Sitting of 3 May 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Corrupt Practices, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Benefit Building Societies* [116].
Committee—Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* [100]; Attorneys' and Solicitors' Remuneration*[6].

ARMY—COLONELS OF THE INDIAN ARMY—QUESTION.
MAJOR ANSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What he proposes doing in order to remedy the present supersession of the British Colonels by the Colonels of the Indian Army?
MR. CARDWELL: In answer, Sir, to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that his Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, the Duke of Argyll, and I have had many consultations on this very complicated question, and have determined upon the course to be recommended for the sanction of the Queen. In a few days I will communicate the particulars to the House.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in view of a largely extended system of National Education, the Government are taking, or are prepared to take any and, if so, what steps for increasing the present staff of teachers, either by additional training in normal schools, or by otherwise recruiting the teaching power of the Country?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: My answer, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman's Question must be the same I gave to an almost precisely similar Question of the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon), the Member for Liverpool, some weeks ago—that is, that upon the Education Bill becoming law it will be the duty of the Government immediately to reconsider the conditions on which grants are made for training schools, and also the conditions on which certificates to masters are at present given. These two points cover the Question of my hon. Friend. I may add, that I am glad to find that the number of pupils in training colleges have increased in the last year; I believe they are still increasing, and the present training schools would, if full, furnish a feeding force for more than 25,000 schools.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know when the Reports of the Inspectors of Schools for last year would be in the hands of Members?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not say exactly; but would take care that they were produced as soon as possible.

THE MASSACRE IN GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the withdrawal of the usual force
  108
  hitherto maintained in Greek Waters, viz., a Line-of-battle Ship or heavy Frigate at the Piræus, and two Sloops on the coast, is in consequence of representations from the Foreign Office to the Admiralty that the safety of British subjects and the protection of British interests in Greece can be ensured without a naval force; what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in consequence of the late murders; and, whether they intend to press upon the Government of that Kingdom the necessity of making an adequate provision for Mrs. Lloyd, the widow of one of the murdered men?
  MR. OTWAY: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to state that no communications have been addressed to the Board of Admiralty by the Foreign Office recommending the withdrawal of the usual force hitherto maintained in Greek waters. The hon. Baronet states that that force consists of a line-of-battle ship or heavy frigate at the Piræus and two sloops on the coast; but I am authorized, by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, to state that the Admiralty standing orders do not prescribe any particular force for the Greek waters; that the disposition of the Mediterranean Squadron is entirely at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief in that sea, and his discretion has been exercised to the satisfaction of the Board of Admiralty, as it has likewise been to the Foreign Office. I may inform the House, however, that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having been informed that the squadron under Sir Alexander Milne was about to proceed to the Piræus at the time of the recent massacre of our countrymen in Greece, requested that orders might be sent to stop its arrival, as he did not consider it proper, under the deplorable circumstances which have occurred, that a British fleet should receive the hospitality of the Greek Government. The hon. Baronet asks what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in consequence of the late murders? Sir, that question seems to me premature. Every despatch which we have received has been immediately communicated to the Members of this House, and they will be aware, therefore, that our information is not yet complete. With regard to the unfortunate lady, Mrs. Lloyd, we

  109
  have reason to expect that a suitable provision will be made for her present wants, and for the future maintenance of herself and child by the Greek Government.

ARMY—CANTEENS IN BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: I wish, Sir, before putting the Question of which I have given Notice, to say a few words as to the circumstances which gave rise to it. The circumstances are these—The local Inspector of Middlesex had inspected the canteens at Hampton and Hounslow for 18 years, and had instituted proceedings from time to time, under 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 63, from which convictions for unjust weights and measures had resulted. In August last the Inspector was ordered out of the barracks by the adjutant and a sergeant under instructions from the War Office. He summoned those officers, and the Middlesex magistrates fined them both, under section 76 of the Mutiny Act. There have been similar occurrences elsewhere. So that the arrangement between the War Office and the Home Office, mentioned on Thursday last by the Home Secretary, seems founded on a misconception of the law, and a conflict of authorities has arisen which, among other inconveniences, has much embarrassed the Standards Commission, as a member of which I venture to put the Question which I have placed on the Notice Paper,—to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the reply of the Home Secretary on Thursday last, Whether instructions have been issued from the War Office to the effect that local Inspectors of Weights and Measures are to be excluded from canteens in barracks; and, if so, on what provision of Law such instructions are founded?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, the Law Officers of the Crown have advised us that the canteens are not within the Act. We are desirous to have the assistance of the local Inspectors whenever the magistrates are willing to afford it, and have consequently asked the Home Secretary to request that they will inspect the canteens and direct the Report to be sent to us.

DIPLOMATIC PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. BARNETTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To whom application ought to be made for the payment of Diplomatic Pensions now due, in consequence of the abolition of agencies in the Foreign Office, where it appears no information can be obtained on the subject in answer to inquiries that have been made?
MR. OTWAY: The agencies in the Foreign Office will not be abolished till the 30th of November. After that time, as, indeed, at present, pensioners may obtain their pensions at the Pay Office by means of a power of attorney given to a banker, or any other person they choose, as hitherto; some, at least, of them have obtained them from the same source by means of a power of attorney given to their agents in the Foreign Office. The pensions of Foreign Ministers have not been heretofore, and will not be hereafter, issued from the Foreign Office, but paid at the Paymaster General's Office to the holders of powers of attorney.
MR. BARNETT: Will it be regular, for the present, to apply to the agents who have hitherto paid these pensions?
MR. OTWAY: Up to the abolition of the agency system on the 30th November next the regulations hitherto made are in force.

FRANCE—COMMERCIAL TREATY.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BIRLEYrose to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Commercial Treaty with France in nil branches of trade which it affects."
  He asked for the indulgence of the House as one unpractised in debate, and regretted that the Motion had not been undertaken by one more competent than himself. He had confidence in the justice of the cause which he advocated. It was not a very complicated case; but before he entered upon it he wished to disclaim any intention of attacking the French Treaty, and he made that disclaimer because, since he put his Motion on the Paper at the close of last Session, it had been repeatedly stated that his intention was to attack and denounce the Commercial Treaty with France. His

  111
  object to-day was precisely what it was 10 years ago, when he was summoned to Paris to give evidence before the Imperial Commissioners. That object was to obtain the best possible terms for the admission of the manufactures of this country into France. He was convinced that if the Committee were appointed, it would be shown that the general rate of tariff charges was too high to carry out the spirit and the intention of the Treaty; that the mode of levying the duties was objectionable in several instances; and that there were many blots and difficulties upon, the general tariff itself, which ought to be remedied and removed. In support of this assertion he would read a few extracts from the resolutions of various Chambers of Commerce. The Bradford Chamber of Commerce, at a special meeting last January, adopted memorials to the Foreign Office and to the Board of Trade, showing that in their worsted trade the Treaty had been more favourable to France than to England, and pointing out the necessity for a thorough revision of the tariff and a reduction of the duties charged in France. At a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Birmingham it was moved by a Member of this House and carried unanimously—
  "That the Government be asked to favour an inquiry into the working and results of the French Treaty of Commerce, with a view to a further reduction on various articles at present paying a high rate of duty. The French Treaty, while it had operated advantageously to many branches of manufacture, had been most prejudicial to others. The tariff in many cases had operated most injuriously. The subject was one calling for a Government inquiry."
  It was probably known that the Associated Chambers of Commerce formed an influential body, representing the trade of almost all the important towns in the country. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce, too, in their annual report in January last, with reference to what they styled the Anglo-French Treaty, said—
  "The directors have recently had under consideration several communications which have been addressed to the Chamber on the French Treaty. This subject came under discussion in connection with a communication received on the action of the French Government, and impending opposition to the French Treaty under the Committee of Inquiry appointed in France by the State Government. The opinion of the directors on the operation of the Treaty was expressed in the following resolution:—'That this Chamber
  112
  confirms its resolution passed on the 6th of January, 1869, in reference to the French Treaty, and believes that any inquiry into the working of the Treaty will confirm the proof of its beneficial operation, and lead to a further extension of Free Trade principles, to the greater benefit of both nations.'"
  This might lead to the presumption that the Chamber was indifferent on the subject; but a sub-committee of the Chamber appointed to consider the matter had recently spoken in a very different tone. The committee reported that—
  "The high tariff fixed by the Treaty appears uncalled for, seeing that the cost of production of a large proportion of the cotton fabrics is about the same in France as in England. Even at the high prices which ruled during the American War the duty imposed on English goods amounted to from 8 to 10 per cent, but with a fall in prices the rate rose from 20 to 30 percent, and the trade was consequently very much restricted, and is now insignificant … It is a matter of question whether the abolition of all duties would afford opportunity for the export of any but the heavier and cheaper fabrics; but we assuredly cannot hope to export them to any considerable extent, with more than a merely nominal duty. The complicated application of the tariff is highly objectionable, and, in our opinion, if the tariff is to be beneficial to French commerce, it should not in any case exceed a merely nominal rate, and should be applied on the ad valorem principle."
  The Committee ended by stating that—
  "The general result of the French Treaty has doubtless been, as we are convinced all Free Trade measures must be, beneficial to the interests of both nations; but we are equally assured that its present provisions neither have afforded, nor are likely to afford, opportunity for the favourable export of our cotton manufactures to France."
  Possibly, he would be expected to quote figures in support of these conclusions; but much discredit had been thrown upon our import and export Returns of late, and it was certain that unless such Returns were carefully analyzed they would tend rather to mislead than inform. The point was touched upon by the Report of the Committee from which he had quoted, to the effect that the figures in the Board of Trade Returns showing an increase in the export of cotton goods since 1860 included goods and raw cotton in transitu. No Return was made of goods sent to France for home consumption. From the debates in the French Chamber there seemed almost as much reason to doubt the accuracy of the French Returns. He did not blame the Board of Trade for the inaccuracy; the system was bad, and until corrected would continue to produce inaccurate

  113
  Returns. He would not trouble the House with repetitions of statements made to him by private manufacturers actively engaged in the trade with France; but he observed that he found no difference of opinion on the subject among those in the trade who had given attention to the subject; and that it was evident we were not doing the trade in manufactured goods with Prance which was contemplated under the Treaty, a result which had naturally been followed by disappointment. Another reason of less magnitude for an inquiry was the fact that the Treaty had lasted its 10 years, and that traders with Franco were now mere tenants-at-will. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce had long since regarded this period as the proper time for the revision of the Treaty. Another reason for demanding a Committee of Inquiry was the fact that a very strong and wide-spread feeling existed among the operative classes that the Treaty was working injuriously to their interests. However beneficial it might be to the moneyed circle, to the trading class as distinct from the manufacturing class, and to the commercial and shipping interests, it had not given any additional employment to the workpeople of this country, but had had rather the opposite effect. He certainly thought it important that the facts relating to this branch of the question should be investigated, and if upon inquiry it were found that the complaints so generally made had any foundation some mitigation should be found for the evil. It had often been urged, and might be urged again, that though the Treaty might not, perhaps, effect all that we desired, and that though it might not have resulted in so great a reduction of duty as we might wish, still it was for the Government and the people of France to decide what duties they would impose within the limits by which they had bound themselves. Well, if that were the case, he would ask what was the meaning of the Treaty? What was the negotiation of the Treaty for? Was it not because we might by argument satisfy the nations with whom we were dealing that we had a good cause—that although the duties imposed might be within the letter, they were not within the spirit of the Treaty? And if they could show that, and thus have good grounds to appeal to France, he could not suppose for one moment that
  114
  it was the intention of the French Government to keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope. Moreover, he would remind the House that one clause in the Treaty afforded a very fair opportunity for opening the question. It said—
  "The high contracting parties reserve to themselves the right of introducing into the Treaty any modifications not opposed to its spirit and principle, and the utility of which shall have been shown by experience."
  Having, too, now arrived at the end of the term, and France having instituted an inquiry into the operation of the Treaty, and a French statesman of eminence having recognized in the Chambers the probability of a modification being introduced, it appeared to him that the time was come when a careful and public inquiry should be made, with a view to ascertain what was our real position, and to obtain, if possible, better terms from the French Government. In common with every Member of that House, he deeply deplored the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, because no man was more competent to throw light upon the discussion. To the Motion with which he should conclude he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been unfavourable; because in June of last year, when this question, though in a different form, was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman used the following words:—
  "Although, at this period of the Session, it would not be desirable to have an inquiry at all, still, if any advantage were expected from it, I would recommend that it be not confined to the silk trade, but should be on some broader basis. I think, however, it would be better to postpone it until the beginning of next Session, when there would be time to consider the question properly as affecting the whole of the interests touched by the Treaty. … I sympathize with the condition of the silk weavers; and if, next year, sufficient cause for inquiry shall be shown, the Government will readily grant it.—[3 Hansard, excvii. 345–6.]
  Last Session he (Mr. Birley) had the honour of accompanying a deputation from the plate-glass manufacturers to the President of the Board of Trade, and the members who formed that deputation showed that, while their productions were entirely excluded by the operation of the tariff from the markets of France, they had also to encounter a formidable competition in England by the importation of similar plate glass from France. The President of the Board of Trade on

  115
  that occasion did not appear to controvert those assertions, and expressed not only his sympathy with those manufacturers, but his desire also to obtain for them, if possible, more favourable terms from the Trench Government. In fact, he urged the deputation to persevere, a word which those who were interested in this subject would do well to take as their motto. He held in his hand a memorial from the Chamber of Commerce at Huddersfield, addressed last year to the First Lord of the Treasury, not directly upon the question of the French Treaty, but upon the question of the Treaty with China. In that memorial, however, they said—
  "That during late years the export also of some descriptions of British goods to the Continent of Europe has perceptibly diminished, owing to the increase of manufactories in different parts thereof, fitted up in many instances with the most improved English machinery, directed in its working by skilled hands from England, and assisted by the free export also of British coal. From all which it has resulted, that instead of being purchasers of English woollen goods in any quantities, different countries of Europe have become large buyers of wool in the English markets for the manufacture of similar goods on the Continent, with some of which, owing to the cheaper labour of the Continent, those foreign manufacturers can undersell English producers, not only on the Continent, but also in the United Kingdom."
  Should we go back to the times—the good old times, as they were occasionally called—when we exported our wool to Flanders and received it back in the shape of broadcloth? But it would be difficult to convince the men of Yorkshire or Lancashire that it was the same thing in a politico-economical point of view to pay for the goods obtained from the Continent in the wool of Australia or America, or in the broadcloth of Yorkshire or the calicoes of Lancashire. He had now to thank the House for the attention which they had given to him. He simply asked for a public, fair, and full inquiry, leaving with entire confidence to the wisdom of the Government and the Legislature the question of what should be done when the results had been ascertained. The interests of the country were very much involved in its manufactures. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Commercial Treaty with France in all branches of trade which it affects."—(Mr. Birley.)
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved, as an Amendment, that the Select Committee do inquire—
  "As to the effect upon our Commerce and Manufactures of our present Treaty arrangements with Foreign Countries."
  He said that his Amendment was simply an extension of the Motion, and if the House granted the Committee, as he hoped it would, he should be able to show that the area of their labours must be extended to the limits specified in his Amendment. The French Treaty must be taken as the basis or exemplar of our Commercial Treaties with Belgium, with Prussia, with Greece, with the Hanse Towns, Mexico, Portugal, and Austria; and if they found upon investigation that that one was defective, any arguments which applied to the one would also apply to the others. They were all based upon the model of the French Treaty, and ought to be all included within the scope of the inquiry. The first thing, of course, was to show that the effect of these Treaties had been not only to cause dissatisfaction, but actual injury to the commerce and the manufactures of this country. When, last year, he had asked for an inquiry upon this subject he had limited that demand to an inquiry into the results of the Treaty upon the silk trade; but from what he had since learnt he believed that there was no trade existing in England which could be said to have benefited at present by the Treaty. No such benefit could be discovered from the present condition of the labouring classes of this country, while from 1859, with the exception of a single year, pauperism had been steadily on the increase, and between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 were now annually raised for the relief of the poor. The President of the Board of Trade—whose absence he also deplored—himself had taken notice of this great increase of pauperism since the conclusion of the French Treaty, for in a communication which he addressed to the electors of Sutherlandshire in 1865 he said—
  "It may be remembered that when emigration is rapidly on the increase there is some extraordinary pressure on the population at home."
  The Emigration Returns showed that the number of persons forsaking their native land increased rapidly as the pressure of distress became more severe. In proof of that he would remark that, while from 1838 to 1843 there was an annual

  117
  emigration of 80,842, any hon. Gentleman who looked at the Returns of this year would find that the very bone and sinew of our labouring population were leaving our shores, and from that he might learn the state of the labouring classes at the present time. But if any doubt should be raised as to the want of employment, the answer might be found in the Petitions which he and others had laid upon the Table, one from Halifax having over 2,000 signatures, another to day from Manchester with over 5,000, and one from Leicestershire signed by very nearly 2,000 persons, all complaining, in the words of one of the Petitions he had presented to-day, "of the grievous scarcity of employment." The second question that arose was, to what was this failure in the demand for labour due? In the discussions and correspondence that had been carried on upon the matter, the prevailing distress had been attributed to different causes by different persons. It had been stated by one very prominently, that in the cotton trade, it was owing to the deficiency of the raw material. But, if it wore owing to a deficiency of the raw material, we must first of all have used all the raw material that came to our shores. But in 1869 there was re-exported from England one-third of the whole of the raw material, or some 322,500,0001b. of raw cotton, thus clearly showing that the distress in the trade was not owing to any deficiency in the raw material. Then it was alleged that the distress was owing to the dissipated habits of the labouring classes. It was something new to learn that, though dissipated habits were causes of poverty, they were the result of want of employment. It was pretty clear that where drunkenness, dissipation, and great prodigality existed, they were the result rather of prosperous times than of times of distress. Then the distress was said to be the effect of trades unions, which raised wages, and thus added to the cost of production. But it was scarcely fair to trades unions to say that they were the cause. Trades unions had faults of their own; but when the question of trades unions was before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject, a large majority, some of whom were not very favourably disposed to those bodies, found that the badness of trade was not at all to be attributed to them. They found that the two things
  118
  co-existed, but they could not put both together as cause and effect. Was it not the truth that trades unions were rather the result of a decline of trade than the cause of it? To what, then, was the failure in the demand for labour to be attributed? After a close and careful examination to which he had devoted almost all his time since he had been elected for the city which he had the honour to represent, he could not but attribute it to two things, both the result of this Treaty system. One of them was the impossibility of securing for our goods entry and sale at foreign ports under the present hostile tariffs, and the other was the great abundance and sale of foreign manufactured goods in this country. He would ask the House to consider these two questions, and first as to the exclusion of English goods from foreign ports. And here he would remark that neither when he last made a Motion on this subject within the House nor out of it, had he said one word about protective duties, or sought to place those duties, in the sense in which the phrase was properly used, on any goods coming to our shores, and least of all upon the raw material, which he would have free as the air or the light of the sun of heaven. But there wore other points upon which this question might be discussed. Were the duties levied in foreign ports sufficient to exclude our goods? It would be in the recollection of the House that the effect of the French Treaty was that, whereas we were bound to admit all manufactured goods practically free of duty, France might charge a duty on our goods entering her ports of from 3 to 30 per cent. Now, when the Treaty of 1860 was first made matters stood in this way—The French were ready with a great quantity of silks and goods of Paris, as they were called, to throw into the English ports; and England, on the other hand, was very far advanced in machinery and in the manufacture of cotton goods, so that we could produce these goods far more cheaply than France and France could produce silk goods more cheaply than we. When the Treaty was passed in 1860 our silk trade tumbled to pieces, and then, in spite of the 15 or 20 per cent duty, there began a great export of cotton, woollen, and linen goods into France. That export mounted up in 1863 and 1864, un-

  119
  til in 1866 it reached its maximum. But the ships which took out these cotton, linen, and woollen goods took out machinery also, which in time superseded our trade. In 1866 the exportation of cotton goods to France amounted to some 56,343,000 yards, and in 1867 it dropped down to 41,000,000, in 1868 to 38,000,000. He had not the figures for 1869 sufficiently accurate, but they were considerably less than in 1868. So with our linen goods. The decrease between 1866 and 1868 was about 30 per cent, while that of woollen goods in the same time was 75 per cent. He thought it would be clear, from those figures, that the branches of manufacture in which we had excelled the French at the time of the passing of the Treaty had, by means of our own machinery, entirely passed away from us; and if the present Treaty was to be continued in its present terms our cotton, woollen, and linen goods would be practically excluded from France, from Prussia, and other countries with which we had these treaties. The glass trade had been already alluded to by his hon. Friend. He had received the other day a letter from Mr. Swinburne, manager of the Tyne Plate-glass Works, in South Shields, and he said the duty enjoined by the Treaty had totally precluded the sale of English plate glass in France, and although some errors in the Treaty had been rectified, they could never obtain any alteration in their case, although the present import duty was clearly decided, upon in the absence of adequate information. With this firm there was no question of hostility whatever to the French Treaty. One-third of the plate glass used in England was supplied by France and Belgium, whilst none of the plate glass manufactured by this country was exported to these countries. He would only give another illustration of this kind by referring to the paper trade. It so happened that there was not sufficient allusion to it in the Treaty. It had been wished to keep rags, of which paper was made, in France, and to raise the price of the manufactured article in England, and an export duty was put upon rags, which amounted to ¾d. per lb. on paper; while against that the French sent us their own manufactured paper, on which there was no duty at all. So that while we were obliged to import their rags subject to a tax equal to ¾d.
  120
  per lb. on paper, we had to import their; paper free from any such charge whatever. In regard to the five trades he had mentioned, then, there was a tariff virtually prohibitory of our carrying on business with France and sending those articles into France. He would not trouble the House with any argument in reference to the balance of exports and imports. [A laugh.] In saying that, he was not at all shirking any point bearing on his views; but he might state that during the last 12 years the balance of imports over exports had been, as between England and foreign countries, £700,000,000. Taking it that there was 50 per cent of wages in the cost of every work, it would be for the House to judge how far there was not a pretty clear proof, in the magnitude of the figures itself, that there must be a considerable amount which went into the wage of the foreign labourer and was deducted from the wage of the English labourer. In regard to the question of Commercial Treaties generally, Mr. Cobden himself looked upon that particular Treaty only as a lesser evil, and as a limited advance in the direction of free trade; and on the 28th of February last the Prime Minister also spoke as if he regarded Commercial Treaties with no great favour. Another most eminent authority, Mr. Huskisson, referring to that magnum opus of all such treaties—the Commercial Treaty with Portugal—said, he was of opinion that in all Treaties of Commerce the great object should be to establish complete reciprocity between the two nations who were parties to it; and after describing them as a confused and complicated machinery, he went on to add that—
  "If the time has arrived when we are receiving no equivalent consideration for what we are giving, it is time that the Treaty was put an end to."
  That, he maintained, was a strong authority in favour of the course he was now asking the House to adopt. Mr. M'Culloch also held that it was an abuse and perversion to make Commercial Treaties instruments for regulating duties or prescribing Custom House regulations; that in such matters one nation ought not to be shackled by engagements with others; and, further, that "all really beneficial Commercial Treaties are bottomed on a fair principle of reciprocity," He asked whether that

