend the operation of the Order in Council; but Colonel Harness had been appointed to receive suggestions and to conduct the correspondence, under the directions of the Privy Council; and a meeting of the Privy Council, presided over by the President, was held from time to time, before whom all suggestions received by Colonel Harness or questions addressed to him were brought by him before the Members of the Council for their decision, and answers were sent according to their directions.

INDIA—COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE LATE STATE OF OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the table Copies of the Proceedings of the Commission appointed by the Government of India to investigate and report upon the cases of the several claimants against the late State of Oude, and of the Report of the Commission on the claim of the Representative of the late Captain Thomas Edwards, deceased?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, in reply, that the Report had not yet been put into shape, but that it would be laid upon the table of the House as soon as completed.

THE JAMAICA COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the Report of the Jamaica Commissioners will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Report which was received at the commencement of the present week, and the evidence which accompanies it, are exceedingly voluminous—so much so, that what we have already received will occupy from 1,500 to 2,000 pages of our usual Parliamentary

  365
  blue books. But that is not all, for it is accompanied by an Appendix, which, I am informed by the Commissioners, contains an important part of the evidence, and which should be laid before the House with the Report. The Appendix is on its way from Jamaica. I have made inquiry, and find that, with the utmost speed which it is possible to exert, it will not be less than three weeks before the whole of the documents can be laid on the table. I will, however, take - care that the papers shall be presented as soon as possible. I cannot refrain taking the opportunity of stating that the House and the country are under great obligations to those gentlemen, of well known ability and reputation, who, at great sacrifice of time, have devoted so much labour to this subject.

WAYS AND MEANS—

  THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson—After the warm debates and the sharp crisis of last week it is with great relief and satisfaction that the Government, and that I individually, come to deal with important public business of a nature which we hope and think can involve no subject likely to lead to angry controversy. It will, indeed, be my duty to enter upon points, in the course of the remarks I have to make, which, as I think, possess an interest for all in this House, and especially for those who are connected with the land and fixed property of the country. I hope, however, from the nature of the proposals I have to make, and indeed I feel convinced upon the matter, that it can only be through my own negligence or inadvertence if anything which falls from me should possibly come into conflict with the feelings or opinions of any hon. Gentleman opposite, and I would beg, if it be permitted to me, to apologize in advance for any such error should it occur.
  Sir, I have not to-night to announce to the House the existence of a surplus revenue for the year which has recently
  366
  expired upon a scale such as those which we have had for the last three years at our disposal. During the last three years it has been my duty to ask the House to make arrangements relating to no less a sum annually on the average than £3,500,000, and although we move within more contracted limits in the fiscal affairs of the present year, yet I shall have proposals to make which will not be without their own interest and importance.
  My first duty is, as usual, to lay before the House the particulars of the expenditure of the year which expired on the 31st March. That expenditure, as estimated on the 27th of April, was £66,139,000, and as finally sanctioned by the Appropriation Act it was very nearly the same, the amount standing at £66,147,000. The actual expenditure was £65,914,000, or less than the estimate by £233,000. As regards the chief items of this expenditure, there were voted for the army £14,348,000, and there were spent £13,804,000. For the navy there were voted £10,456,000, and there were spent £10,260,000. But it will be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of the financial year we took a considerable supplementary Vote for the purpose of the New Zealand war. No less a sum than £764,000 was voted for that purpose, and the Vote enabled us to rectify the accounts of the army and navy by assigning to their proper heads sums which had been paid in advance for the purposes of the war, and included provisionally in the ordinary accounts of the army and navy services. When the whole of the figures are put together, therefore, the result is to bring the actual nearly into agreement with the estimated expenditure of the year, under these two great heads of charge.
  To the sum total of our expenditure for the year should perhaps be added an item which it is not very easy to deal with, inasmuch as the peculiar arrangement, under which it appears before us, leaves it uncertain whether it should he regarded as part of the annual expenditure or as an addition to the Public Debt. I refer to the sum of £560,000 on account of the fortifications, which has to be added to the figures I previously gave, and which brings the gross expenditure of 1866 up to £66,474,000. There is, however, a sum of above £1,000,000 for Indian and other charges, which, appearing on both

  367
  sides of the account, cannot be said to form any portion of the expenditure; so that the true total of the expenditure may be taken as being £65,424,000 for the financial year which has just expired.
  If I look for the means of a comparison of this sum with the expenditure of former years, I find that the expenditure of 1859–60, when duly charged with all that belongs to it, amounted to £69,762,000; but in that amount were included large sums on account of annuities which expired in 1860; much larger sums than the aggregate of the annuities since created. The amount of annuities which expired at that period was £2,149,000, and those created since amount to £710,000, showing a difference of £1,439,000, partly for interest and partly available towards the extinction of the public debt, which was provided in the former year, and has not been provided in the years just passed. If, therefore, deducting this sum of £1,439,000 we take the expenditure of 1859–60, for the purposes of comparison, at £68,323,000, that of 1865–6 standing at £65,424,000, we find there has been a real decrease of expenditure in 1865–6, as compared with 1859–60, of £2,900,000. But the year 1859–60 was the year in which the most important changes in the scale of our expenditure were made. If I go back to 1858–9, the year before those changes, and compare the expenditure of that year with the expenditure of the year just expired, rectifying both according to the rules which I have stated, I find that the expenditure of 1858–9 was only £63,225,000, showing an increase in 1865–6, as compared with 1858–9, of £2,200,000. That may be taken as a fair and accurate statement of the condition of our expenditure at the present moment, as compared with what it was some seven years ago.
  Next, Sir, if I look to the heads of expenditure I find they stand thus: The debt costs us £26,233,000; our defences, military and naval, cost £24,829,000; our civil government, in which I include the Miscellaneous Estimates, the Consolidated Fund charges, and the Packet Estimates, costs £10,250,000; and the collection of the Revenue is attended with a charge of £4,602,000. As the charge for the collection of the Revenue, however, ought really to be divided between the other heads of expenditure, not being itself an independent, but only a subsidiary
  368
  and auxiliary description of expenditure, I will treat it in that manner. Dividing the sum of £4,602,000, then, between the debt, the military or defence charges, and the civil charges, I find these to be the percentages—the debt costs us 43 per cent of the whole expenditure; the defences 40 per cent, and the civil charges, defined in the manner I have stated, absorb the remaining 17 per cent. The figures I have now given may also be taken as an accurate statement, subject to this qualification, that in the total sum charged during the year for the expenses of the National Debt there is included a sum, not insignificant, which is really not a charge for the interest of debt, but a charge in re-payment of the capital of the debt through the medium of Terminable Annuities.
  If I compare the expenditure with the revenue of the year it stands as follows: The expenditure up to March 31, according to the Exchequer account laid upon the table, was £65,914,000; the revenue, according to the same Exchequer account, was £67,812,000, showing a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £1,898,000. If I were to treat the accounts for fortifications as part of the expenditure of the year, that surplus would be reduced to £1,338,000; but I shall, in preference, and in stricter conformity, I think, with the intentions of Parliament, take notice of them when I come to consider our engagements in connection with the National Debt, under which head they ought more properly to be placed. The surplus, then, for the year stands at £1,898,000.
  Now, it is a matter of some interest to compare the natural outturn of the revenue at the end of the year with the Estimate framed at the commencement of the year. The estimated revenue at the commencement of the year was £66,392,000, and the actual receipt has been £67,812,000, showing a surplus receipt beyond the estimated amount of £1,420,000. This surplus runs very much through the different branches of the revenue. I need not trouble the Committee with the totals of the figures as to each particular branch, but the actual revenue from the Customs has exceeded the Estimate by the sum of £369,000; the actual receipt from the Excise has exceeded the Estimate by the large amount of £758,000; the actual receipt from Stamps has exceeded the Estimate by £270,000; the yield of the Income Tax also went beyond the Estimate

  369
  by the sum of £240,000. The branch of revenue from the Post Office has produced precisely what it was estimated to produce; and the Crown lands have yielded the same as the Estimate with a small excess of £5,000. But the miscellaneous revenue and the receipt from the China compensation fell short of what had been estimated by the sum of £224,000; an amount which, in order to estimate the real growth of the revenue, ought to be added to the surplus I have formerly named, inasmuch as those two heads indicate a diminution merely on certain heads of re-payment, and have nothing to do with the question of the real resources and elasticity of the revenue of the country.
  In the same way, if I proceed to compare the revenue of the past year with that of the preceding year, I find that it stands as follows. On the whole of the nine heads of the public revenue, the receipts in the year 1864–5 were £70,313,000. In the year 1865–6 they were £67,812,000, showing an actual decrease of £2,501,000, in lieu of a decrease, which I had, estimated in the financial statement of last year, of £3,921,000. But if I strike out those two heads of Miscellaneous Receipt and China Compensation, which have no real relation to the subject, I find the actual loss was £2,386,000, in lieu of an estimated loss of £4,028,000. So that the rate of growth of the revenue, which I stated last year, on an average of the six years preceding, to be about £1,780,000 per annum, amounted almost precisely to that sum. It may be stated that, for the year 1865–6, the revenue of the country, proceeding from the same sources, and excluding all legislative measures of change which tend in any way to affect those sources, has grown by the sum of a million and three-quarters. It would probably have grown by a somewhat larger amount if the circumstances of the harvest had been more favourable. But whereas in 1864 the harvest was a fine one, and the price of wheat between October and December was 38 s. 5d. per quarter; during the same period in 1865, when the harvest was below the average, the price of wheat rose to 44 s. 10 d. per quarter, and the price of wheat, on the whole, is a very good inverse test of the general condition of the country, and of the capacity of the people to consume those commodities which yield the principal part of the revenue.
  If I look now, Sir, to the branches of
  370
  the revenue of last year as they were specially affected by the changes of 1864–5, they stand as follows. The estimated loss upon tea came singularly near to the actual loss. The estimated amount of that loss was £1,868,000, and the actual loss was £1,871,000. We might naturally have expected a more favourable result. We have generally found that, under favourable circumstances, the loss upon commodities of this kind, when they have been subjected to a reduction of duty, is less than had been previously estimated. But in this particular instance I am inclined to think that a Motion to which this House, or rather the House which preceded it, was induced to accede for postponing the operation of the reduced duty on tea—although I do not believe we shall ultimately be found to have lost much by such a Motion—has had an unfavourable effect upon the revenue from tea. What, however, is more important is that the stocks have been less than at a former period, and that the short price of the commodity has risen. The price of tea in bond on the 1st of April, 1865, was 16 d. per lb., and on the 1st of April, 1866, it had risen to 19 d. per lb. A reduction of 6d. per lb. in the duty on tea was made; and as 3d. out of that 6d. per lb. was virtually neutralized by the increase on the price paid in bond, I think, on the whole, we may be rather well satisfied that the loss on this item of receipt has not been greater than was originally calculated upon.
  The revenue from the Income Tax also shows a somewhat smaller loss than was expected. The loss upon that head was estimated at £1,650,000, and the actual loss has amounted to £1,568,000. I have again to announce to the Committee that there is one fixed estimate which fluctuates in a singularly satisfactory and agreeable manner, now almost from year to year, and that is the value of a penny upon the income tax. It has grown within our recollection from between £700,000 and £800,000 until it now amounts to no less a sum than £1,400,000. At that sum I am able to estimate it for the year which has now begun.
  Next, I come to the subject of fire insurance, in which the House feels a deep interest, and with regard to which the hon Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) recently, in conformity, as I think, with the general wish of the House, forbore to make a special Motion antecedentedly to

  371
  the financial statement for the year. The change which was made in the year 1864–5 has now been in operation for a year and a half. That was the change which related to the duty on the insurance of stock-in-trade against fire. We have, therefore, had the effect of that change for more than a full year. The change which was made last year with respect to the larger portion of the duty—namely, the duty upon everything except stock-in-trade, upon buildings and furniture of all kinds, has been in actual operation for only six months. For this is a change the operation of which, owing to the arrangements for charging and paying the duty, necessarily takes effect at a period of half a year after it has been ordered by Parliament. We have thus, up to the present time, only half a year's experience of that alteration, and the result is as I will now describe. First, it may, perhaps, be remembered by the House that I have at all times declined to follow hon. Gentlemen—Gentlemen, I am bound to say, very numerous and of great anthority—who have at all times held out to us sanguine prospects of some such large increase upon the amount of property insured, in consequence of the reduction of the duty, as would tend to replace in a considerable degree the revenue surrendered. I have not been, and I am not, at all insensible to the great benefits and advantages, in other points of view, which may attend the reduction of this duty; but I believe, and always have believed, that it would be a mistake on the part of the House if they were to expect that any such large expansion as I have described in the amount of property insured would follow upon the reduction of the duty. I therefore estimated an increase at the rate of only 10 per cent; and I made even that estimate—I mean that I placed the probable increase of insurance at that figure—rather in deference to the opinions of others, more or less accepted apparently in the House, than because it was precisely the amount that I should myself have chosen. However, that rate of increase, such as it was, has not been realized. Comparing the two duties, and comparing the value, or the amount, of property insured for the six months, for which alone we have the figures, I find that, as regards the loss of revenue for the year 1865–6,I estimated that loss at £260,000. Its actual amount has been £272,000. And, as respects the increase
  372
  in the amount of property insured, the case stands thus. The amount of property insured between October 1, 1864, and March 31, 1865—the six months to which alone the comparison can apply—was £580,000,000 in value; while from the 1st of October, 1865, to the 31st of March, 1866, the total value of the property insured was £627,000,000, showing an increase of £47,000,000, or about 8 per cent. But, then, there is a regular standing increment in the value of the property insured from year to year, which is not due to a reduction of the duty, but to the growing wealth of the country. That usual increment is on an average £17,000,000, for the six months. If I deduct this sum of £17,000,000, which is due to the ordinary growth of the wealth of the country, from the £47,000,000 which forms the gross total of the increase, I find that the increased growth in the amount of property insured, the growth traceable to the reduction of the duty, is £30,000,000, or about 5 per cent of the whole amount. I have no reason to suppose that there will be any material variation when we come to know the figures of the receipt for the whole of the first year; but it is possible that the figures for the following year may be higher. Yet, I still hold to the belief—although, of course, without presuming to dogmatize upon the subject—that if the House intend again to deal with this duty at any future period, I think it would be premature to say anything about it on the present occasion, when the change has not been yet one full year in operation—but if the fire insurance duty is to be dealt with hereafter with a view to a further remission, I frankly own that I believe it would be necessary to abandon the idea of hereafter making use of this duty as a considerable source of revenue. In fact, I incline conditionally to the view indicated by the terms of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard)—namely, that it is not wise and politic to raise any large revenue from this source—that this duty ought to be regarded as a tax upon property, that its remission is a remission upon property, and that if it is dealt with again it ought to be by a charge on property that an equivalent for it should be found, should such equivalent be needed. The condition that I should be disposed to attach is that property should, in some other and better form, supply such an equivalent; for I do not think, considering the very large re-

  373
  ductions we have made, in other forms, of the burdens borne by property, that we should act quite justly by the community in giving to property rather than to industry and labour the benefit of this further remission.
  Sir, there are two other commodities that I would mention with reference to duties. The revenue from malt has for the year past been a very considerable revenue. The receipt had risen in the year 1864–5 to a point previously quite unprecedented; and in estimating it for the year 1865–6, we were so far cautious that we anticipated a small diminution. I believe it is a common characteristic of this head of revenue that it runs favourably for two years together. It certainly has been so in the present instance; for, under the circumstances I have named, we estimated the revenue from malt at £5,850,000, and it has produced no less a sum than £6,410,000; showing the very considerable excess of £560,000. I come next to the revenue from spirits; and the state of that revenue likewise, if we are to consider an increase of it as satisfactory, is satisfactory. The receipt upon British spirits which was estimated at £10,300,000 has proved to be £10,450,000; the receipt upon colonial and foreign spirits, which was estimated at £3,295,000, has produced £3,505,000. So that our receipt upon spirits has been no less than £13,955,000, or, in round numbers, £14,000,000, which, I think, is possibly the largest sum ever raised in any country, or at any period of history, by a tax on the consumption of any one single commodity.
  That, Sir, is the whole of the review which it is necessary for me now to take of the transactions and experience of the last year; except that I ought to state, in conformity with the usual practice, that the Exchequer balance has been reduced in the course of the year, in consequence of the application of a somewhat unusual amount to the liquidation of public debt. The Exchequer Balance stood on March 31, 1865, at £7,691,000. On the same day, in 1866, it was reduced to £5,851,000. During the same twelve months, the advances on new loans made by the Exchequer amounted to £1,635,000: the repayments of advances previously made came to £1,817,000, showing a balance to credit of £182,000. I will now give the Committee the estimate we have formed of the revenue and expenditure for the current year, or 1866–7. The charge
  374
  on the funded and unfunded debt under the provisions of the law as they now exist, and with a small allowance for the additional charge brought upon it through the conversion of perpetual to Terminable Annuities, sanctioned by the House at an earlier period of the present year, is £26,140,000; the Consolidated Fund charges are £1,880,000; the Estimates for the army, £14,095,000; for the navy, £10,400,000; for the collection of the revenue, £5,003,000; for the packet service, £821,000; and for the Miscellaneous Estimates, £7,886,000; giving a total of £66,225,000, The total of the Estimates of last year was £66,147,000, so that there is an actual increase upon the Estimates of the present year compared with those of last year, though it does not amount to a large sum; it is £78,000.
  I ought to explain to the Committee in what manner it is that this increase, though a small one, has arisen; because, though certainly it would have been more satisfactory, had it been practicable, to present both a nominal and a real decrease in our expenditure, yet I do not think it will be said upon a fair examination of the figures that they indicate any real increase in the permanent expenditure; I should rather say there are signs, though of no great extent, of the reverse operation. The Army Estimates for the year show a decrease of £253,000; but the Indian and other repayments also show a decrease of £246,000. The Committee is aware that the Indian Army is composed of regiments supplied from this country, and that all charges incurred in this country on account of those regiments, and all non-effective charges, are borne on our Estimates, and then replaced by a payment at so much per man from the resources of India. But the Indian Government reduces its establishment at its own discretion from time to time. It being thus at liberty, under an arrangement very favourable to it in that respect, to throw back upon us any regiments it can spare without a moment's notice, the effect of that undoubtedly is that a reduction in the Indian establishment, which entails an instant reduction in the Indian repayments, cannot be followed as rapidly by a reduction in the amounts charged in the Estimates for the British Army at home.
  Moreover, Sir, it is important to call the attention of the House to the very heavy charges—and I think that they are charges sustained by sufficient authority

