Sitting of 15 April 1875

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Metalliferous Mines* [120]; Falsification of Accounts* [121].

SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN LOANS—LETTER OF M. HERRAN.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish to give Notice, that on the Order of the Day to-morrow I shall move this Resolution—
  "It having been stated in" The Times "and" Daily News "newspapers of the 9th instant, referred to in the Order of the House of the 13th instant, that a letter, professing to be written by M. Victor Herran, Honduras Minister in Paris, and addressed to the Right honorable Robert Lowe, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Loans, was read and made part of the proceedings before the Select Committee on Foreign Loans on the 8th instant, that it be referred to the said Committee to report to the House whether such letter was produced and read before the said Committee and under what circumstances, and whether any copy of the said letter was communicated by or on behalf of the said Committee to the said newspapers or either of them."

DOMINION OF CANADA—NEWFOUNDLAND. QUESTION.
MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any negotiations are, or have been, in progress for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada, in accordance with provision

969
made in "The British North America Act, 1867?"
MR. J. LOWTHER: Since 1869, when proposals for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion failed to obtain the sanction of the constituencies of that island, no fresh negotiations have been entered into. The question is, of course, one of undiminished interest to Her Majesty's Government, and to the Governments of the Dominion, and of the colony concerned; but it is understood that public feeling in Newfoundland is not at present distinctly expressed in favour of this step.

VALUATION BILL—TITHE ASSESSMENT.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the Government propose to introduce in this Session a Valuation Bill; and, if so, whether, in the assessment of tithe, not the property of laymen, an allowance will be made by way of deduction from the gross assessable value for the outlay incurred in the employment of curates?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I prepared a Valuation Bill in the Recess, and should be happy to introduce it, if there appeared any reasonable probability that it could be passed into law within the present Session. It would not be convenient that I should state by anticipation any of its provisions; but I may say that the subject of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry was fully considered in framing the measure.

IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN ANIMALS—THE REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLESW. DILKEasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the regulations framed by the local authority in London under the 37 and 38 Vic. c. 67 will be ready for issue; whether in the regulations as submitted to the Local Government Board for confirmation provision has been made for the temporary detention of animals intended for slaughter; and, whether it would be possible to lay the regulations upon the Table of the House before they are finally confirmed and issued?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I cannot say when these Regulations will be ready for issue. They were submitted
970
to the Local Government Board some time since, and have been returned to the Metropolitan Board of Works, with certain amendments for their consideration. There was no provision in the Regulations for the temporary detention of animals intended for slaughter; but I am aware that a suggestion to that effect has been submitted. I do not doubt it would be possible to lay the Regulations on the Table, though I think such a course might be inconvenient as a precedent; but my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James Hogg) which is the local authority in question, would be better able to answer that inquiry.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS OF MILTIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an Adjutant of Militia, who on retiring from the adjutantcy has accepted a commission as Major in the regiment, would, on the command of that regiment becoming vacant, be eligible for promotion to that rank and command; or whether, as heretofore, the vacancy would be filled by a half-pay Field Officer from the regular forces; and, whether he would be willing in any cases to commute for cash the pensions to which adjutants may be entitled?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the adjutants would be eligible in the same way as lieutenant colonels, and each case would have to be decided on its merits. He had already stated that the Commissioners had already commuted for cash the pensions to which adjutants were entitled, and he had no reason to doubt that they would continue to act on that principle.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP REGULA-TION ACTS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—WOMEN IN FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILLIAM HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as no reference is made to adult women in the Royal Commission issued to inquire into the working of the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts, it is intended to exclude their case either from the proposed inquiry