  121
  last remark would apply to the present French Treaty. When the whole of our Chambers of Commerce met last autumn at Birmingham they came to an unanimous resolution that it was the duty of that House to have an inquiry into the present operation of the French Treaty. That also was the view taken by the Vice President of the Education Board when he spoke in answer to a question put to him on the subject; and it was, in effect, likewise the view expressed by the President of the Board of Trade himself last June, who then told him to place his Motion on a broad basis and bring it on early in the Session, when the House might grant a Committee. Well, he had now complied, as far as he was able, with that advice, and he asked the Government, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) to accede to the appointment of a Committee. It might be asked, supposing that inquiry was gone into and the Treaty swept away, did he think foreign countries would admit our goods; and, if they refused to admit them, what course ought we to take? He answered boldly that if other countries would not admit our goods except under certain duties—if we found that our trade could not go on as it was—if that were the finding of the Committee, then retaliation against such countries would be neither against precedent nor against common sense. When the Government of the Netherlands, in 1821, proposed that in 1823 there should be a premium of 10 per cent on all Dutch vessels bringing goods, and Prussia followed that example, what course did Mr. Huskisson pursue? He moved that this House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the expediency of authorizing His Majesty, by Order in Council, to regulate the duties on the importation of foreign merchandise according to the duties on British merchandise imported into foreign countries; to continue restriction where another Power declined to act on a system of reciprocity; and to impose a duty on vessels belonging to another Power in retaliation for a similar duty imposed by that other Power. Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Ellice, and other authorities supported that view; and one eminent speaker said the country was indebted to the then President of the Board of Trade for his enlightened opinions. In his
  122
  Principles of Political Economy, Mr. John Stuart Mill said that—
  "A country must not be expected to renounce its taxing power unless foreigners will, in return, practise the same forbearance. The only way in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its goods is to impose corresponding revenue duties upon theirs."
  These high authorities all favoured the suggestions to which he had referred. Whether the French Treaty continued to exist or was swept away, they could scarcely have more prohibitory duties than they had at present. If the labouring classes were wrong on this subject, why not convince them by inquiry? They believed their labour was superseded by the quantity of cheap goods imported into this country. He did not wish to say anything against free trade; he was merely opposing what had been described as "a one-eyed free trade," and urging that this Treaty was a restriction. What was the position of the English as compared with the French labourer? The former was placed under a heavy system of taxation. The Imperial and local taxation of this country amounted to £3 6s. 8d. a head; while, according to M. Thiers, the taxation on French workmen was only 50f. or 60f.—from £2 10 s. to £2 18 s.—and that on the Swiss workmen was only 15f. Again, certain of our sanitary laws and the Factories Act imposed additional burdens on the productive power of this country, so that the English labourer entered into the competition heavily handicapped. The fact was that, by admitting foreign goods without any revenue duty, we practically admitted them in contraband of the English tax-gatherer, and to some extent in defiance of English sanitary laws. The English labourer must feel this heavily, because the cost of the country fell eventually on the labourer. That cost was exceptionally heavy, and he could not see the justice of allowing the consumer to buy foreign goods here in contraband of the taxes which were levied on the English working classes. If the Treaty to which he had been alluding were swept away, circumstances might arise in which fiscal duties could be levied on imported manufactures. The words he had just used were as nearly as possible a repetition of what had been said by the Prime Minister on a recent occasion. [Mr.

  123
  GLADSTONE: Oh, no; nothing of the kind.] He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to make such a statement. The objection might be urged that to tax goods imported from abroad and not to tax agricultural produce so imported would be to protect one trade against another. The importation of agricultural products had not had the effect of damaging the agricultural interest at home, and he thought that the amenities of agricultural life would prevent any objection being made on that ground to a revenue duty on foreign manufactures. Foreign manufactures sent their surplus goods to the English market. If 80 per cent of a particular class of goods were sold in Paris during the winter season the remaining 20 per cent was, perhaps, sent over here. Our home trade might be made bankrupt by a system of that kind, if no revenue duty were imposed to equalize the competition. The House would remember that when a duty of 4d. a pair was taken off foreign gloves the effect was to increase the price of kid gloves in this country by 6d. or 8d. a pair. The amount remitted in duty all went into the pockets of foreigners. At present we imported one-third of our plate glass from Belgium and France. It was said that English plate glass was sold abroad 10 or 12 per cent cheaper than in this country. If this were so, the cause was a matter well worthy of inquiry. It would be argued, as an objection to a revenue duty on foreign goods, that it would fall on the consumer in this country; but, generally speaking, the consumers and the producers were the same persons. It was well said by a French authority that when we spoke of the consumers and the producers we were putting forward two persons who hardly had a separate existence. He contended that a duty upon the importation of foreign goods was not a breach of free trade. M. Bastiat advocated a duty of 5 per cent on objects of necessity, of 10 per cent on articles of utility, and of 15 per cent on luxuries. According to the Board of Trade Returns, the value of the manufactured goods imported into this country in 1868 was £26,000,000; but there was good reason for believing that it was nearer £100,000,000; and, if so, it was evident that a duty upon the same, by restoring the balance between the English labourer and his foreign com-
  124
  petitor, would enable the former to enjoy not merely the removal of half the sugar duty, but even a "free breakfast table." He would, in conclusion, refer to a passage in The New York Times, in order to show what was thought of the crisis in this country on the other side of the Atlantic. That journal, commenting upon a letter of the President of the Board of Trade, said—
  "Mr. Bright is not of the despairing sort, and consequently he deals with the crisis in a white heat of rage. He has ordered the Protectionists to stand aside, and he has labelled them knaves, with a mental reservation, we trust, in favour of the Republican party here. There is evidently work in store for the Liberal party in England, of which they little dream. The working classes hold the balance of power. Suppose they elect a Protectionist Parliament a few years hence. They could do it, and if their condition does not improve, there is no guarantee that they will not."
  He trusted that in asking for this Committee, he had not said anything that was distasteful to the House. He had not endeavoured to force upon the House any views of his own, nor had he retaliated for the strong language used to himself when M. Bastiat had reflected on him by saying that he (Mr. S. Hill) had travelled up and down the country for the purpose of agitating the minds of the people on this question. In conclusion, he would entreat the House to grant the inquiry that was asked for. He asked for this on account of the state of poverty which existed and because our best labourers had emigrated. Taxation pressed very heavily upon the poorer classes, and if this Committee were refused the belief in the inequality of taxation would be confirmed. He entreated the Government to consider this state of circumstances. He had witnessed an amount of poverty among the lower classes which made his heart bleed, and he believed that much of this misery was owing to the unjust system of taxation. If a Committee were appointed it might set this question at rest; whereas if the inquiry were refused a belief would prevail that the claims and wants of the few had not been properly attended to, and that Parliament had neglected an opportunity to promote the benefit of those who had been plunged in a state of severe suffering.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "inquire" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as to the effect upon our Commerce and Manu-

  125
  factures of our present Treaty arrangements with Foreign Countries,"—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYsaid, that the opinions which had been stated by his hon. Colleague and the lion, and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) did not sustain the object which they had in view. He saw no adequate reason whatever for carrying their views into effect, and he had looked in vain for some authoritative statement as to the general depression of trade which was alleged to exist at the present time. As regarded the cotton trade, in proportion as the supply of cotton was increased labour was better employed; and he was glad to know that there had been such a degree of revival in the trade. Nor was the improvement confined to the cotton trade. A recent number of The Coventry Times, referring to the state of trade, gave an encouraging account of the revival of several branches of trade carried on there. It said—
  "The ribbon weaving is pretty good. The watch trade is also good. The Machinists' Company are busy, especially in the velocipede department. The embossing trade is about the same. At the Leigh Mills business is slack, it being between the seasons. The rug trade is good. Trimmings are in demand. Matters are pretty well in the elastic trade."
  Trade throughout the whole country was at present in a very much improved condition, and he thought that the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to foster and develop the improvement which was observable. He thought the plans then developed were likely to increase the enjoyment of the country at large. He was glad that the two hon. Members who had addressed the House had not assailed the great principles of free trade, for the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) had said that there was no "substantial" difference between them on this head, and he (Sir Thomas Bazley) was therefore at a loss to know for what particular reason the hon. Member was urging the appointment of a Committee. Reference was constantly made to the difference of amount between the exports and imports, and when there was an excess apparently against us it was used as an argument that this country was impoverished. But
  126
  that was a fallacious mode of argument. Instead of confining their attention to the trade with France, they might have extended their view to the United States, and they would then have found that in 1868 this country exported £24,000,000 value of manufactures to America, and received in return imports to the value of £43,000,000, being an excess, in favour of America, of £19,000,000. The British Colonies took from us £54,000,000, and sent us £67,000,000, being an excess of £13,000,000. Egypt took from us only £6,000,000, and sent us £17,500,000, being a difference of £11,500,000. France took £23,000,000, and sent back £33,000,000, being an excess of £10,000,000. In point of fact, France stood sixth on the list, although it was the first selected for attack. The people at home were enriched not by what they sent away, but by what they brought back; and the imports aided in spreading comfort and enjoyment among the population. The merchants who sent their goods from this country took care that they got a satisfactory equivalent for them. Surely these figures showed that the labour of the country was not being displaced to any alarming extent; while, on the other hand, if there was any offender it must be Great Britain, who was inundating the world with her manufactures, while she was not receiving in return such quantities of manufactured goods as threatened to deprive the labouring classes of the country of the means of employment and subsistence. They had the means of competing with every other country on the face of the earth, because they possessed a combination of elements for the production of comforts to their population which were unequalled by any other country. They had, also, a well-disposed and an industrious people who were unsurpassed; and it was only just to the manufacturing interest to say that the rate of wages in this country was in excess of that of all other manufacturing countries in the world, all things taken into account, America not excepted. The rate of wages here at this moment practically exceeded the nominally high rate of wages in America. They had nothing to do but to continue this career of prosperity. From 1860 to the present time England had encountered fearful difficulties—first, in the cotton trade being deprived of its supply of

  127
  the raw material; and, next, in the prevalence of the mania to speculate in joint-stock companies, which had together involved this country in a loss of £200,000,000, including the losses on winding up bankrupt concerns. There were now no great engagements pressing upon the nation, nor any financial difficulties which could not be overcome—and if only sufficient raw material of every kind could be secured to afford employment to the working classes, and this country had free trade with the rest of the world, Great Britain would enjoy greater prosperity than she had ever done in the past. It must, however, be recollected that foreign competition was making its way, and to meet it there would be required considerable efforts on the part of manufacturers and great skill on the part of artizans. He hoped that the House would not feel alarmed at the state of our trade either with France or with any other country, for at the present time food was at a reasonable price, taxation was being reduced, and the means of employment were increasing. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) was mistaken in supposing that the labouring classes were more highly taxed in Great Britain than in any other country; on the contrary, they were essentially less taxed than many Continental nations, and very much less than the people of the United States. He thought they had nothing to fear but the phantoms which they conjured up to themselves. Let them open the gates freely to importation, and let trade be fully developed, and then, as Sir Robert Peel said, the consumers of this country will derive an advantage which the consumers of no other country can possess. They had legislated for the consumer. Let them continue that policy, and then they might maintain the superiority which they still had. He hoped there was a great future in store, as well for those who were now unfortunately under the special jurisdiction of the President of the Poor Law Board, as for those who, though more fortunate, were not enjoying that amount of comfort which all would desire to be generally spread throughout the labouring classes. There was nothing to cause alarm in the present state of the country. Happily, Government intended to afford the means of national education for the people,
  128
  and with increased intelligence he looked for the social amelioration which would be produced by those means of extended education which all desired to promote, as the people would thereby be taught that it was their interest to be faithful servants and good co-operators with their employers who wished to maintain the prosperity of the country. Let them produce their manufactures at rates as reasonable as possible; let them produce articles as good as possible in all respects; and, above all, let them attach the working people to us by the conviction that the advantage of one class was the advantage of the other, and then they might look for lasting good to accrue to the trading interests of the country.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had heard with regret, and, indeed, with alarm, some of the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill.) He (Mr. Liddell) could not travel with the hon. and learned Gentleman to the other side of the Atlantic, but would confine his attention to the other side of the Channel, and to the possible effect of this debate upon the French mind, because that was a matter which ought to be within the consideration of the House. He would not enter into any defence of the French Treaty on commercial grounds further than to say that it was hardly fair to make the condition of the labouring classes of this country an element in the argument, because they had just emerged from a period of commercial depression which had been unprecedented in extent and duration. The House had been assured that this state of things was passed, and that the country was now entering upon a period of renewed prosperity, and he could confirm that statement, for there had been called before the Committee of which he had quite recently been a member many representatives of the large Lancashire towns, all of whom entertained those sanguine expectations which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley.) But unless the House was careful, this debate might produce an impression on the French mind that would be undesirable, recollecting the difficulties which the negotiators of the Treaty experienced owing to the hostility of the French Protectionists. He thought very much credit was due to M. Chevallier—

  129
  whose friendship he (Mr. Liddell) had the honour to enjoy—for the successful manner in which he had promoted increased intercourse between the two nations, and nothing ought to be done to weaken the hands of such men as M. Chevallier, M. Dufour, and others. It was very curious and instructive to watch the progress of opinion in Prance upon this subject. The Treaty began in hostility on the part of the Trench manufacturing interest; but had that hostility undergone no change? The producing districts in the South of France were in favour of maintaining the Treaty; and this year a similar feeling had been exhibited in the great manufacturing districts of the North, which was a surprise to France itself. Now ought we to strengthen or to weaken that feeling? He was afraid that if this Committee were granted, it would give great encouragement to those in France who were hostile to free trade, and proportionately weaken the hands of those who were advocates of the great cause of free trade. There could be no doubt that this was an attack upon the French Treaty, disguise it as they might, because the Motion had the effect of throwing doubts upon its success; and the only grounds that were urged in favour of granting inquiry were based upon what he did not like to call the ignorance of some of the working classes as to the effect of the Treaty. It might be wise to grant the inquiry, if only to convince the working classes of the very erroneous ideas they entertained. He had read with some regret the speeches occasionally addressed to them, based as they were on very fallacious arguments, not likely to instruct their minds or remove the errors which prevailed among them. No good could result from the appointment of the Committee. He regretted to hear the word "retaliation" used by his hon. and learned Friend, while the Government were engaged in trying to induce France not to go back but to go forward in the direction of free trade; it was a word which he thought would be received with some degree of apprehension in that country. It was used with reference to those countries who refused to admit our goods into their ports. He had not always been a Free Trader, but had become so by conviction; and he believed that such a policy was a loss to the country that adopted it, and
  130
  that it was really little concern of ours. His hon. and learned Friend had said, with reference to the agricultural class in this country, that corn would always command a sufficient price. Now, he did not think that his hon. and learned Friend had mixed very largely with the agricultural class, or that he had been moving among the best instructed commercial classes. If his hon. and learned Friend consulted the agricultural class, he would find that they were by no means satisfied with the present prices; but they had no desire to go back in the commercial policy which had lately been adopted. His hon. and learned Friend had placed considerable reliance on the complaints of the manufacturers of plate glass on the River Tyne—that their plate glass was kept out by the high duties of Belgium and France. He (Mr. Liddell) was not in a position to answer this; but if his hon. and learned Friend went to the banks of the Tyne, he would find very little sympathy in favour of this inquiry. He would find that the French Treaty had produced great benefits in that part of the country; and, as representing their interests, he would be no party to throw either doubt or difficulty in the way of that Treaty. He apologized to the House for having intruded on a commercial discussion of this kind; but he must say that, in his opinion, the French Commercial Treaty was important in its political bearing, and perhaps even more so than in its commercial bearing, important as this was, and he should deeply regret if the smallest doubt were thrown by the House of Commons upon the success of that Treaty. He believed no step which this country ever took had been attended with larger and more advantageous political results than this Treaty with France. It had formed, ever since it was framed, a bond of union between the two nations. The feeling of sympathy between them was growing stronger every day; and they might depend upon it that two great nations, which had been rivals up to a recent period, could be bound by no stronger ties than those of mutual interest.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, no one s could regret the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board s of Trade more than he did on the present occasion. He would have spoken on this subject in a manner to carry

  131
  weight and conviction to the minds of hon. Members of those whom they represented. He would venture, in his absence, to make a few observations. He had great difficulty in following the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), who attacked the policy of Commercial Treaties in general, and asserted doctrines which were totally inconsistent with the ordinary notions of political economy. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) had dealt with the subject in terms of great moderation. He said that he did not attack the French Treaty, and he studiously avoided making statements like those that the hon. and learned Member for Coventry had indulged in. He said, indeed, that in many instances the French tariff was too high. In reference to the Motion, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) could only say that any inquiry was unnecessary, as there was nothing that they were not already sufficiently informed upon in the matter. Anyone who took the trouble to look into the French tariff and the Treaty between the two countries would see at once where the duties levied in France were too high. He quite admitted that in many cases the duties were too high; but, in other respects, no doubt the Treaty had been a great success. If any representations could be made by the Government which would induce the French Government to reduce them they would undoubtedly be made. But there had grown up in France an agitation against the Treaty, and at that moment there was an inquiry into the matter being carried on before the Legislature. A Committee of Inquiry had been appointed to receive evidence, and it had been arranged that representatives from the cotton trade should go over to France with the view of giving evidence before it. Under these circumstances, he did not think that the House would consider that the present moment was a favourable one for instituting an inquiry on our part. It would certainly indicate a want of confidence in the merits of the French Treaty which would be exceedingly unfortunate at the present moment. This was not the proper occasion for the Government to make representations to the French Government; but if a proper occasion did occur, he had not the least doubt that the Government would avail themselves of it. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for
  132
  Coventry was replete with extravagant doctrines about trade in general, and it was exceedingly difficult to argue with one having so little in common. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that last year the President of the Board of Trade promised to grant this inquiry; but that was only in the event of sufficient cause being shown. It seemed, however, that there was less cause shown this year than last for inquiry. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to the general distress which he said existed, and attributed it to the French Treaty. He (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) was not prepared to deny that during last year there was considerable distress in the manufacturing districts, and the year was a very disastrous one to manufacturers—to masters rather than workmen, yet this could not now be said to be the case. His hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) had stated what was the present condition of trade, and the Board of Trade had received accounts from all quarters to the same effect. The disasters of the last few years were not in any way traceable to the French Treaty, or any of those subsidiary treaties which had followed it. The Board of Trade had received no complaints during the last few years from any branch of industry, except one complaining of the competition of French manufactures; for although the plate-glass trade and paper trade had made complaints that the duties were still too high, even they had not complained that there was suffering in this country in consequence of competition with France. He believed that there had been considerable importations from France of these articles; but no trade but the silk thought that they suffered from this competition. It must be admitted that this trade has suffered greatly during the last few years. But the hon. and learned Member for Coventry would no doubt admit that even before 1860, when there was a protective duty of from 18 to 20 per cent, the trade was always in a precarious condition. Mr. Huskisson, in 1824, pointed out that this trade was an exceptional one. Unfortunately, this trade had not been able to stand competition with France; but there were other causes, besides the abolition of protective duties, to account for the present state of things. There was no doubt that the American War had produced great hardship in this