  375
  —which we are undergoing for works in certain Departments; and first for the navy. In 1865–6 the navy charge for work amounted to £528,000; but for 1856–7 they amount to £893,000. The principal part of that augmentation, however, is due to the great extension of dock accommodation which was the subject beforehand of debate in this House, and with an express, I might almost say, an eager, sanction from a Committee of this House, appointed to consider it. The Post Office Department has also a large increase in expenditure under this head. Its works last year were estimated at £70,000, but they are estimated this year at £349,000. The object is to effect a great enlargement both of site and building in the General Post Office. I mention that item with more satisfaction in the view that I am now taking, because I think we may confidently regard the Post Office expenditure as partaking of the nature of reproductive expenditure. The Miscellaneous Estimates likewise have undergone an increase of £165,000, rising from £829,000 to £994,000. That increase is due to the circumstance that for several years our Votes for public buildings, especially those connected with the national collections, have been more or less in arrear; but I do not think there is anything unwarrantable or excessive in the proposals that are now made. The upshot of them, however, is that the total demand for works for the navy, the revenue departments, and Miscellaneous Estimates has arisen from £1,427,000 to £2,236,000, showing an increase of no less than £809,000, and accounting for the increase in estimated expenditure many times over. I now come to the estimate of the revenue for the year. We take the Customs at £21,400,000; the Excise at £19,750,000; the stamps at £9,450,000; and here I may observe that there is hardly any branch of the revenue the growth of which is more steady and satisfactory. The estimate for assessed taxes and land taxes is £3,400,000; and for Income Tax £5,700,000. I pause for a moment to state that, the Income Tax being 4d. in the pound, we have £1,400,000 as the estimate of what a penny in the pound will produce, the additional £100,000 being accounted for principally by taxes in arrear. The Post Office stands at £4,450,000, showing a probable increase of £200,000 upon the receipts of last year, and thus at once overtaking a large portion of the heavy
  376
  charge that we are about to incur for Post Office enlargements in London. The miscellaneous receipts, including the China indemnity, will stand at £3,100,000. This miscellaneous receipt is materially affected by the considerable sum of £500,000 which comes into it this year as the proceeds of debentures sent from New Zealand in liquidation of a portion of the debt of the colony to the mother country, which debentures it will be our duty to ask the House to guarantee. This guarantee we shall not ask Parliament to give by way of entering into any new engagement on behalf of the colony. It will have no effect as between the colony and its creditors, but only as between the Exchequer and those to whom these debentures may be transferred. On the other hand, the China indemnity is a branch of receipt which is sinking, and must be expected to sink more. I think the estimate of it last year, if I remember right, was £450,000, but this year it is only £250,000, and it must very shortly expire altogether. The total estimated income of the year is £67,575,000, and the estimated charge of the year is £66,225,000; so that the probable surplus of income over charge for 1866–7 is £1,350,000.
  There is no cause to be disappointed, I think, in this state of things; we may well consider the circumstances of the country to be upon the whole favourable, with the apparent promise of such a surplus as this, because it must be borne in mind that, when I say that the estimated income of the year is £67,575,000 we have had already cut off from that income no less a sum than £1,417,000, which was disposed of by the legislation of last year, although it only tells upon the balance for 1866–7. Of that sum £950,000 is on account of the Income Tax, £260,000 is owing to the reduction on fire insurance duties, and £207,000 is attributed to the reduction of duty on tea, which did not operate for the whole of the year just expired, but which will be, this year, in operation for the whole twelve months. If we add these sums together, it would appear that but for the legislation of last year we should have had to dispose of a sum of between £2,700,000 and £2,800,000.
  We now come, Sir, to consider of the disposal of this money; and here I shall have, under several heads, to trespass for some little time on the attention of the Committee. The Committee is aware how important the subject of commercial

  377
  treaties has become in the view of the commercial classes of this country. The Chambers of Commerce in all our commercial towns have intimated the greatest anxiety that such treaties should be formed. Those treaties, as far as have been contracted of late years, hare been adjusted in such a manner as to involve none of the objections, either in principle or in practice, which undoubtedly applied to our earlier attempts at the formation of commercial treaties. We have no haggling about certain benefits which might be conferred upon our own country, but which we will not confer unless the State with which we are dealing will confer certain other distinct and independent benefits on its subjects. The character in which we appear in these negotiations, as far as they have ever involved changes in our own tariff, is simply this. We have been content to become in more than one instance auxiliaries to the Government of a foreign State, to enable it more easily to overcome the prejudices and to enlighten the ignorance of its own people by exhibiting to them the advantages to be derived from the fulfilment of promises which we hold to them, the fulfilment of those promises being at the same time most beneficial to ourselves. We have used these arrangements as means of securing a double benefit; but we have never made, or professed to make, the adoption of changes in our own law, in themselves beneficial, contingent upon any steps to be taken by the other contracting Power, in the sense of meaning to withhold them unless such steps were taken.
  Now, I will not weary the Committee on the subject of the French Treaty as far as respects that portion of it which has been sufficiently explained on former occasions—namely, its effect upon England. But I should like to state, and the Committee will not be sorry to hear, the effect that treaty has had upon the export trade of France herself, because all remember the dread, the horror with which that treaty was received by considerable and influential portions of the French nation. If ever, however, there was an emphatic disappointment in the best sense of unfavourable auguries, it is that which is now presented by the remarkable results of the treaty in question upon French trade. No elaborate demonstration is necessary to prove that if the export trade of France in French commodities has increased, the business of the home market connot possibly
  378
  have fallen off. For no trader can supply customers at a distance without being in a condition also, and more easily, to supply customers at his own door. I am in a position to state what are the exports of France in tissues of all kinds: of cotton goods, linen goods, woollen goods, and yarns of all the three descriptions. And the general history of the matter—taking the year 1860, the year before the operation of the treaty, as a standard—I will present to the Committee. In the year 1861, just as it happened to some extent with ourselves, the effect of the treaty, through panic, was in every instance to produce a considerable diminution in trade. In 1862 all began to rise again; and I will now give the House the figures as compared with 1860. I shall state them in millions of francs. In cotton goods, France exported 69,500,000 f. in 1860, and 93,750,000 f. in 1864. In linen goods, France exported 15,500,000 f. in 1860, and 24,500,000 f. in 1864. In woollen goods, France exported 229,250,000 f. in 1860, and 356,000,000 f. in 1864. In yarns of all the three descriptions, France exported 12,500,000 f. in 1860, and 43,000,000 f. in 1864. The total amount of these goods exported from France in 1860, immediately before the treaty, was 327,000,000 f., and after the end of four years the amount had risen to 517,000,000 f. The exports to England increased in a greater and, if possible, in a still more remarkable degree. In order to spare the time of the House I will not give minute details; but these are the exports to England of the very commodities with respect to which great alarm prevailed in France, extending even to an expectation that her producers would lose the home market. The exports to England of woollens, linens, cottons, yarns, metal goods, earthenware, salt, glass, and fish amounted in value to 58,500,000 f. in 1859, before the treaty, and in 1864 they had risen to no less than 141,000,000 f.
  Since the treaty with France we have concluded through the energy of the departments of the Government and the able assistants who have been employed (I include, especially, members of the diplomatic service, as well as the permanent Civil Service at home), many other conventions relating to commerce. There is an advantageous treaty with Turkey, which admits of a small increase of import duties to a uniform 8 per cent, but stipulates for a liberal reduction of the old rate of export duty, and a further reduction of the transit

  379
  duties. We also made a Treaty with Belgium in 1862, which insures to us all the advantages previously given by that State to France, together with a deduction from the former standard of pilotage, tonnage, and navigation dues. The Treaty with Italy in 1863 secured to us the reductions given to France by means of what is termed the favoured nation clause, and a similar Treaty with the Zollverein in 1864 gave to us the reductions given to France. A treaty of a more notable description has recently been concluded with Austria. That Empire was of all other countries, perhaps, the most rigid in the preservation of the protective system. I know not whether Russia could successfully compete with her in that respect. Certainly those two countries might be regarded as the last strongholds of the pure protective system; but Austria has entirely abandoned by an agreement with us her tenacious adherence to that system. While we own that that abandonment is beneficial to us, we justly maintain that it is in a far greater degree beneficial to herself. In effecting this result, the Chambers of Commerce in the north-east of England took an active part; and Mr. Alhuson of Newcastle, I believe, did much to spread sound ideas among the people of Austria and to make them sensible how cruelly they were impoverishing themselves by a rigid system of protection. The able agents of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, Mr. Morier and Mr. Mallet, by the knowledge and skill which they brought to bear on the discussion of the matter, greatly contributed to the settlement of the question; and I am glad to mention a name, which I would still more gladly mention if the bearer of it were now present in the House—Mr. Somerset Beaumont—who felt, not a personal, but a public and a most keen interest in the prosecution of this subject, and took a very active and beneficial part in promoting the proceedings connected with the Austrian Treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Sir William Hutt) also laboured with Mr. Beaumont in the same cause. No man could more ably or consistently be enlisted in such a cause, and I cordially congratulate him on the result which has been achieved.
  The general effect, Sir, of the Austrian Treaty on the Austrian side is, that the French standard has been adopted, and the rate of Customs duty in Austria, after an early date, is not to exceed 25 per cent
  380
  ad valorem on any description of British goods. That amount of 25 per cent in France and elsewhere is still a very serious obstacle to freedom of intercourse; and I think the time has well nigh arrived, after the experience she has had, when we may begin to ask ourselves whether or not our powerful neighbour France might not safely consider the policy of taking a further onward step. I am persuaded that matters will not rest here. We have found the proportionate benefit of the reduction of small duties to be fully equivalent to the reduction of great duties. Therefore, I speak of this rate of 25 per cent with satisfaction only in reference to what has gone before, and not in reference to what will follow.
  And here, Sir, I have to mention two changes which we propose should be made in our tariff, and which we were the more readily induced (subject, of course, to the pleasure of Parliament) to promise, because they greatly assisted the Austrian Government in bringing to a satisfactory issue the important national engagement entered into. We propose to abolish the duty on timber; and to equalize the duty on wine in bottle with the duty on wine in wood. The duty on timber is a very low duty, and that is the best and only thing that can be stated in its favour. In any other point of view the duty on timber is as had a duty as it can be. It is a protective duty on a raw material of which this country stands in great want; which is of vast bulk, and thus in any case made costly by carriage. The imposition of the duty, which has the effect of greatly increasing this cost, and which also as far as it goes has a protective character, is the very essence and quintessence of political folly.
  The consumption of timber in this country is remarkable. In 1811 the consumption of timber amounted to 417,000 loads. At that time the duties were augmented, and in 1814 the consumption fell so low as 218,000 loads. However, the growing wealth of the country brought about a gradual increase; and I will pass over the long period of years to 1841, from which time the House will observe that every reduction of duty has been answered by more than a corresponding increase in the use of this essential material. In 1841 the total consumption was 829,000 loads. In 1842 the duty on foreign timber was reduced from 56 s. 6d. to 31 s. 6d., and on colonial timber from l1 s. 6d. to 1s. The re-

  381
  duction only took effect in October, 1842. In 1843 the consumption was 1,298,000 loads. In 1850 the consumption was 1,723,000 loads. In that year the duty on foreign timber was further reduced from 15 s. to 7s. 6d., and on deals from 20 s. to 10 s. The consequence was that, from a consumption of 1,723,000 loads in 1850, the consumption rose until, in 1859, it reached 2,408,000 loads. In 1860 we went to work again, and further reduced the duty from 10 s. to 2s., and from 7s. 6d. to 1s. At that time, a highly respectable gentleman from the colonies, who represented Launceston (Mr. Haliburton), predicted that ruin would sweep down upon the timber industry of New Brunswick; but the consumption of all kinds, which in 1859 was 2,408,000 loads, actually had increased in 1865 to 3,700,000 loads, or to sixteen times the consumption of 1814. Of this augmentation the British colonies have no reason to be discontented with their share.
  The whole revenue from timber is as follows for the entire year:—£300,000 from the general descriptions of wood goods, and £7,000 from wood manufactured into the form of ships, being a total of £307,000. I shall reckon the whole of this amount as loss for the year 1866–7, because we propose that the repeal should date buck from the 1st of April, 1866.
  With respect to wines in bottle—the other subject I have to touch on in connection with the Austrian Treaty—the case stands thus. At present, we charge for wine in wood by one of two rates, supposing it is real wine, and does not exceed a certain strength,for if it does it is charged as spirits. The two rates are adjusted as follows:—if it is under twenty-six degrees the charge is 1s. a gallon, and over twenty-six degrees 2s. 6d. per gallon. When the alcoholic test was first adopted, it was required to be applied in great frequency and to every parcel of goods, and thus great injury would have been entailed on such an article as wine in bottle. Wines imported in bottle being for the most part of a more expensive character, it was therefore thought best, when these duties were fixed a few years ago, to levy a duty of 2s. 6d. upon all bottled wines, while wines in wood were charged according to their strength. Now, however, we are able to work the system with much greater accuracy and security, and the alcoholic test is much more rarely applied. Representations have been addressed to us by the Austrian Government, and I am bound to
  382
  say by the French Government also. One piece of evidence, indeed, of a kind almost peculiar in history, has been forwarded—a document addressed to myself by a large number of Burgundian winegrowers, a document which I received with very great pleasure, as a sign of the increasing sense that is felt of the common interest of the two countries in matters of this kind. From these statements we find, and there is no reason to doubt their substantial accuracy, that there is a great deal of wine which may be imported safely in bottle, but which it is very difficult to import in wood without injury to its quality. This, I believe, is the case with many Hungarian, as well as with many Burgundian wines; and therefore, according to the request of the Austrian Government, we propose to equalize the duties on wines in bottle with those which are now paid upon wines in wood. That is to say, they will be charged according to their strength, 2s. 6d. per gallon if over twenty-six degrees of alcohol, and Is, if they do not exceed that standard. The effect of such a change would be a total loss of £71,000, without any allowance for recovery; or with some allowance for recovery and also for the portion of the year that has passed, a loss of £58,000. This I have to add to the debtor side of the account, to be set against the surplus.
  I have now done, Sir, with the subject of treaties for the present; and there are three changes which I propose to make, quite apart from any obligations under treaty. We propose to remove the duty on pepper. The fate of pepper might well excite the commiseration of any humane man. The duty, which it is very difficult to defend, has often been in the list of duties fit to be abolished, but when it has come to the last moment there has always been some more bulky and important neighbour to thrust it out of the way, and the consideration of the subject has thus lain over till this year, when there happens to be a moderate surplus, which does not admit of our proceeding to deal with any great branch of the revenue. The present, therefore, appears to be a good occasion when, without exciting feelings of jealousy in the agriculturist or any other class of the community, we can afford to do justice to pepper. The case is a hard one, and for this reason; all the spices and condiments in which the wealthier classes have an exclusive interest have been long ago set free

  383
  from duty. But pepper is a condiment common to all classes of the community; and though I cannot say whether this is so or not, I am told that it is largely consumed in Ireland. It is a commodity that can well be dispensed with by the wealthy classes, and even by those portions of the labouring community that partake largely of animal food, but is really, I believe, not only very useful, but very necessary to those whose diet consists in a much larger degree of vegetable food. Another very strong reason for the abolition of the duty is that pepper is abominably adulterated. Adulteration of food, I am afraid, is, in a very special manner and degree, an English vice, I doubt whether in any other country in the world the same amount of adulteration of food takes place as in this country; but the proportion of that adulteration is violently stimulated whenever the rate of duty, proportioned to the short price of the article, is very high. Now, the duty on pepper is little less than 200 per cent—that is to say, the duty stood at 6d. when the price was 3d.3¼d., or 3½d. The revenue from the article of pepper is £124,000, and deducting £12,000 for the tenth of the financial year, I find the net loss to be £112,000, which is to be added to the items I have already mentioned.
  Next, Sir, I come to a subject which I am unwilling to leave wholly untouched, but which, at the same time, neither the state of our financial resources nor other considerations enable us at the moment to deal with in that conclusive and effectual manner which, I hope, some day may be brought within our power—I mean a portion of the duties upon locomotion. I do not hesitate to say that I think in principle—although I admit that some difficulties might present themselves in its application to practice—a great distinction should be drawn between the locomotion of luxury and pleasure, and that which is of necessity. I do not enter into the question of how far we can distinguish between them, but to a considerable extent our system, as it now stands, does actually distinguish between them. The House, perhaps, will be surprised to know that the revenue which we derive from locomotion in all its forms is not less than £1,600,000. Of that sum one moiety, or £852,000, is the portion of assessed taxes which I consider fairly due to locomotion; that is to say, the portion derived from taxes upon horses, taxes upon carriages, and taxes upon the pro-
  384
  portion of men-servants estimated to be employed upon them. With that amount of £852,000, and also with the revenue of £459,000 derivable from railways, I do not propose in any manner to interfere. The first arises from a description of charge that may, I think, fairly be retained on our statute book, at any rate for the present; and the revenue derived from railways is, in my judgment, a revenue which Parliament would never think of surrendering, unless it were in connection with some comprehensive arrangement for securing benefits to the public. This, it is quite plain, we are not at present in a condition to entertain. The House is aware that a Commission composed of very able and very distinguished men, was appointed more than a twelvemonth ago to examine into the general condition of the railway system, and how far it might be possible, by such means as were defined in the instrument appointing the Commission, to improve our railway system in the direction of general accommodation of the public, and particularly of goods traffic. It is plain that we must adjourn any examination of that subject until the Commission has concluded its labours, which I hope, and am given to understand, will be in the course of the present year.
  There are, however, subjects similar in character which I think may well engage our attention, and upon which such slight remissions of duty as we are in a position to make will be attended with a considerable amount of advantage. We derive from post horses and carriages, including all descriptions of carriages in London and elsewhere, £266,000; and from public conveyances £142,000, including all descriptions of such conveyances, whether stage coaches, waggons supposed to travel under four miles an hour in the country, or omnibuses which form so conspicuous a feature in the streets of London, and which are becoming from year to year instruments of almost indispensable use to the enormous number not only of the middle and lower middle, but even in the strictest sense, of the labouring classes of the community. The proposals, therefore, which I have to make relatively to the tax on omnibuses and all public stage carriages will not only bear materially on the comfort and advantage of the labouring classes in great towns, but in another point of view will tend to diminish the very injurious effect which the severity of this duty exercises