  971
  or from the recommendations to be made by the Commissioners in respect to the alteration and amendment of these Acts; and, if so, will he be good enough to inform the House how he proposes to meet the case of adult women who, under existing Acts, may be employed in bleach-works, print-works, finishing-works, and other branches of industry for sixty (and under certain circumstances for sixty-three) hours per week, while women employed under much more favourable conditions to health in textile factories are restricted to fifty-six hours and a half per week by the Factory Act of 1874?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to control in any way the inquiry of the Royal Commission. Neither was there any wish to impose, as a general rule, any restrictions on the labour of adult persons. But, no doubt, the case of adult women might be made a subject of special provision in special eases. Where the Factory and Workshop Regulation Acts were not in operation, that would be a subject for consideration.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can state to the House the effect of the Education Act of 1870 on voluntary schools, in the following respects: 1. The attendance of scholars; 2. The fees of scholars; 3. The amount of the voluntary contributions; 4. The Government grants?
VISCOUNT SANDON: In reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman it will, of course, be understood that the only answer I can give will be respecting those voluntary schools which receive a Government grant. Respecting the numerous voluntary schools which do not receive a Government grant, I am not able to give the information required. 1. In 1870 the average attendance in all public elementary schools, which were then all voluntary, was 1,226,034, of which 1,152,389 was in day schools. In 1874 the average attendance involuntary public elementary schools alone was 1,585,372, of which 1,540,466 was in day schools. 2. The fees paid in 1870 in day and in night schools were
972
£502,022, or 8s. 8d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 the fees amounted to £762,184, or 9s. 10 d. per head. 3. The voluntary subscriptions to day and night schools in 1870 amounted to £418,839, or to 7s. 3d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 they amounted to £601,172, or to 7s. 9d. per head. 4. In 1870, before the new Code came into operation, the Government grant to day schools was £562,611, or 9s. 9d. per head on the average attendance. In 1874 the day voluntary schools received under the new Code £956,347, or 12 s. 5d. per head. The grant to night schools in 1870 was £24,879, or 6s. 9d. per head. In 1874 it was£17, 178, or 7s. 6d. per head. In addition to the Question put on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman, I may add that the night schools in 1870 were 24,000, and in 1874, 17,000.

INDIA—BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any portion of the Banda and Kirwee prize money in the hands of the Government; and, if so, will he inform the House when it will be paid to those entitled to it?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: A complete account of the prize has not yet been received from India; but it is believed that about £30,000 of that booty is still in the possession of the Government. It is probable that this will not be more than sufficient to meet the outstanding claims arising on the distributions already authorized. It is therefore not likely that any further distribution will be made to those whose authorized claims have been already satisfied.

INDIA—VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF WALES TO INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended by the Government, in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, to propose to Parliament to make such provision as will enable His Royal Highness to discharge such duties as may be considered befitting his position as the representative of Her Majesty with becoming dignity?
  MR. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman, in his hypothetical Question, makes an inquiry of a somewhat ambiguous nature. The hon. Gentleman inquires—
  "Whether it is intended by the Government, in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, to propose to Parliament to make such provision as will enable His Royal Highness to discharge such duties as may he considered befitting his position as the representative of Her Majesty."
  I apprehend that in the event of His Royal Highness visiting India he would not visit it as the representative of Her Majesty. The Viceroy would continue to fulfil the duties which are attendant on that office. But I may say generally to the hon. Gentleman, that in the event of the Prince of Wales visiting India, and in the event of Her Majesty's Government having to make any public communication on the subject, the House of Commons will be the first body in the country to whom that communication will be made.

TWEED FISHERIES ACTS—REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the note appended to the Report of the Special Commission on the Tweed Fisheries Acts, at page 201 of the Index, in which the Commissioners state that—
  "They are satisfied that the additional constables engaged in the protection of the river may be supplemented, and, in point of fact, are supplemented, by the county police, who are so far liable to be withdrawn from their special duties;"
  whether he has noticed the evidence given before that Commission by the Sheriff Substitute of Roxburghshire, to the effect that "the efficiency of the police is considerably injured" by their employment as water bailiffs; and, whether he is prepared henceforward to permit that members of the regular county police should assist the constables paid from the funds of the Tweed Commissioners in their duties as water bailiffs?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the Report to which his hon. Friend alluded; but he had not yet been able
  974
  to give it that attention which it deserved. He might say, however, with respect to the supplementary force for the protection of rivers, that before the presentation of this Report he had been in communication with the Inspectors of Police in England on the subject, and the attention of the Government was directed to it.