  133
  trade. French goods, which would otherwise have found their way to the American market, came to this country during the blockade and the period of distress following the war, and flooded the market. This fact, together with changes in fashions, would account for much of the distress in the silk trade. How was it proposed to remedy this? Did the hon. and learned Member think that the House would again put on a protective duty? He said that something should be done in the interest of other trades; but did the woollen or cotton manufacturers wish that there should be a duty on French silks? He had no reason to believe that any such demand had ever been made. They knew how perfectly foolish it would be again to commence a war of tariffs. The hon. and learned Member who had addressed the House referred to the old fallacy of balance of trade. To have to refute an argument based on that fallacy was like having to prove the Pons Asinorum of Euclid. He had always understood that the very essence of trade was the exchange of equivalents, and that there could not be an import trade without an equivalent export, though the two operations need not necessarily be with the same persons or the same countries. Although the trade Returns might show an excess of imports differently, it should be borne in mind that on one side the returns included freight, &c, whilst on the other they did not. This would account for their showing great difference in value between exports and imports. This, however, did not show that the French Treaty had been a bad bargain for us. The Treaty had never been intended as a bargain in the ordinary sense of the term, and the two countries never balanced equivalents one against the other. Upon this subject he quoted the First Lord of the Treasury, who, in 1860, said—
  "We have been told that this Treaty is a bargain; that we have asked for equivalents, and that we have not got them. Sir, I deny that this Treaty has ever been a bargain; for it is of the essence of a bargain that you give away something which it would be of value to you to retain, and that you receive something which it is important to the other party to keep. This is a reciprocal instrument, if you like, but a bargain it is not, for you are giving nothing to France that is not a gift to yourself, and you are receiving nothing from France except measures by which France confers a benefit upon herself. … … We have never attempted the impos-
  134
  sible task of constructing such a system of equivalents. … … We knew quite well that, if there were any means of obstructing the progress of free trade, it was by entering upon these negotiations in the spirit of bargain."—[3 Hansard, clvii. 314–15.]
  He had been unable to find any speech of Mr. Cobden upon this point. He believed he had never addressed this House on the subject of the French Treaty; but he was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member assert that Mr. Cobden was opposed to Commercial Treaties. What he was opposed to was Commercial Treaties in the old sense of the term—treaties based on reciprocity, such as the Methuen Treaty with Portugal or the Treaty with France, which Mr. Pitt concluded in 1787; but to say that he was opposed to treaties like that of 1860 was a monstrous proposition. Mr. Cobden wrote upon this point, on the 20th of March, 1861, to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, as follows:—
  "The arrangement lately entered into is not, in its old and exclusive sense, a Commercial Treaty, but a simultaneous movement on the part of the two countries in the direction of the general freedom of trade."
  The hon. and learned Member for Coventry had very properly included in his Motion the treaties affecting other countries besides France. To properly estimate the result of the French Treaty, it was necessary to consider the effects of other treaties made by this country after 1860. He need hardly point out that France, immediately on the conclusion of the Treaty of 1860, went to the other principal States of Europe and offered to conclude treaties with them on the same terms as had been granted to England; she succeeded in the case of Belgium, Holland, Prussia, Switzerland, and Italy, and we also concluded treaties with most of those Powers, but upon somewhat less favourable terms, because we had at once given to all the world what we gave to France, and were ready to offer the most Favoured Nation Clause to any who choose to treat with us. Previous to 1860 it seemed as if a wall had been built round all European States with a view to exclude trade; where most trade would have been looked for there was found the least; the exports to France amounted to £4,500,000, and to the other principal European Powers £23,000,000, which was not more than our trade with the United States and India. The effect

  135
  of the Treaty tad been to double our trade with the principal European Powers, for it was now £46,000,000 instead of £23,000,000, whilst our trade with the United States had not increased, and with India had increased but little. Our imports from the same States had increased from £37,000,000 to £77,000,000, and, to his mind, imports were as valuable in the way of trade as exports. If the imports exceeded the exports with one particular country, there must be an equivalent with other countries. Reference had been made to the inaccuracy of the Board of Trade Returns. There was no doubt much that could be improved in them; they did not show as well as could be desired the trade for the month; but when year was compared with year, or period with period, they could very fairly be relied on. He had compared the year 1868 with the year 1859, and found a considerable increase in the latter year. During the last 10 years the main increase in our trade had been with those countries with which we had made treaties. In 1859, of our exports manufactured articles formed 82 per cent, whilst, in 1868, it was 83 per cent; and, as to our imports in 1858, manufactured articles formed 6 per cent of the whole, whilst, in 1868, they were 9 per cent, an increase mainly due to the silk manufactures of France. Now, there was nothing alarming in this, even in the sense in which the hon. and learned Member for Coventry looked at such matters. In estimating the effect of the Treaty it was necessary to consider also the result to our shipping. Our entrances and clearances between this country and the Treaty Powers had increased, within the last 10 years, from 7,000,000 tons to 12,000,000, and of the 5,000,000 increase no less than 4,000,000 was credited to British shipping. He contended, therefore, that the Treaty of 1860 was, in reality, the key to the modern commercial policy of this country. It might not have produced the effect which hon. Members might desire; our exports might not in some cases be as great as was expected; but, on the other hand, trade had been created where no trade previously existed. In cotton and linen the increase in our exports had been very considerable, while our woollen exports to France, which, in 1859, amounted to £4,494, had, in 1868,
  136
  increased to £1,742,000. With such increases as this in our exports, it was impossible to say with justice that the Treaty had not benefited a single trade. The influence, too, of this Treaty on the general good feeling of the peoples of both countries was very great. That was a matter which was of the greatest importance, and ought not to be forgotten. It would be recollected that many hon. Members of this House, and noble Lords of the other House, had opposed the negotiations of the French Treaty, on the ground that it would be likely to create great prejudice and ill-will instead of good feeling amongst the inhabitants of both countries. On looking back to the time when the Treaty was first proposed, many of the speeches then made would appear, judging by what had subsequently occurred, to be perfectly incredible. Experience had proved the groundlessness of the fears then expressed, for nothing had contributed more to benefit the relations of the two countries than the Treaty of 1860; and, in conclusion, he could only say that, in his opinion, the man who took any step to repeal the Treaty would be an enemy to his country. He could only, therefore, hope that no attempt would be made to abrogate it; but that it would be allowed to remain as an imperishable monument to the wisdom and foresight of those by whom it was framed.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEcould see no reason why the proposed inquiry should not be made, though he could not anticipate any great increase in our store of information as the result. Still something might be gained by giving those who thought themselves aggrieved in these matters an opportunity of laying their case before the country, and expressing their opinion on the details of our commercial policy. He did not agree with the fear expressed by some speakers that such an inquiry would have a bad effect in France—indeed, he thought the contrary would be the result. In fact, a precedent for such an inquiry might be found in the course pursued by our neighbours, though, no doubt, the cases were not entirely parallel. In France the free trade principle was on its trial. Opinions were almost evenly balanced in that country on that subject; but he presumed it was not going too far to say that in England free trade

  137
  was almost universally accepted. But it must not be forgotten, as had been frequently remarked, that a Commercial Treaty was not free trade; that it was, indeed, in some instances an obstacle and hindrance to the freedom of trade; notwithstanding what had been said of the intention of the promoters, it could only be regarded as a bargain; and as the only perfect bargain was one which was based upon perfect reciprocity, the complaints which were raised by those whose interests had been more or less overlooked or sacrificed were perfectly justifiable; and it was no answer to them to say that they had, with all other classes, shared in the general benefit, nor was it sufficient to repeat the time-honoured axiom that the consumer paid the duty; because, though that was as a general proposition undoubtedly true, yet there could be no doubt that he became thereby a more sparing consumer, or possibly ceased to be a consumer altogether. Now in the negotiation with France in 1860 he had always believed, and believed still, that we were too eager, and that pressure of time and exigencies of party politics obliged our negotiators in some cases to give way more than they would otherwise have done. He had great doubts about the advantage of Commercial Treaties in general. Like the old Fisheries Convention, and the recent Convention or the subject of sugar duties and drawbacks, they were sometimes founded on principles and ideas which turned out to be erroneous; and the party upon which they pressed most hardly—as in the case of France, as to the latter, and England as to the former—postponed or evaded a loyal compliance with them, and much recrimination and discontent were the result. It was true that such treaties were justifiable when made with countries where commercial policy was imperfectly understood, because they gave trade that stability which was so essential to it, and preserved it from those violent fluctuations in duties and regulations which were often the work of corrupt or incapable Governments With regard to the French Treaty o 1860, there were provisions, such a that with reference to coal, which he never liked, and, as he had already said as a bargain he thought we got the worst of it; but as a political measure, as an engine placed in the hands of the
  138
  Emperor to insert the thin end of the wedge of free trade into the Protectionist policy of the trading classes of France, he would not be fair, or just, or reasonable, if he did not admit that it was a great and wise measure, productive of enormous benefit to the commercial and social relations of both countries. Therefore, when he submitted that it might be worth while trying to induce France now to correct some of the inequalities of the arrangement of 1860, he wished to guard himself, before all things, from the risk of being regarded as an advocate of Protection in any shape. And he marvelled at those agriculturists who, having been denuded of the last rag of Protection, and having smarted year after year under the taunts of the Free Traders, were now found among the supporters of those manufacturers, who, after a lapse of 25 years, were crying out for Protection for themselves and free trade with everyone else. Free trade was the normal condition of mankind. If duties were not required for purposes of Revenue—if all States were in the happy condition of Lippe Detmold, where the revenue of the Crown lands defrayed, or did defray—for he supposed it was now absorbed by all-devouring Prussia—the whole expenses of the Government—if all States were so fortunately situated, no one would, he imagined, in these days dream of imposing Customs duties at all. If, therefore, these were only defensible for Revenue purposes, all Customs duties I which were not balanced by a countervailing Excise duty were manifestly unsound, and for this reason, that the Exchequer only received the import duty on the foreign article, whereas the difference between the true price and protected price of the home-made article, which was equally a duty paid by the consumer, went, not to the Government, but to the producer. Did not agriculturists see that they ought not to be called upon to pay that tax, and that they could not afford to pay it? They were entirely unprotected, and were exposed to increasing competition from every quarter. They had to compete with the meat and wool of Australia, with the live stock of Europe, and even of South America; with the corn of America, the Danube, and Russia—though the latter was, indeed, crippled, and would probably be so to a greater degree

  139
  in future by the emancipation of her serfs, who, like the negroes, appeared to be using their freedom by abstaining from working for hire. In the recent debate in the French Legislative Chamber, one speaker objected to free trade because it gave, he said, a premium to those who worked too many hours in the day—who overworked themselves. This was a somewhat curious objection, but it contained a great truth. To put it in another way, it amounted to this—that in the markets of the world, which under a system of free trade would be open to all and regulate all, industry and frugality would carry the day; and so they ought. Why should he, for instance, pay ten guineas for a coat to enable his tailor to keep his brougham and his moor, when another man who did not aspire to these luxuries would make one for five? When, in former days, the refugee Flemings and Huguenots came over here and made us a nation of shopkeepers, before a complete amalgamation took place, there were often heard the same cries of protection to native industry, because the superior industry and greater frugality of the immigrants forced down the prices of commodities. During the long Continental wars, and before the development of transoceanic countries, the English carried everything before them; but now that the industrial energies of the Continent had been diverted to the arts of peace, and metals and minerals had been generally discovered, the high wages and expensive habits of English artizans were beginning to weight us heavily in the race. That English manufacturers enjoyed a period of great prosperity was proved by their purchase of large estates in every county in England. Their work-people, by means of trades unions, endeavoured to obtain a larger share of their prosperity. He was not going into this much vexed question further than to say that he was by no means one who saw unmixed evil in trades unions, or even strikes; but he thought there was little doubt that many of the regulations of trades unions had had the effect of increasing the price of our manufactures, and, therefore, not only of excluding them in some instances from foreign markets, but of inviting the importation to this country of manufactured articles instead of the raw material. He remembered hearing it made
  140
  a reproach to the builders of, he believed., St. Thomas's Hospital, that the woodwork was imported from Switzerland. But why not import woodwork as well as corn, hay, leather, boots, and shoes? The trades unions felt that this must be the result, and had endeavoured to extend their operations to foreign countries, and to bring about a general rise of wages. This was a perfectly legitimate attempt, but he doubted its wisdom or success. He could not help thinking that a far more advantageous result would be brought about by a proportional cheapening of all articles of consumption. A self-contained country, like the Highland proprietor who boasted he made everything on his estate, would get most things dear and bad. When free trade was universally adopted all exotic productions, and all manufactures which could only be carried on waste-fully and extravagantly, at the expense of the consumer, would cease. Everything would be made or grown where it could be made or grown in the best and cheapest manner. There would then be no need of Commercial Treaties; but trade would be left to find its natural channels and most congenial soils.
  MR. PLATTsaid, the real object of the hon. Member's Motion was evidently to revive Protection—retaliation being another name for reciprocity. But how would the hon. Member carry out his principle? This country drew large supplies from America, which imposed taxes upon our manufactured articles; to carry out a system of retaliation towards America it would be necessary to weight heavily the produce which was obtained from that country, and so to destroy the manufactures of Lancashire. There was, unhappily, much poverty in the country at present; but in the days before free trade there had been an amount of distress and pauperism much greater in proportion to the population than that which now existed. During the last 50 years peace had generally prevailed; and, as a natural consequence, arts and commerce had greatly progressed, not alone in this country, but in very many of the Continental nations as well. And the question which we had now to ask ourselves was, whether we could prevent foreign countries from manufacturing? He maintained, unhesitatingly, that the position of this country was not a disadvantageous one.

  141
  After all the calculations capable of being made as to foreign countries, the manufactures of this country enjoyed an advantage of fully 15 per cent over the manufactures of those of the most favoured country in Europe. It might be asked how it was that, with all these advantages, woollen fabrics were imported from Belgium? The truth was, that every country enjoyed some little advantage, arising from better knowledge or better manipulation; and in woollen manufactures Belgium undoubtedly was very much in advance of this country. Then as to wages. These were undoubtedly higher in England than in any other country; but, on the other hand, the work produced was more valuable. So that, measuring the amount of work produced with the amount of wages earned, England was absolutely the cheapest country as regarded the cost of production. In illustration of what he had just said, as to the advantages enjoyed by one country over another in some special knowledge or skill in manipulation, he might mention that in Rochdale a woollen manufacturer was absolutely bringing over persons from Belgium to instruct our people in the manipulation of wool. As to machinery, there was some special excellence in the products of nearly every country. We were indebted to France for one of the most beautiful machines in the cotton manufacture, and to Belgium and America for other machines: with regard to some things we might learn from them, as to others they might learn from us; and the question which arose was, which country ultimately would be in the best position to command the neutral markets of the world? Our exports had increased largely of late, which showed conclusively that the English race was capable of competing with the rest of the world; and the figures which had been quoted by the senior hon. Member! for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley), and by the Secretary of the Board of Trade, proved that we were advancing rapidly in all branches of manufacture. The observation of the English factory worker,; quoted by the hon. and learned Member; for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), that he could make everything that was imported, and that, therefore, he was being robbed by the importation that was going on, might be retorted by the foreigner with twenty-fold force. The
  142
  present state of things in America showed that it was impossible to adopt Protectionist principles without increasing the cost of the article produced, and thereby confining the consumption of such manufactures to the country producing them. To adopt such a line of policy, therefore, would be suicidal on the part of a small country like England, whose prosperity was entirely dependent upon freedom of trade, and upon the cheapness of raw materials. The same arguments would apply to trades unions, because the cheaper the manufacturers could get their work done the better for them, and, therefore, the better for the country. He had no doubt that on the present occasion the French Treaty was merely put forward as a stalking-horse to raise the cry of Protection. The hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had alluded to the idea that was in the mind of Mr. Cobden at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty, and that was that a good feeling would be produced between the two countries. This country would have reduced the protective duties if France had not moved at all; and he thought this country had done right in assisting the French Emperor in the difficult position in which he was placed at the time, and enabling him to bring the Treaty to a conclusion.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Member who had introduced the Motion (Mr. Birley), and whom he should presume to call the senior Member for Manchester, which had led to a most useful, instructive, and interesting debate, and. had elicited the views of hon. Members, sitting on both sides of the House, on this most important question. The speeches of the two Members for Manchester, and of the Secretary for the Board of Trade, could not fail to have a considerable effect out-of-doors. The only thing that surprised him in some of those speeches was the argument by which it was attempted to resist the Motion of the hon. Member. In his opinion, even if the facts and figures which had been quoted on the other side of the House were accurate, it would still be desirable that the proposed inquiry should be instituted. As a representative of an agricultural district, he did not hesitate to say that he should vote in favour of the appoint-

  143
  ment of the Committee of Inquiry into this question asked for by the hon. Member for Manchester. The hon. Member who had just sat down, speaking, no doubt, with great authority, had given a very couleur de rose description of the condition of trade throughout this country. The hon. Member had said that, owing to the system of Protection adopted in the United States, the consumption of their manufactures was confined within their own limits; but the Report of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce asserted the existence of a state of things exactly the reverse of that described by the hon. Member. The half-yearly Report of that Association, dated the 3rd of February, 1870, contained the following statement with respect to a very important branch of trade:—
  "In Australia a very large proportion of the goods in a hardware store are of American manufacture, but made out of English iron and steel, paying a heavy duty, and manufactured by American workmen, earning fully 75 per cent higher wages, and with the value of money much greater, thus beating us, with charges on the raw material of 50 per cent, and on wages, &c., of fully 100 per cent, in the trades that used to be specially our own. This evidently shows that it is not a question of wages alone which is operating so disadvantageously against this country. It can only, therefore, be attributed to the greater aptitude of many of the foreign workmen and their intelligence, which induces them to seize every opportunity of improving their manufacture by novelty of construction and excellence of make."
  ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite had received that statement with a cheer, doubtless on account of the allusion it contained to the superior education which the American workman received as compared with the English workman. But still the statement effectually disproved the statement of the hon. Member opposite, that the manufactures of America were consumed within her own limits, because she had adopted Protection. He would, with the permission of the House, proceed to refer to the general position assumed by those who opposed the appointment of the Committee, that the trade of this country was in a very prosperous condition. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had admitted that the silk trade was in a very depressed condition, and he even went further, and said that this was owing to French competition and the French Treaty. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had also admitted that the woollen manufacturers were now very severely de-
  144
  pressed through foreign competition. But, with these two exceptions, it had been said there was very little to complain of or to inquire about, and that the trade of the country was in a prosperous condition. Now, turning to another passage in the Report of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, of February, 1870, he found this passage—
  "Belgium and Prussia, and other countries which were importers of hardware and heavy work, &c., meet us as keen competitors in neutral markets. This is the more to be regretted, as ten years ago"—the date of the French Treaty—"we considered that in nearly all such manufactures, with the advantages of our coal-fields and skilled labour, we could defy competition. It is impossible for this country to continue to be the greatest manufacturer if the wages of our artizans are to he very much more, and their hours of labour very much less than those of the workmen in the other countries with which we have to compete, unless our countrymen maintain their lead in skill and intelligence."
  He took these statements from among numerous others of a similar kind, and quoted them simply for the purpose of proving that there was something substantial in the complaints which great bodies of our fellow-countrymen were now making, and something deserving attention in their requests for the appointment of a Select Committee of Inquiry. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had admitted, in a very frank manner, that certain parts of the French Treaty were indefensible, and had told the House that the Government were now labouring to get the duties lowered which he regarded as indefensible, and that application had been made to Manchester to send two representatives to Paris to press on the French Government the view which Manchester might take as to the inexpediency and injustice of these particular duties. Now, the first thing that struck him—and it must have struck every Member—was why Manchester was selected and favoured in this respect. If the Treaty was so partial and unjust, why were not representatives to be sent from those particular seats of industry which had suffered, more, perhaps, than Manchester itself, from the extravagant rates of duty sanctioned by the Treaty? That was a question which they ought to have answered. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had told them—and in that he agreed with the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell)—that it would be, in the highest

  145
  degree, unfortunate that any idea should be allowed to penetrate France that there was a feeling in this country adverse to a renewal of the Treaty. Well, if he were to take that view he should vote unhesitatingly for a Committee of Inquiry; because he was certain that nothing would give the working people, whether of France or England, a greater suspicion of the Treaty than the refusal of inquiry, and he believed it was obviated, as far as France was concerned, by the course which the French Government had pursued. And when his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland asked what would be the effect on public opinion in France if they granted this inquiry, his answer was—"What would be the effect on public opinion in England if they refused it?" If he was to choose between the two, he preferred infinitely to look at home; and, in his humble opinion, it would be a most unfortunate thing, when the French Government had conceded inquiry in consequence of the representations of the communities and industries which either were, or conceived themselves to be, injuriously affected, that the English Government, and still more the English House of Commons, should turn a deaf ear to a similar request from those communities and industries which in England either were, or believed themselves to be, similarly affected by the operation of the Treaty. A word now as to how the French Government had proceeded with respect to this matter. The Emperor promised inquiry before the system of personal government was abandoned. It was then, it might be said, the act of the Emperor himself. But was there any change in this policy after responsible and constitutional government had been substituted? Not at all; the Government of the Emperor carried out the pledge given before their accession to Office, and not only was the promised inquiry at this moment going on, as he had been told, in France, but, what was most remarkable, the very inquiry which the Government of England refused to the people was actually, at the request of the French Government, going on in England itself. If not in England, he should be very much surprised, for it was going on in Scotland. For what did he find in The Scotsman of the 23rd of April? There was the following account of the proceedings of the South of
  146
  Scotland Chamber of Commerce, Glasgow:—
  "Mr. Stewart, secretary, read a letter from M. Concheles, Consul for France at Glasgow, intimating that the French Legislative Assembly is at present making an inquiry into the results of the commercial and industrial reforms which have taken place in France since 1860, and that it has been found advisable to have points of comparison with foreign industries. Nothing could better enlighten upon the general causes which have influenced during the past years French industries than a conscientious observation of the circumstances in which foreign industries have been placed during the same time. The Consul had, therefore, been directed to make similar inquiries in Scotland to those pursued in France, and he solicited the assistance of the Chamber in obtaining information as to the state of the woollen industry."
  The woollen industry, the House had just been told by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt), required very great consideration, and here they had the French Government inquiring into the position of that trade at Glasgow, while the English Government were refusing to their own people a similar inquiry. He could not help thinking that an unfortunate position. He would not say one word upon the general question alluded to by some previous speakers. Representing, as he did, an agricultural constituency, he did not think it necessary to say a single word on free trade and Protection. It was sufficient for him to know that considerable bodies of his countrymen believed themselves injuriously affected by the operation of the Treaty, which in itself was admitted to be a very exceptional and abnormal instrument. He did not recollect the phrase made use of by the Prime Minister with regard to it, and which had been quoted by the hon. Gentleman. He believed it was "reciprocal instrument." That was a very remarkable phrase applied to an abnormal thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took every opportunity of informing people that, as far as his opinion was concerned, these "reciprocal instruments" were very injurious. The right hon. Gentleman told a deputation, that waited on him the other day, that, though he was against them as a rule, there were exceptional circumstances which made him favourable to this "reciprocal instrument." But assuredly if on all broad and general grounds of policy the Chancellor of the Exchequer was against these "reciprocal instruments," that was another