  385
  in restricting rural accommodation, more particularly such accommodation in connection with the railway stations of secondary consequence. The present tax is estimated to amount to no less than from 9 to 11 per cent on the gross receipts of the London General Omnibus Company and other companies of a like description. And when one considers the relation which gross receipts hear to net, and what a very large proportion of gross receipts is swallowed up in payment of necessary expenses, it must be admitted that such a duty imposes a very heavy burden on this description of trade. I do not dwell on what relates to the railway stations, because every gentleman who resides in the country will, I am sure, be familiar with that matter from personal experience. It seems pro bable that in many cases the duty not only limits the number of conveyances but at particular points prevents their existence altogether. But the manner in which the working classes in the large towns are affected may be sketched as follows—A continuous process is going on, unobserved, but steadily from day to day, by which the value of land in the limited areas about the centre of great cities is rising with a rapidity hardly credible, though at the same time proved by experience. The statistics, if produced, would astonish those who have never attended to the point; and the result is this—a continual transfer of premises in central situations from residential purposes to purposes of business. The wealthier class of residents, thus dispossessed, disappear, for their pleasure; while the labouring classes—and that in a considerable proportion—cannot afford to pay the increased rents, and (where they do not become lodgers instead of householders) in many cases go out to live at greater distances from town. It is absolutely necessary, however, that their labour should still be performed in town, and accordingly it is of the greatest importance that they should have cheap conveyance. Hence the tax on locomotion, considered as a tax on the labouring part of the community, is in the severest and crudest sense a tax of the raw material of industry. For nothing more exactly corresponds with the idea of a tax on the raw material of industry than a tax affecting the sinews and muscles of the labouring man; and if he is obliged to spend those sinews and muscles in travelling to and fro between his home and the area in which he works, he spends them upon that which brings him in no
  386
  wages, instead of spending them in reproductive labour. I hope I have satisfied the House that it is right to deal with these questions. I will now state the mode. We propose to leave the licences on these carriages as at present. We cannot offer a thoroughly searching solution of the whole question at present; but we think we can greatly relieve the burdensome part of the duty which is calculated on a mileage. The present duty is 1d. per mile, and that we propose to reduce to one farthing per mile. There would be considerable difficulty in abolishing it altogether at this time. The House will please to recollect that though there are, as I have described, strong reasons for modifying this duty, it cannot be separated altogether from other duties—from the duty on hackney carriages for instance, which we are not able, consistently with the general plans of the Government, to relieve; again, it cannot be separated from the consideration that in a very great number of cases these carriages are in direct competition with the short local traffic of railways in the neighbourhood of largo towns, on which we levy, as to a large part of it, a tax of 5 per cent on their gross receipts, which receipts include the interest on the capital employed in making the road. The total income from this source, with full duty, would be £130,000 for the year. The duty can only be reduced on the 2nd of July next, when the arrangements are made for the quarter, and new licences are issued. The reduction will not, according to usage, in this case take place from the date of the Resolutions passed by the House; an Act of Parliament will be necessary for that purpose, and it will not have passed, probably, till some day in June. I have said that I do not propose to interfere with the hackney carriage duty, because the receipts from that tax are of a peculiar character, and may be considered as some compensation made by the metropolis for a great outlay, on the part of the State, in the matter of its comfort and advantage. But the post-horse duty applies all over the country. The duties are now regulated by a scale varying with the number of horses and carriages possessed, and are so framed as to bear hardly on the smaller as compared with the larger proprietors. One horse or one carriage pays per annum £7 10 s.; two horses or two carriages just double that amount; four horses or three carriages, £20; eight horse or six carriages, £30 If you will compare £7 10 s.

  387
  for one horse or one carriage with £30 for eight horses or six carriages, you will see how the scale is framed to hear heavily on the small as compared with the large proprietor. I propose to reduce the rates below the £30 rate so as to correspond as nearly as possible with the higher rates. That is to say, one horse or one carriage will be charged £5; three horses or two carriages will be charged £10, and so upwards, in such a manner that the small owner, the man who drives his own fly, will be placed, as nearly as the nature of things will admit, on an equality with the larger capitalists, with whom he competes. The estimated loss from that source (with allowance of 10 per cent for increase in traffic) will be £20,000; or £16,000 in 1866–7 and £4,000 in 1867–8. The Committee will see that we have now disposed of about £562,000 out of £1,350,000.
  I now pass to a subject of an entirely different description from those on which I have thus far touched; a subject having this only in common with them, that it would dispose of a large portion of the remainder of the surplus available for the present year, and that in itself it is undoubtedly an important financial arrangement. Before, however, proceeding to that subject, I should state that I shall submit Resolutions to give effect to all the changes which I have mentioned; as also for renewing the Income Tax at 4d. in the pound sterling, and for continuing the tea duty for a period of twelve months.
  But the proposal which I have now to make, and which I hope will receive the sanction of the House, will most conveniently and naturally form the subject of a separate measure; though it is one which I am anxious to prosecute as speedily as may be found practicable, with a due regard to the claims of other business yet more pressing. The question, Sir, to which I am about to call the attention of the House is connected with the one great item which I omitted from the retrospective part of my statement. It relates to the condition and movement of our National Debt. I will first give to the Committee what has actually been done with respect to the reduction of the National Debt within the year that has just passed. The amount paid off in the year 1865–6 consisted of the following sums:—
  388

  1.

  Exchequer Bonds to the extent of were exchanged by reissue.

  £1,000,000

  2.

  Exchequer Bills paid in for Revenue

  £783,000

  £2,555,000

  Purchased with surplus revenue

  877,000

  Sent in at the exchanges

  895,000

  3.

  Cancelled by Land Tax

  59,000

  4.

  Stock purchased with surplus revenue

  1,395,000

  5.

  Capital redeemed in Terminable Annuities

  1,620,000

  Total

  £5,629,000

  A sum, however, of £450,000 was raised for fortifications, and therefore the effective reduction of the National Debt in 1865–6 was £5,179,000.
  The next portion of the statement I have to make to the Committee relates to the Unfunded Debt. Great changes have taken place in recent years with regard to our Unfunded Debt. One portion of it consists of Exchequer Bonds; a security not liable to be suddenly or very seriously affected by the extraordinarily rapid and frequent fluctuations which, under the present, I think, wise administration of its affairs by the Bank of England, continually attend the conditions of the money market. But the case is different as to Exchequer Bills; and, as the Committee will readily perceive in a country and at a period where the current rate of interest on commercial paper for short terms with ninety or 120 days to run, or perhaps six months, is running up and down two, or three, possibly even four, or five times a year, from 3 to 8 or 9 per cent, it is almost impossible to make any large portion of these Government securities returnable as they are for cash after twelve months currency, and receivable for revenue after six, live in the market, unless we choose to adopt a course which I think unwise—to give a high rate of interest on them, and a rate of interest which, within a few weeks after it had been granted, might be found excessive with reference to the actual state of the money market. That would be a very wasteful proceeding, and the alternative which has been adopted has been to encourage a gradual absorption of them.
  I will now show how far this absorption has proceeded. The total Unfunded Debt of the United Kingdom in 181516 was £44,727,000. Just before the Russian War, on the 5th of January, 1854, it had

  389
  declined to £16,024,000; on the 31st of March, 1857, it was £27,989,000; in 1859, it stood at £18,277,000; but that reduction was brought about by funding, and one object of reduction by a gradual process is to get rid of the necessity of funding, which is a very expensive operation, performed as it generally is at unfavourable periods. In 1866, the Unfunded Debt, which in 1859 was £18,277,000, was reduced to £8,267,000, consisting of about two-thirds, or £5,887,000, in Bills, and one-third, or £2,300,000, in Bonds. This secondary branch of the Debt has therefore been brought within manageable compass during the last few years, without incurring the cost of funding: and as the £6,000,000 of Exchequer Bills are divided nearly into moieties, payable the one in March and the other in June, it is plain that they are not likely hereafter to place us in any serious financial difficulty.
  Now, with respect to the grave and serious subject of the National Debt at large. I hope the Committee will not think I take an undue liberty in calling their serious attention to it. It is a subject as to which it may be difficult to say why it should be introduced to the notice of the House at one moment rather than another; but undoubtedly I am convinced, with my now rather long experience of the financial department, that the time has come when, to say the least, it is fitting that Parliament should bestow a greater degree of attention than has hitherto been bestowed on the question of the state and movement of the National Debt. I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Westminster—whose absence on this occasion I deeply regret, arising as I understand that it does from severe indisposition—I entirely concur in the doctrine he has laid down, that the first duty of Parliament, now some twenty-five years ago, was to direct its attention to the thoroughly unsound and ill-adjusted state of our fiscal system, and to its injurious effect in restricting industry and in retarding the growth of wealth. It would at that period have been a great mistake if, instead of relieving industry and the springs of commerce by the remission of duties so mischievous as those which then abounded in our law, we had made it a general rule to apply our resources to the reduction of the National Debt. But now we have got through a great part of that most necessary work. There are taxes which still remain, which we are desirous
  390
  to reduce, nay, which urgently call for reduction, or even for removal; but, now that we have advanced so far in the work of reform in our system of taxation, I think the time has come for some modification of our rule of action; the time at any rate when we ought seriously to consider the state and movement of the National Debt.
  Besides the recent speech of my hon. Friend there have been other indications of opinion which I, for one, have noticed with great satisfaction, and which tend, I think, to show that I am not speaking lightly or gratuitously when I submit to the Committee that the time has arrived for dealing with this question. Many positive reasons, too, may be given for such a course. Why, Sir, the condition of the public credit, as measured by the price of the funds, is in itself a matter which might well attract the attention of Parliament. It is not that the public credit, properly understood, is weaker than it ever was; on the contrary, I believe there never was a period when it was stronger; but the rising rates of profit upon money must necessarily raise, and I think have already raised, considerably, but not immoderately, the rate of interest, and have in proportion diminished the value of the public credit, as represented by the price of the funds. Considering the high price of money which now rules, I, for one, am well pleased that the funds have not fallen more heavily. At the same time, I believe it will be wise and politic on the part of Parliament, with a view to exigencies which are not perhaps likely or proximate, but which are possible, to consider the present state of the public credit as measured by the state of the funds, and to consider what would be our position if, under any overruling circumstances of honour or duty, we were obliged to go into the market as borrowers.
  Again, Sir, there are several reasons which lead me to think that this is a most proper time to open the question. One is that during the next year, 1867, we are to receive another large or at least considerable relief by the falling in of Terminable Annuities. Nearly £600,000 of those Annuities will lapse: and I think it well becomes Parliament to consider what substitute it will provide for that annual charge, with the view of furthering the beneficial process of operating upon the debt. And this, be it observed, not with a view of extending the old scale of action through Terminable Annuities upon the debt, but

  391
  simply to prevent another great contraction of that scale. Nor can I fail to mention that some journals, which are among the most powerful organs of opinion, with no possible object, it seems to me, but that of an enlighteued zeal for the public good, have been labouring to draw the attention of the public mind to this great subject, and have, I think, materially prepared the way for the Government to submit to Parliament a proposal respecting it.
  Now, Sir, of course the general movement of the National Debt can easily he set forth in the most intelligible form to the community. That debt consists of three items; but for the present purpose it is not necessary that I should distinguish one from the other, which would only perplex that view of the total to which I wish to fasten the attention of the Committee. I will, however, mention that those three principal heads or items are; first of all the Funded or Permanent Debt, including the debt to the Bank of England, though that it is not precisely a funded debt, but is simply and invariably represented by its capital sum; secondly, the Unfunded Debt, of which I have already sufficiently spoken; and thirdly, the outstanding capital value involved in Terminable Annuities that may still be running. Placing these three items of debt together, the total of the National Debt, which is commonly supposed at the close of the great war of the French Revolution to have been £800,000,000, when we come to include all these items, had turned £900,000,000 of money, the actual figures being £902,264,000. Of course, I do not include in that amount any allowance for the Sinking Fund, which I exclude altogether, as I speak only of the real obligations of the country. In 1830, the total of £902,000,000 had been brought down to £842,405,000. A good deal bad been done in that interval, as will be seen, for the reduction of the debt; but very little in comparison had been done by Parliament for the liberation of the industry of the country. A beginning had indeed been made, much to the honour of those who under such difficulties were brave enough to make it, but if it was commenced it was a commencement only. In 1840 the debt had fallen to £837,848,000 or by a very small sum—namely, £4,500,000; but it must be recollected that during that interval of ten years, a loan of £20,000,000 had been contracted for the emancipation of the ne-
  392
  groes in the West Indies. Virtually, therefore, the reduction upon the War Debt effected in that period had amounted to nearly £25,000,000. The lowest point, however, of any touched upon the present year, was reached on the 5th of January, 1854. It then stood at £800,515,000. Then came the Russian War; when Parliament, most wisely as I think, resolved to meet the expenses of that war in great part by taxes immediately imposed on the people. In consequence of this Resolution, the increase of debt was much less rapid than it would otherwise have been, and much less rapid than it must undoubtedly be if ever unfortunately this country should become involved in a prolonged war. On the 31st of March, 1857, the debt had risen to £831,722,000; on the 31st of March, 1859, it was £823,934,000; and on the 31st of March, 1866, it was £798,909,000. That is nominally a point somewhat lower than it has stood at before; but it must be remembered that we have cancelled two minor sinking fund stocks which formerly formed part of the nominal capital, so that, in fact, we may say with substantial accuracy, for it is not necessary to be particular to £1,000,000 or £1,500,000, it has now just reached the point at which we have effaced the results of a Crimean War, and the debt thus stands at the very place which it occupied at the commencement of the year 1854; that point being one lower by £100,000,000 than the sum at which the debt stood when the long war of the French Revolution terminated. The total sums applied, in all forms, to liquidation since 1815, have probably been little short of £180,000,000; the difference between the gross and the net reduction being accounted for by the sums borrowed for the Crimean War, for the West Indian Compensation, for the Irish Famine, and for minor purposes.
  It is hardly necessary to observe that there are several sums not very material in themselves—of which I have in this explanation taken no account. We are indebted to the savings banks in the sum of about £3,000,000, and on the other hand we have monies lent on perfectly good security on bonds to Drainage Commissioners and other bodies, that amount to about £10,000,000; but that is not an amount that we need take into view in dealing with this enormous accumulation of the national obligations. £799,000,000, then, or in round numbers, £800,000,000

  393
  form the present capital debt. Now let us observe the rates at which during different periods we have operated upon the debt. From 1815 to 1854 there were nearly forty years of the most profound tranquillity ever known to this country, and that, therefore, was the very period in which it was most desirable for us to deal efficiently with this debt, if we were to place ourselves in a position to look war in the face again when the necessity for it might arise. Well, Sir, I have stated the sum of what was then done. The rate of decrease per annum during that period was £2,609,000—undoubtedly a very trivial sum when we consider the enormous amount of what remains to be achieved. In the three years and a quarter from the 5th of January, 1854, to the 31st of March, 1857, the rate of increase was nearly £10,000,000 per annum; in more exact figures, £9,602,000. From 1857 to 1866 the annual rate of decrease under all heads has been somewhat better, but still far below what it ought to have been; it has been £3,646,000. Now, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to this, that what we must expect is, that whereas £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year have represented the average of our operations in time of peace—I do not believe if we take the whole years of peace since 1815 that the average reduction would reach £3,000,000—if ever we should become involved in any great and protracted war, we must expect, not immediately, but after a year or two of war, to see the debt grow at about ten times the annual rate by which we reduce it in time of peace.
  Now, Sir, the next question I come to consider is whether this is a satisfactory state of things for the country. But I cannot proceed further on that subject without asking the Committee to observe the remarkable course and tendency of affairs with respect to the accumulation of public debts in other countries. The chapter of National Debts is assuming, I think, a painful and a baleful prominence as a social and political fact of modern experience. I do not know whether the House is aware to what extent this mischievous and injurious process is going on. But I will refer first to what I do not hesitate to declare I contemplate with the least anxiety, and that is the debt of the United States. The debt of the United States is in itself something wonderful—wonderful as the creation of four years, strictly of four years, and no more, and yet amounting to nearly
  394
  3,000,000,000 dollars, or £600,000,000, and the rate of growth of the debt in the last year exceeded, I think, £200,000,000. That is a debt on a gigantic scale, and its charge is enormous. It is not possible, in the present state of the financial arrangements of that country, to ascertain the figures with perfect precision, but I believe I am not wrong in saying that the charge of that debt must be considerably heavier than our own, although the capital is less. The smallest sum at which I can estimate the charge is £31,000,000 or £32,000,000 sterling; and if upon the back of that sum we lay the necessary cost of raising the revenue, which in America is much heavier than it is here, I do not think the effective amount of taxation incumbent upon the people of the United States at this time in consequence of the Northern debt (I do not include one farthing for the Southern debt) can be taken at less than some £35,000,000 sterling per annum. Well now, looking at these figures, a man would at a first glance be struck with something like despair. But if we look at the position of the country which has to bear the burden, I must confess that I think the future of America, as far as finance is concerned—political problems are not now in question—will probably not on this score be beset with any serious or vital danger. I do not believe that that debt need constitute any difficulty for the American people. I am confident that if they show with respect to finance any portion of that extraordinary resolution which on both sides alike they manifested during the war, and of that equally remarkable resolution with which, on the return of peace, they have brought their monstrous and gigantic establishments within moderate bounds, I will not say that this debt, according to an expression which was once fashionable in this country, will be a fleabite, but we may then anticipate that in a moderate time it will be brought within very narrow limits, and it is even possible, though we may not venture to judge how far likely that it may even within the lifetime of persons now born, be effaced altogether. At this moment America is, I believe, paying all her war taxes, and the amount of the revenue of the United States is not less, I apprehend, than £80,000,000 and upwards, the largest sum ever raised in any country or at any period for the purposes of a central Government. The estimated surplus above expenditure is