  147
  argument—when great bodies of our fellow-countrymen felt themselves injuriously affected by the operation of this particular "reciprocal instrument"—why their request for inquiry should not be rejected in the manner which was now contemplated. For these reasons, and without committing himself to any anticipation as to the result, he held that the circumstances of the time were favourable for acceding to the request of the commercial communities, and he sincerely trusted the House would find itself in a position to grant the inquiry.
  MR. BROCKLEHURSTsaid, that as his constituents felt a deep interest in the matter under discussion, he would trouble the House with a few words on the subject. It appeared from the Census of 1861 that the number of people whom the silt trade of this country employed was 117,000. He mentioned that to show that it was an important branch of the industry of this country. The number was equal to about one-half the number of the people employed in the woollen and worsted manufacture, and one-fifth of those employed in the cotton and linen trade. When the Secretary to the Board of Trade had said that the French Treaty of 1860 had had a very injurious effect upon our silk trade, he might have stated that, previous to 1860, the imports of French silt goods had reached the value of about £750,000 per annum only; but since then they had gone on increasing until in 1865 they had amounted to nearly £8,000,000. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) in supposing that inquiry would probably raise a great suspicion on the part of the French nation. He thought that the evidence that would be brought before the Committee would show such a great increase of foreign manufactured goods introduced into this country that the French manufacturers might feel every confidence in reducing the heavy duties at present imposed on some branches of our trade. It might be asked how the English silk manufacturer had not been able to compete with his foreign rival? As a practical man, he might say the reason was the want of technical education on the part of our working classes. As long as our working classes were engaged as mere machines they were unrivalled for industry
  148
  and steady work; but as soon as they were required to exercise skill, knowledge, and taste, they were left behind in the race by the foreign workman. Take, as an illustration of that, the French silk-dyeing trade. By his superior knowledge the French silk dyer was enabled to increase the weight of the material he dyed as much as 2oz. or 3oz. to the lb. Now, as one ounce of silt was worth from 8s. to 5s., it was evident that the French silk manufacturer was enabled to produce his fabric at much less cost than the English manufacturer could do. It might be said that was an application of technical education in a wrong and not at all creditable direction; but the fact was as he had stated, and it was one reason why the English, silk manufacturer was left behind in the race with his French competitor. But in proportion as the weight of French silk was increased by dyeing, so was its wearing quality deteriorated; and, in consequence of that deterioration being discovered, the demand on the part of the consumers of silk goods was now very much for English-made goods. If the proposed inquiry were granted, it would supply them with a knowledge of what the effects of the French Treaty had been during the last five or six years. He could answer for the trade he represented, that rather than return to Protection they would prefer that the silk duties should remain as they are now. What they required was an elementary and, if necessary, a compulsory education, to be followed by a technical education, among the working classes of the country; and, these desiderata obtained, he had. no fear that our silk manufacturers would soon be able to maintain their position in respect to other nations.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he hoped most sincerely that the Committee now asked for would be granted. The Secretary of the Board of Trade had told them that some of the duties under the Treaty were still too high, and if that was so, there was even on that ground a necessity for an inquiry. But there were other reasons also for such a Committee. We were said to be placed at a disadvantage when compared with foreign countries, and it was eminently desirable that inquiry should be made into the truth of that allegation. Then it had been assumed that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Co-

  149
  ventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) was replete with, fallacies; but if they had a Committee of Inquiry, they would be the better enabled to find out what was fallacy and what was fact. If they would not grant such a Committee, the denial would and must carry with it the semblance that there existed something behind that it was desirable to conceal, but which it would be very well to bring to light. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had told them that he feared great ill-will might be aroused in France if they consented to such an inquiry. But they ought to test Franco by England in such a matter, and a similar Committee which had been sitting recently in France had not created the least ill-will or ill-feeling in this country. But if this Committee was refused, there would be an enormous amount of feeling—prejudice in the opinion of some people possibly—generated throughout the whole of the wage classes of England, which it would be very difficult indeed to suppress. That class had the idea, rightly or wrongly, that its interests were sacrificed to those of our Continental rivals and to the labour market of foreign lands, and perhaps, also, to the interests of our own mercantile classes of the upper ranks. And it was desirable, if for no other reason than that, that the error, if error it really were, should be dissipated. An inquiry ought to be granted, and it should be a very searching inquiry, especially with regard to the requirements of our wage classes, our exports and imports, and the English labour market.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he had heard people in France frequently acknowledge that France had derived great benefits from the Cobden Treaty, particularly in regard to the increased exports to England; but they alleged that England had gained still more by it. An exactly analogous tone had been adopted on the subject by many persons in this country; and, no doubt, much misconception existed in regard to the operation of the treaty. If, after the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), the House acceded to the Motion, such a proceeding would look very much like an intention to separate. The hon. and learned Member quoted Mr. Stuart Mill as an authority in favour of reciprocity; but there was another authority
  150
  from whose writings quotations against such a system might easily be quoted. Since 1860 our imports from and exports to France had increased in the same proportion—90 per cent. That was an enormous increase, and in all other parts of the world our imports and exports increased about 30 per cent during the same period. In 1860 our imports amounted to £7 7s. a head of the population; in 1868 they had increased to £9 14 s. 6d. In the former year our exports were £4 14 s. 7d. per head of the population; in 1868 they amounted to £5 18 s. 2d. Those figures showed not only a greatly augmented trade, but a greatly increased employment of labour. Reference had been made to the great distress among the labouring classes; but the depression in trade had been less severe since Mr. Cobden's Treaty and the days of free trade than it had been at different periods before. In proof of this he might refer to the depression in 1840–1, and that in 1848. The House and the country had heard a good deal about the displacement of labour caused by Mr. Cobden's Treaty; but the increased production much more than counterbalanced any displacement that might have resulted from the measure. We had something to learn in the way of designs. A gentleman who carried on a largo business at Coventry, told him that he had been in the habit of bringing over French people to that town to make designs, but after remaining a short time there they lost their taste. With an improvement in technical knowledge our workmen would be able still to compete with those of any other country.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, it had frequently been stated that those who negotiated the French Treaty on behalf of the English Government were not successful representatives of British interests, and. were not able to cope with the diplomatic skill of those who acted on behalf of the French; and that they were in short outwitted by them. Had such a remark been only made when the subject of the French Treaty was under discussion 10 years since, it would have been unnecessary for him to notice it now; but it had been of late frequently repeated by gentlemen of high position, and his right hon. Friend, the Member for North Devon (Sir S. H. Northcote) in a speech delivered at Exeter last

  151
  winter—a speech which in other respects did him much credit from its thorough free trade character—used the following words in the same sense:—
  "We complain—many people complained at that time and still complain—that the bargain made was not nearly as favourable as it ought to have been and might have been. I do not want to rip up old sores; but those with whom I usually act were not quite content, I am free to say, with the Treaty at the time: and we still think it is not so favourable as might have been obtained with more care, and in a different spirit."
  Now he (Mr. Bowring) wished it to be known that there was no ground whatever for such an impression. When the French Treaty was being negotiated, he was himself connected with the Board of Trade, and in the position which he then occupied it was his duty carefully to scrutinize all the documents which had reference to the Treaty, for the information of the Minister who was at the head of that Department. The Board of Trade received an immense mass of information on the subject to assist them in forming an opinion, and he was able to state that with respect to many articles England succeeded in obtaining all that she required; in many other cases important concessions were granted by the French Government beyond those originally offered, and as respects the remaining articles, there was not one on which the duty, as then fixed, amounted to the maximum of 30 per cent which the original Treaty gave the French Government a right to impose. Moreover, further important reductions were provided; for, to come into operation four years later (or in 1864). And, lastly, under the most Favoured Nation Clause we had obtained all the concessions which had since been made to other countries. The details of the Treaty reflected the highest credit on his lamented Friend Mr. Cobden and those who were associated with him, and it had been beyond all doubt productive of the greatest good to this country. With respect to the general question now before the House, he had no objection to the appointment of a. Committee in itself, because he was persuaded that the more the matter was inquired into the more would the benefits conferred by free trade be made manifest. But, at the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the appointment of such a Committee would be looked upon in many quarters as evidencing that the House had an inclina-
  152
  tion to question the wisdom, not only of the French Treaty, but of our free trade policy in general, and to regard it as a failure. He objected to the Committee upon that ground, and for the same reason he regretted that last year, in a House of 250 Members, as many as 100 voted in favour of a Motion, analogous to the present one, brought forward by the hon. Member for Coventry. It was quite true that last year the President of the Board of Trade promised that a Committee would be appointed; but he did so coupled with this condition, that due cause was to be shown of its necessity; but no cause had been shown in the speeches of the hon. Members for Manchester (Mr. Birley) and Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill); and after what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, it would be positively mischievous to grant such a Committee. He (Mr. Bowring) could show by statistics the great benefit which had arisen from the French Treaty in every branch of our trade, whether of import or of export. In 1858, for instance, the value of cotton goods exported to France, was £230,000; but in 1868 it was £1,100,000; and even with respect to our silk manufactures, in which he admitted there had been a great deal of suffering amongst the workpeople, it had been a beneficial Treaty, our exports to France having increased from £40,000 to £90,000. Our total imports from France had increased in the 10 years from £13,300,000 to £33,900,000; our exports of British manufactures to France from £4,800,000 to £10,600,000; and our re-exports to France from £4,400,000 to £13,000,000. The hon. Member for Manchester had himself just admitted that the moneyed classes, the merchants, and the trading and shipping classes, had reaped a great advantage from the Treaty. Great stress had been laid upon the argument that the distress among the working classes of England was attributable to the operation of this Treaty. If that were true, they would expect to find proportionate prosperity among the French working classes; but the same complaints that were made in England were made in France, and there had also been severe distress among the working classes of the United States, who were altogether exempt from the operation of this Treaty. He understood the argument

  153
  of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry to be that we should endeavour to get France to adopt a simple measure of free trade; but what benefit would it be to the silk producers of Coventry if France admitted the cotton manufactures of Manchester free of duty? And he saw no reason why, even if France refused to give us entire free trade, we should grant to those silk producers the so-called protection which by common consent we refused to grant to the corn-producing classes of this country. The fact was that the silk trade of Coventry was now passing through the stage which other industries had passed through, and was experiencing the natural result of removing the artificial support formerly given to bolstered-up industries. He willingly accepted the disavowal of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) of any intention to seek to reverse the policy of free trade, and he had hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Coventry would have adopted the same tone; but the latter sought to obtain not merely the reversal of the policy of the French. Treaty, but a return to Protection—a policy which fortunately obtained little or no support from the Leaders of the Opposition, excepting, perhaps, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) who seemed, from a speech he had made in the country, to continue to cast back longing, lingering looks after the departed ghost of Protection. To show that a return to Protection was advocated by the rank and file of the opposite party, the hon. Member quoted passages from speeches made at a crowded meetings held at Bethnal Green, in February last, under the auspices of the Reciprocity Association, by Messrs. Whittington, Ferdinando, Kydd, and Anderson, strongly condemning free trade, speaking of it as miserable failure, and denouncing its advocates as not merely knaves, but traitors. He would not now seek to argue the question of free trade; but would content himself with saying that since its adoption the great articles of consumption among the working classes, such as tea, coffee, and sugar, had been reduced in price by one-half, while their consumption per head had been nearly doubled. Nine-tenths of our total exports of £180,000,000 consisted of articles manufactured by British workmen, and only one-sixth of our total imports
  154
  of £300,000,000 (or one-tenth, excluding silk goods) consisted of articles manufactured by the workmen of other countries, and it was only this small portion of our imports which could be considered as in any way competing with the productions of our own working classes. Under all the circumstances, he could not be a party to the appointment of a Committee as proposed by the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, that the arguments of the Mover of the Motion had been met by assertions that the object was to revive Protection. Even if that were so, would there be any harm in it? All that was desired by those who supported the Motion was that a full inquiry should be made into the working of the Treaty. If the inquiry went to prove that Protection was advisable for the welfare of the working classes, he should like to know whether those who sat on the Ministerial side were prepared to say that they would not adopt it? All that was asked for was inquiry. What were the facts? In 1860, the Treaty was entered into with the French Government, and that Treaty expired on the 1st of February last. A notion had got abroad among the working classes that the present distress arose from the operation of that Treaty, and they had petitioned the House for an inquiry. They petitioned for what they believed to be a redress of their grievances; and was the House, merely because the inquiry might run counter to the pet theory of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to allow the suffering to continue by repressing the inquiry? With regard to free trade, it should be remembered that, owing to their course of legislation, and the transfer of the manufacture of the textile fabrics from the South to the North of England, they had brought together in the North a great mass of people, who relied for their existence upon employment in the manufacture of these fabrics. Supposing cotton goods could be manufactured cheaper in foreign countries than in England, and that, in consequence, the whole of the cotton manufacture of England was destroyed, were they prepared still to carry out the principle of free trade? The whole question resolved itself into one of whether free trade was a benefit to the labouring population of this country. If it was a benefit, he was in fa-

  155
  vour of it; if it were not a benefit, he had the courage to say to the House that he was against free trade. The circumstances were such as to warrant inquiry. They talked of free trade; but was this Treaty free trade? He admitted that if two nations had the same amount of taxes to pay, and were on an equality in other respects, it might be good policy to have a free interchange of commodities between them. But if one were much more heavily taxed than another, the question arose whether free trade would be mutually beneficial, because the nation that was least heavily taxed would outbid the other. He wished to put the question on a different footing to that on which it had hitherto been placed, and to ask whether the people of England had any ground of complaint with respect to that Treaty, and whether they could reasonably ask for an inquiry respecting it? If he were to allude to the case of the silk manufacture, he would, no doubt, be told that, though it had declined, other branches of manufacture had improved. He would, therefore, take the cotton manufacture, the state of which did not deserve the glowing terms used by the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Bazley), for since the American War it had been a wretched trade. Within the last month a sub-committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had addressed a letter to a foreign firm, in which they said—
  "Suffice it to say that, in the year 1869, the extreme badness of trade resulted in an extent of disasters which, both in the amount of property involved and in respect of the hardships and ruin entailed on manufacturers, is almost without parallel in the history of our commerce. In that year alone upwards of 80 spinners and manufactures in this district failed, independently of those who compounded with their creditors unknown to the general public; while those whose wealth enabled them to avoid absolute ruin were left with crippled means and greatly depreciated property. Where mill property had to change hands it is no exaggeration to say that such property fell to a third, and, in some cases, to a fourth of its former value, and was even at times unsaleable. Many millowners, whom a life of industry had placed in apparently affluent circumstances, were driven to seek for subsistence in subordinate situations, and even in emigration. Destitution among the operatives in some localities caused an enormous advance in the poor rates; and, in order to avoid liability to taxation on unworked factories, the machinery of many was cleared out, and even sold for old metal."
  This was the description given of the
  156
  position of the cotton trade in 1869; and he would appeal to Members on the other side of the House whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester had, that night, given a faithful picture of the state of things in the cotton trade.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEYsaid, he had distinctly stated that the losses in the cotton trade since 1860 amounted to £200,000,000. He only spoke of prospective prosperity, for while cotton decreased in value profits increased. He had referred to a bright future, not a bright immediate past.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, that cotton had been decreasing in value ever since the close of the American War; but the result was still great depression of trade. Taking, however, a wider range than Manchester or Macclesfield, he asked whether the condition of the labouring people of this country had improved or not since the negotiation of the French Treaty, when compared with their condition before that time? The French Treaty was concluded in 1860, and he would, therefore, take the state of things from 1854 to 1859, and compare them with those between 1859 and 1867. The statistics he was about to quote were taken from a Blue Book called Statistical Abstracts, which was published by authority. He found that the population of England, between 1854 and 1859, had increased 5 per cent, and between 1859 and 1867, it had increased 8 per cent. If the population were well-to-do, the poor rates would not increase in a greater ratio than the population; if the people were prosperous, the poor rates would increase in a less ratio than population. The amount, however, expended in the relief of the poor in England and Wales from 1854 to 1859 increased 5 per cent—rather less than the increase in the population; and between 1859 and 1867 the cost of the relief of the poor increased, not 8 per cent, as the population did, but 25 per cent. There was another test of the condition of the people. Between 1854 and 1859 the increase in the county rates in England and Wales, mainly owing to the increase in the cost of the police force, was 27 per cent, and between 1859 and 1867 it was 52 per cent. Here was a clear proof that the condition of the people was gradually growing worse and worse, for the relief to the poor was increasing, and that which invariably followed upon increase

  157
  of pauperism—namely, vagrancy and crime, had also increased, as shown by the increased number of police who had to guard us against the depredations of these unfortunate people. The number of criminal offenders convicted in England and Wales between 1854 and 1859 had decreased 45 per cent; but between 1859 and 1867 it had increased nearly 14 per cent. Did not these facts furnish good ground for inquiry? What could be the cause of that sudden falling off in the number of criminals convicted in the five years previous to the passing of the French Treaty and of the increase in the six years after? He did not say that the increase was to be ascribed to the operations of the Treaty; but in denying an inquiry into the question, an attempt was being made to prevent the House from arriving at the true state of the case. There was also another illustration of the destitution and misery which prevailed among the labouring classes, and that was the increase of the rate of emigration. No one would contend that if the people were in good circumstances they would be willing to leave their land and go to foreign countries. When, therefore, we found large numbers of them emigrating, we might, with perfect justice, come to the conclusion that they were driven to that course by the sad condition in which they were at home. That being so, he found that, from 1854 to 1859, the number of emigrants had decreased 62 per cent; while from 1859 to 1867 it had increased 62 per cent. There was another very remarkable fact connected with emigration which threw light on the opinions entertained by the labouring classes as to what they deemed to be the cause of their misery. Where did they go to, for instance, when they emigrated? They did not go to countries where there was free trade, or to the Colonies, but to the United States, where the highest Protection was maintained simply for the sake of protection. In 1854, 14 per cent of those who emigrated went to the North American Colonies; 59 per cent to the United States; 26 per cent to Australia and New Zealand; and 1 per cent to other places. In 1859, 58 per cent went to the United States; but, in 1867, a remarkable change occurred in the proportions of the emigrants to different countries, for in that year, while only 8 per cent went to the North Ame-
  158
  rican Colonies, 82 per cent went to the United States; the emigration to Australia and New Zealand being 7 per cent, and to other places 3 per cent. That was a remarkable state of things; because, during the period which had elapsed between 1859 and 1867, the policy of the United States had become still more highly protective than ever it had been before, and yet the result of that highly protective system was not to deter the labouring classes from going to that country, but rather to encourage them to make it their home. He did not mean to say that the subject was one on which they had formed correct opinions, or that free trade was wrong and Protection right; all he contended for was, that the facts which he had just mentioned clearly showed that there was a strong opinion among our labouring population that their troubles and distress in some way proceeded from the policy which had been adopted by this country, and that they were determined to go to a country in which the policy was the very reverse. He felt it to be his duty to lay these important facts before the House, for they proved that, whatever the policy was which it was right we should pursue with respect to our commercial relations, there was, from some cause or another, widespread, distress existing in this county, which he, for one, had come to that House with the sole object of relieving if possible. But to relieve it, it became necessary to ascertain what the cause was which led to it, and to attain that object inquiries must be instituted. It showed, in his opinion, great weakness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite; it showed that they had little faith in their principles when they opposed such an inquiry, because, as they said, it might prove Protection to be light, and free trade wrong. ["No, no!"] If that was not the ground on which their opposition was based, he should like to know what objection they had to the appointment of the proposed Committee. The argument that the French Government were opposed to inquiry could not be held for a moment to be of any weight with that House. Indeed, the French themselves were engaged in inquiring into the operations of the Treaty; and, even though it were otherwise, we had not yet, he hoped, arrived at that position that we would not institute an in-

  159
  quiry into a law which, we ourselves had passed, and which effected the well-being of the people of this country, without asking the consent of the French Government. He trusted, therefore, that in deference to the feeling which undoubtedly prevailed in our large centres of industry with regard to the operation of the Treaty, the inquiry now called for would be granted; for it would not be well that it should go forth to our suffering people that the House of Commons declined to recognize a grievance of which they so generally complained.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the general question; but that he was desirous of making a few remarks on what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman had read an extract from a letter which he understood had been addressed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to some one with respect to the distress which prevailed in Lancashire. Now, that distress arose, he apprehended, in a great degree from the circumstance that, during the period of the depression of trade caused by the American War, the people of Lancashire, with a certain want of providence, wasted a great portion of the funds which they had previously been able to lay by in bricks, mortar, and machinery. The consequence had been that an amount of machinery, building, and plant of one kind or another had been brought into existence far in excess of the legitimate demands of the times. The products of our industry also had not been very successful in the markets of the world. We had overstocked the markets of India, China, and other countries; and he attributed in a great degree the bad prices realized in those markets to the large over-production in Lancashire in consequence of the investment of surplus moneys in that district in the manner to which he had referred. It must be borne in mind, too, that the Continent had made great advances of late years in the extension of railways and other commercial respects, and had, therefore, been enabled to meet us in their own and in neutral markets on terms which, a short time since, were not even thought of. These were facts which the hon. Gentleman seemed not to have taken into account, and in reply to the statements of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the state
  160
  of population in the country, he would simply refer him to the consumption of articles on which Excise and Custom duties were paid, as recently explained to the House. In tea, sugar—even spirits, and all other commodities of that kind, it appeared that an amount of consumption was going forward which by no means indicated the existence of so great an amount of distress as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to suppose prevailed. It was not his intention to go into the general question, and he would only say that nothing he had heard in that debate, nothing he had read, and nothing that had come under his experience of late would justify him in thinking that there was any reason whatever to lament or deplore the adoption of the great principles on which the commercial system of this country was established 10 years ago.
  MR. PELLdenied the accuracy of the statement that the reason why the agricultural classes took so warm an interest in the questions before the House was that they were anxious for a return to Protection. The tithe averages proved the price of corn to be no lower under free trade than Protection, while meat and the lesser luxuries of the farm were certainly dearer. He had this evening presented to the House a numerously signed Petition from a portion of his constituents who were really concerned in this matter—namely, those who resided within the walls of the town of Leicester, containing more than one-third of the constituency he had the honour to represent. He had taken some pains to confer both with masters and operatives on this subject during the Recess, and as far as he could ascertain, the former were not dissatisfied with the operation of the Commercial Treaty. They were perfectly aware, however, that with regard to certain branches of trade the position of the manufacturers had been shifted. In Leicestershire they were largely engaged in the production of woollen twist and hosiery, and though some of the classes of woollen goods they formerly produced had now gone abroad, machinery had, he believed, been applied for the production of another kind of goods from which a profit was derivable. He would not treat this subject from the point of view of free trade, which question had, in his opinion, been dead and buried long ago. He wished, however,

  161
  to say a few words on the subject from the operatives' point of view. He had met them in great numbers and endeavoured to show them that, when circumstances were unfavourable, the mind did not easily distinguish between reciprocity and a policy of retaliation which would be highly mischievous. These men had stated their case to him in a most fair and rational way, and he therefore felt bound to ask the House to meet them in a like spirit. The hon. Member for Manchester had spoken of education; but what kind of education could possibly be more valuable to the people than that which would be imparted to them by an inquiry into this subject? In his judgment the fair way to meet them would be by acceding to the prayer of their Petition, and showing that the inconveniences they suffered might not result from legislation, but from other influences over which Parliament had no control whatever. He thought one of the consequences of such an inquiry as was desired might be to substantiate the soundness of the policy which led to the Commercial Treaty. At all events, the inquiry would show that there existed at the present moment a tendency towards a very great change in wages, both in this country and abroad, and that while this change was going on our manufacturers and operatives must be subjected to a pressure which it was only natural they should complain of. An inquiry might fairly be made into the operation of the Treaty, which had been recently renewed de die in diem, and the result would possibly be that a new Treaty might be concluded even more beneficial than the former one, which he sincerely believed had been of advantage to the nation.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would have abstained from joining in the discussion had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Fielden). The question before the House seemed to have grown up in accordance with the Darwinian theory. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley), for an inquiry into the French Treaty, had been taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill), who wished for an inquiry into all treaties; and now the hon. Member for the West Riding seemed desirous of entering into a still wider inquiry as to whether free trade
  162
  or Protection was good for the country. He did not think, however, that the hon. Member for Manchester had such an object in view when he brought forward this Motion, and, in his opinion, there were many objections to entering upon so wide an inquiry. The hon. Member for the West Riding had commented on the French Treaty, as it affected not only trade, but also poor rates, the police force, criminals, and emigration. Among other things, the hon. Member had stated that while our population had increased only 8 per cent between 1859 and 1867, pauperism had increased 25 per cent; but he omitted to mention that during that period the American War and several grave financial panics had occurred, and also that we had passed several Acts to insure the better treatment of the poor, so that the increase of pauperism was not due solely to the additional number of paupers, but likewise in a large degree to the higher outlay required for their maintenance. Again, the hon. Member did not allude to the fact that the cotton trade had suffered as much, or more, before the introduction of free trade than it had done since. Before that period, he might remark, one in every 11 of our population was a pauper, whereas in 1869 the proportion was one in every 20; and he thought the amount of pauperism would be further diminished if the people were well educated and weaned from their drinking habits. Again, in 1854, before the great principles of free trade were carried out, the value of our exports to foreign countries was only £115,000,000; but in 1869 it had risen to £190,000,000, an increase which must have had the effect of giving additional comfort and happiness to many of our people. It might be said that our taking an increased quantity of French products was injurious to the home silk trade; but it was precisely because we took so large a quantity of their silk, and other products, that they were able in return to import largely from us; and even if we were now to put a heavy duty on their goods they would not cease to manufacture silk, woollen, and cotton fabrics. The only consequence would be, that if our shores were closed to them they would send their goods to neutral markets, there to establish competition with our manufactures. As regarded the plate-glass makers, if, under present cir-

  163
  cumstances, foreigners sent in a third of the quantity of plate glass that was used in this country, how could the mere removal of duties enable our countrymen to compete successfully abroad when to the cost of production the cost of freight was to be added? He was not, as a rule, in favour of Commercial Treaties. As a rule, he thought that they were a mistake. But in the case of the Treaty with France, it was the only manner in which the Emperor could carry out a free-trade policy with this country, and it was better to have it in that form than not at all. At the same time, he hoped that no treaty of the same sort would be made with any other nation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before the House divides, as the debate has been rather discursive, let me recapitulate the points which are really before us. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley), who opened the debate, put his proposal to refer the French Treaty to a Committee on the single ground, as I understood him—[An hon. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Gentleman has not heard the ground—on the ground that we were not as favoured in our exports to France under that Treaty as we ought to be, and that it would be desirable to enter into an investigation of the manner in which our exports have been treated, with a view of prevailing upon France, as I understood, to give us more favourable terms. Now, it occurs to me that if the hon. Gentleman wished to prevent our exports getting fairer treatment than they do at present, this is the way to attain his object. Because, if we should enter into an investigation, and show to the French Protectionists—who are very powerful—that under this Treaty they enjoy considerable protection at present, nothing will more strengthen their case, and nothing will make it more likely to prevail. We should be showing them the strength of their own position; we should be putting them upon their guard, and we should be enabling them to use a most powerful argument not only with those who are of their own way of thinking, but also with those who are undecided upon the question of free trade or Protection, and thereby undermining the very arguments which we wish to prevail. But I pass to the very different treatment of the Motion which
  164
  was given by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Staveley Hill) and those who succeeded him. He not only used the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester, but he went much further; for he did not content himself with demanding fair play, and the more easy admission of our exports into France, but contended that the Members of the Committee that is asked for should devise some plan for restricting the import of French goods into England. That was the whole basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He thought that the producers of England were injured by the competition with France, and that some measure ought to be devised for limiting that competition. In order to benefit the consumers of England a tax in the shape of an additional payment for the goods was to be imposed on the consumers of England. Warming with his subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of "retaliation;" but his argument went beyond that. Retaliation, of course, is one way of limiting the entrance of goods into a country, and thereby raising the prices of such goods by artificial means; but the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether he meant it or not, went, when fairly considered, the whole length of Protection. Once admit the principle that it is just to impose duties not for the purpose of revenue merely, but for the purpose of restricting the arrival of foreign goods in this country, and thereby raising the market against the people of this country, and you will have admitted, in the most explicit terms, the principle of Protection, with its most odious consequences. Then I go a little further and I come to the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners); and that noble Lord was less guarded even than the hon. and learned Member for Coventry, becaue he actually pronounced a sort of panegyric on Protection. And though a protected manufacturer is hardly ever a manufacturer whose goods can be exported, because they are produced at an extravagant price, and therefore cannot compete in the markets of the world with other goods which do not enjoy the so-called advantages of Protection, the noble Lord was so impressed with the view, which in some way or other had been suggested to him, that he went into a panegyric of

  165
  America, and was at great pains to show that, although America imposes such penalties upon hard goods, she is still able to export axes to Australia. Why the noble Lord should have felt it necessary to refer to Australia and America I know not; the only reason that I can imagine is to afford proof that he was a Protectionist to the backbone. Then I come to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fielden), who addressed us at so much length, and went into so many statistics upon the subject; he seemed to me to be a most devoted advocate of Protection. "Observe," he said, "the merits of Protection, when persons are driven out of the country by your free-trade policy—where do they go? Not to free-trade countries, but to America." These hon. Gentlemen may all be right in the doctrines which they put forward. I have no right to assume the contrary. But I wish the House to take notice that, with the single exception of the hon. Member for Manchester, the principal speakers in this debate based their support of the Motion really, though with some timidity and hesitation, upon the doctrines of Protection. If that be so, and if the House grants a Committee upon the strength of speeches such as these, we shall be doing the very thing best calculated to strengthen the Protectionist party in France, and to urge upon the French Government to put an end to the Treaty. We shall tend to give the impression that this House is Protectionist, and that it has granted the Committee with the view to establish Protection. But I press this matter further. Anybody who has attended to the debate will see that what is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen is not the French Treaty at all—the French Treaty is a mere stalking-horse. What hon. Gentlemen desire is, a Committee before which they may impeach the doctrines of free trade, and before which they may urge a retrograde policy, taxing the consumer by making an artificial dearness for the benefit of those who cannot in fair market compete with the foreigner. The mischiefs that would result from the adoption of such a Motion would be incalculable. It might turn the balance against us in France; and the Treaty, to the value of which, such important testimony has been borne, might be put an end to altogether. I have criticized
  166
  the reasons put forward in favour of granting this Committee. I will say one word as to the reasons against it. The question is now undergoing inquiry in France. Why cannot we wait and see the result of that inquiry in France without plunging into an investigation on our own account? What can be the result of any such inquiry? If we show that England has been a loser by the Treaty, the hon. Gentleman will only succeed in making foreigners cling more tightly to the advantages they enjoy, while weakening the support given to the Treaty in this country. If, on the other hand, we demonstrated that England gained largely by it—though it might also be true that France gained equally—the fact of our profiting largely would not tend to increase its popularity among our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. Put it which way you will, therefore, I cannot see that anything but mischief is likely to result from this Motion. It is evident that it is not merely the operation of free trade that is sought to be inquired into, but that it is desired to ascertain how far it lies in the power of the Government to remedy the shortcomings of those who have been unsuccessful in their pursuits. The effect of granting such a Committee would be to establish a principle more unsound than any which has been proposed—that when reverses of trade or pauperism occur the belief should be raised that it is in the power of Government to interfere to restore the prosperity of trade. No more fatal delusion than that can be conceived, because its effect is not only to raise expectations which can never be fulfilled, but because it throws odium upon the Government by holding them to blame for misfortunes for which, in reality, they are not in the slightest degree responsible. For these reasons, therefore, I hope that the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member, which really, under the pretence of a proposition for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the French Treaty, proposes to re-open the whole controversy between free trade and Protection, and to broach that most pernicious doctrine that it is in the power of a Government to make its citizens wealthy, happy, or industrious.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to say, by way of explanation, that the

  167
  Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely misrepresented what fell from him. He (Lord John Manners) had quoted from the Report of the Chamber of Commerce at Birmingham for the purpose of showing that the Americans had actually exported goods to Birmingham.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid: Sir, at the commencement of this debate I was reminded of the saying that popular assemblies are deficient in two qualities: that they have no memory and no foresight. For what was the answer given on the part of the Government to the Motion now before us? That we are not to inquire into the operation of the French Treaty, because, just at the present time, the state of trade is rather improving; and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) got up, and, in reply to the very powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden) said there was a slight increase in the consumption of sugar, I think he mentioned spirits also, and he said something about tea. Will the House ask itself what this Treaty has been, and what it is to be, if renewed? It is an engagement, which has been described by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade as a key to the commercial policy not only of this country, but of Europe, during the last 10 years, and it is proposed to renew, for a further period of 10 years, an engagement, which is to regulate the commercial policy of this country and Europe, with all its incidents as hereafter affecting this country. Hon. Members who spoke early in the debate were very urgent in demanding facts to justify this inquiry. Sir, is any hon. Member of this House prepared to assert that the commercial policy of the country has no effect on its industry? If no hon. Member is prepared to declare that, how can he be surprised, when the representatives of the working classes say that those classes are suffering severely, and have suffered severely during the past 10 years, and that, as compared with the previous 10 years, they have for the greater portion of that time been in a worse position. If that is a fact—if that circumstance characterizes the period during which the commercial policy of this country has been regulated by the Commercial Treaty with France, upon what ground can the right hon. Gentle-
  168
  man the Chancellor of the Exchequer complain of our showing that the commercial policy of the country and the deteriorated condition of the working classes for the last 10 years, as compared with their condition during the previous 10 years, are coincident facts? Why, Sir, I never heard a weaker argument proceed from the lips of a man of his great abilities, or of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "Whatever may have been the circumstances of the commercial classes in the past 10 years, what can the commercial policy of the country have to do with their condition?"
  Why, Sir, the French Protectionists are much more reasonable than the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman is afraid, if the proposed inquiry be instituted, that the French Protectionists will gain some information; for they say that this instrument—which is described as the key to the commercial policy in France, no less than to that of England during these 10 years, has not been sufficiently advantageous to them. In like manner the operative classes of this country say that it has not been sufficiently to their advantage; and because both these interests declare themselves injured, therefore, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this House must not inquire. Such is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer! This Commercial Treaty, Sir, relates not only to France and French productions. We know that there is a provision in that Treaty, according to which the produce of all other countries passing through France comes duty-free into this country, and this is an obligation which gives not free trade but protection to the industry of France; while it entitles her to free imports into this country. Then we are lectured by the supporters of this Treaty, which secures Protection to France, whilst it enforces free imports on England, upon the doctrine of free trade. Free trade! Free trade! Free trade, forsooth! Call you that a free-trade bargain, which secures 15 or 20 per cent import duties to one country, and refuses them to the manufactured articles exported from the other country? Never before was there such an abuse of the term "free trade." And then we are charged with impertinence for venturing to believe that it is possible for the Chancellor of the

  169
  Exchequer to find it convenient to impose some duty on French, imports for the supply of the public Revenue. ["Oh!"] Oh! I only wish that the hon. Member who shouts "Oh!" were a Member of the House of Assembly in the United States of America: I can assure him that his exclamation would not be received there with the cordiality with which it appears to be hailed by Gentlemen opposite. I have heard it said that there is a skeleton in the cupboard of every household; and it struck me as being rather singular that there should be such an avoidance of all mention of the working classes in the course of this debate among the supporters of the Government. The same silence respecting them was observed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the thought arose to my mind that the working classes of England must be the skeleton in the cupboard of the party opposite. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may not like my referring to the skeleton in their cupboard. I strongly suspect that it is there, that it will come out by-and-by, that, in fact, it will require more than all the ingenuity they possess to keep it under lock and key. Sir, I represent a largo body of the working classes. I have presented their Petition from Birmingham. Nay, for once, I went beyond the limits of my constituency, and represented to the working classes, at Manchester, that it was for their interest that the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be kept free to deal with the Revenue of this country during the next ten years—I exhorted them to petition this House not to give its consent to the renewal of the French Treaty without previous inquiry. Sir, I have recently moved for the appointment of a Committee, though on a different subject; and last night, after much delay, a Committee was very tardily granted; but, as it seemed to me, during the discussion on that Motion, and so it seems, too, to-night, that nothing is so offensive to Her Majesty's Government, as any proposal for inquiry; nothing so offensive to them as to propose that this House should have the opportunity for acquiring information for itself. In foreign countries, and in other legislative assemblies, foreign Governments do not presume on their knowledge to such an extent as to refuse inquiry. The Reichsrath of Aus-
  170
  tria has inquired, and has demanded, that the Austrian Government shall submit to that assembly the terms of the Treaty with this country. And, even in Paris, under the Imperial S3'stem, the Emperor has thought it becoming to allow the French Legislature to inquire into the subject of this very French Treaty. In England, however, the First Lord of the Treasury has become so much more Imperialistic than the Emperor of the French, that, when we apply to the right hon. Gentleman for permission to inquire into these questions, which have been examined by the Reichsrath of Austria, and are now undergoing investigation by the French Legislature, we are told that we are too curious—that our curiosity borders upon impertinence! I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to refuse this inquiry. He was a party to the negotiations, which led to the conclusion of the Treaty. The secresy, and other circumstances connected with those negotiations, produced a painful impression at the time; and now we are again told that secresy must be observed. For what purpose? That England may have a chance once again of cheating the Protectionists of France? Surely, Sir, such reasons as these are utterly unworthy of the Government of this country. And are they likely to succeed? We have been told to-night, that the French Consul at Glasgow has addressed a letter to the South of Scotland Chamber of Commerce, informing that body that he had been directed to make inquiries in Scotland with regard to the results of the French Treaty, and asking their assistance in prosecuting those inquiries. So that the information can be had in Paris, whether it is given to the House of Commons or not. Rely upon it, that this attempt to hoodwink two great nations will fail; for the people will be informed upon the subject, even though this House may countenance an attempt to bind this country by the Treaty for another 10 years without its consent. Throughout this discussion we have heard so much about the consumer, that it brought a French riddle, or rather the saying of a Frenchman, to my mind. I fully admit that there is in this country that which the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, a short time since, described as the "lounging class." Those persons have, probably, fixed in-

  171
  comes, or live upon salaries, and are not directly connected with the industry of the country or its prosperity, and may profit by the cheapness of the luxuries, which are admitted under the provisions of the Trench Treaty. This House itself is a house of consumers. But we sometimes find an hon. Member, like my Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, who is not ashamed to declare that he is sent to this House to represent the producers, and, as a legislative body, we should remember that we represent the producing wealth of this country. Well, Sir, all this argument for the consumer, and in favour of the extreme cheapness of all luxuries which the consumers desire, reminds me, as I said, of the remark of a Frenchman at the time the succession duty was being considered in this House. Someone observed to him that the Bill would, if enacted, be very severe upon the owners of hereditary property, and that it would never pass the House of Lords; to which the Frenchman replied—"O! mais vous oubliez, que c'est la Chambre des Pères." The extreme unwillingness of this House, which is a house of consumers, to inquire into the provisions of this Treaty, which cheapens their luxuries, makes me think there may be an analogous feeling in this House to that which the Frenchman ascribed to the House of Lords with respect to the succession duty. Depend upon it, Sir, that there are two sides to this question. There are in this country producers as well as consumers, and these producers are going by thousands to the United States of America, where their industry will be protected. I do not see how you can escape from that, as a proof that the working classes are not so averse to Protection as they have been represented to be. The noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) has told you, that the working classes are not prepared to urge the doctrines of Protection unreasonably. They do not wish to be Protectionists, although they have returned me for twenty-seven years to this House, and I have never disavowed modified Protectionist opinions. What they hold and say is, that this French Treaty is not a true exposition of free trade. They declare it to be unfair, that the French operatives should be protected by a 15 or 20 per cent duty, whilst merely nominal, or no duties are enforced upon
  172
  French manufactures imported into this country. And thinking this an unfair arrangement, they ask those who are now their direct representatives—they ask the House of Commons, to inquire into the operation of the Treaty before the country is again committed for another ten years; to inquire, as the Legislature of France is inquiring, and as the Austrian Reichsrath has inquired. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen who represent these consumers may be impatient; but, may I be permitted to remind the House that we are the direct representatives of the operative classes; and, having presented to you a Petition, I demand inquiry? I am not to be baffled by the assertion that these petitioners hold unsound opinions. They hold this opinion, that the French Treaty, as it exists at present, is unfair, because it enacts Protection for France and denies to England the power of levying a duty on imports. That is the strong feeling of the operative classes; and, whatever may be the intention with which the hon. Member for Manchester, who sits on this side of the House, has made this proposal, I claim the right, as representing the labouring classes of Birmingham and North Warwickshire, to vote for this inquiry, and to vote further for the additional inquiry, which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Coventry, even though the House treats as a light matter the ruin of the industry of that city. "O! it is only Coventry that is complaining." And is it a trifling thing in the opinion of this House that the industry of one of our great communities has been reduced to less than one-fourth of what it was? Yet, that result is perfectly well known; you some of you say that this ruin is not the effect of the French Treaty, but it ensued immediately on the Treaty coming into operation, and these men, through their representatives, ask for inquiry, and in doing this are joined by their fellows, the citizens of Birmingham, of Leicester, and of Manchester. ["Divide!"] Why, how afraid you are of this skeleton! ["Divide!"] You may try to prevent the skeleton from getting out and coming in that door; but rely upon it that the working classes will and must be represented in this House. ["Oh!"] Truly it is strange that you who are the advocates of popular education to such a degree that you are willing to exclude the study of religion lest your