  395
  from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 sterling a year, and I believe at present only about £10,000,000 sterling of all this huge taxation are menaced by the natural impatience of the people to continue under the burden of some of the taxes that have been imposed. Mr. M'Culloch, the Finance Minister of that country, strongly urges the policy of reducing the debt, and I am quite certain that from this side of the water we shall send him a hearty expression of good wishes for his success, both on account of our interest in the well-being of a friendly and kindred nation, and because it may be hoped that the example of America will react beneficially on this country, and on Europe at large.
  But have gentlemen who sit here paid attention to the stealthy manner in which the practice of borrowing, in order to meet the ordinary charges of government, is becoming the standing vice of almost every Government in Europe? I do not speak now with regard to that uneasy state of things in which the Continent is at this moment apparently liable to be involved. We hope that neither unrestrained ambition in any one quarter nor neglect of the rules of prudence in any other, may be permitted by a merciful Providence to deprive Europe of the inestimable blessings of peace. But I ask the House to consider how enormously important the common practice of the Governments of Europe with regard to the contraction of debt has of late years become. I have here the National Debts of nine countries in Europe, estimated from the most trustworthy data I have been able to obtain. I find that, with the exception of Holland, there is not one of these debts that has not been virtually contracted in the last half century, while by far the larger part of them has been contracted during the last twenty years—that is to say, during a time of very general peace; for if there has been any war expenditure added to them during that time it is insignificant in amount, as I believe, with reference to the total. Holland, I find, acts prudently, and reduces her debt apparently from time to time, by the aid of her colonial resources from Java, while the finances of Prussia, whatever may be said of that kingdom in some other respects, are believed to be a model of good administration; for the Prussian debt stands at £43,000,000, and that of Holland at £85,000,000. The Russian debt is estimated at £279,000,000, and that of
  396
  Austria at £316,000,000. The debt of France is not, as formally stated, a capital debt, and it is difficult to estimate it with accuracy. It is made up of Rentes or Annuities which are sold for so many years' purchase; and, perhaps I may, without the risk of great error, take its various denominations in the aggregate at twenty-five years' purchase. Upon this footing, the French debt in Rentes, together with the Unfunded Debt, will be found probably to amount to £400,000,000. It is the largest of these public debts of Europe; yet, because of the immense resources of the country, and the energy, thriftiness, and wonderful talent of its people, one need, perhaps, feel less anxiety for its future security and strength than for the stability of almost any other Continental Government. In Italy the debt stands at £152,000,000; and it is increasing with portentous rapidity from year to year. The debt of Spain amounts to £145,000,000; that of Portugal is estimated at £33,000,000; and the debt of Turkey, which I believe to be entirely a modern institution, indeed principally created since the Crimean War, amounts to £51,000,000. The great bulk of these debts, which amount altogether to no less than £1,500,000,000, has been accumulated in a time of peace, and has not been thrown upon the several countries during a struggle of life and death.
  I will not trouble the Committee with many details of their rate of increase; but, omitting Holland, which has diminished its debt, and omitting Prussia, which does not habitually increase it, and omitting Spain also, which seems to keep its debt nearly at an equilibrium, we have six of the nine countries I have named that have recently managed to increase their debts during a time of peace at the annual rate of £61,000,000 sterling. And this is a growing mischief, for, like other bad habits, debt-making has a tendency to spread. Europe should therefore really bethink herself of this portentous increase, and should look at it from the right point of view. This practice should be considered both in itself and in connection with the future. It is spending in a time of peace the resources of war; it is as if in a year of good harvest the world, instead of keeping a reserve for bad years, spent the whole of that good harvest, and half another harvest beside; and it should be remembered that even if peace be preserved in Europe for the rest of the century, the debts of these

  397
  nine countries at the present rates of increase would then amount to nearly £4,000,000,000. These are really pro digious gums and portentous circumstances, It is not merely the amount of money engagements which we should take into view; that is comparatively a matter of limited importance. It is not only a very great mischief that £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 should he drawn away from useful and profitable purposes for what is even worse than purely unproductive expenditure, but it is an enormous political and social difficulty which is being gradually heaped up by this most improvident course of policy. There is nothing so insidious, at least we know in public affairs of nothing so insidious, as financial difficulty, It approaches you in the first moment with smiles and caresses. The expedient of borrowing appears at the first temptation to be open to no objection whatever; the burden is so small, the relief so immediate and so great. It is like what the poet described in the lines relating to Fame—
  "Parva metu primo; mox sese attollit in auras,
  Ingrediturque solo,et caput inter nubila condit."
  Perhaps it yet more recalls a noble passage in one of the tragedies of Æschylus, when he describes the cub of the lioness, incautiously taken in its infancy by the hunter to his home, reared with his dogs and petted by his children; it fawns upon young and old as long as it remains a cub, but when it has grown to the strength of mature age it forgets its seeming meekness, and manifesting with an awful suddenness the ferocity of its nature, it deluges the whole house with the gore of its victims. And thus it is with financial difficulty. It begins with the most insinuating access, and grows up gradually with changes imperceptible from day to day, so beguiling men that they still and still postpone the evil day of reckoning; but nevertheless the time will come when it must at length be confronted, only in all likelihood that will also be the time when, having grown to gigantic size it can no longer be resisted or subdued.
  So much, Sir, for other countries, and now let us look at our own. I must ask you to bear with me while I endeavour to point out what I take to be the true state of our own case. I address my request to the whole Committee; but, in a certain sense, especially to Gentlemen opposite, and to those who say, and say truly, that they are deeply interested in the land and fixed property of the country; because I
  398
  apprehend that if there be any special interest concerned in the subject I am about to consider it is the interest of landed property and of our fixed property in general.
  In the first place, then, let it be remembered that we are living in a commercial era, the prospects of which, from their magnitude, it is almost impossible to appreciate. Every five years, it may almost be said, we seem to have almost a new era; the rate of increase in our foreign commerce is continually shifting, and always shifting upwards. The liberation of industry, the progress of invention, the steady investigations of science, the improvement of social habits, are all combining together to induce the conclusion that in the days of our childhood, when we thought the commerce of England was a wonderful thing, and that the commerce of the world was wonderful; and when we had an idea that a century's development had brought about almost a miracle of transformation, the result was, in point of fact, only in its embryo; the commerce of the world was no more than an infant in the cradle. But it was an infant Hercules, that has ever since been straining and bursting one by one its bonds; and, depend upon it, great as is the extension to which it has now reached, in all likelihood it will go on extending still, and perhaps yet more wonderfully, in the future. We are not prophets in this assembly. But it is our duty, although we must refrain from dogmatizing, to estimate probabilities as well as we are able, and, like wise men, we should permit ourselves to be guided by the balance of probability. During the next twenty, or thirty, or fifty years, then, or perhaps more, for I cannot pretend to name a time, we are to look for a still further development and extension of the commerce of this country, which is even now in the aggregate, I apprehend, at least three-fold what it was five-and-twenty years ago. Well, the population of the country during that period has been increasing at a rate less than 25 per cent, while our commerce has been multiplied three times. And this we must fairly presume will continue for some time. The demand for our productions is likely to grow as long as we have the same relative means, which we possess at present, for affording a cheap supply.
  Now, the great agents of production are three; first, we have land and fixed capital; secondly, we have movable or trans-

  399
  ferable capital; and thirdly, we have labour. Let us consider, for it is most important, the relative positions of these three powerful agents. A race is going on between nations in industry and enterprize, and no doubt can exist upon the question what nation is at this moment foremost in the race. The people of the United Kingdom are by far the foremost. Their external commerce is, I apprehend, as great as that of the two countries which come next in order to it; the United Kingdom, with its 30,000,000 people, is as great in commerce as France and America, the second and third as to foreign commerce of the nations of the world, with their 70,000,000 of population. That is an extraordinary fact. We have undoubtedly got the start in the race, and it behoves us to inquire what special cause has given it us. Doubtless we have not only great but varied advantages; our geographical position is a great advantage, so also is the character of the people. But both our geographical position and the character of our people are the same as they were a century ago; and England then did not lead the trade of Europe. What, then, has given us the commanding position that we hold? Of course there is an increasing cause in our huge masses, accumulated capital, the fruit, the sign, and the reward of labours achieved; but the chief cause is the possession of our mineral treasures. The fact, not merely of the possession of coal, but of the possession of vast stores of coal under such circumstances that we can raise it to the surface at a lower price than any other country in the world; besides these we possess unequalled facilities for its circulation. Now, Sir, it is most important to bear in mind that it is not the quantity of coal, but its production at a low price which has given us the start, and has caused the enormously rapid progress of the country. From many other points of view, Great Britain might have been expected to make less rapid progress than it has actually made; because, after all, the second very great treasure of nations—namely, their unoccupied, that is unopened, land—is a treasure which we possess, in our three kingdoms, in a much smaller relative degree than almost any other European country. It is, then, our possession of coal under such circumstances as I have described and in immediate conjunction with the raw material of the metal manufactures, especially of the gigantic business of the iron trade, that has given
  400
  us this extraordinary pre-eminence in commercial and industrial pursuits.
  Now, Sir, it has often been a subject of very interesting discussion as to whether we may look upon our stores of coals as being practically inexhaustible. And in the condition in which our commerce was twenty or thirty years ago it would have been perfectly reasonable to answer that question in the affirmative and assume that our coal was inexhaustible. But circumstances have greatly changed. The rate of increase in our production and consumption of coal is continually progressing, the export demand grows with an immense rapidity. The consumption has become such that the minds of some of the greatest among our scientific authorities have been turned to the question, and the inquiry has been raised, what will be the influence upon our supply if our consumption shall continue to increase in a ratio such as that which it has recently attained, and I venture to express the opinion that more probably than otherwise it will so continue. But for the purposes of the present argument, I need ask you to consider no more than this—assuming for the moment that we shall not be able to continue for many generations to produce coal at prices cheaper than those of all other countries, what will happen? It is not enough to say that the expenses incurred in maintaining ventilation, keeping down the temperature, increasing the depth, and all such matters, will be economized by new inventions and contrivances, those new inventions and contrivances there may be; but they will not give us a pre-eminence over other countries, because other countries will be able to make use of them as well as ourselves. In the same way, there is no use in urging that a substitute will be found for coal. No doubt there are men of high authority who think that such a substitute may probably be found, though the matter is one on which there appears to be great difference of opinion. But supposing that a substitute shall be found, it will not be peculiar to England. It would remove or lessen our relative disadvantage, it could not enable us to maintain our pre-eminence. I think it is clear that at whatever time—whether fifty or 100 or any other number of years hence—we may cease to be able to raise coal at a lower price than other countries, our relative position towards other nations must be seriously injured.
  Now, Sir, as respects the question of coal against coal, as measured by quantity,

  401
  there can be no doubt how the case stands. There is another country, not only as rich in mineral wealth as ourselves, but with a coal-surface thirty-seven times greater than the coal-surface of this country; I allude to the United States of America; and though a large portion of the coal there contains so great an amount of anthracite that it is not considered to be conveniently fitted for steam or for smelting purposes, to domestic purposes it is capable of being adapted. But besides the store of anthracite coal, the United States have a supply of bituminum coal, not indeed ascertained with any precision, but believed to be enormous. Suppose, then, that pre-eminence in the cheap production of coal should be carried from us away across the Atlantic, what will happen in that event? There will, probably, be a decline of rents, a decline of profits, a decline of wages. There will be precisely the reverse of that which we have all seen taking place within our time—an increase of rents, an increase of profits, an increase of wages. And when rents, profits, and wages decline, what will those interested in them do? Those who receive wages, finding that wages are lower here than across the Atlantic, will do in a still greater degree what they even now do somewhat extensively under the attraction of increased and more certain gains, will migrate; and the holders of movable property, finding that there is a wider and more profitable field for the employment of their capital elsewhere, will send their capital abroad. What will the owners of rents do? It appears pretty plain that they cannot migrate. Personally they may do so, but that from which they derive their income cannot migrate: it is rooted in the soil. The upshot will be that the charge of the National Debt, which is now borne in full on property, profits, and rents, and in a very liberal proportion by the two latter, will remain as a permanent mortgage in its full force, on the lands, houses, and works of the country. The property of the country will have to bear a greater share of public burdens due to the obligations contracted in former times. I wish I could convey to the House the impression which the consideration of this subject makes on my own mind; and trust I take no extravagant view of it. Statistics can only be used in this question by way of general and conjectural illustration. But all that I have said is more than supported by the results arrived at by able and skilful staticians who, under the au-
  402
  thority of the Government, have made inquiries into the matter. Their views must not be taken as demonstrated, but they deserve attention. Mr. Hull estimates the quantity of coal in the United Kingdom within 4,000 feet of the surface at 83,000,000,000 tons. He states that in 1854 the consumption was 64,000,000; in 1861 it was 86,000,000. Based on these numbers the computed annual rate of growth in the consumption is 3·7 per cent. Now, not taking it at so much as 3·7, but taking it 3·5 per cent, this would give the annual consumption in 1961 as 2,607,000,000 tons; and by 1970, 104 years from this time, the consumption will have reached 130,000,000,000 tons, or a greater quantity than all the coal now known to be available in Great Britain within 4,000 feet of the surface. I believe that long before we reach that consumption the causes will be found in operation from which an increase in price will follow. Mr. Jevons, whose statistics my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster has quoted, has gone very fully and carefully into the facts, and he holds a similar opinion in respect of our coal supply to that which I have just stated. Hon. Members remember the statement made two years ago by Sir William Armstrong. Sir John Herschel agreed with Mr. Jevons, as I believe does Dr. Percy also. I myself have had an opportunity of communicating with my distinguished friend Sir Roderick Murchison on the subject. He for years has believed the matter to be one of the very gravest order, and one demanding our most earnest consideration. I disbelieve and disapprove entirely of all attempts to limit by law the consumption of coal; in vain would it be to think of stopping the consumption of coal in this country; in vain would it be to think of diminishing that consumption by the imposition of a tax; and it would be more vain still to think of prohibiting its exportation. [An hon. MEMBER expressed dissent.] I am only giving my own opinion; I shall not enter into that matter now; I merely wish to remark that, even could we limit the consumption of coal, I think the matter may fairly be stated thus: there is a considerable likelihood that we cannot continue to supply coal in unlimited quantities at the present low prices for an unlimited time—or say, for one or two centuries. Now the certainty of an alteration in our position is not required to be shown. That it may

  403
  happen within reasonable bounds of expectation is enough. In the face of such a state of things in the future we ought to make preparations for it, and the way to do that is by using moderate and reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of our encumbrances. As those who are to come after us may have to encounter difficulties of which we have no practical knowledge, we ought not to hand down to them in their worst form difficulties which it is in our power to alleviate. The practical question to put is this. Should we not now, in the time of our wealth and prosperity, reduce our great mortgage debt? I will tell the House how I propose we should set about this task to the extent, and it is a very moderate extent, up to which it is rendered practicable by the means at our command during the present year.
  There are two modes—and, as far as I know, practically, only two—of operating permanently on this great mass of debt. First, you can do it by the application of surpluses from year to year, when there is a surplus upon the receipt over the expenditure. But though by the favour of Providence those surpluses have come to us more liberally of late than they had usually done, we cannot depend on them, either in respect of amount or of their existence in a particular year. Another mode of operating on the debt with a view to its reduction is by including in the estimate of expenditure and making provision by taxation for sums which are to be applied in liquidation of debt. This is a principle and method fully embodied in our present law. It takes effect by the conversion of Perpetual into Terminable Annuities. Now, nothing happens with me more frequently than to receive—sometimes from skilled and competent persons—recommendations to introduce a scheme of this kind founded on some very broad basis. But the difficulty of such a scheme is this—there are no purchasers of terminable annuities in the market. If we go into the City to sell Terminable Annuities in the open market, we must be prepared to part with them at a low price, or to say the same thing in different terms, we borrow on behalf of the public at a high rate of interest. Consequently, as a large waste is involved in that business, no Minister has ever recommended it as a means of reducing debt in time of peace. But we have resources which open for us a new field; resources which we ob-
  404
  tain through the medium of the funds we hold in deposit. These it is in our power to deal with and turn over as we please. We at present hold near £45,000,000 in all the different kinds of deposits, and this amount may most probably be increased in future years. A sum of £10,000,000 of these deposits has already been dealt with in the manner I now have in view—namely, by conversion into Terminable Annuities. There is a further sum of £24,000,000 which stands in what is called the State Deposit Account as due to the trustees of the old savings banks. Now, what the trustees of the savings banks have to expect from us is payment of every farthing we receive, with interest on it. They have nothing to do with the £24,000,000 as far as any mode of investment is concerned. If we lost every farthing of it, we should have to pay them, nevertheless; and if we make a good investment of it, that would be our affair, not theirs. With respect to all these deposits, we are bankers, and bankers only.
  In point of fact, the state of the account is this. The assets of the National Debt Commissioners, who hold this money, are not equal in value to the amount of their obligations to the trustees. They fall short of it to the extent of a sum varying with the price of securities in the market, but one which may be roughly taken at about £3,000,000. Now, by converting the £24,000,000 into cash in the form of a Terminable Annuity, we shall pay up the £3,000,000 that is wanting, and completely square our account with the savings banks' trustees. If we do so, that amount will no longer be a part of the national obligations. This payment will of course be in reality, though not in form, the liquidation of so much of Public Debt.
  I will now, Sir, proceed to state, though it must be done succinctly, the nature of the measure which, as part of the financial arrangements of the year, we recommend to Parliament. We propose a double operation, which I think I shall be able to make intelligible to the House. I will call the two operations A and B, for the purpose of more clearly distinguishing them. Operation A will be this. We take the £24,000,000 that now stand on the State deposit account, and which now cost us £720,000 a year. This sum of £720,000 is already provided for in