  173
  favourite technical education should be thereby impeded, should raise objections to the operative classes being instructed by a Committee of this House! ["Oh, oh!"] Let me ask those Gentlemen who so persistently cry "Oh," whether these working classes do not pray you to inquire into this subject for their information? If they do not ask that, what is it that they do ask? And if this is their request, is it not most reasonable? Is it not the same request that has been preferred by, and granted to, the operatives of France; the same that has been pressed by, and conceded to, the operatives of Austria? If you are so confident and so sure that the renewal of this Treaty for another 10 years will be for their advantage, why refuse to prove it to the working classes? Sir, I must be allowed to say that I shall see with deep regret this House treated less respectfully by the Government of this country than the Legislature of France has been treated by the Emperor, or the Austrian Reichsrath by its Sovereign; because we only ask for the same means of obtaining information as have been conceded to them; and, I must add, that the reasons advanced against us have been of the weakest description. There has been a demand for facts; and early in the debate we were told that there were none alleged. But the hon. Member for the West Riding subsequently adduced facts in the most lucid manner; and what was the observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting them? Why, that nothing could be more dangerous or mischievous than to create in the minds of the working classes the suspicion that their interests could in any way be effected by the action of the Government of this country with regard to—what? The renewal of this Treaty? ["No, no."] Then what is the object? I shall be glad to know, if it is not the renewal of the Treaty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not made that statement. There is no question of renewing the Treaty. It is not to be renewed for 10 years, as the hon. Member imagines, with all the care he has given to the question. It is terminable at a year's notice by either side.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: At last we have a piece of information. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that this Treaty is not to be
  174
  renewed for 10 years; I certainly was not aware of that fact. It will be information for the country. We were told by the First Lord of the Treasury, when a debate took place upon an analogous subject, the Treaty with Austria, that the practice of this country was different from that of other countries, and we are quite aware of it. According to the practice of this country, the Government have power to commit the Crown to a Commercial Treaty in the first instance, whenever it may seem to them convenient to do so, and it is not until the Crown has been committed that the Legislature is consulted. In other countries this power is not conferred upon the Crown; and, as that is the case, I say that, in a matter which like this mutually affects the interests of these foreigners and our own, it would be convenient for us to institute an inquiry in the first instance. Sir, great political changes have taken place in the constitution and practice of foreign States—they are becoming constitutional, and it seems to me perfectly clear that, if this House refuses inquiry, it will place itself in a position more different from that occupied by the Legislatures of other countries than was formerly the case, since it will have refused a request made on behalf of the working classes of England, to be treated as foreign operatives have been treated by their Governments. The English operatives will feel that, by this refusal, they are placed in a position less creditable to themselves than that which has been assumed by the working classes of either Austria or France.
  MR. DELAHUNTYsaid, he hoped that the House would not at the call of North Warwickshire or Manchester turn its back on free trade. He hoped they would repudiate going back to the dark ages of Protection. If England was great and mighty among the Powers of the earth, it was because she had adopted the principle of free trade with the whole world; and the French Treaty was nothing more than a means by which the French Emperor sought to induce the people of France to pursue the same path as England had so long marked out for herself. It had been said that the people had suffered from free trade. It had not been shown how. Had it suffered in the amount of its sales? In the quantity of its exports and imports? No. The exports and imports were twice

  175
  what they were a few years ago. And this had been through free trade. Thirty or 40 years ago the amount was only one-fifth of what it was now. When England ruled the sea and had Protection to the masthead the amount of tonnage entered inwards and outwards was only 4,000,000; now it was over 60,000,000. Was not this an answer to those who would muzzle free trade and revive Protection? If free trade were put down the labouring classes would suffer; and England like Ireland would be depopulated. He hoped the House would not listen to the sweet persuasion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who was so fond of Committees. He got one Committee appointed last night; but he hoped he would not get another to-night. In the name of the people of Ireland he said—Down with Protection and up with free trade.
  MR. BIRLEYsaid, he would say very few words in reply. He had not attacked either free trade or the French Treaty. He did not complain of the speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. His only complaint was that the hon. Gentleman had not come to the same conclusion as he had himself. The hon. Gentleman admitted distress in this country and the high duties charged by France; but he appeared to think that the best mode of settling the difficulty was quietly in the Board of Trade. His own notion was, that it would be best settled in the face of day by a full, fair, and free inquiry. A distinguished statesman had stated in the French Chambers that the Treaty of Commerce with England was not free trade, but that it was protection to French manufactures; and he (Mr. Birley) did not think that it was possible in two lines to describe the state of the case more clearly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was very imprudent to have any inquiry, because the French Protectionists would find it out; whereas, if we, ostrich-like, hid our heads in the sand, they would know nothing about it. One thing had struck him very much in the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite—they were strongly Protectionist, not for the benefit of this country, but of France. Although he had stated the opinions of the leading Chambers of Commerce in favour of the inquiry, counter statements had not been
  176
  made except that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt) had said that he did not believe that the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester had asked for inquiry. To this, his reply was that the document that he had referred to in his opening speech showed that the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester was in favour of inquiry upon the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 138: Majority 88.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th April],
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to be pleased to order that in the five Statutes for determining and establishing the constitution of the new governing bodies of Shrewsbury, Winchester, Harrow, Charterhouse, and Rugby Schools, the words requiring membership of the Church of England as a qualification in the case of persons elected or nominated members of the governing bodies may be omitted."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he should be obliged if the House would allow him, as one of the Commissioners appointed under this Act of Parliament, to state shortly the views entertained by himself and several others of the Commissioners as to the duties that the Bill cast upon them, and the reasons for the course that they took in opposing this provision in the statutes of the schools. The Public Schools Act was passed in 1868, and under it an Executive Commission was appointed by Parliament to carry it into effect. It would be seen that by the Act those who had to carry it into effect had no choice but to proceed in the way in which they had proceeded, and that this provision was one that, under the circumstances, it was not open to them to depart from. He regretted that the discussion had been raised, because, after all, the provision would have very little effect, except in one or two instances, and in those few instances would affect to but a limited extent the constitution of the Governing Bodies. The provision, too, did not in any way touch the management or go-

    177
    vernment of the schools themselves, but provided solely that every member of the Governing Bodies of the schools to which it referred should be members of the Church of England. Now, inasmuch as the constituent bodies by whom the members were nominated or elected were themselves exclusively or to, at all events, a very large extent composed of members of the Church of England, it was evident that only in very rare and exceptional cases it could happen that this question would arise at all. The two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in some cases the Fellows of Colleges, and in others persons always practically members of the Church of England, were the people who had to send the various elements of which these Governing Bodies were composed, and it was only when the University of London was made a constituent body and in some other partial and exceptional case that the question could arise, though he was willing to admit that here and there it would have the effect of excluding some one whom it might be desirable to see on the Governing Body. He did not believe that the presence of one or two members on the Governing Bodies not belonging to the Church of England would have much practical effect; but there could be no doubt that this provision tended to make the Governing Bodies more exclusively Church of England than they otherwise would be. It was important that the House should understand the law under which the Public School Commissioners found themselves acting in this case; and it should also be borne in mind that there were seven public schools, of which two—Eton and Westminster—formed their own statutes; these were approved by the Executive Commission of which he had the honour of being a member; the same statutes passed that House without objection; and it was only in regard to the remaining five schools the present question arose. By the statute, a provision of which it was now proposed to repeal, it appeared that an Inquiry Commission in 1861 made a Report recommending various changes in the government, management, and studies connected with the schools named, with a view to promote efficiently the main objects of the founder. Unless there was very good reason for departing from either the spirit or letter of the recom-
    178
    mendations of those Commissioners, it would be proper to proceed in the spirit and letter of the Act itself, and to do those things which, upon the fairest and most candid consideration of the provision of the Act, might appear to be right. Those with whom he acted knew well what his individual convictions were upon this subject; but, whatever might be his personal opinions or the convictions of the Commissioners individually, having accepted office they were bound in honour and candour to carry into effect the Act of Parliament to the best of their judgment irrespective of those convictions. In the Act there was a provision showing that the Governing Bodies would have to deal with ecclesiastical patronage. Then, in another part of the Act, the Governing Bodies had to make certain regulations respecting the attendance at divine service; and where the school had a chapel of its own, regulations had to be made as to chapel services and the appointment of preachers. This indicated strongly that the schools were Church of England schools. Regulations had also to be made which should give facilities for the education of boys whose parents or guardians desired to withdraw them from the religious instruction afforded in the schools; and to meet this, a distinct order in the Act directed the Governing Body of each school, or the Commissioners in the absence of that body, to insert in any statutes that might be framed for the government of the school a Conscience Clause. Again, this enactment directly indicated the mind of Parliament that these schools were to be maintained on their original footing of Church of England schools, but giving liberty to persons other than members of the Church to send their children to the school, and respecting their religious views. By the 31st clause of the Act he found that the chapel attached to every school should be doomed to be a chapel allowed by the ecclesiastical law of this land for the purpose of public worship, and for the administration of sacraments according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and free from the control and jurisdiction of the incumbent of the parish in which the chapel might be situate. It must be remembered that all those seven schools had been, up to the time of the passing of the Act, distinguished as Church of England schools. The Com-

    179
    missioners then being in the position to make arrangements for the studies and management of the institutions, found them to be Church of England institutions exclusively. There was not a word from the beginning to the end of the Act authorizing the Commissioners to alter their character, and therefore they deemed it their duty to proceed in the spirit of the law, and, until Parliament should alter the law, to maintain the character of those institutions which they found to exist. The Commission consisted of a number of gentlemen, some of whom certainly would not have accepted the office which they undertook, and could not have been asked by the Government to do so, if the object had not been to continue the character which at that time was impressed on the schools. The Chairman was the Archbishop of York. Lord Salisbury was a member of the Commission, and so were the hon. Members for Southampton, Maidstone, and Perth, Sir John Shaw Lefevre, and himself. He would put it to the House whether it was likely that either the Archbishop of York or his noble Friend Lord Salisbury would have been asked by the late Lord Derby to take part in operations to be carried out under this Act unless the general purport of it had been such as he had described? That being the state of the case, and such the provisions of the Act of Parliament, it was the duty of the Commissioners, of whom he was one, to ascertain what the Commission of 1861 had recommended with respect to the seven schools which were confided to their care. With respect to Winchester, which was one of the five schools comprehended in the proposed Address, the Commission of 1861 recommended that the Governing Body should consist of a warden and 11 fellows, who should be all members of the Established Church. The Commission of which he was a member had only endeavoured to carry that recommendation into effect. With respect to Rugby, the existing Governing Body consisted of 12 trustees, who had in fact legislative powers almost unlimited for the government of the school; and the trusts were not subject to any religious disqualification, either by the will of the founder or the Act of George III., being the fundamental law of the school. They had, however, before them a letter from the clerk to the trustees, stating that the
    180
    practice had always been to appoint persons who were members of the Church of England, and no instance had occurred from the time of the founder up to the present time of the appointment of any one who was not a member of the Church of England. They found that the chapel of Rugby School was by Parliamentary enactment to be a chapel of the Church of England, and, under these circumstances, the Commissioners thought it their duty to place the provision which they had done on the statute. He did not wish to take a party course in this matter, and it was for the House to say whether the Commissioners had done rightly or not. They did not set up to be wiser than the rest of mankind; but it was only right that the House should understand the materials on which the judgment of the Commissioners was founded, and the principles by which they felt themselves bound. In regard to Shrewsbury the trustees were 12 besides the mayor, and by the Act of 1798 it was declared that they should be all members of the Church of England except the mayor. The Inquiry Commission recommended that the Governing Body should be subject to the same qualification—namely, members of the Church of England. In regard to the Charterhouse, the Governing Body was 16 in number, and was regulated by the statute of 1627. The governors were bound to take the oath of supremacy, but were not subject to any other religious disqualification. The Inquiry Commission recommended that one-fourth should be chosen for their eminence in literature and science, but made no specific mention of any religious disqualification. But finding no indication whatever in the statutes or practice that that exclusive character should be changed, it appeared to the Commission that it was their duty to maintain that restriction for the future. In respect to Harrow, the Governing Body was six keepers and governors; but though there was nothing in the statutes requiring them to be of the Church of England, the Inquiry Commission found that it had been the invariable practice to appoint only such. The Commission of 1864 recommended that the Governing Body should be 12 in number, and that they should be all members of the Church of England. The Commissioners of 1861 recommended that the Governing Bodies

    181
    of Winchester and Shrewsbury should be members of the Church of England; but with regard to Rugby and the Charterhouse they made no such specific recommendation. They, however, found that the practice was that the Governing Bodies were of the Church of England, and that they were Church of England schools—they had chapels which were, by Act of Parliament, to be chapels consecrated for the celebration of the services of that Church, and the Commission felt they were bound in all those cases to put in, or see that the Governing Bodies put in, a Conscience Clause, which would have been unmeaning unless there was a definite system of religious teaching to which that clause might attach, and the enactment of such a clause was conclusive that that teaching was to be maintained. But there were two other schools. One of them was Eton, with regard to which the recommendation had been that the Governing Body should remain the Provost and Fellows, who must of necessity be in Holy Orders, and therefore members of the Church of England; the other was Westminster, almost essentially a cathedral school, and which, being attached to the Abbey, had acquired a celebrity in the country to which no other cathedral school approached. In its origin it was the creation of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, and it had impressed on it from the earliest times a distinctive Church of England character. The character of those two schools must not be left out of sight; neither must it be forgotten that their Governing Bodies had themselves made their statutes, and had insisted on putting into them the provision now complained of; while, moreover, that House had sanctioned those statutes in that shape without any objection; and all the arguments that would apply to the remaining five schools would undoubtedly apply to Eton and Westminster. Those were the circumstances under which they proceeded to act; and, in the result, they thought it their duty to place that restriction in the statutes affecting the Governing Bodies of five of I those schools. He regretted the question had been raised, because he thought it was a bad thing for the Church of England that matters which, in his opinion, were prejudicial and exceedingly unimportant if they were to be given against the Church of England, should be given
    182
    as it were after a vote of victory, or as something extorted from the Church. The question having been raised before the Commission, they thought it their duty to decide the question, and it would be a strong step on the part of the Crown and the House, if, without any change in the law, the Government of the country proceeded to decide that which had been left by the statute an open question. It might be said that since the Public Schools Act the Endowed Schools Act had been passed, and that they ought to read the former Act by the latter. He would not give a legal opinion on the point; it was no part of his duty to do so. He was not prepared to say that, according to the construction of that Act, it would be an illegal thing to have framed the provision differently, nor that the passing of the Endowed Schools Act might not be a good reason for altering the law as to the public schools left out of that Act; but he did say that, in construing the Act under which they were created to deal with the government, discipline, and management of public schools in 1868, it would be contrary to his notions of law to bring into the construction of that Act an Act passed afterwards, which could have nothing whatever to do with the construction of the Act under which they were acting, and to which alone they were to look for the guiding principles of their conduct in the execution of their functions. Having stated to the House the grounds on which they had arrived at their conclusion, he most un-feignedly said he left it to the House to consider what it might be right to do in the matter, only trusting that if the House should conceive that they had been wrong, it would allow that the reasons on which they had acted as they had done were at least entitled to a good deal of weight and consideration.
    MR. BRUCEsaid, he was anxious immediately to follow his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, inasmuch as it should be clearly understood that his hon. and learned Friend had spoken as a Commissioner under the Public Schools Act, and not as a member of the Government. All who had heard him must admit that there were strong and stringent reasons why the view that he had stated should have been taken by the Commissioners. At the same time, his hon. and learned Friend fairly ad-

    183
    mitted that there was nothing in the Act itself which would have prevented the Commissioners from adopting the view set forth in the Motion of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes). His hon. and learned Friend had given several reasons why, in his opinion, the distinctive character of the Church of England was so impressed on those schools that, although in every instance the Royal Commission on Public Schools had not suggested that the Governing Body should be members of that Church, yet, in the opinion of the Commissioners, it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion. Upon that let him say that this question as to the constitution of the schools, in respect of the religious character of the Governing Bodies, was not entered into at all in the Report of the Public School Commissioners, while it was fully discussed in the Report of Endowed School Commissioners; and that in the discussions, extending over more than one Session in that House, on the Bill introduced for giving effect to the Report of those Commissioners, that subject was never discussed. When, however, the larger question as to schools of an identical character with the public schools was discussed, upon the introduction of the Endowed Schools Bill, the matter was maturely considered by Parliament, when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, which came unanimously to the opinion that a distinction ought to be drawn with respect to endowed schools, and that where the denominational character of those schools was clearly impressed on them their denominational character should be retained, and that where it was not so impressed no restriction whatever should be placed on the Governing Bodies in regard to their religious opinions. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would agree with him when he said there would be nothing illegal nor extra vires in the House or in the Commission acting, if it thought proper to do so, in the spirit of the Endowed Schools Bill, which he took to be the latest and fullest expression of the opinion of Parliament on this subject. The Government were, therefore, of opinion that it was unnecessary and would be inconvenient to have two different systems of dealing with schools which were admitted to be identical in character, and, therefore, it was their intention to support the Address brought
    184
    forward by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome. The statutes would, if that Motion were adopted, be considered by the Queen in Council with the knowledge of this Address of the House of Commons, and it was possible that the statutes would be referred back to the Commissioners for revision. It was hardly necessary to speak of the advantages of such a principle as that laid down by the Endowed Schools Bill. It was one which he thought must recommend itself to Parliament as it did last Session, because if it were adopted no restrictions would be imposed, except in cases where the denominational character of the school was clearly marked, in respect of the religious opinions of the Governing Body, which would be selected for their personal character and general fitness. His hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General admitted that there was nothing in the original statutes which would have prevented the late Mr. Faraday from being appointed a governor of Harrow or Rugby. Why should any restriction now be imposed which would in future prevent the selection of such a man? At the Charterhouse the practice had been in accordance with the statutes, and Lord Dal-housie, who was a member of the Free Church of Scotland, was one of the Governing Body of that school. For the reasons he had shortly stated, he thought the Government were adopting the wisest course in supporting the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome.
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he thought the Government were adopting a strong course in supporting the Motion. They were carrying out to much greater lengths the principle laid down by the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. In that Act the five schools now threatened were not recognized; but it was equally true that the Act did recognize the denominational character of schools which they dealt with in a much more scrupulous manner than this Motion proposed to deal with these five great schools. The question now was, whether the House should call on the Crown to reverse the provisions of a statute drawn by Commissioners, in pursuance of power given them by Parliament, upon a point on which those Commissioners say they felt absolutely bound in conscience. In his speech introducing the Motion, the

    185
    hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes) gave as his first reason for it, that a feeling of jealousy and distrust existed on the part of the Nonconformists of this country towards the Church, which could be removed only by the Church resigning all exclusive claims to property however specifically given to her. It appeared to him that was a strong proposition. If there had been once intolerance on the side of the Church, he must say that it had now moved over to the side of those religious bodies which specially prided themselves on their liberality. It was not alleged that the Governing Bodies of these schools had misconducted themselves, or that there was any reformation required in their mode of government. Nor had it been shown that the Church was not able to continue to supply governors. Neither had it been shown that an infusion of Dissenters was in any way likely to make a better Governing Body. The hon. and learned Member was himself a proof that Rugby, of which he was one of the most creditable productions, although it was expressly founded as a Church school, did not produce exclusively Church scholars. The second argument for the Motion was, that if Parliament did not enforce in these public schools the principle laid clown in the Endowed Schools Act of last Session it would stultify itself. Undoubtedly, that Act had enlarged the licence adopted with respect to foundations. Formerly, if by inference a school appeared to be of any particular denomination, Parliament recognized its denominational character. Afterwards Parliament required that such intention must be expressed in order to be recognized. The Act of last Session enforced a Conscience Clause; but if there was positive proof of the intention of the founder that the school should be exclusively denominational, such as its connection with collegiate or cathedral institutions, or being bound to teach particular formularies, that Act recognized such intention. He maintained that this was the case with respect to Rugby. It was a condition in the founder's will that the master should be a Churchman, besides which a special Act that regulated Rugby School further required that the children should be taught the formularies of the Church of England; another Rugby Act pro-
    186
    vided for a chapel, chaplain, organist, and other Church requirements; he therefore contended that Rugby was distinctly a Church foundation. The principle of the Endowed Schools Act, that wherever there was an express intention that children should be taught the formularies of any faith, Parliament should recognize an exclusive foundation proved, upon his own showing, the Home Secretary was not justified in committing the Government to take that step which the Solicitor General, as one of the Commissioners who drew the statute they were now asked to alter, thought was a violation of the very principles they were called upon to embody in the statute. The other Act regulating Rugby which provided for a chapel, a chaplain, and other Church requirements made the intention still more distinct, if it had not already been made clear that the founder left his property for the special purpose of maintaining a fixed religious standard in the education of the country. If the Government so interfered by un-Churching the Governing Body of so expressly Church an endowment as Rugby no property nor trust could be safe. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Frome was simply that the House should suggest to the Queen a direct violation of the Rugby founder's will, yet that proposition was eagerly and precipitately welcomed by the Government. He recollected that when certain Minutes of Council on Education were under discussion, which treated endowments as public property, so strongly did it shake the faith of men in the safety of endowments that the present Lord Chancellor tore up a deed which he was preparing for a school foundation. He asked the House to consider whether asking the Queen to veto the safeguards which special Commissioners had felt conscientiously bound to introduce into a statute relating to express trusts would not prevent the making of any endowments whatever in the future, and whether testators would not feel that whatever the subject of their wills, or the solemnity of their injunctions, some future Member for Frome might quote the argument of the Home Secretary to treat them with contempt. This Motion avowedly arose from jealousy and distrust of the Church on the part of Nonconformists, who did not like any

    187
    fixed standard of religion, and thought it better that schools should be thrown open to teach any or no religion, while they shut their eyes to the danger of violating the most sacred devotion of property in the contrary view, for the maintenance of a standard of faith. Another argument was, that public schools were public property, that being the line taken also by those who proposed to throw open other large religious foundations. Such was the ground on which it was sought to abolish religious tests at the Universities. But even if that doctrine could anywhere be maintained it did not apply to Rugby, which was as distinctly a provincial, as it was a Church foundation. On all these grounds the proposition to un-Church the government of five out of seven of our principal public schools, as regarded Rugby was a violent one, and he was astonished that the Home Secretary should, when a mere adjournment of debate was moved on a former occasion, have gone out of his way to precipitate an Official assurance that he would support the Motion, committing the Government, without having heard any discussion, in support of a proposition which it now appeared even their own Law Officer had shrunk from in the Commission for drafting the now threatened statute. For these reasons he opposed the Motion.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) with regard to the Endowed Schools Act, which expressly limited the making of the instrument of foundation to the lifetime of the founder, or to within 50 years after his death, as otherwise the school could not be considered denominational. The original requirement as to Rugby School was, that the master should be a Master of Arts, and he (Mr. Forster) should be very much surprised if that could be interpreted to be an express direction as to the education of the children.
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYexplained that he did not mean to convey that notion. He relied on the Act of George III., which provided that the children should be taught the formularies of the Church of England.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that when the Endowed Schools Act was passed, it was clearly understood that
    188
    an Act obtained so long after a testator's death as that which had been mentioned was not to be considered as one which ought to make a school denominational. He was convinced that the schools which they were considering when they framed the Act, and as to which they decided almost unanimously that they should not have a denominational character, and there should be no restriction on the Governing Body, were schools entirely similar to Rugby, Charterhouse, and Harrow. That being so, the House would see there would be great inconvenience in having one rule for one sort of public schools and one for another. He did not find fault with the Public Schools Commissioners; he thought if he had been appointed to interpret the Act, he might very possibly have taken the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman by his side; but the matter had excited public attention, and no one could doubt that if the Public Schools Act had been passed in 1868, and these schools had been left in the same position as other schools, they would have come under the Act in the same way, and we should have found the schools in question would not have had these restrictions attached to them. His right hon. Friend opposite had been scarcely fair to the hon. Member who moved this Motion. It was not an attempt on the part of the Nonconformists to get possession of the schools; but it had been forced on the House by the actual circumstances of the restrictions, which involved a practical inconvenience that had been pointed out with reference to the University of London. They were, therefore, forced to consider whether they should get rid of this exceptional restriction with regard to these schools; and considering the discussion that took place upstairs on the framing of the Endowed Schools Act, the strong expressions used about the will of the founder were scarcely applicable. It was a case in which it might be fairly said it was best for these schools that they should not be put in a position different from that of many other schools of the same kind. They had never had an opportunity of expressing an opinion about Eton and Westminster, because the Public Schools Act did not provide that where a Governing Body took advantage of their power of framing statutes they should be laid on the Table, consequently the House