  405
  the estimate of revenue and expenditure which I have submitted. We convert the £24,000,000 into annuities of 1885; and we thus increase the charge from £720,000 to £1,725,000; that is to say, we add in round numbers £1,005,000 to the present standing annual charge. That is the first operation. And I will now state the immediate financial effect, assuming it to be adopted by the House. In 1866–7, if the plan be adopted, we should pay one half-year's dividend upon the capital of £24,000,000; that is, £360,000; and two quarterly dividends on the annuities, or £862,000, making a total charge of £1,222,000 in lieu of the present interest of £720,000; thus imposing upon the year 1866–7 an additional burden of £502,000. But this would not represent the full effect of the change. In 1867–8 we should impose an additional burden, because while there would be no interest on stock paid for all the four quarters there would have to be paid the dividends upon the Terminable Annuity in that and in the following years. But it must be borne in mind that in 1867–8 expires what is called the dead weight annuities, amounting to £586,000 a year, and one-half of the relief from its cessation, or £293,000, would immediately become available, so that, in fact, the additional charge upon the year 1867–8 would be insignificant in amount. It may be stated in round numbers at about £200,000. The total charge undertaken by this change will, therefore, be £1,005,000; and in 1866–7 we shall have to bear £502,000 of it, in 1867–8 somewhat more than £700,000. In all the subsequent years, from the £1,000,000 £586,000 of relief will be deducted, leaving a net augmentation of charge of £419,000. If we are to operate in this way at all, that is not an immoderate burden. But I have still to state the nature of the second operation, which I have called operation B. Gentlemen will perhaps have the goodness to bear in mind, for it is a vital consideration in its bearing upon any plan of this nature, that we must look strictly to the effect of the plan upon the savings banks funds, and to their commercial use on good banking principles, as well as to the objects we may contemplate with respect to the National Debt. The fund available to meet the claims of savings banks would, as we have seen, be placed in receipt of £1,725,000 a year, and the question arises is this or is
  406
  it not a thing desirable for the due discharge of the banking functions of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt? The demands of the trustees have recently been very large, and, if it should happen that the price of money should continue as high as it is now, I have no doubt that these demands will continue large, and that a very considerable portion of the additional £1,005,000 which will go annually to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners, will be absorbed in meeting the demands of the trustees. But the demands of the trustees have not hitherto reached that amount. I do not mean when I say that they have not hitherto reached that amount to deny that they have done so under the influence of an extraordinary panic, but normally their demands are not so great as to absorb the sum now proposed to be provided. It is probable that a portion may be required, and that the remainder may be left free for reinvestment, and the second part of the operation I propose is this. With respect to the dividends of the annuity now to be created, so much of these dividends as is not required to meet the demands of the savings banks shall be reinvested from year to year. This is the course uniformly taken with respect to all receipts in deposits which go beyond the balance we require to keep in hand. The modes of investment are specified by the existing provisions of the law. What I now ask is, power to reconvert any of the public stocks which may thus be purchased into another description of Terminable Annuity. The extent of that portion so to be reinvested and the amount of burden to be entailed by it, will differ very much according to the assumption we may make concerning the demands of the savings banks. This is, of necessity, quite uncertain. For the sake of argument, I will assume that it may amount to one-half, and will state the financial result, but I do so upon the supposition that you adopt the two operations, first the conversion of the £24,000,000, and secondly the reinvestment and reconversion of spare dividends, and on the assumption, of course, that you will have that £500,000 to spare. Upon these suppositions, and likewise if the whole sum available shall be employed in purchasing stock, the annual charge, which begins at £419,000, would gradually mount, until it reaches in 1885 the sum of £1,444,000, and the amount of public

  407
  debt cancelled by that time would be about £37,000,000. I do not say that that will be the precise effect, but it is more convenient, with regard to these large amounts, to use round numbers, which will express the general effect with sufficient accuracy, and which are more easily understood. I may add, for the information of those who desire to be informed upon the point, that the calculation is based on the assumption that the Stock will, on an average, be purchased at 88.
  By a measure such as this, Sir, we should, I think, as far as the measure goes, be acting prudently, wisely, and seriously in our treatment of the National Debt, and the obligation which is imposed upon us for its reduction. I am far from saying that this is the only measure which we can employ for reducing the National Debt; but the reduction is as great as we should be justified in making at the present moment under the present circumstances. While completely fulfilling our obligations towards the trustees of the savings banks, we shall be making provisions which will tend to prevent any risk of our having to come into the market as sellers of funds. And we shall in this way pursue a course which tends powerfully to fortify and sustain the public credit. Independently, too, of large surpluses in our revenue, we shall most probably be able to come into the market year by year as buyers of stock. I commend the plan alike on the ground of its advantage in sustaining public credit, its efficacy for supporting our banking operations, and its quiet and gradual, but not unimportant action on the capital of the Public Debt.
  I have nothing left me now, Sir, but to give the sum of those operations which I have already stated in detail. The amount of the surplus is £1,350,000. The remissions proposed are as follows—on wood, £307,000; on wine, £58,000; on pepper, £112,000; and on stage carriages and post horses, £85,000; reaching a total of £562,000. To this has to be added £502,000 which we propose to apply to the conversation of debt, swelling the total of the monies prospectively disposed of to £1,064,000 and reducing the surplus to £286,000. The additional burden imposed by these changes in the year 1867–8 will amount to less than £250,000; and about this I feel no scruple of conscience whatever, because there has been no recent year in which, however bad the harvest, or however
  408
  unfavourable the circumstances, the natural growth of the revenue has not amounted to a considerably larger sum.
  As regards the course of business, Sir, I would propose to proceed as follows—to take the Resolutions concerning the changes in the duties, if, as I rather sanguinely anticipate, they do not excite objection, on Monday next. I purpose also to take the preliminary Resolution relating to the Debt conversion on Monday next, on the assumption that it so far meets with the general approval of the House, as not to tend to a long discussion at that preliminary stage. If there is a desire for discussion on the preliminary Resolution, I should not think of going on with it on Monday. And now, Sir, I have to apologize to the House for the length of time during which I have occupied its attention. It did appear to us that the time had arrived when it had become obviously proper that a consideration of the general state of our pecuniary obligations as a state might be naturally and properly associated with the financial arrangements of the year. I hope that I have not been unwittingly led to prophesy, or to do anything more than to give such sketches of the future as will appear probable and present a fair and reasonable claim upon the attention of prudent men. Regarding the statements I have made I would not say more than this:—The facts which I have laid before the House are grave and, indeed, within certain limits urgent facts. Although, undoubtedly the ordinary duty and purpose of these occasions is to announce the financial proposals of the year, it did seem right to us, actuated as we believed by grave and reasonable causes, that from time to time we should cast our glances forward into futurity and endeavour in some degree to meet and provide for its demands and its interests, instead of absolutely restraining ourselves to the arrangements exacted by the necessities of the hour. We pursue this course, Sir, in the hope that when we who occupy this Bench, we, all or most of us, who now form the British Parliament, shall have ceased to ply our arduous task, those who come after us may have reason to confess that in the provisions made for our own time and need, we have taken some thought for them, and that our conduct has not been such as to draw forth from them either regret or condemnation.

  409
  Sir, I now place in your hands the first of the Resolutions which we shall submit to the House in order to give effect to the financial measures of the year.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods hereinafter mentioned, upon their importation into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine: viz.
  Wood and Timber, Foreign and Colonial, as denominated in the Tariff;
  and that power be granted to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to remit the Duty on all such Wood and Timber as shall hare been landed, under Bond for security of Duty, on and after the 26th day of March 1866.
  [In order to present a complete view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Financial Plan, the Resolutions which he had given notice to move in Committee of Ways and Means are here added as they stood on the Notice Paper.]
  Abolishing the Duty of Customs on Wood and Timber.
  1.That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods hereinafter mentioned, upon their importation into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine: viz.
  Wood and Timber, Foreign and Colonial, as denominated in the Tariff;
  and that power be granted to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to remit the Duty on all such Wood and Timber as shall have been landed, under Bond for security of Duty, on and after the 26th day of March 1866.
  [This was proposed on Thursday 3rd May, and Progress reported thereon.]
  Abolishing the Drawback on Wood and Timber.
  2.That the Drawback of Customs Duties now paid and allowed on the exportation of Foreign or Colonial Wood and Timber from Great Britain and Ireland shall cease to be paid and allowed on Wood and Timber exported on and after the ninth day of May 1866.
  Abolishing the Duty of Customs on Ships built of Wood.
  3. That the Duty of Customs chargeable upon the goods hereinafter mentioned shall cease and determine: viz.
  Ships, with their Tackle, Apparel, and Furniture: viz.
  Foreign, built of Wood, and Ships built of Wood in any of Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad, on the Registration thereof as British Ships at any Port or place for the Registry of British Ships in Great Britain and Ireland, for every ton of the gross registered Tonnage, without any deduction in respect of Engine Room or otherwise.
  Altering the Duty of Customs on Wine Imported in Bottles.
  4 That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on Wine, the following Duties of Customs shall be charged thereon, on Importation into Great Britain and Ireland: viz.

  Containing less than the following Rates of Proof Spirit, verified by Sykes' Hydrometer, viz.

  26 Degrees.

  42 Degrees.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Red Wine the gal.

  1

  0

  2

  6

  White Wine the gal.

  1

  0

  2

  6

  Lees of such Wine the gal.

  1

  0

  2

  6

  and for every degree of strength beyond the highest above specified, an additional Duty of 3d. per gallon.
  Ten per Cent, of Proof Spirit may be used in the fortifying of any Wine in Bond, provided that the Wine so fortified be not raised to a greater degree of strength than 40 per Cent, of such Proof Spirit, if for Home Consumption.
  Abolishing the Duty of Customs on Pepper.
  5. That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods hereinafter mentioned, upon their importation into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine: viz.
  Pepper, of all sorts.
  Continuing the Duty of Customs on Tea for another year from 1st August 1866.
  6. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duty of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the 1st day of August 1866 until the 1st day of August 1867 on the importation thereof into Great Britain and Ireland: viz.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tea the lb.

  0

  0

  6

  Mileage Duty on Stage Carriages.
  7. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid on and after the 2nd day of July 1866, the following reduced Duty on Stage Carriages in Great Britain in lieu of the Mileage Duty now payable thereon (that is to say).
  For and in respect of every Mile which any Stage Carriage shall be licensed to travel, the Excise Duty of One Farthing.
  Duty on Horses let for Hire.
  8. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be granted and paid, on and after the 6th day of July 1666, the following reduced Duties on Licences to be taken out yearly by persons who shall let any Horse or Horses for hire in Great Britain as hereinafter mentioned:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Where the person taking out such Licence shall keep at one and the same time to let for hire one Horse or one Carriage only.

  5

  0

  0

  And where such person shall keep as aforesaid any greater number of Horses or Carriages—

  Not exceeding three Horses or two Carriages

  10

  0

  0

  Not exceeding four Horses or three Carriages

  15

  0

  0

  Not exceeding five Horses or four Carriages

  20

  0

  0

  Not exceeding six Horses or five Carriages

  25

  0

  0

  Income Tax.
  9. That, towards raising the C apply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April 1866, for and in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act passed in the 16th and 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices, the following Rates and Duties (that is to say):
  For every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of all such Property, Profits, and Gains (except those chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the Rate or Duty of Four pence.
  And for and in respect of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act, for every Twenty shillings of the annual value thereof,
  In England, the Rate or Duty of Two pence, and
  In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Rate or Duty of One penny halfpenny.
  Subject to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act 26th Victoria, chapter 22, for the exemption of persons whose Income from every source is under One Hundred pounds a year, and relief to those whose Income is under Two Hundred pounds a year.
  In answer to Sir JOHN PAKINGTON,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he should propose to proceed with these Resolutions on Monday, unless there should be a desire for extended discussion, in which case he would postpone them. The first thing on Monday would be to consider the Re-distribution of Seats Bill and the Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEwished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to do anything with the tax on dogs?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not propose to apportion any of the surplus to this purpose. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) would, however, take the matter in hand, and he would, he hoped, be able to mature a measure which would satisfy the very reasonable wishes entertained on this subject.
  MR. WARNERtrusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the existing duty upon omnibuses. Less than £30,000 would enable him to take off the duty altogether. This tax was nothing more than a protective duty in
  412
  favour of railways. Every one knew the extreme difficulty of getting conveyances from country railway stations, and nothing would more conduce to the advantage of railways themselves than that the vehicles which were their feeders should be untaxed.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSwished to know when the Return for which he had moved upon Terminable Annuities would be presented.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Return was ready, and he would make inquiry why it had not been presented.
  MR. WATKINbelieved that the railway interest would not regard it as the smallest grievance if the Chancellor of the Exchequer took off the remaining farthing of duty from omnibuses. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the enormous charge for collecting the revenue, which was above £5,000,000 sterling, or very nearly 7½ per cent, on the whole amount levied on the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had abolished several important Customs duties, and they had a right to expect that the staff employed in the collection of these duties would be proportionately reduced. He had hoped

  413
  to hear of a reduction of £500,000 or £1,000,000 in the charge of collection. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed disposed to put an end to impediments to locomotion, might he appeal to him in regard to international travelling between this country and the Continent, so that passengers between France and England might not be subject to the delay and inquisitorial examination of their baggage. A lady's luggage was now pulled about to discover whether she carried tea, tobacco, or spirits—the only three articles in which the Customs officers feared that smuggling would be much practised. The journey between Paris and London had been reduced to ten or ten hours and a half; but the moment the traveller arrived in London, his baggage was taken to be examined, and he lost one hour or 10 per cent of the whole time taken up in the journey. Some modification of the present system was more than ever important, now that we were approaching the time when the great French Exhibition would be opened, and he hoped that this period would be chosen for removing that relic of barbarism that still attached to the system of travelling between this country and the Continent, especially as the amount of revenue which would be lost by passengers smuggling could not possibly equal the amount of the salaries of the officers.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the immense amount of damage inflicted by untaxed dogs upon the agricultural communities. He wished to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the operation he had performed some years ago upon the shooting licences? He reduced the duty upon those licences in the hope that they would increase so much in number that the country would not loss by the reduction. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the change, or did he contemplate any alteration?
  MR. WYLDsaid, that in some districts of the country a large portion of the labouring population made use of vans which were not allowed to travel more than four miles an hour. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a great service to the lower classes if he would entirely abolish the duties on these vehicles.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he desired to be informed whether there was any idea that the amount of deposits in the Post Office savings banks and the general savings banks would be a diminishing amount?
  414
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to him to contemplate the possibility of a portion of those deposits being withdrawn, Another question had reference to the income tax. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked with perfect truth that Terminable Annuities were now quite unsaleable in the market; but he did not remark that the only reason was because the whole capital involved in the purchase of a terminable annuity was by the law of Income Tax subjected to confiscation. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing a very large operation, he wished to ask him, whether he intended to leave the Income Tax as it was, or to introduce any Reform in the incidence of the tax, or the process of its collection? On these two points would greatly depend the success of his operations. With regard to the Income Tax, he thought that the moment the Government made up their minds that the Income Tax should be a permanent tax, they ought to consider the mode in which it operated. There could be no doubt that it operated now in a way to cause much unnecessary inconvenience to the public and disadvantage to the State. The whole process pursued since 1842 had been of a rough, clumsy, and unartificial character, and unbecoming the continuance of a permanent tax. He wished also to remark that as the Re-distribution of Seats Bill was fixed for Monday, he saw no possibility of discussing both that and the question of Terminable Annuities on the same evening.
  MR. SAMUDAthought that the proposed operation might be carried to a much greater extent if the duration of the Terminable Annuities was lengthened. It appeared to him (Mr. Samuda) that if the right hon. Gentleman were to substitute for the Permanent Annuities existing at that amount bearing an interest of 3½ per cent Terminable Annuities for 100 years, bearing an interest of 3¾ per cent, that £8,000,000 or £8,500,000 of such Annuities would wipe away at the end of that time £100,000,000 of the National Debt. And so on in proportion.
  LORD STANLEY: I confess I do not quite understand how the right hon. Gentleman calculated the capitalized value of the Public Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that debt at £779,000,000 and some odd thousands. It is made up of three different items—namely, the Terminable Annuities, the

  415
  unfunded debt, and the funded debt. With regard to the Terminable Annuities, as I understand it, the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman is an exceedingly valuable one. With reference to the unfunded debt, the difference between the real and nominal value is imperceptible; but the difference between the real and nominable value of the Public Debt is very great. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer adds the real value of the Terminable Annuities and the real value of the funded debt to the nominal value of the Public Debt, I do not see how it gives us a good basis of calculation as to the amount of that debt. When he endeavours to tell us the real amount of the national obligations at the present time, it appears to me he ought to take the present value of the stock in the market as the basis of his valuation.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that having pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of abolishing the mileage duty, he must express his satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman now proposed a reduction of that impost. While the right hon. Gentleman still retained the last farthing of the duty, it appeared that he reserved to himself the right of re-considering the subject on a future occasion, with a view to a final adjustment. With regard to Terminable Annuities, he thought the hon Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hubbard) had fallen under some misapprehension when he spoke of them as unsaleable. If they had lately been so, the reason was that they had had so few years to run that nobody could deal with them for practical purposes. When Terminable Annuities had a long period to run they had just as good a sale as Consols, and were much sought after by a large class of investors who wished to have a better income than the Funds would yield, and were yet prepared to incur the risk of their income lapsing at a definite time. If granted for a sufficiently lengthened period to meet the requirements of a large part of the community, Terminable Annuities would not only be perfectly saleable but would be much desired. Their predecessors had acted not unwisely in fixing upon sixty years as the proper time for these Annuities; and if it was now seriously intended to reduce the National Debt, it was a question whether a considerable portion of Consols might not be converted into Terminable Annuities of fifty or sixty years' duration. He understood the Chan-
  416
  cellor of the Exchequer to propose to pay off £24,000,000 of debt due to the savings banks by converting it into Terminable Annuities, and to state that by that process they could pay off £40,000,000. Now, if they converted £24,000,000, it followed that at the end of the period for which the Annuities ran they would only have paid off £24,000,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how they were likely to be able to discharge more of the debt than the sum to which the Terminable Annuities would be equivalent.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYexpressed his great satisfaction at having heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer express his approval of the principle of taxing the manufactured article in preference to the raw material as shown by his proposition with regard to the timber duties. It was his (Sir FitzRoy Kelly's) intention upon a future evening to submit a question relating to this subject to the House, and he now asked his right hon. Friend to appoint a time that would be most convenient for such a discussion. Perhaps it would be more appropriate when the question of the malt duties would be under the consideration of the House. He should submit a Motion to the effect that it was expedient—if not at the present moment, at some other period more convenient—to substitute a duty upon beer instead of the duty upon malt.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTthought that if the hon. and learned Member who spoke last would move for a Committee to inquire into the pressure and operation of the malt tax, it would be of great advantage to the country. They would then see how that tax affected the working man, and also how it affected the agricultural interest. [Mr. AYRTON: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets understood most questions, but when he spoke the other night of meal versus malt it was clear he did not understand agricultural questions. If a Committee on the malt tax were moved for, it was to be hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant it. His own impression was that if that tax must be retained, it would be better to place it upon beer rather than upon malt; but the information which the labours of a Select Committee would afford would enable them to judge more correctly upon that point. There was another impost which it was surprising the right hon. Gentleman had never mentioned in any of his Budgets—

  417
  namely, the land tax, which pressed most unequally upon different districts of the country. Local circumstances had greatly changed since the land tax was first settled—in some districts it was 10 and 15 per emit greater than in others—and a fairer adjustment of the burden was now required in the various parts of the king dom.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that whilst reserving for another occasion the expression of his dissent from much which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would avail himself of this opportunity of declaring his approval of the abolition of the duty on pepper. The more so as, according to the last Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, "no article of sale subject to revenue duties is more sophisticated than pepper." The proposed lowering of the mileage duty on stage carriages from 1d. to one farthing per mile and the reduction of the annual license for keeping one horse and one carriage for hire from £7 10 s. to £5, with the other suggested alterations to rectify the inequality of this tax were praiseworthy, and encouraged him to put in a plea for a numerous and deserving class in the town he had the honour to represent—namely, the flymen, who complained, and justly complained, of the irksomeness and hardship of being compelled to pay, in addition to a very onerous annual license duty, the occasional carriage license tax of 3s. per day for plying for hire when reviews, races, or other public celebrations occur. It was notorious that the flyman's calling was the reverse of remunerative, and the maintenance of this "occasional license tax" was alone justifiable by the mileage duty exacted from the owners of stage carriages. As three-fourths of that duty were now to be taken off, he (Mr. White) trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deem it not only expedient but just to abolish this occasional license tax, seeing that a fly owner of but one horse and one carriage would still have to pay the very heavy license duty of £5 per annum for the privilege of plying for hire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that he had taken the course which was invariably done in estimating the amount of the National Debt, by taking the current value of the funded debt. There were two considerations which it was required should
  418
  be kept in view in order to arrive at any comparison, and one of them was, that if the Government bought in the market prices would rise. The greater portion of the present fund had been purchased at high prices from 1840 up to and during the Crimean War; but since then the prices had been more moderate. The condition upon which the public creditor lent his money was this:—In the case of the Three per Cent Stock the Government covenanted to pay him a perpetual annuity at the rate of 3 per cent, or else £100 for every hundred of the stock. He was much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) for the observations he had made with reference to the mileage duty and the retention of the licences. He did not look upon them as desirable as permanent sources of revenue; but the fact was he never had money enough to deal with the whole subject. He thought the tax a bad one, and he should be glad one day that they should be able to repeal it. The observations of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), and also those of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), relative to taxes on locomotives, showed the manner in which these different kinds of trades touched each other. The hon. Member for Brighton wished to abolish occasional licences, because he said a cabman was unable to compete with a stage carriage proprietor in consequence. It would be impossible to abolish the occasional licences, whilst the present system continued, for if they did every man would interpret the daily use of his carriage as its occasional use, and thereby evade the duty. He should not be able to deal with the whole question of taxation on locomotives until after the Government had received the Report of the Commission on Railways. With regard to the collection of the revenue, he would remind the Committee that it was a question hardly germane to the discussion of the Budget; but he had no doubt that the Secretary to the Treasury would be happy to give every attention to the subject. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government was desirous of reducing these charges to a minimum. There was no doubt that the charge of collection was very large, but to understand the nature of the change the Post Office must be divided from the Customs and the Inland Revenue. The two latter were economically collected, and from his experience in

  419
  that House he would advise hon. Members not to inquire too much into it, as it generally tended to increase rather than diminish the cost of collection. It was a perfect fallacy to compare the expense of the collection of the revenue properly so called of the Inland and Customs revenue with the Post Office. The latter was a great trading establishment, and as its revenue or business extended so must it extend its expenditure in proportion. He was unable to give the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Colonel Barttelot) an answer about the game licences. His impression was that they were working satisfactorily; but as he had not looked into the matter lately, if the hon. Member would favour him with the particulars upon which he required information it should be furnished to him. The land tax was the most difficult of all taxes to deal with. Those who had redeemed the tax might consider they had a claim on the Government for the repayment of a large portion of it; and even if they were to abolish the tax altogether he was afraid some other would have to be imposed in lieu of it. He would advise the hon. Gentleman not to raise the question, as he did not think the land had made a bad bargain with reference to it. He would be much surprised if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) encouraged the hon. Gentleman to interfere with the land tax, because if they made a clean sweep of it he could for see that when they wanted money there would be a proposal to lay a new tax on land, which might probably be a much more burdensome one than the present tax. It was an inheritable burden, and people had taken their land subject to it. With respect to malt, the Government would meet any proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) might make it in the same spirit as on former occasions. It would be for the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise the question in the manner he thought best; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would suggest that it would be preferable to deal with it in the form of some general expression of the House, rather than on any stage of the measure to be proposed with reference to the Budget. He had now, he believed, replied to the questions which had been raised, but he wished to correct an error, and apologize for an omission he had made in his main statement. He had been reminded that he did
  420
  not state correctly the amount of National Debt that would be cancelled in consequence of the operations which he had described. A more correct statement would be this. There would be two operations. Operation A was the conversion of a debt of £24,000,000 into an annuity expiring in 1885, or eighteen years and a half from the commencement of the annuity. Operation B was an arrangement under which it was proposed to take power to invest what he should call the spare dividends from operation A in the Terminable Annuities. But the omission which he made was this—he did not state that these annuities would last to 1905. He did not think it would be desirable to remove the matter from the view of Parliament for so long a period, nor indeed could that be done, and consequently he only proposed to take a power of making the investments up to 1885. Therefore at that period at least—though it might be much sooner—the whole question must come before Parliament, which then could review its position. The mistake he made was this—he assumed that half of the extra dividends over and above an amount specified would be capable of re-investment—that was a mere assumption, as he told the Committee—and his misstatement was, that the investment of half would extinguish the whole. The whole debt extinguished would be £39,000,000, and there would be another annuity to run for twenty years, beginning in 1885.
  MR. HUBBARDasked, whether the income tax was to be reproduced precisely as it was in point of incidence and of action?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes; for this year.
  MR. HENLEYconcurred in the opinion that it would be better not to discuss the financial condition of the country until they had the matter more in detail before them; but he must say he thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the future was somewhat alarming. If—he would not say the prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman, for he based them on calculation—but his speculations were realized, things should go very differently from what they had gone for the last twenty years. We were now, as it were, only "picking ourselves up," and it would be necessary to do great things if what the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated should be done. But the impression left upon his mind was

  421
  that it was better to have something than nothing.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS BILL— [BILL 3.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved that the clause regulating the salary and superannuation of the Auditor be omitted, this being the course it was necessary for him to pursue in order to secure its being amended. Should his Motion meet with the concurrence of the House, the Government would be able to bring up an amended clause on the third reading of the Bill. He objected to the clause, because by it the officer would be compelled to serve fifteen years before he would be entitled to superannuation allowance. Even should he through illness or any other reason become incapacitated for his office, after having held it for fourteen and a half years, he would not be able to get one shilling as compensation. The Auditor of the Exchequer held office during good behaviour—that was, till removed by the action of both Houses of Parliament, and he ought to be placed on a similar footing to that of Her Majesty's Judges. He did not believe his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to produce a single instance of an officer holding office during good behaviour being subject to such a clause as the one in question. By it an inducement was offered to the officer to continue in office when unfit to discharge its duties, and this, he contended, ought to be avoided.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 4.—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Baronet was not present when the House fully discussed the provisions of the Bill, and when all the points were held to be satisfactorily disposed of. It was perfectly true that the superannuation clause in question was not exactly the same as other superannuation clauses; but the Auditor did not hold the same position as other officers, seeing that he was subject to certain regulations in the matter of superannuation allowance, which provided for him
  422
  in a measure the House on a previous occasion deemed sufficient. He, therefore, thought it would be inexpedient to increase the superannuation allowance beyond the sum named in the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERdid not think the Secretary to the Treasury had met the argument of the hon. Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). Under the present clause there would be considerable difficulty in getting rid of an officer who had become incapacitated for his duties by no fault of his own. Parliament would hesitate to commit the cruelty that would be involved in exercising its power to remove from office a man who had served nearly fifteen years merely because sudden infirmity rendered him unable to discharge his duties. In the case of a man of small means such a removal would be sure to be followed by an appeal to the Government to do something for the man so removed. He hoped the Government would reconsider the case under discussion.
  MR. CRAWFORDappealed to the hon. Secretary to the Treasury to judge the case by his own, seeing that he would be entitled to a pension for five years' services, whether rendered consecutively or at interrupted periods.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, they ought to consider how far an officer appointed under this Act differed from other officers. A Judge had to go through a laborious and an expensive training; he had to practise as a lawyer, and he was not appointed a Judge until he had attained a high position and was in receipt of a large income from his exertions. He gave up that income to receive a smaller one from the State; knowing that, if he were to resign the latter, he could never re-acquire his former practice. Under these circumstances, it was but fair that he should receive a superannuation allowance. A man also required a considerable training to superintend the financial operations of the country as Secretary of the Treasury; his duties were of a most onerous and burdensome description. In his case a pension was therefore justified. If a member of the Civil Service got appointed under this Act, he could claim a superannuation allowance under the Civil Service Act. The present Controller General was a Member of Parliament; but he had not to serve a Parliamentary apprenticeship in the auditing of accounts. He simply preferred his appointment to being in Parliament; he therefore had no claim to superannuation;

  423
  and when he could no longer discharge the duties of the office, he would, doubtless, resign it. He would be in the position of an Under Secretary of the Home Department, who went out of office with his Government; and if the one could not claim a superannuation allowance, he did not see why the other should. He was inclined to keep the clause as it stood, and to resist the Amendment proposed.
  Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed, to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  CROWN LANDS BILL— [BILL 98.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that before the Question was put, he was anxious to call the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury to the provision in this Bill by which it appeared that the estate of Claremont was to be granted to Her Majesty. He thought that if the attention of the House had been directed to this provision at an earlier period it would have seen considerable reasons for not proceding with the Bill unless the Government had consented to withdraw the clause; because it appeared to him that in this respect the Bill was a violation of some very important constitutional provisions which had been made by Parliament for preventing, he would not say extravagance, but, at all events, abuses from creeping into the administration of certain public affairs. A long time ago the House had to take into consideration the manner in which certain revenues which were placed at the disposal of the Sovereign had been administered. In the middle of the reign of King George III. Mr. Burke brought under the consideration of Parliament the subject of the Administration of the Civil List with a view to greater economy than had previously prevailed, and one of the enactments which he proposed, and which was ultimately adopted, was that the Crown should never grant any sum exceeding £1,200 a year except upon a Message
  424
  which should be sent to the Parliament expressing the object and purposes of the grant. Well, that statute (22 Geo. III. c. 82) had since been regarded as the regulating Act with reference to the Civil List, and ever since the passing of that Act it had been the practice of the Sovereign, when the Crown desired to grant a pension to any one of more than £1,200, to send a Message to the House, and the House proceeded only upon the Message. He might add, however, that notwithstanding this provision a number of charges and pensions of one kind or another, but of smaller amount, were granted to persons who were supposed not to be deserving objects, and at the beginning of the reign of William IV. a Motion was made for investigating the matter. This had the effect of putting an end to the Government of the Duke of Wellington, and bringing the Liberal Party into power. At that time it was recorded as a great party principle that the Sovereign should not be importuned by undeserving persons for grants of public money. When the Liberal Party got into power they did not pay very much attention to the professions they had made of economy in this respect; and at length the subject was solemnly brought under the notice of the House, and on the 18th February, 1834, this Re-solution was arrived at—
  "That it is the bounden duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to recommend to His Majesty for grants of Pensions on the Civil List such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country."—[3 Hansard, xxi. 498.]
  Well, on the accession of Her Majesty this Resolution was brought under the notice of the House, and it was thought so important to maintain its spirit and principle that it was embodied in the Act regulating the Civil List of Her Majesty; and in consequence, provision was made that Her Majesty should have the right of granting pensions to an amount not exceeding in the whole £1,200 in every year in that spirit:—so that, though there would be a considerable accumulation of the pension list, the country would still have the satisfaction of knowing that these pensions were granted to persons who had rendered some service to the country. For all pensions, therefore, above £1,200 a year Her

  425
  Majesty was bound to send a Message to the House; but Her Majesty was empowered to make smaller grants within certain limits for the objects mentioned in the Resolution to which he had referred. Now, without regard to any of these precautions, Her Majesty's Government had proposed to place at the disposal of Her Majesty property estimated to be worth £1,200 a year, and no communication had been made to the House as to the person to whom the property in question was to be granted. That seemed to him to be a great violation of the Act regulating the Civil List passed on Her Majesty's accession; and under the circumstances, he thought it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw this clause from the Bill, unless they were prepared to advise Her Majesty to send to the House a Message stating for what purpose this money was to be applied. He wished, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury, Whether he was prepared to give any explanation, and to inform the House whether this property was to be granted to the Queen for Her personal use and enjoyment, or for the purpose of being handed over to some one else?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was afraid he could not give any better explanation than had been given the other evening by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the Bill. That was regarded by a full House as a satisfactory explanation. The clause was absolutely necessary. The object of it was to give her Majesty a residence in addition to those which she at present possessed. His right hon. Friend had entered so fully into the question that he did not believe it would be proper in him (Mr. Childers) to add to or to take from that explanation.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Power to lease Sporting on Crown Lands in Two Forests).
  MR. BEACHinquired what arrangement would be made with regard to the sporting in the New Forest, power to lease which he observed was taken in the Bill. It had always been customary to treat with some consideration the claims of adjacent proprietors, and he thought that something like a priority on their part ought to be recognized. It might be a great hardship
  426
  if the sporting were let to persons who were not on good terms with the owners of the surrounding property.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there would be an obvious inconvenience in giving a pledge that those gentlemen should have secured to them an absolute priority; but the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with whom the matter would rest, were never in the habit of dealing harshly with residents in the neighbourhood of the property under their management.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Meaning of "Foreshore").
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his learned Friend the Lord Advocate having brought to his knowledge the fact that some apprehensions with regard to foreshores had been excited by the language of this clause, which was in reality an interpretation clause, to obviate any possible misunderstanding he proposed to omit it, and to introduce corresponding alterations into Clause 7.
  Clause 6 negatived.
  Clause 7 (Transfer of Management of Foreshore to Board of Trade).
  In answer to Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, any question which might be in dispute as to the title to the Crown lands, or indeed any land, would have to be decided in the ordinary Courts of Law; they only took care in this Bill that they transferred from one Governmental Department to another for the public interest such rights and interests as the Crown actually possessed. Any dispute as to what those rights might be would have to be settled in another way. The rights of others would not be taken away or at all prejudicially affected by anything contained in this Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 26.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had ascertained from the Secretary to the Treasury that he had not been present at both of the explanations given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject. Under such circumstances, it would be unfair to press the hon. Gentleman for an answer in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; otherwise, it had been his intention to move, by way of Amendment, a proviso at the end of the clause that Her Majesty should not be entitled to grant the use of

  427
  the estate to any person except under the provisions of the Act passed at her accession. He should, however, postpone moving the Amendment he proposed until after the Bill had been reported to the House, when he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be present. It was impossible, after so solemn a settlement had been entered into as was contained in the Act passed at the time of Her Majesty's accession, that the House would permit it to be passed over by a side-wind.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Motion to report the Bill with the Amendments,
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEwished to say that although this Bill had passed off very quietly a very great improvement would be effected by it. For years a violent controversy had been going on between certain persons and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The latter had always considered themselves as trustees of the Crown, and had always acted with the view of making money out of the foreshores, instead of putting them to the best use for the public advantage. The result had been that a vast amount of soreness and ill will had been created by this method of administering the Crown lands, and many persons had had just cause of complaint. He apprehended that the transfer of the administration of the foreshores to the Board of Trade would be not for the pecuniary advantage of the Crown but for the public advantage. The public were greatly indebted to Her Majesty's Government for taking the matter up.
  MR. CHILDERSwas bound to explain, in justice to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, that since the passing of the Act of 1851 they had had no option but to treat the property as a source of revenue. He believed that these gentlemen had discharged their duties faithfully.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CONVICTS PROPERTY BILL.— [BILL 105.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir George Grey.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the House go into Committee upon the Bill, said, that a Bill had been introduced in a previous Session for the
  428
  purpose of abolishing the existing laws under which the property of persons convicted of felony was forfeited. There were many reasons against simply abolishing those laws; but as the time had arrived when some alteration of the law was required, Government undertook to deal with the subject upon principles which appeared to them to be wise and proper. Accordingly, last year a Bill was introduced with that view; but as it imposed duties upon the Treasury which were inconsistent with its other duties, it was withdrawn, in order to give the Government an opportunity to recast their scheme, and the result was the introduction of the present Bill. The first object of the Bill was to abolish the old law of attainder or corruption of blood, and of forfeiture and escheat with respect to persons convicted of treason or felony: at the same time it declared vacant any military, naval, civil or ecclesiastical office or benefice any such person might hold at the time of his conviction, and determining any pension in which he might be in receipt, and incapacitated the convict thenceforth (except in the case of Her Majesty's free pardon) from holding any such office, or benefice, or pension; and from sitting and voting in Parliament, or exercising any right of suffrage or political franchise. The Bill then proceeded to direct that persons convicted of treason or felony might be condemned in costs. The rest of the Bill dealt with the management of the property of convicts. As the property of such persons would no longer be subject to forfeiture, the Bill made provision for its management and administration. In the first place, the operation of the Bill in this respect was restricted to the period of the sentence, or to the determination of his rights by the operation of law—as by bankruptcy; and the convict was disabled to sue for or to alienate property. The principles of the Bill in respect of the administration of the property was based upon the law of France. In the penal code of that country there was incident to the sentence of long terms of imprisonment what was termed "civil death," and in such cases the management of the property of the convicted person was committed to a kind of trustees, called the conseil de famille, to which we had nothing analogous in this country. But as it was plainly desirable that the management of the property of convicts sentenced to terms of imprisonment should be withdrawn from them, the Bill provided