    189
    would not be acting inconsistently in taking action with respect to these five schools, as it had no opportunity of taking action with regard to the two schools. At the same time it was true that Winchester was differently situated from the others.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it came to this, that the uniformity which it was so much desired to introduce was impossible of attainment without taking a much stronger step than was proposed, because Eton and Westminster had contracted themselves out of the operation of the Bill by taking advantage of the opportunity given them of framing their own statutes. A scheme was prepared for Winchester; but for some reason it was not adopted, and the consequence was that Winchester was in the position of the other four schools embraced by the Motion. He put it to the Home Secretary whether the same rule would apply to Winchester which would apply to Rugby and the Charterhouse?
    MR. BRUCEsaid, that if it were a cathedral school it would be exempt.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that cathedral schools were but one description of those upon which a denominational character was impressed, but Winchester was in every respect essentially a Church school, and he wished to know whether its character was to be changed by a Motion of this haphazard and casual character. If the Public Schools Commissioners had thought it consistent with their duty to make any requirement of this kind, that membership of the Church of England should not be required of a member of the Governing Body, he should have thought that no great harm would have been done; but it was a different thing when Parliament went out of its way to interfere with the discretion of Royal Commissioners, entrusted with almost legislative functions. That the hon. and learned Member for Frome should take the matter up and the Government hang on his skirts was most extraordinary; for surely if the Royal Commissioners had fallen short of their duty the Government might have come forward on their own responsibility. Instead of that, the hon. and learned Member for Frome proposed the Motion, and the Home Secretary said it should have his hearty support. He thought it a very hard measure to be dealt out to these schools, and though
    190
    he did not say that the Church character of Winchester School would be affected, he thought it was a serious thing for Parliament to interfere with the discretion of Royal Commissioners, and a step which would be likely to mislead public opinion.
    MAJOR WALKERmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Major Walker.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. and learned Friend, as a Commissioner, thinks that an adjournment would be exceedingly inconvenient if we can arrive at a conclusion ["No, no!"], and the hon. Member who says "No, no!" is not a Commissioner, and has not the same means of forming a judgment. How stands the matter, and what is the point in difference? We do not differ about everything; and, as I understand, it is not contended that we ought now, in our legislative capacity, to consider whether or not members of the Governing Body should be members of the Church of England; that is not the question before us. The state of the case is this—Under the Act passed two years ago we made provision that in case trustees of public schools should, under certain circumstances, draw up statutes for the regulation of these schools, they should be laid before Parliament before receiving the sanction of the Crown; but there was no provision requiring members of the Governing Bodies to be members of the Church of England, nor was the principle laid down that religious opinion should not be a disqualification for being a member; but in the Act since passed the principle is laid down that, save in certain excepted cases, religious opinion shall not be a disqualification; and my hon. Friend contends, and I think he is right in contending, that inasmuch as Parliament has given to each branch of the Legislature the power of expressing its opinion upon these statutes before they can receive the assent of the Crown, it will be perfectly consistent for this House, in its legislative capacity, and in the exorcise of the special function committed to it by this Act, to assert this principle—that the proceedings under the Public Schools Act of 1868 ought to be made conformable to the rules under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869. I do

    191
    not speak of Eton and Westminster, because they are not before us. The contention of my hon. Friend seems to me to be fair. The subject being brought before the House in this particular manner, it is perfectly fair for the House, if it thinks fit, to express its opinion that the rule, deliberately adopted, and with general sanction on all sides, ought to be impressed upon the proceedings under the former Act. As to the question of fact which is involved, my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley) alleges that the provisions of the statutes of Rugby are such as will bring it within the 19th clause of the Endowed Schools Act as a denominational school. The House will remember that Section 17 provides that religious opinion shall be no disqualification for membership of a Governing Body, and Section 19 provides that in the case of two classes of schools the foregoing provision respecting membership shall not be applicable. What are these two classes of schools? The first is—
    "Any school which is maintained out of the endowment of any cathedral or collegiate church, or forms part of the foundation of any cathedral or collegiate church, or any educational endowment, the scholars educated by which are, in the opinion of the Commissioners (subject to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, as mentioned in this Act), required by the express terms of the original instrument of foundation, or of the statutes or regulations made by the founder or under his authority, in his lifetime or within 50 years after his death (which terms have been observed down to the commencement of this Act), to learn or to be instructed according to the doctrines or formularies of any particular Church, sect, or denomination."
    Now, I understand my right hon. Friend to state that any school coming within those words should be excepted. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: Or coming within that principle.] Well, it is difficult to know how far we are at liberty to travel beyond the letter. We could not consent to adopt any other rule than that in the Act. There seems to be a difference of opinion as to the matter of fact, and I suggest that the objection of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hughes) might be gained and the challenge fairly given to hon. Gentlemen opposite if, instead of passing the Motion in the precise terms in which it now stands, we should pass it in a form which would refer it to the discretion of the Government, acting on their responsibility, to examine the matter of fact, and say whether in each of these
    192
    five cases the schools did or did not come within the exceptions in the Endowed Schools Act. That, I think, is not an unfair offer to make, and it would bring to an issue the question raised by my hon. Friend in a manner conformable with his views. The form of the Motion would be for an Address to the Crown humbly to express the desire of the House that, in the exercise of the power conferred upon Her Majesty by the Public Schools Act, with respect to the five statutes for determining and establishing the constitution of the new Governing Bodies of Shrewsbury, Winchester, Harrow, Charterhouse, and Rugby Schools, Her Majesty would be pleased to see that such statutes correspond with Sections 17 and 19 in the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and, if they do not correspond with the said sections, to disapprove of them, or so much of them, accordingly. I agree that, when such powers are given as were conferred in this instance, they ought not to be used for indirect or collateral purposes. But I think it is fair, as my hon. Friend says, to ask that the principle adopted in the later and more matured decision of Parliament shall be applied to the regulation of these statutes, and that is the basis upon which I should propose to found the Motion. It will be expedient to place the precise terms of it upon the Notice Paper; but I hope it will be admitted that there is nothing unfair in the assertion of such a principle.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he was not sorry that the Home Secretary could offer no argument against his hon. and learned Friend except that supplied by the Endowed Schools Act. He did not suppose the Government would be so unjust as to insist on applying the principles of that Act in this particular case against the Church, and not act upon it when they came to the Elementary Education Bill in favour of the Church. The principle cut both ways, and he did not know how the Government could act on it, upon the one hand to destroy if, on the other hand, they did not also act upon it to save. The question now before the House was the adjournment of the debate, but the Prime Minister had suggested an Amendment which was apparently to establish a kind of universal principle on the data laid down in the Endowed Schools Act. He would

    193
    not now offer any comment upon that principle; but if it was to be maintained in the one case, he hoped the Government would have the justice to maintain it equally in the other.
    COLONEL CORBETTprotested against proceeding with the Motion until the other schools had had an opportunity of being heard.
    MR. BENTINCKprotested against throwing over the solemn decision of a Committee the year after it had been arrived at. The Public Schools Bill had been discussed at great length, and he did not believe that this point was raised. As, therefore, a new doctrine had now been started, further opportunities were required for discussing the question whether faith was not to be kept by the Government in this matter.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that the very important proposal of the Prime Minister ought not to be entered upon in a thin House, and in the absence of the four Members for the Universities.
    MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he was quite ready to withdraw his Motion, and substitute that suggested by the Prime Minister, which would then be placed on the Paper before the discussion was resumed.
    MR. NEWDEGATE, as a trustee of Rugby School, hoped the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not be proceeded with to-night.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to express the desire of this House that in the exercise of the power conferred upon Her Majesty by the 9th, 10th, and 19th sections of the Act 31 and 32 Vic. c. 118, with respect to the five Statutes for determining and establishing the constitution of the new governing bodies of Shrewsbury, Winchester, Harrow, Charterhouse, and Rugby Schools, Her Majesty will be pleased to ascertain whether the said Statutes correspond with the provisions of the 17th and 19th sections of the Endowed Schools Act of 1869, and, if they do not correspond with the said sections, to disapprove of them, or of so much of them, accordingly."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
    Debate arising.
    Debate adjourned till Friday.

    BENEFIT BUILDING SOCIETIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. GOURLEY, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to Benefit Building Societies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOURLEY, Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. STEVENSON, and Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 116.]

    CORRUPT PRACTICES.
    Committee nominated as follows:—Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir ROUNDELL PALMER, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, and Mr. BOUVERIE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sequestration* (81).
Second Reading—Bankrupt Law Amendment (Ireland) (61); War Office (74).
Committee—County Courts (Buildings)* (70–80).
Third Reading—Customs (Isle of Man)* (54).
Survey of Great Britain, &c.* (78), and passed.

BANKRUPT LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 61.)
(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
BANKRUPT LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 61.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its principal object was to extend to Ireland those provisions of the English Bankruptcy Law by which the distinctions between traders and non-traders were abolished. This was a step which, in England, had given great satisfaction to the commercial world, and had met with universal approval in Westminster Hall. He anticipated no opposition to his present Motion. The measure had twice passed this House, and had not failed to become law through any open opposition; but had been put aside in the House of Commons in a way not very respectful to their Lordships or to Ireland, where its defeat was attributed to private and personal motives. He proposed to add to the Bill other provisions, enabling creditors to appoint a trustee to manage a bankrupt's estate; but if these were objected to he was willing to restore the Bill to its original shape; and another providing that persons having privilege of Parliament may be adjudged bankrupt in Ireland. It was a well-founded Irish grievance that, where no political or party interest was excited, questions affecting the material well-being of the country were neglected, and it was this feeling which prompted the Petition presented by a noble Lord (Lord Talbot de Malahide) last night in favour of the repeal of the Union. A Commission reported some years ago on the practice and procedure of the Courts of Law and Equity, and a Bill relating to Chancery was passed with no great delay, because it created a very good piece
  86
  of patronage; while the amendment of the Bankruptcy Law, which did not involve the creation of any office, is neglected. This Bill would not stand in the way of the comprehensive measure which was sometimes promised, but not a line of which had been drafted, and he hoped that if it passed this House the Government would assist in carrying it through the House of Commons.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he gave every possible credit to the noble Marquess for his desire to improve the law in Ireland; but, with regard to this particular Bill, he could not take upon himself to give his assent to every portion of it. Moreover, it did not, as appeared to be the noble Marquess' intentions, entirely assimilate the Irish to the English laws. It was very desirable that the subject should be considered, and it would be unreasonable in the highest degree to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but when in Committee it was very probable that it would require close attention.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 19th. instant.

WAR OFFICE BILL—(No. 74.)
(The Lord Northbrook.)
WAR OFFICE BILL—(No. 74.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD NORTHBROOK, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to provide for the Secretary of State for War greater assistance than he now possessed in the other House of Parliament. He believed that a very short consideration of the subject would convince their Lordships that this was a desirable object, and that it would be effected by this Bill in a proper manner. A very slight consideration of the multifarious duties performed by the Secretary for War would convince their Lordships that the satisfactory performance of them overtasked the energy, industry, and ability of any single man. The Army Estimates, for instance, after the reductions which the Government

  87
  had been able to make, amounted this year to nearly £13,000,000, spread over 27 different Votes, and occupying nearly 200 pages, on every detail of which the Secretary for War might be called upon to answer in the House of Commons; while he had to be ready to discuss every branch of Army administration. Not only must he be prepared to discuss every one of these subjects as they were brought before Parliament, but he must also attend any Parliamentary Committees which might be appointed affecting his Department. The thirst for knowledge which distinguished Members of the House of Commons was so great and increasing that six or seven. Questions were occasionally put to the Secretary for War in one night; while whenever the Army Estimates were on the Paper something like a dozen Notices of Motions and Questions were given. The duty of answering these was yearly becoming more arduous. Besides all this labour and all the duties of his Department, the Secretary for War, as a member of the Cabinet, had to give his advice and assistance in all matters of general administration. It was evident that such an amount of work could not fairly be expected of one man; who, it must also be considered, was frequently a civilian, to whom the mastery of all the details of his Department was, therefore, a more laborious task than it would be to a military man. Their Lordships, moreover, would certainly admit that the organization of the War Department in any country should be framed in such a manner as to be adequate not to times of peace merely, but to those of war. Now, if war should break out, it would surely be impossible for the Secretary for War properly to bear, in addition to his ordinary labours, the responsibility of military operations. Hence it was not surprising to find that Sir JohnPakington—a statesman who spared no time or labour in transacting the duties of any Office, and who was not disposed to shrink from accepting any responsibility—had frankly admitted that the duties of the Secretary for War were unduly heavy, and were such as he could hardly discharge satisfactorily to himself, and had fully endorsed the opinion of the present Secretary for War on that point. It would not, perhaps, be unbecoming in him (Lord North-brook) to say that, from his own per-
  88
  sonal experience, he was fully able to appreciate the difficulties this Bill was intended to meet. When in 1861 he had the honour of filling the office of Under Secretary of State, he was, during a whole Session, the only officer of the Department then in the House of Commons, and he had consequently to perform all such Parliamentary duties as a subordinate officer could discharge. He was able, therefore, to testify that the work was more than could be expected of one man—though he was, of course, relieved by his chief from that responsibility which weighed upon public men, and had not to discharge the higher duties devolving upon the confidential servants of the Crown. Parliamentary assistance would be a great advantage to the Secretary for War—not a personal advantage, but an advantage to the public service—and this Bill was intended to remove, to a considerable degree, that Parliamentary pressure which now fell so heavily on the Secretary of State by the creation of two new Offices in connection with the War Department, the holders of which should be eligible to sit in the House of Commons, and should be responsible to the Secretary of State for the performance of certain duties. These officers were respectively entitled the Surveyor General of the Ordnance and the Financial Secretary of the War Office. The Surveyor General would have two officers under him—one for the purpose of superintending what were styled the munitions de bouche, and the other the munitions de guerre. Questions relating to both were of the greatest importance in our Army administration, and had, especially the latter class, lately received a great deal of attention in Parliament; both were full of complicated and difficult details, and therefore the presence in the House of Commons of the Surveyor General, who would be a professional man and able to explain them, would be of the greatest possible assistance to the Secretary of State. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance would be a military officer. The late Lord Herbert, under whom he (Lord Northbrook) had the honour of serving, than whom no Secretary for War could have more thoroughly devoted himself to the benefit of the Army and to every branch of Army administration, when examined before the Committee on Military Orga-

  89
  nization, in 1860, said that if one or more of the heads of Departments had seats in the House of Commons it would be a great public advantage, especially when the Secretary of State was a civilian; for when such a Secretary spoke on military subjects Ids authority was questioned, and when he answered military questions he was told that he merely retailed the opinions of others. If he had at his side as a colleague a soldier of distinction, it would, in Lord Herbert's opinion—and he hoped that the weight of such an opinion would have much influence on their Lordships—be a great advantage, and the Committee adopted this view in their Report. The duties of the Financial Secretary would be mainly in connection with the details of the finances of the Army; and he would assist the Secretary of State in the detailed discussion of the Estimates, with the minutiæ of which the Secretary of State must almost necessarily be ignorant. He believed that it would be very advantageous if a Parliamentary officer had a larger share in the decision of questions of detail than is now the case. No one could entertain a higher opinion than he did of the ability of the permanent servants of the Crown; but in cases—such as frequently arose—where considerations of equity pointed in one direction, but strict regulation and precedent in another, the advantage was great that the decision should rest with a man who would feel that it must stand the test of discussion in Parliament. The duties of the Surveyor General and Financial Secretary would be defined by Orders in Council, which would be laid before Parliament. This, he believed, was a constitutional course, and would tend clearly to define duties. The only objections which he could anticipate to the Bill were two. The first was, that it would lessen the responsibility of the Secretary for War. Now, this might, in a modified sense, be the case, as far as it imposed a certain degree of responsibility on the officers thus created; but nobody conversant with the mass of business transacted at the War Office and Horse Guards could suppose that the Secretary of State could really be personally responsible for every transaction and detail of his Department; in the words of the old maxim—Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. In the Navy Department the First
  90
  Lord was assisted—much as it was proposed that the Secretary for War should be—by Colleagues responsible for different portions of the administration, who undertook to answer for their several departments in the House of Commons; and the presence in the House of Commons of distinguished naval officers had not been found to impair the responsibility of the First Lord. On the contrary, it had been found an advantage that he should be thus assisted. So in the Home Department, the Secretary of I State was assisted in the House of Commons by the Under Secretary, to whom was entrusted certain defined duties and the task of carrying certain measures through Parliament; and this arrangement did not weaken the responsibility of his chief. The second objection which might be raised to the Bill was, that it would be difficult to find an officer with sufficient experience for the appointment of Surveyor General, who was also possessed of a seat in the House of Commons. To this he would reply that if no such officer could be found, their position would only be what it now was. The Bill made it possible, but not necessary, that the Surveyor General of Ordnance should have a seat in the House of Commons. The first consideration would be to find the proper man for the Office. If he had, or should acquire, a seat in the House, so much the better; if not, the want of it would be no impediment to his selection for the Office. In former years the Master General of the Board of Ordnance, the Surveyor General, and other officers, were eligible for seats in the House of Commons; but this did not prevent the appointment to those posts of men outside the House. Sir George Murray and Sir Hussey Vivian had held the appointment of Master General both in and out of Parliament. General Peel, General Anson, and General Fox—men highly competent to perform any duty of the kind—had sat in the House of Commons; and he saw no reason to suppose that the constituencies would object to return distinguished military, as they certainly did return naval officers. He was convinced that it would be found possible to select for the Office of Surveyor General of the Ordnance officers of the highest distinction, who should also be Members of the House of Commons. Somebody had been good

  91
  enough, to describe the Bill as "a Whig job"—alleging its main object to be to create two new Offices under the Crown; but its almost unanimous adoption by the other House was sufficient to refute this assertion. Had it been designed to perpetrate a job, the obvious plan would have been to create two or three Offices tenable for life, with large salaries, to which supporters of the Government might have been appointed; whereas the Bill did not propose the creation of permanent appointments. The truth was, that an absolute necessity existed for the Bill. It was now admitted on all hands that the consolidation of Offices which was carried out after the Crimean War was pushed somewhat too far. At one time, besides the large representation of the Board of Ordnance in the House of Commons, several important portions of Army business were represented by the Secretary to the Treasury and the Home Secretary. If the Department was excessively represented in the House of Commons at that time, it certainly was inadequately represented now, when it was considered what an immense accession of duties had been thrown upon it. The East India Company's troops had been amalgamated with the Imperial Army, the Volunteer force had been created, questions exciting much attention connected with the Reserves had arisen, improvements had occurred in ordnance and fortifications, and this great increase in the labour of Army administration surely justified the present measure. He hoped that he had now sufficiently explained the purport of the Bill; and that, seeing it had received the almost unanimous assent of the other House—which it principally concerned—their Lordships would find no difficulty in reading it the second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Northbrook.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading; but to some of the provisions of the Bill he entertained a strong objection, and he had listened with increasing disappointment to the noble Lord's explanation of the grounds on which it had been introduced. In regard to what the noble Lord had said about the imputation of jobbery that had been attached to the Bill, he (the
  92
  Duke of Richmond) not only did not impute any such motive, but he wished that one of the Offices had been made permanent, even though it might have occasioned a cry that the Government were creating places for their supporters. He must also observe that the noble Lord had certainly advanced a strange argument in favour of the Bill, when he had said that the necessary ignorance of a civilian Secretary of War upon many points of military detail rendered it necessary to provide him with efficient Parliamentary assistance. Surely, the better plan would be to find a Secretary for War who was not ignorant on such points. He intended no imputation whatever upon the military accomplishments of the present Secretary of State for War; but the noble Lord had advanced the natural ignorance of civilians as a reason for this Bill. It was true, as the noble Lord had said, that the curiosity of Members of the House of Commons extended to all questions connected with the Army, as to all other subjects; but he (the Duke of Richmond) confessed that he thought it would be well if the system of cross-examining Ministers upon the details of Army management and discipline, were not pushed to quite such rigorous extremes. There could hardly, however, be a greater multiplicity of business in the War Office than in the Home Department. Was there not quite as much detail and of a varied character, connected with one Office as with the other? The evidence of the two officers of great eminence which had been cited, said that responsibility existed, but within fixed limits, and that the Secretary of State for War was responsible in one sense and not in another. He (the Duke of Richmond) did not quite understand this. He had always understood that the head of a Department was responsible to the country for everything that took place in his Department, and that no understanding or arrangements with regard to his subordinates could divest him of the responsibility which Secretaries of State had hitherto always had attached to them. The noble Lord also stated that the Army Estimates, and the details arising out of them, required that the Secretary of State for War should have assistance; but no amount of assistance would take from him the necessity of answering all those Questions

  93
  which the noble Lord seemed to be of opinion he would be able to divest himself of if the proposed change took place. As to the Financial Secretary of the War Office, he could not say he was convinced of the necessity of creating such an officer with a seat in the House of Commons; but, as the Government brought forward the proposal on their, own responsibility and conviction of the
  expediency, he would not oppose it. The other appointment was that of a Surveyor General of the Ordnance, who was to be responsible in all matters relating to the matériel of the Army, as the Commander-in-Chief was for its discipline. But if it were advisable that the Commander-in-Chief should not be a political officer, he (the Duke of Richmond) thought it equally desirable that the Surveyor General should be in a similar position. Notwithstanding all the examples, of which the noble Lord had spoken, of distinguished officers who had seats in Parliament, the Government would, in general, in appointing the Surveyor General of the Ordnance have to look out for, not the best officers in the Army to fill the post, but to find the best men they could get who could also command a seat in Parliament. This would be a great misfortune. He thought it desirable that the proposition that the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should be eligible to sit in the House of Commons should be struck out of the Bill; and in Committee he would move that that part of the Bill be expunged. He would, not weary their Lordships with further remarks, except to say that the creation of two officers, no doubt with considerable salaries, came with bad grace from a Government which had reduced the Army and Navy to a point which he regarded as most unwise.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had observed the necessity, when himself Under Secretary, of some additional Parliamentary assistance to the Secretary of State for War, who was subjected to such unmerciful questionings and interviews at the hands of his friends as to leave him little time for his multifarious duties. One of the officers to be created under this Bill with a seat in Parliament was to be charged with the efficiency of the materiél of the Army; but it was to be remembered that the presence of Ordnance officers in the House of Commons, under the old
  94
  arrangement, did not prevent an army being sent to the Crimea insufficiently equipped and insufficiently supplied—the result being a temporary failure, the blame of which was unfairly cast on the Army. The War Office was only a means to an end, to raise and maintain the Army; and a re-arrangement of the War Department would not necessarily lead to the efficiency of the Army. The reductions to which the noble Lord had referred were by no means satisfactory to all concerned, for it was understood, that as the result not a single regiment of Cavalry or Infantry, and not a single battery of Artillery was in an efficient state to take the field, and no means of completing their establishments to the proper numbers were immediately available. It was supposed to be in contemplation to provide reserves with which to complete them; but these did not at present exist. The Army had suffered from frequent changes in the War Office, and it was one of the objections to this Bill that under it four principal officers, instead of two, would have to resign on a change of Ministry. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance, as having the direction of all details, certainly ought to be a permanent officer, so that successive Administrations might profit by his experience. And the changes in the head of the War Office were not made for departmental reasons only. On the accession of Lord Derby's Government a gallant officer who enjoyed the confidence of Parliament and the country was appointed Secretary for War; but in a few months he resigned, owing to a political difference with some of his Colleagues; and his successor after 14 or 15 months had to retire, not on account of any failure in the Department, but on account of the advent of a new Ministry, which felt itself strong enough to deal with the Irish Church—a question with which the Army as an army had no concern. Reductions, moreover, had been made, and long lists of officers' names now stand in the Army List printed in Italics, who were under notice to quit without "compensation for disturbance." The Army was far from satisfied with this policy, which made the soldier's position one of such uncertainty. Economists might be gratified with reduced Estimates; but if at any time a moderate military effort became necessary, it

  95
  would be found that the supposed economy had been dearly purchased. He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he could not regard it as a complete solution of the question of military administration.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he entirely agreed in the propriety of additional assistance being given to the Secretary of State for War, and he had no objection to the Financial Secretary having a seat in Parliament; but he thought very strong reasons had been shown why the Surveyor General of the Ordnance should not sit in Parliament. No doubt, six or seven officers of the Department were formerly allowed to be Members of the House of Commons, and that at a time when the Militia was under the control of the Home Office, and the Commissariat under that of the Treasury; but under the present altogether different organization there was no necessity for the representation of the several departments in Parliament. His noble Friend had not made out any case of necessity for the Surveyor General having a seat in Parliament. Having looked through the most able Report on the re-organization of the War Office, he had completely failed to discover any strong and valid reason why the Control department should be represented in Parliament. Such an arrangement was not proposed by Lord Strathnairn's Committee. They recommended that the Controller should be an officer of high rank; that he should have a salary of £2,000 a year; that he should take rank with the permanent Under Secretaries of State; and not only that he should be an officer high in military rank, but that care should be taken in the selection of such an officer to obtain one with special qualifications for an administration which now comprises not only munitions de bouche, but munitions de guerre. Consequently, it was of the highest importance that the officer appointed should be the very best man who could be had. We were fortunate now in having Sir Henry Storks; but he had already failed to obtain a seat in Parliament—so that what had been spoken of as a probable difficulty had actually occurred. He thought that the Bill would either be a dead letter, or that, in future, Governments would be much tempted to appoint some Parliamentary adherent to the office of Surveyor Ge-
  96
  neral. It was more important that great care should be taken in the selection of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance than that he should have a seat in Parliament, because, contrary to the recommendation of Lord Straithnairn's Committee, we were about to place all the matériel of war under the supervision of the Surveyor; and we should necessarily impose upon him a much greater amount of labour and a greater amount of responsibility than one man could undertake. If, added to these, he was to be obliged to attend in the House of Commons at 4 o'clock, and to remain there several hours in discharge of Parliamentary duties, how could it be expected that the Department could be efficiently controlled? His noble Friend had remarked that constituencies would be always ready to return to Parliament military men of eminence, and that there would be no difficulty in finding in the House of Commons men possessed of the necessary qualifications. But had not the last Reform Bill vastly increased the amount of local influence brought to bear upon elections? Generally speaking military men were not so connected as to have local influence, and in future they would have great difficulty in getting into Parliament. The organization of the Store department which had been adopted by the War Office was in opposition to the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and he would be glad to know the grounds of that decision. It had been said that it had failed in Prussia; but had it failed in France, when the French army was in the Crimea? Was not the French Intendance the model on which we had mainly based the alterations of our supply and transport arrangements? Then why were not the Committee's recommendations on that head adopted? With regard to the Financial Secretary, he presumed that there would be no difficulty at any time in finding a Member of Parliament, a supporter of the Government of the day, who would be sufficiently versed in finance and political economy to undertake the duties of that Office. With regard to the financial arrangements of the War Office, he presumed no one would quarrel with the financial principles laid down in the Report. Nothing could be more objectionable than the old system of checking and mistrusting everybody in the War Department; nothing could

  97
  be more objectionable than heads of Departments giving to the Secretary of State Estimates which they knew would be cut down by one-half; and nothing was more desirable than that the Secretary of State should have clear ideas of financial policy ab initio, to use the term adopted in the Report; for hitherto the rule had been for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine upon a reduction of the Army Estimates, and for a merciless cutting down of officers and men, for the simple reason that this course was the easiest; it being well understood that for every man knocked off £100 was saved. His noble Friend said the late reduction was the consequence of the clear financial policy of the Secretary of State; he (Viscount Hardinge) supposed that this referred to the withdrawal of troops from the Colonies; and although that might be the financial policy of the Government, that was a policy which had been much questioned, and the simple fact remained that during the last two years we had reduced our Army by 24,000 men. As had been stated, we had no reserves to fall back upon, and, consequently, if we drifted into war we should be exposed to the same inconveniences we were at the time of the Crimean War, and should have the same difficulty in filling up our reserves. He hoped the new arrangements would work satisfactorily, and promote harmonious and united action in the War Department; for nothing could be more prejudicial than a constant succession of Committees passing recommendations which conflicted with each other. He did not object to the financial department being represented in the House of Commons, but he ventured to make a protest against the Surveyor General having a seat in Parliament.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he would venture to express an opinion upon this question based upon his long experience at the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty was as responsible to Parliament and the country as a Secretary of State for all that was done by the officers under his control. It was his duty to inform himself so as to answer any Questions which might be put to him as to the conduct of the naval Department and naval service; but at the same time it was exceedingly useful that the First Lord of the Admiralty should have in Parliament the assistance of pro-
  98
  fessional Colleagues. For four of the years that he was at the Admiralty as First Lord, Sir Maurice Berkeley, who was Senior Sea Lord, was in Parliament, and relieved him considerably in the duty of answering the Questions that were put; but the last year he was at the Admiralty, in the absence of Sir Maurice Berkeley, he experienced more or less difficulty in answering Questions which were sometimes put without Notice, and on which he had not the opportunity of informing himself from his ignorance of professional details. Nor could the opinion of a civilian, however well informed, have the same weight as that of an experienced officer. He quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord North-brook) that it would be much better that many Questions which were asked should not be put; but as they were asked, they must be answered, or there would be an end to all Parliamentary government. The same remarks would hold good of the Secretary of State for War, who was responsible for many details, and had to answer many Questions concerning them; and, however well qualified he might be to administer the Department, it was impossible he could be fully acquainted with all the details as to the military service which were raised in Parliamentary debate, but to which professional Colleagues would be able to speak promptly and satisfactorily. It was true, the best man to be found in either profession had not always a seat in Parliament; but this was one of the inevitable incidents of Parliamentary government. It was, however, for the benefit of the services that they should be professionally represented—the one by a soldier, and the other by a sailor, as regarded the business in the House; and he must say also that the knowledge acquired by the professional Member of the naval or military Department thus necessarily present in the House of Commons would assist the Government in framing measures of improvement that would be much more likely to give satisfaction than they would be if devised in ignorance of such opinions.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, it is not my intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill; but I cannot refrain from saying that in my opinion the Bill will not accomplish the reform that is required. I have been for many years impressed with the necessity of an ade-

  99
  quate reform; and before the Crimean War I called your Lordships' attention to what I considered would be the necessary consequence of the bad system then existing. In a very short time my predictions were far more than realized. Unfortunately an attempt was made to remedy the evil which appeared to me then, and which appears to me still more now, to be so ill-considered and so imperfect that it would scarcely diminish, even if it did not in some respects aggravate, the evil. I expressed this opinion of the measure at the time, and the result has verified it. It is impossible for anybody to consider the actual working of the War Department without seeing that it justifies the description attributed by a noble Friend behind me to a very high authority—that it is a chaos. The more you consider it, the more convinced you must be that the measure was founded on no clear and distinct principle. You have not attempted to create a Department for the management of your Army upon any one given system. The original mistake, as I think, was in determining to create another Secretary of State. In my opinion, there was no occasion to do that. And the effect of creating a Secretary of State for War, while the Navy is under an entirely different system, is to create an extreme anomaly. Let me remind your Lordships what is required from the Departments which are charged with the management both of the Army and Navy. Their duty is so to administer each Department, and so to expend the money granted by Parliament for maintaining the Army and the Navy, that there may always be an efficient naval or military force, to be applied to such purposes as the Government may from time to time require. Before the creation of a Secretary of State for War the different Secretaries of State, representing their several Departments, signified the Queen's pleasure to the naval or military authorities for such and such services. Formerly, if there were disturbances in the manufacturing districts the Secretary of State for the Home Department used to signify the pleasure of the Crown to the military authorities to send troops to the spot or take any measure which might be thought proper for meeting these disturbances. Again, if disturbances occurred in a seaport, owing to discontent among the
  100
  Mercantile Marine, the Secretary of State signified to the authorities at the Admiralty the Queen's pleasure that a ship of war should be sent down to the port in question. But since you have created a new Secretary of State the system is entirely altered, and you have this great anomaly—that now the Secretaries of State still continue to signify the pleasure of the Crown to the Admiralty with reference to the employment of the naval force, but with respect to the Army, there being another Secretary of State, this cannot be done, for one Secretary of State cannot signify the pleasure of the Crown to another Secretary of State. There is this further inconvenience in the system you have introduced—that while making a sweeping change in the administration of the Army you have not effected that which is at the bottom of all real improvement—such an alteration in the relations between the civil and military persons at the head of the Army as to create the same concentration of authority which exists in the Navy. You have not provided that there shall be a Minister with complete power over the Army as over the Navy, and at the same time with that professional advice and assistance which he ought to be able to command. But I am not going to take this opportunity of discussing the difficult question of what should be the constitution of the Army Department. My only object in rising was to say that, while I am not prepared to make any objection to this Bill, I must lament that Her Majesty's Government have not gone more deeply into the question; that they have not endeavoured to put an end to the chaos which I firmly believe still exists, and will continue to exist until the subject is looked at in a larger way; and that we have a measure brought before us so insignificant in its effects as this is likely to be. I will only add that I shall be very glad if my noble Friend who has charge of this Bill will explain one point which seems to me somewhat difficult to understand. If your Lordships will refer to the Bill, you will see that by Sections 2 and 3 the Secretary of State is empowered to appoint two Parliamentary officers, one the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and the other the Financial Secretary of the War Office. But there is this remarkable difference between the two

  101
  officers—by the manner in which the Act is drawn, the Surveyor General vacates his seat on appointment, and must go to his constituents for re-election, but the Financial Secretary does not. Why is this? I want an explanation. Surely it is remarkable that of these officers, being officers of the same description and appointed by the same authority—the Secretary of State—one, if he accepts an appointment under the Crown, not being already in Office, vacates his seat, while the other is to sit on just as though he had not received any appointment. I can easily guess how this has arisen. It has arisen because an anomaly exists at present. By mere accident, owing to a technical construction of the law, ever since an Act passed soon after the Revolution, which regulated the number of persons holding certain offices who could sit in the House of Commons, it has been held that those officials who were not appointed directly by the Crown, but by some other authothority, need not be re-elected on appointment. Therefore the Under Secretaries of State and the Secretaries to the Treasury and the Admiralty have never vacated their seats; but, on the other hand, because technically and formally they were appointed by the Crown and not by the heads of the Departments in which they served, the Junior Lords of the Admiralty and Treasury, though holding offices inferior to the others in importance, do vacate their seats upon appointment. That was an anomaly which arose quite accidentally, and which I was very anxious you should correct at the time of the passing of the last Reform Bill, and I moved with that view an Amendment which your Lordships did not think fit to adopt. Now, I quite understand that your Lordships might think it expedient to continue an anomaly already existing; for you might say—"It has been always so, and we will not disturb the arrangement by which an Under Secretary of State does not vacate his seat, while a Junior Lord of the Treasury must do so." But why are you not content with leaving an existing anomaly, and why do you create a new one? In this case both the officers are appointed in the same manner and by the same person—namely, the Secretary of State; and that one should vacate his seat in the House of Commons on taking Office, while the other
  102
  does not, seems a most irrational arrangement.
  LORD NORTHBROOK, in reply, said, he regretted that the noble Earl who had just sat down was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, because the opinions of the noble Earl were entitled to great weight, not only from the Offices he had held, but from the great attention he had paid to all questions of Army administration. He was somewhat surprised also, seeing that, excepting as to the person who was to take the Queen's pleasure and convey it to the Executive in certain cases, the Bill carried out very much the opinions expressed by the noble Earl himself, in 1860, before the Committee on Army Organization. The noble Earl then recommended a very similar plan to that contained in the Bill—namely, that there should be one responsible Minister, and that under Mm there should be several high officers, responsible to him for the different branches of administration, some of them, at any rate, being Members of Parliament. As to taking the Queen's pleasure, the illustrious Duke on the cross Benches would confirm him in the statement that there was no difficulty in that respect under the present system. With regard to the question whether the Surveyor General should vacate his seat on appointment, there was a great deal to be said upon the anomaly which had been pointed, out; but in framing this Bill the precedents had been strictly followed, for the Surveyor Generalship of the Ordnance was an office under the Crown, the acceptance of which vacated the seat, and, if there was an anomaly, it extended, not only to these two officers, but to others. As to the remarks of the noble Lords who had preceded him in Office, he thanked them for the general concurrence they had expressed in the measures proposed by the Bill. They knew by experience how difficult it was to deal satisfactorily with the subject, and he had no doubt they would make allowance for any imperfections which might be found in the plan proposed. With respect to the observations which had been made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) and the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Hardinge), as to the general policy of the Government, in reference to Army administration—that was to say, to the reduction in the number of troops in the Colonies and in

  103
  the cadres of the regiments—it would perhaps be more convenient that he should not enter into an explanation of that policy on the present occasion, beyond observing that he entirely demurred from the description which had been given by the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) of the strength of our Army. The Army in England, on the contrary, was now stronger than it had been for a series of years, and he would be prepared, on another occasion, if the noble Earl chose to raise a discussion on the question, to give the fullest explanations in his power as to the steps which had been taken by the Secretary of State with regard to the constitution of a Reserve force and other matters connected with the organization of the Army since the accession to Office of the present Government. There was, he might say, another remark which fell from the noble Earl, to which he wished to advert. It related to a point in which the noble Earl, notwithstanding all his knowledge of military affairs, was in error. He said that, on looking through the Army List, he observed the names of certain officers in Italics, whose services, he thought, were to be dispensed with without any compensation. Now that was entirely a mistake. So far from dispensing with the services of any officers, owing to the proposals received from India, the Government had taken care to place no officer on half-pay, notwithstanding the reductions which they had in consequence deemed it to be their duty to make. Instead of being a proof of harshness on the part of the Secretary of State, therefore, in dealing with the officers of the Army in effecting the reductions which he was compelled to carry out, the very point referred to by the noble Earl tended to show that the interests of those who had already entered Her Majesty's service have received at the hands of the Secretary of State for War the fullest consideration. He might add, in reply to the observations which had been made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge), that the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, with respect to the division of the branches connected with Supply and Ordnance Stores had been to a great extent carried out. The matter was rather one of a technical character, but he could assure the noble Viscount that the Government were alive to the great
  104
  advantage of employing an officer specially qualified to manage the business relating to Ordnance stores. As to the remarks which had been made by the noble Viscount, and also by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), objecting to the proposal that the Surveyor General of Ordnance should be able to sit in Parliament, he hoped the noble Duke would not act upon the suggestion which he had made and move the omission of the clause. Surely there was little force in the argument that because a man, fitted for the performance of the duties of that Office, might not always be found in the House of Commons, the services of such a man with a seat in that House were never to be secured? The duty of the Secretary of State was to select the best man for the discharge of those duties, and if he was a Member of the House of Commons so much the better. The Secretary of State would, in that event, have the advantage of his assistance in giving explanations with respect to the administration of a Department with which he had a practical acquaintance; and the noble Viscount was one of the last persons who ought to object to such an arrangement, for if his view had been formerly acted upon such a man as his illustrious father, Sir Henry Hardinge, would have been excluded from holding that Office, the duties of which he had for so many years performed in the House of Commons with so much advantage to the country. What was required was more military experience and assistance in that House in connection with the War Department, and he hoped the noble Duke would, yield to the opinion of one of his own Colleagues, Sir John Pakington, who had been Secretary of State for War and supported the Bill on that ground, as well as to the views of the late Lord Herbert, than whom no man was better qualified to form a sound judgment on the question. The noble Duke opposite, he might add, had asked him whether the business of the Home Office was not as great, as far as details were concerned, as that of the War Department. Now, he had had the honour of serving in both those Departments, and he had no hesitation in saying that there was no comparison as to matters of detail between the business in both. The Home Office business was of a cha-

  105
  racter which was well understood by many country gentlemen, and which could be easily mastered by men who had received a legal education. Army details, on the contrary, extended over a mass of technical matter of great complication and difficulty, with which it was not easy to become thoroughly conversant. As to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the answers which might be given to Questions by the sub-ordinate officers appointed under the Bill, he would merely remark that the Secretary of State would be responsible as now for the business of his Department, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was for the business of his Department, although the Secretary of the Treasury was the exponent of a great amount of that business. He would observe, in conclusion, that the Bill, if passed, would entail no additional expenditure on the public; and in reply to the observation that while the Army was reduced the War Office would remain the same, he had to state that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Department hoped to lay before long on the Table of the other House an Estimate of the cost of the War administration of the coming year, which would show a reduction which he believed would be satisfactory to the public, who wore anxiously looking for some diminution of expenditure in the establishment of that Department.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, his noble Friend had misunderstood him. He had not said that the services of the officers to whose case he had referred would be dispensed with without consideration. What he had stated was that they were under "notice to quit," and although persons under notice to quit were not always turned out, they were liable to be turned out.
  LORD NORTHBROOKreplied, that that was not the case.
  LORD DE ROSexpressed his surprise at the statement of the noble Lord that our Army was never stronger than at the present moment. The reduction of several hundred of the subaltern officers of regiments was in itself a great injury to the efficiency of the Army. A want of sufficient subalterns to supply, on the spot, the casualties of the field, would one day be found a serious difficulty. It had been found so during the late war, at the close of which troops and com-
  106
  panies were frequently commanded by cornets and ensigns. Another very unfortunate result of the reduction was that a whole generation of young gentlemen were now debarred from entering the Army. Only the other day he met a friend of his who said—"My son was brought up in the expectation that the ordinary number of young officers would be added to the Army at the usual time, but there is a dead-lock, and a considerable number of young gentlemen who have been brought up carefully and at great expense by their parents or guardians with a view to their entering the service are entirely cut off from it and obliged to look out for some other occupation." He thought this was a very important and serious matter, and could by no means receive his noble Friend's declaration, that the recent reductions had left the Army unimpaired in strength and efficiency.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  SEQUESTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to abolish Sequestrations for Debt, and to provide a more effectual remedy for securing payment of the Debts of Beneficed Clerks—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of WINCHESTER; read 1a. (No. 81.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.