  429
  that the Crown might appoint an "Administrator"—either a general official or one appointed for any particular case—in whom the convict's property was to vest, and who was to have the administration of the property during the currency of the convict's sentence. He was to have all the powers generally vested in assignees of this description; out of the property he was to pay the costs of prosecution and other expenses, to make compensation to persons who might have been defrauded by the criminal acts of the convict; and to make allowances for the support of the convict's family. If there should be any surplus income derived from the property after these charges were defrayed, it was invested; and at the expiring of the convict's sentence or his pardon, the property and accumulations were to revest in the convicted person; or if his sentence should be determined by his death, then to his legal representatives. Power was given to the Governors of colonies to appoint a similar administration for cases which might occur within their respective jurisdictions. As there were a number of cases in which the property was small, provision was made that on application made bonâ fide with a view to the benefit of the convict or his family any Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the place where the convict had usually resided might appoint an interim "Curator" of his property, and this Curator might be any person whom the Justice might deem competent to discharge the duties. The machinery of the Bill had been carefully considered, and it was intended to make the measure applicable to all parts of Her Majesty's dominions, though it might require some Amendments to render it suitable to Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, they were indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing the Bill. It was founded upon the right principle, and was in harmony with the practice in our prisons, which gave to the convict on his release the amount which he earned during his imprisonment.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSthought that the Bill would effect a great improvement in the present system, for it often happened that the law of forfeiture operated most cruelly, but he would suggest a
  430
  clearer definition of what was meant by the word "convict."
  MR. BARNETTsaid, he quite agreed with those who had spoken in approbation of the Bill; but he thought that in restoring to convicts the property which had been committed to the care of the administrator or curator, all that was just and requisite was done, and he did not think it expedient that the convict should, as a matter of course, have the benefit of such accumulation as might have accrued during the management by the administrator or curator. Any improvement of that kind in the property ought to go towards the payment of the expense to which the country was put in consequence of the convict's crime.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENexpressed his approval of the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  NOTTINGHAM WRIT.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to move that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Nottingham, in the room of Sir Robert Juckes Clifton, baronet, and Samuel Morley, Esq., whose elections have been determined to be void.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Nottingham, in the room of Sir Robert Juckes Clifton, baronet, and Samuel Morley, esquire, whose elections have been determined to be void."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSthought that the House before it issued the Writ should not overlook one or two important passages in the Report of the Committee on the Nottingham Election Petition. The Committee reported that violent and tumultuous proceedings took place at the last election for Nottingham, and that on the day of polling especially, bands of men armed with sticks committed various outrages on persons and property, and created alarm which was not without its influence on the result of the election. The fact was that for a fortnight before the election the town was in the possession of the mob,

  431
  and so alarmed were the magistrates that the muniments of the town were taken from the office where they were kept, and sent into the country for security. On one occasion, when there was a meeting on behalf of Paget and Morley, the mob took possession of the hustings, smashed the windows of the hotel, and drove their supporters to another part of the building. And Mr. Mundella gave evidence that, although his own house was watched day by day by the county police, during their absence for half an hour, stones were thrown through the windows, and the inmates greatly alarmed. An election ought not only to be pure but also free, and that could not be the case where the voters were intimidated by a lawless mob. Some of the rioters were taken before the magistrates, but they were discharged the next day, and he thought that nothing could be more encouraging to a mob than such a mode of dealing with those who had been guilty of a serious riot. Many of the magistrates being owners of large mills, were afraid that if they took active measures against the rioters their property would be jeopardized. Something ought to be done to secure the peace of a large town with 80,000 inhabitants; and he thought that under these circumstances it was necessary that a stipendiary magistrate, who would not be likely to be influenced by local considerations, should be appointed. He should be sorry to interrupt the issue of a Writ, but he thought the House would not be doing justice to the inhabitants of Nottingham or to itself if it did not examine further into the matter.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYbelieved that nothing was so injurious to the reputation of that House as the omission to notice violent and lawless acts committed at the election of its Members. He therefore begged to move that the proceedings and evidence taken before the Nottingham Election Committee should be printed and laid on the table, in order that the House might consider what measures should be adopted before the writ was issued.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Nottingham Election Committee be laid before this House,"—(Sir Harry Verney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the late election at Nottingham was one of a very exceptional and peculiar character, and highly deserving the serious notice of that House. It was desirable that the writ for a new election should not be issued till hon. Members had had an opportunity of making up their minds as to the course which ought to be pursued under the special circumstances of the case; and they ought to have some intimation from the Government as to the steps which it thought it would be proper to take in the matter. If the Amendment were pressed to a division he should certainly give it his support.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that as a Member of the Nottingham Election Committee, he had been requested, in the unavoidable absence of the Chairman, to express its views in regard to the issue of the Writ. The Committee sat for some twenty-nine days, and a mass of evidence was adduced before them to prove that there was a great deal of disturbance in the town; but they were of opinion that that disturbance did not amount to riot in the strict acceptation of the term. It was a disturbance created by a mob, headed by a class of persons who had lately become familiar to them all under the name of "lambs," and among whom they had no evidence that there was one single elector in the interest of one particular party. Certainly, that mob attempted to prevent the electors from exercising their franchise, and instances were brought before the Committee in which two electors were prevented from voting. These, beyond a doubt, were circumstances connected with an election which ought to be highly reprobated by the House; but they were not sufficient in themselves to induce the Committee to report that they formed, in its opinion, a ground for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the election. On the other hand, the election of one of the late sitting Members was declared void by the Committee on account of proceedings which the Committee thought extremely improper—namely, the employment of the inordinate number of 666 voters as paid canvassers, &c. That, the Committee thought, was simply a flimsy disguise for bribery. The House was aware that the employment of voters at an election was not a corrupt practice unless it was carried to an improper extent; and in that particular case the excuse was that, owing to

  433
  the disturbed state of the town, it was necessary to employ a great number of persons on the unpopular side, because of the conduct of the mob. But the Committee looked upon that as a colourable pretext, which was not justified by the actual circumstances, and therefore on these grounds Mr. Morley lost his seat. He was also requested to state, on behalf of the Committee, that it was unanimously of opinion that although these disturbances (which had not previously occurred since the days of Feargus O'Connor) ought to be strongly condemned, yet they did not justify the Committee in going the length of recommending the suspension of the Writ.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had no interest in the politics of Nottingham, neither did it matter to him whether that town had a Member or not; but he wished to remind the House that the Report of the Election Committee was presented on the 20th of April last, and, therefore, the House had had twelve days to think over the Report, which appeared to him to be quite sufficient time to enable any hon. Gentleman to form an opinion on the subject. As far as the question, then, before them was concerned, the Committee had found two important facts—namely, that no such case of general riot had been proved as would make the last election for Nottingham altogether null and void on that account, and that, in the opinion of the Committee, corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed at that election. When the Committee had reported to that effect, it was strange that a Motion should have been made by the hon. Baronet in an entirely opposite sense. The hon. Baronet had quite time enough to consider the Report of the Committee, and if he thought that the Writ should be suspended he should have moved that the proceedings of the Committee be printed. As he had not taken that course, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not persevere with his Amendment.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYthought that the statement which had been made by the hon. Gentleman (Captain Vivian) was enough of itself to make the House pause ere it issued the Writ.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to
  434
  serve in this present Parliament for the Town and County of the Town of Nottingham, in the room of Sir Robert Juckes Clifton, baronet, and Samuel Morley, esquire, whose elections have been determined to be void.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

  NEW WINDSOR WRIT.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of New Windsor, in the room of Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare, baronet, and Henry Labouchere, esquire, whose elections have been determined to be void.—(Mr. Brand.)
  NORTHALLERTON WRIT.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to servo in this present Parliament for the Borough of Northallerton, in the room of Charles Henry Mills, esquire, whose election has been determined to be void.—(Colonel Taylor.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL (HARDEN PETITION).
  Select Committee on the Representation of the People Bill (Harden Petition) to consist of five Members, to be nominated by the General Committee of Elections, and that two other Members, to be named by the General Committee of Elections, be appointed to serve on the Select Committee to examine witnesses, but without the power of voting:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Ferrand.)

  RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHILDERS, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]

  CURRAGH OF KILDARE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHILDERS, Bill to make better provision for the management and use of the Curragh of Kildare, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 136.]

  COMPANIES' ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Companies' Act, 1862."
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. MONSELL, and Mr. BRAND.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading-Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland)* (96); Consecration of Churchyards* (97).
Second Reading—Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday (92); Exchequer Bills and Bonds* (58).
Referred to Select Committee—Ecclesiastical Commission* (52).
Committee—Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local Government Supplemental* (81).
Report—Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland)* (94); Customs Duties (Isle of Man)* (82); Local Government Supplemental* (84).
Third Reading—Qualification for Offices Abolition* (41); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* (86), and passed.

THE OATH TO BE TAKEN BY PEERS.

  STANDING ORDER.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, it was
  Resolved, That the Oath appointed by the Act of the present Session of Parliament, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths," to be made and subscribed by Members of both Houses of Parliament on taking their Seats in every Parliament, be made and subscribed by Members of the House of Peers betwixt the Hours of Nine in the Morning and Five in the Afternoon: Ordered, that the said Resolution be declared a Standing Order, and that it be entered on the Roll of Standing Orders of this House.

TOTNES ELECTION—GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION—REIGATE ELECTION— LANCASTER ELECTION.
Messages from the Commons that they have agreed to Addresses (which are severally set forth) to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships.
Message to the Commons for Report and evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Petitions complaining of undue Elections and Returns for the said boroughs.

SELLING AND HAWKING GOODS ON SUNDAY BILL.—(The Lord Chelmsford.)(No. 92.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  Lord CHELMSFORD presented petitions from tradesmen of Marylebone, Clerk-enwell, Bethnal Green, and Spitalfields, Islington, Stepney and Limehouse, and from persons signing, praying for the adoption of measures to restrict Sunday trading to such articles as are necessary to public convenience:—and from inhabitants of St. George the Martyr, Holborn, West Ham, and Christ Church, Bermondsey, in favour of the Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORD, in proceeding to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the petitions he had just presented were signed by not less than 10,000 persons, all of whom were specially
  336
  affected by the question, and who desired that Sunday trading should be prohibited by law, so that they might be enabled themselves to abstain from a violation of the Sabbath, to which they were at present driven in self-defence. For many years past, various attempts had been made to pass a measure for this object. In 1832, and again in 1847, a Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the subject, and in 1850 their Lordships also appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. All of these Committees received a considerable amount of evidence, proving the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on, the utter inefflcacy of the law, and the necessity for fresh legislation. Various Bills, framed in accordance with the recommendations of these Committees, had been introduced to Parliament; but they had unfortunately all been unsuccessful. In 1850 a noble Earl on the cross-benches (Lord Harrowby) introduced a measure which was favourably reported on by a Select Committee and passed their Lordships' House; but it was so late in the Session before it reached the House of Commons that it fell through. The framer of that measure had assisted him to draw up the Bill he had introduced to their Lordships' notice, and he expected the noble Earl would cordially support him in his endeavours to get the Bill passed. In that year 1855 a noble Lord (Lord Ebury), who was then in the House of Commons, introduced a measure, which was read by that House the second time; but the people at that period grew much agitated upon the subject of Sunday observance—not, he believed, in consequence of the provisions of that Bill, but because the public-houses had been ordered to close at ten o'clock on Saturday by an Act of Parliament passed in the previous year—and so threatening was the appearance of the large numbers of the people gathered in the Parks at the time that at the request of the Government of the day his noble Friend was induced to withdraw the measure. In 1860 he himself introduced a similar Bill, and their Lordships' passed it; but it failed to pass the Commons. Considering that all these efforts had been made and failed, it might be very fairly asked why another attempt was made, and how he could hope to be successful now. But there were at the present time certain considerations which led him to hope that the present moment was peculiarly favourable for the attainment of his object. In the first

  337
  place, he believed there was a growing opinion abroad that the tradesmen who complained of the existing system were subjected to an intolerable grievance, and were entitled to the protection of the Legislature—and, in the next place, the work-people generally were released from labour earlier on Saturdays, and were paid their wages earlier in the day, than formerly—arrangements which obviated the necessity of making purchases on Sunday. He believed that much prejudice existed against legislating upon the subject; but that arose chiefly from the efforts made in former times by good and religious men, who caused a cry to be raised that it was useless to attempt to make people godly by Act of Parliament. This idea, perhaps, arose in the first instance from the provisions of the Act of Charles II., wherein it was ordered that—
  "All and every person or persons shall on every Lord's Day apply themselves to the observance of the same, by exercising themselves therein in the duties of piety and true religion, public and private."
  Of course, the injunction failed to have any effect; and he desired that it should be expressly understood that his Bill should be looked upon as a measure of protection and not of coercion. He wished to leave it to the dictates of a man's own conscience as to how he should spend the Sunday; but he also desired to insure that he should not be bound to continue his work on that day, and thus lose the blessing—the inestimable blessing-—of a day of rest, and the opportunity of employing that day in a becoming manner. In the Reports of the Committees to which he had referred, abundance of evidence would be found as to the extent to which Sunday trading was carried on. The facts disclosed might almost be described as startling. Trading of every description went on, and it was computed that 10,000 shops in the metropolis were open every Sunday. Many of the public thoroughfares were thus crowded by noisy multitudes, and the decent and respectable portion of the community were annoyed on their way to church by the scenes exhibited—they were subjected to much inconvenience and sometimes to insult; and worse than this, the tradesmen who desired, for the sake of themselves, their families, and their servants, to enjoy the Sabbath as a day of thankful repose, were prevented, almost by necessity, and certainly from regard to their worldly in-
  338
  terests, from doing so, and compelled to join the throng of Sunday traders. The number of persons computed to be thus engaged was not less than 100,000. It might be said, if these tradesmen were so desirous to have Sunday as a day of rest, why did they not agree among themselves and close their shops? But the experiment had been tried over and over again, and it had invariably failed, because it was found that unless there was a unanimous agreement in a neighbourhood that every shop should be closed it was in the power of a very small minority to defeat the object of the majority, and to compel the latter in self-defence to keep their shops open. It was almost impossible for a man who was striving to obtain a livelihood and support his family to protect himself against the competition of trade and the dread of loss caused by closing his shop on Sunday. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to a letter written by a butcher in the New Cut, Lambeth, which put this part of the question in a very strong light. The writer said—
  "My Lord,—I trust your Lordship will pardon the liberty I take in addressing you for the purpose of soliciting the favour of your Lordship's kind aid and support to the Bill now before Parliament in reference to Sunday trading. Permit me, my Lord, to state that I have carried on the business of a butcher in this locality for the last ten years, and have a wife and nine children entirely dependent on me for support. As nearly all the shops are open on Sunday, I am compelled to do the same. Were I to close while others are open, in all probability my business (in a neighbourhood like this) would be reduced one-half, and my family might be ruined. I find, however, that the system subjects me and my dependents to much unnecessary toil and degradation, and entirely prevents my giving that attention to the duties and responsibilities which I am sure your Lordship will feel devolve upon one having the care of so large a family. We are generally in business eighteen hours on Saturday, and from seven o'clock up to dinner time on Sunday, and I hardly need assure your Lordship that the whole of the afternoon and evening of Sunday is scarcely sufficient to recruit our exhausted energies. Many attempts have been made by the tradesmen themselves to close their shops by voluntary arrangement, but a very small minority have invariably defeated the object, and it is clear that nothing short of a legal enactment will cure the evil. There cannot, my Lord, be a shadow of doubt that not only the tradesmen and their assistants, but the labouring classes, would be greatly benefited by confining Sunday trading as much as possible to articles that are perishable, or those absolutely needed by the public on that day. Again apologizing for the liberty I have taken in thus addressing you, I beg most respectfully and urgently to intreat your Lordship's serious consideration of the subject

  339
  and your Lordship's powerful support to the Bill now before your Lordships' House."
  Another person who was engaged in the news trade, wrote the following letter:—
  "My Lord,—I should not have troubled your Lordship on the present occasion, but seeing an account in to-day's papers of a deputation on Sunday trading waiting upon the Secretary of State, and the last words, as reported, of Sir George Grey are, 'that there must be a deal of opposition on the other side seeing there are so many shops open on the Sunday,' as much as to say, that all those Sunday traders would be opposed to the Bill But as one of those traders (in the news trade) I humbly submit that three parts of those traders are quite ready to close their shops if they could do so without offending their customers all the week. Now if the Government passed a Bill prohibiting trading on that day, the public could not blame any individual tradesman. I once tried the closing of my shop on the Sunday myself, and did close for six Sundays, but I found I lost half my trade all the week and I should soon have been ruined had I not opened it again on that day. My customers told me that they should deal with those that would; for I am sorry to say that the working classes, though they have their hall-holiday on Saturday, and all Sunday to themselves, are the last to wish others to rest on the Lord's Day. I have attended a number of meetings of the news trades, who number about 4,000 in London alone, and at each of those meetings I have put the question, whether they wished Sunday trading to be done away with, and I have always found the meetings unanimous in wishing to do away with it. I have not the slightest doubt, if the Bill is brought before Parliament this time, it will be carried without opposition; but I trust it will be a Bill entirely doing away with trading in newspapers on Sunday, and every other article that can he procured on Saturday."
  Having shown the desire that existed for the introduction of some such measure, the only remaining questions were the necessity for legislation, and whether the existing law was sufficient to prevent the evil. The Act of 29 Charles II. c. 7, imposed a penalty of 5s. upon every person who should
  "Publicly cry, show forth, exhibit, or expose to sale any wares, merchandise, fruits, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever on the Lord's Day."
  By a somewhat extraordinary decision of the Courts, it was held that the only proof of exposing goods for sale was the actual sale of such articles. But the penalty of 5s., which might have been a considerable sum in the days of Charles II., was at present insufficient to insure the observance of the law; and as one penalty covered the trading on the whole of any given Sunday, a man who followed a lucrative business would cheerfully pay 5s. to be allowed to continue it, and many of the Sunday traders even professed their
  340
  readiness to pay six months' penalties in advance. He proposed by the present Bill to render the law more efficacious by increasing the penalty for the first offence to any sum between 5s. and 20s.; and after a conviction for the first offence, he proposed to exact cumulative penalties for every separate offence on each Sunday. He also proposed that the Bill should extend to the whole of England, and that the police should be required to enforce the law. These were the main provisions of his Bill. He anticipated two classes of objections. In the first place, there were persons who would not admit the necessity for allowing any kind of trading on Sundays, and who contended that the Lord's Day ought to be preserved strictly and exclusively for religious purposes. They would regard his Bill as giving a legislative sanction to Sunday trading. The Bill of 1860 was in some degree defeated by the action of the persons connected with the Association for the Religious Observance of the Lord's Day. They sent 13,000 circulars to the clergy and Dissenting ministers throughout England, and they stirred up an opposition to the Bill by a not very faithful representation of its character. But he would ask the members of this Association whether they could hope to enforce by law the strict and rigid observance of the Lord's Day. If not, why should they object to this Bill, which was at least a step in the right direction? He knew perfectly well by experience that there was not the slightest chance of his getting the Bill passed unless the exceptions which he should propose were embodied in the Bill; but he had reason to believe that if their Lordships passed the Bill in its integrity it would ultimately receive the sanction of the other House and become law. The other class of objectors to whom he alluded were those who thought that there ought to be no restrictions at all on the liberty of persons to employ the Sunday as they liked. To those persons his Bill would oppose no new restrictions whatever. Their objection ought to be, not that this Bill imposed restrictions, but that it would make the law effective to prevent that Sunday trading which they were desirous of carrying on. He had no intention whatever by the Bill to lay any restrictions upon the private observance of the Sunday; but what he would say to those persons was this—"If you publicly employ your Sun-

  341
  day in such a manner as to produce annoyance to others, and to promote social and moral evil, then it is the duty of Par-liament to step in and restrict you." These were the grounds upon which thousands and thousands of persons had thronged their Lordships' House and entreated that the inestimable blessing of a day of rest should be secured to them. Even as a civil institution it was impossible to overrate the inestimable value of the Sunday. Incessant toil on every day of the week, including the Lord's Day, not only tended to enfeeble both mind and body, but also to demoralize. Upon this subject he wished to call attention to the eloquent words of Lord Macaulay, who said—
  "Rely on it, that intense labour beginning too early in life, continued too long every day, stunting the growth of the body, stunting the growth of the mind, leaving no time for healthful exercise, leaving no time for intellectual culture, must impair all those high qualities which have made our country great. On the other hand, a day of rest occurring every week, two or three hours of leisure exercised in innocent amusement or useful study every day must improve the whole man—physical, more], and intellectual."
  Even in a political point of view, therefore, he would earnestly ask their Lordships to pass this Bill. But he could not help anticipating better results from the measure if it became law. Besides giving that inestimable boon of the day's rest from incessant toil, it would prevent the evil example of Sunday traffic in those districts where that traffic was carried on; it would introduce a healthier state of feeling, and, he trusted, in the result, would make Sunday what he desired it to be, a day of thankful rest, of religious exercise, and of innocent and cheerful relaxation from toil.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a;."—(Lord Chelmsford.)
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he congratulated the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) on having introduced a measure in some respects less objectionable than one which he had some years ago succeeded in passing through their Lordships' House. The powers of the Bill to which he referred were to extend no further than the metropolitan districts; so that, had the Bill become law, there would have been one law of the Sabbath for London and another for the country—a principle altogether objectionable. England from some received the title of a Christian nation, and that they should have one law of the Sab-
  342
  bath for the metropolis and another for the provinces would be contrary to reason and religion. He, therefore, congratulated the noble and learned Lord that the present measure was to apply to the whole of England. Whether there was to be one law of the Sabbath for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, he knew not; but so far as the Bill applied to the whole of England he was in accord with the noble and learned Lord. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord that one reason why the law as it now stood was inoperative was the smallness of the fine, amounting to only 5s. for each offence. But perhaps their Lordships would allow him to remind them that just about the period when the noble and learned Lord introduced his last Bill an attempt was made by the police of Southampton to put in force the law as it now stands. There were five old persons keeping stalls in that town who were taken up and fined 5s. for the offence of selling on the Lord's Day; and if his memory did not fail him, in two or three of these cases the 5s. fine could not be recovered without a distraint. It might be true, as the noble and learned Lord stated, that there were persons in trade who were perfectly willing to pay 5s., and pay it in advance for twelve months, to be allowed to carry on their trade in peace. But what might be innocuous to a man in a good line of business might be ruin to a small greengrocer or a poor woman sitting at the corner of the streets keeping a stall to sell apples and oranges. Besides, according to the Bill the fine of 5s. on the poor woman might, at the discretion of the magistrate, be raised to 20 s., and might be inflicted for every separate offence; and thus in the name of the religion of a God of love and of a Saviour who came to proclaim liberty to the captive their Lordships were asked to ruin a poor creature for this offence! If there were nothing else objectionable in the Bill than the accumulated penalty, it ought to be sufficient to induce their Lordships not to entertain the measure. But then it was proposed that there should be a tacit allowance of the sale of certain articles. Was it possible that their Lordships could in any way consent to an exemption of that kind unless as regarded matters of necessity on that day? As he understood the Bill—and the noble and learned Lord would correct him if he were wrong—it would permit selling in a shop while it prevented selling in a stall or with a basket in the

  343
  streets. One of the clauses of the Bill provided that it should not extend to the ordinary business of a coffeehouse or a cookshop between 10 a.m. and after 1 p.m. In London there were peripatetic coffee dealers who sold in the streets to travellers and to the poor; and if he did not misunderstand the Bill, these dealers would be acted on injuriously, while the keepers of coffeehouses would be held harmless. One of the strongest objections that a very large proportion of our fellow-subjects would make to the Bill is that while it continues the permission to sell innocuous things, there is no further limitation, which many would have expected and hoped for, to the selling of noxious things such as wines and strong drinks. Objecting as he did to the principle and to the details of the Bill, he moved that it be read a second time this day six months.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(Lord Teynham.)
  THE ABCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, having been appealed to, I think it is right I should say a few words upon this important Bill, and on the general question. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord who has introduced the Bill, because, although I might take some exceptions to it, nevertheless I do feel that, if it be carried out, Sunday trading will be materially diminished, though not perhaps entirely prevented, and a number of persons who feel it to be a great grievance that they are driven in self-defence to violate the Sabbath will be permitted the peaceable enjoyment of that day of thankfulness and rest; for though it would be better, no doubt, to brave all the consequences of an adherence to the Divine command, it would, I fear, be too much to expect such heroic virtue from the mass of mankind. I have received deputations from persons of great respectability and from butchers doing large businesses in my own neighbourhood, who have entreated me to support the Bill, because it will protect them and give them the defence they require. Certainly it may be said that persons of high Christian principle would brave all consequences and would resolve, in spite of any loss they might sustain, to refrain from selling on the Sabbath Day. Nevertheless, there is much to be said in favour of the principle of this Bill. There may be some particulars in respect of which I should desire to see the
  344
  Bill altered in Committee; but I am so satisfied that it would materially promote the observance of the Sabbath by affording protection to a great number of persons that I must give my support to the second reading of the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CRIMINALS—IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving for a Return of the Number of Criminals sentenced to Imprisonment for Life, from 1850 to the present Date, specifying the number of such life-sentenced Criminals released by Ticket-of-Leave or otherwise in each year, said: My Lords, I want to call the attention of your Lordships to the subject of life sentences, because the question will be raised when a Bill now before your Lordships' House gets into Committee, and it is desirable that the House should have all the information that may be available. I suppose it is pretty well known that a sentence of penal servitude for life in most cases resolves itself into one of twelve years penal servitude. This is known to the Judge who pronounces the sentence and to the prisoner who submits to it. It is, in fact, a great sham; it is known to be that, and it produces all the effects that a great sham always does. The character of these life sentences of twelve years duration does not differ in any respect from that of the ordinary sentences of twelve years penal servitude. Both commence with a period of separate confinement and pass on to a stage of associated labour on public works; both terminate by a conditional discharge with a ticket-of-leave. As a matter of fact, there is not a single prisoner who is not aware that, if he behaves well, he will be discharged at the end of twelve years. Up to this time there has been no great practical difficulty in the matter, because prisoners were transported. While transportation lasted, no doubt it was an admirable expedient. It benefited a colony by giving it labour; it benefited the convict by giving him a chance of a new career, and it benefited the mother-country by ridding her of the convict. All that has passed away; the colonies are closed to us, and the question before us is—how are we

  345
  to dispose of our criminals? At this moment there exists this glaring anomaly, that the next sentence to that of death is twelve years' penal servitude. If, indeed, it be desired that there should be no sentences between these two, well and good—I have nothing to say; but if, on the other hand, it is not considered desirable that you should step from twelve years penal servitude to death, let the point be considered, and either let the system be altered, or convert the nominal life sentence into a real one. But you have distinct evidence that the present nominal life sentence fails to produce any effect on the criminal population. I will quote the opinions of three different persons, who are very fair—perhaps, the best—samples that can be selected. One of them is a learned Judge, Baron Bramwell, whose experience is undoubted; another is the Director of Convict Establishments; and the third is an Inspector of Metropolitan Police. Baron Bramwell says—
  "As at present administered, penal servitude is scarcely a punishment at all, in my opinion."
  Of course, he is speaking of penal servitude for life. Then comes Colonel Henderson, the [present Director of Convict Prisons, who says—
  "All those men now under sentence of penal servitude for life are told that they can expect no remission whatever, but they do not believe it; they know perfectly well that ten or twelve or fourteen or fifteen years hence their cases will be brought forward, and that the crime will be almost forgotten; they are quite sure that something will happen, and that they will be released."
  Then lastly, comes the evidence of Mr. Tanner, an Inspector of Metropolitan Police; and he, as is natural, speaks more of details. He says—
  "There are hundreds, or probably I may say a thousand persons in London who have very little fear of a penal servitude."
  He was then asked—
  "Does the sentence of penal servitude for life make a sensible impression on them?—Yes; but they have all now a hope of getting out of it. But if it was penal servitude for life without hope of remission they would then look upon it as a very dreadful punishment?—I think so."
  Now, when you find that three different witnesses, all of whom are from their professional duties remarkably fitted to form an opinion, come to the same conclusion on the subject, though from different points of view, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they are right. Then there is another point which deserves consideration. I
  346
  think Parliament and the country are hardly aware what changes have of late years been made in regard to the classification of criminals. My Lords, these changes have been carried on so very gradually, and in some cases so imperceptibly, that Parliament is scarcely aware of them. But it is a matter of fact that we have now, what has never been the case in former years, a very complete system of classification. In the first place, juvenile offenders are now dealt with as a separate class. There is a separate legislation for them, and separate places where they are confined. Next, you have separate prisons, and a separate treatment for female criminals, to which may be further added many penitentiaries which are doing good service. Again, within the last year you passed an Act which assimilates the treatment in the various county prisons throughout the country, and brings all offenders sentenced from a few days to two years imprisonment into one uniform system. Beyond this, again, you have a further class of criminals who are sentenced to various periods of penal servitude, commencing at five years and going on to seven, ten, and possibly fourteen years. But from fourteen years you at once pass to the greatest sentence of all—namely, the sentence of death; and that, I think, is a great defect in the chain of penal procedure, and is very inconsistent with all you have done. My noble Friend reminds me that there are sentences of twenty years penal servitude. No doubt, some few sentences of twenty years have been passed, especially of late years; but they are few, and there is not a single instance, I believe, of a man being confined fifteen years. Now, there are, perhaps, some objections to the conversion of these nominal life sentences into real ones. The objection is twofold—first, on the ground of health; and secondly, on the ground of management. The objection on the ground of health will not hold for a moment; because, if you keep a man in prison for ten, fourteen, or fifteen years, there is no reason why the term should not be extended without injury to his health. But it is much more forcibly objected that if you confine a man for life you render the management of such criminals exceedingly difficult. It is said that if you take from a man all hope of going forth again into society, and give him no chance of the remission of his punishment, you deprive him of that element of hope which is most valuable in prison

  347
  discipline—you render him, in fact, a wild beast, and that the warder who goes into his cell goes there with his life in his hand. Now, I quite admit that would he a valid objection if you were to confine these prisoners for life in the same prisons and under the same regulations as other convicts; but of course my argument rests on the supposition that prisoners sentenced for life should be confined in a different prison suited to their wants. Nor can I imagine that there would be a real difficulty in establishing such a prison. The question is, whether you can present to these men sufficient inducements as a substitute for the hope of the final remission of their sentence. When a man is thus confined in prison, and shut out from all hope of ever going into the world again, his measure of things around him is entirely changed. He sees with different eyes, and matters which before he would have deemed trifling become to him of the greatest possible value. In the short imprisonments of county and borough gaols a difficulty at once analogous and of a different sort was felt. It was said, "How can you possibly hope by any system of reasonable inducements short of morally bribing them into work, to influence men committed for short terms?" As a matter of fact, however, experience has shown that we are perfectly able to deal with criminals under short sentences. I may, perhaps, without egotism, refer for a moment to a gaol which my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Malmesbury) knows as well as I do—I mean the gaol of the county of Hants. And I do so because, first of all, the system of that prison was made the basis of the Bill introduced and carried by the Home Secretary last year, and it was acknowledged by him to be substantially the model to which all the county and borough gaols ought to be assimilated; and secondly, because the experience of the system established at Winchester shows such remarkable results. We have so disposed matters that a very large amount of hard penal labour is exacted, and at the same time a very considerable amount also of what I may describe as voluntary exertion on the part of the prisoners is obtained. The system is worked out by a gradual relaxation of the penal and more irksome labour, and the substitution of less laborious work. The men are promoted from class to class, in exact proportion to the number of marks
  348
  gained, and become entitled to advantages of a most modest and even trifling nature. We find, under this system, that just in proportion as hard labour in conjunction with this mark system, which I have indicated, has been imposed upon and exacted from the men, a corresponding, and more than corresponding, diminution has taken place in the punishments inflicted for prison offences. Premising that Class I. includes prisoners during the first month of their imprisonment, I may observe that in the month of November, 1865, before the system was fully brought into effect, the number of prison offences in Class I. was fifty seven. In December, however, the mark system was extended to Class I., and the punishments fell to twenty-two. In January there were twenty-one, in February fourteen, and in March they decreased to thirteen. Now, that is a proof which no one can gainsay as to the power of such a system over the men while they are in prison; and if you can deal with men by such a system in county prisons, where almost every thing may be said to be unfavourable to you, how much more easy it would be to do so where you have the vast machinery of a convict establishment. Well, without arguing on this point, I will only say this much—that as a matter of fact it has been shown abroad that life sentences are perfectly possible. In one large prison at Ghent there are many prisoners confined under sentences of penal servitude either for twenty years or for life. I believe that it would be both advisable and practicable for prisoners confined for life to be separated from those sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years. But I must honestly confess that I should not be at all prepared to confine these life sentences to murder in the second degree as recommended in the Bill just introduced. I think it is necessary to extend that punishment to the hopelessly incorrigible class of persons who are continually being brought up in one court or another and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment without any hope of producing any good effect upon them. I find on referring to the judicial statistics of 1864 that of the 300,000 convicted criminals 20,000 were known thieves, 20,000 belonged to the vagrant class, and were, therefore, but little better, while 45,000 were suspicious characters, making a total of 85,000 out of 300,000 who, if they did not actually

  349
  belong to the criminal class, stood upon the border land which divides the criminal from the honest population. Again, the re-commitments to county and borough gaols amounted in the same year to 45,190, of whom 10,780 were re-committed above five times, and 3,975 above ten times. Every Chairman of Quarter Sessions, every Judge, must know that there are persons constantly coming before them who have been convicted twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty times, and there are recorded instances where persons have been convicted ninety times. It is perfectly clear that it is altogether hopeless to attempt to deal with persons of this description, who constitute a distinct class, with a distinct calling, and a distinct trade from honest men, and who look upon thieving as a regular and recognized profession. They go from one gaol to another, choosing as far as they can those which they regard as the most comfortable. When free they live by plundering the honest community, and when in gaol society has to furnish the funds requisite for their support, and as they become expert in their calling they become trainers of young thieves. Surely this state of things is as hopeless for the criminal as it is bad for society, and it would be a mercy to those persons to shut them up so that they could no longer injure the public and themselves. Believing as I do that the statistics I have mentioned will furnish us with much valuable information, I should wish them to be laid upon the table of the House.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the Number of Criminals sentenced to Imprisonment for Life, from 1850 to the present Date, specifying the Number of such Life-sentenced Criminals released by Ticket-of-Leave or otherwise in each Year.—("The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Returns moved for by the noble Earl would scarcely give him the information he desired, because it was only within the last few years that criminals had been sentenced to penal servitude for life.
  EARL GREYsaid, that although afraid that the Returns would not contain much information, and he therefore doubted whether it would be advisable to call for them, he thought the House was much indebted to his noble Friend for having called its attention to the subject which he regarded as being of great importance. He agreed with the noble Earl that the
  350
  sentence of penal servitude for life did not produce the effect expected from it—which he attributed to the system upon which Judges had acted in awarding that punishment. In the days of transportation it was the order and very proper practice of Judges to pass the sentence of transportation for life upon criminals who had not been guilty of very aggravated crimes. They knew that, after a certain number of years, those on whom this sentence was passed, would be liberated under a ticket-of-leave and so be enabled to commence life anew under more favourable circumstances than if they were permitted to return to this country. The system of transportation had, however, been discontinued, and, therefore, the case was very much altered, because penal servitude for life was very different to transportation for life. Not sufficiently heeding the great change which had taken place in the system of punishment, Judges had passed sentences of penal servitude for life far too frequently, and the result had been that the severity of the sentence was invariably mitigated. One of the recommendations of the Commission which sat to inquire into this subject some short time since was that the punishment of penal servitude for life should be reserved for the most heinous offences, but that when such a sentence was passed it should be most rigidly adhered to, and the criminal should be made aware that, under no circumstances, would he be discharged from custody, He also agreed with the noble Earl that there should be some special places of confinement for those sentenced to penal servitude for life. He also thought that it would be far better for society were the class of criminals who were continually being convicted permanently shut up, and so prevented from continuing their depredations upon society. Such men ought undoubtedly to be subjected to long sentences, but a distinction ought, he thought, at the same time to be made between them and those who committed manslaughter of so bad a kind as to approach to the guilt of murder, or other crimes of like enormity. In cases of this sort, in which penal servitude for life was substituted for the capital punishment which a few years ago would have been inflicted, he thought no mitigation of the sentence should be granted, and he was glad to have learned that this principle was at least partially acted upon. He had heard from the Attorney General for Ireland that a man who

  351
  had been found guilty on a very aggravated charge of murder, but who, for reasons into which it was unnecessary to enter, had been reprieved, had been sent to Bermuda as a convict, and had, upon the breaking up of the convict establishment there, been brought back to Ireland, where it appeared to be the determination of the Irish Government to keep him in confinement. He hoped that determination would be adhered to, for he did not think such men ought to be allowed to be set at large. By passing very long sentences, such as twenty years penal servitude, on all crimes but the very worst which are not capital, life sentences might be confined to a very few cases, and then rigidly enforced. But owing to the very short time that had elapsed since the abandonment of transportation, and the very different practice as to passing life sentences which previously prevailed, the Returns his noble Friend proposed to call for would give an erroneous impression as to the rule now followed, and he therefore recommended that he should not press his Motion.
  LORD HOUGHTONobserved, that although no doubt the system of non-productive labour of which the noble Earl opposite was the advocate might be attended with success in small establishments, like that at Winchester, it would be found not only extremely inconvenient, but very expensive in large establishments such as that of which he had experience. To abandon the system of productive employment would be, he contended, to throw an additional burden on the county rates for no good reason.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  LEGITIMACY DECLARATION (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable Persons in Ireland to establish Legitimacy and the Validity of Marriage and the Right to be deemed natural-born Subjects—was presented by The LORD SOMERHILL; read 1ª. (No. 96.)

  CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill relating to the Consecration of Churchyards—Was presented by The LORD REDESDALE; read 1ª. (No. 97.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.