WATER SUPPLY.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having in view the inadequate supply of water for drinking and other purposes in many towns, rural villages, and districts throughout the Country, Her Majesty's Government are prepared during the present Session with any measure to remedy this evil; and, if not, whether the Government will consent to an inquiry into the subject by a Royal Commission, for the purpose of ascertaining the wants of various rural districts, and the best method of storing water where needed?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I stated very recently, in reply to a Question addressed to me in this House, what new powers and facilities in respect of water supply were proposed to be conferred by the Public Health Bill of this Session. The Government have no further legislation to propose on the subject at present. In reply to my hon. Friend's further Question as to a Royal Commission, the Government have not yet had time for its consideration. In considering it their object would be to adopt such a course as might lead to a practical conclusion with the least delay.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869.—QUESTION.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether, in the monthly return published by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council Office, under section 22 of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869,"—he would state in addition—(1.) Whether the foreign ports from which the animals are brought are in scheduled or unscheduled countries; (2.) The number of the healthy animals brought in the same vessel with the diseased animals, and the mode in which such healthy animals have been disposed of, whether by slaughter or otherwise?
VISCOUNT SANDON: In answer to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the matters he has referred to do not come within my Department. I, however, brought the subject before the Lord President, and he has authorized me to say that he will be happy to direct the additions to be made to the monthly Return which my hon. Friend desires, and, if possible, will have them added to that of next month.

INDIA—THE BENGAL FAMINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is intended to bestow any honours or rewards on any of those who fought the Indian famine for us, or if there is any regulation limiting such honours and rewards to strictly military services?
  MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Gentleman apparently assumes in his Question that the honours and rewards conferred by Her Majesty are conferred only for military services; but that is not the case. On the contrary, many honours and rewards have been conferred, even recently, by Her Majesty for services which are strictly civil. There were, I think, three Knights Commanderships of the Bath conferred for Civil services even in this year, besides several Commanderships and Knights Commander-ships of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and many Knighthoods for Civil services, or for distinction in science and otherwise, by which public respect is gained. There have also been some hereditary honours conferred for Civil services; and therefore I do not think the hon. Gentleman right in his assumption that the honours and rewards conferred by Her Majesty are strictly for military services. With respect to the great labours of those who successfully contended with the Indian Famine, I may say it is but very recently that their success has been attained. On all these occasions—I am not now speaking with reference peculiarly to the labours connected with the Indian Famine, but to labours of this character when the conduct is performed in a distant country and the exertions have been shared by many individuals—it is of great importance that the utmost care should be taken that no mistake is committed—that you should not, for instance, reward the wrong
  976
  people—a mistake that is sometimes made and not easily remedied. I may also say to the hon. Gentleman that when you are considering such circumstances it should be remembered that all honours, excepting hereditary honours, are with very slight exceptions limited in number. It is not sufficiently known by the country—and, if I might presume to say so, even by the Houses of Parliament—that there is no Order of Knighthood which is not limited in its numbers, and vacancies may not occur for some time. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that there are a great many considerations which have to be taken into account when the distribution of honours or rewards for services of the kind referred to has to be made; and I would say humbly to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, considering the difficulties attendant on a satisfactory distribution of such honours and rewards, it is best to leave the exercise of that Prerogative to Her Majesty and her responsible Advisers.

FRANCE—DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.—EXPLANATION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I have to ask the House to allow me to offer an explanation in respect to the vote taken on the Previous Question, moved by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), when I brought under notice the Declaration of Paris, on Tuesday evening. It has been suggested to me that I acted disrespectfully to the House in leaving the House when the Question was about to be put to a division taken upon it. I wish, therefore, to explain that I had stated that I wished to withdraw the Notice I had given, but was not prepared to divide upon the Previous Question, which did not meet the merits of the case. I venture to think that if the division had been taken upon my own Motion, instead of upon the Previous Question, the result would have been very different.
PRIVILEGE—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—THE PRITTLEWELL PETITION.

  SPECIAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Order for Consideration of Special Report read.
  MR. DISRAELI: It becomes my duty to ask the House to consider this

  977
  Report of the Committee, and to suggest the course which, on reflection and due investigation of the circumstances, I think it is for the public interest and the honour of the House they should follow. I will not move that the Petition be read at the Table. If hon. Gentlemen wish it, it may be done; but by taking that course, we should really give that stimulus to improper addresses to this House which is obtained by notoriety. I think I can accurately and impartially convey the contents of this Petition to the House without reproducing all those expressions and that tone of feeling which has arrested the attention of our careful Committee on Petitions. Now, Sir, this Petition has one remarkable characteristic. It is really two Petitions in one—that is to say, there are two prayers. Not that there are really two prayers conjointly at the end, but after a certain statement of facts is made, a prayer to the House is introduced; then follows a new statement of facts, and the Petitioners again address a prayer to the House upon that point. It cannot be said to be wholly unconnected with the previous prayer; but still it is a distinct and independent one. The Petition itself is a Petition which impugns the conduct of the three Judges who presided over the Trial at Bar of the convict Orton. It believes that there was not a fair trial; it gives, under three heads, the feeling, or the reasoning, if by courtesy it may be so called, by which the Petitioners have arrived at that conclusion. They state that the three Judges had prejudged the case—that by the expression of their opinion before the trial they had shown that they were hostile to the Claimant or Defendant. In the second place, they state that, in consequence of conducting the trial with this foregone conclusion, witnesses were brow-beaten, the jury prejudiced, and at times coerced; the Defendant's Counsel insulted, and interfered with, so that he could not do his duty to his client; and, thirdly, they declare that the summing-up was dishonest and corrupt, and they impute in some detail corrupt motives throughout to the Judges in this transaction. This part of the Petition concludes with a prayer that this House would address Her Majesty to remove—these three Judges from the Bench. Well, now, so far as we have proceeded, I do
  978
  not think this House will have any difficulty as to the course it should adopt. This is not the first Petition in the records of Parliament—of this House—which has been addressed to it, and in which the conduct of the Judges has been inpugned. I felt it my duty to search the Journals of the House in order that the House might have information as to precedents at its command; and I think it more convenient and more likely to lead to an earlier completion of the business if I place this information at once as briefly as I can before the House, that the House shall have at once in its possession all the information which will enable it to arrive at the conclusion which I wish to propose that the House shall adopt. The precedents to which I refer commence in the year 1816. On the 8th of May there was a Petition of Mr. Taaffe, complaining that the President of the Court of Session had been guilty of various acts of malversation in the administration of justice. The Motion that the Petition do lie on the Table was negatived. On the 11th of July, 1817, a Petition was offered to be presented complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Day. A Motion was made that the Petition should be brought up, but it was, by leave, withdrawn. On the 22nd of December, 1819, a Petition was presented complaining of the conduct of magistrates, and praying for inquiry, and it was rejected. That instance is memorable, because Mr. Huskisson took part in the debate; and he said—
  "The House could not think of entertaining and retrying a case which had been already disposed of in a Court of Justice."—[1 Hansard, xli. 1447.]
  On the 23rd of February, 1821, there was a Petition of Mr. Thomas Davison, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Best in fining him while he was on his defence. That was offered to be presented. There was a division on the Motion, and the presentation was negatived. It may be said that these instances occurred in somewhat hard times, when there was not that sympathy with popular rights and popular sentiments which, at present, happily exists in this country; but it was necessary I should place them before the House; and the precedents which I will now quote are of sufficiently modern date.

  979
  On the 28th of July, 1870, the House was moved—
  "That a Petition having been presented to this House upon the 10th day of June last, from certain inhabitants of the city of Waterford, containing grave charges against Baron Hughes, one of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in respect of his judicial conduct upon the trial of the late Election Petition in that city, and praying for inquiry, and no action having been taken thereon by any Member of this House, order made on the 10th day of June last that the said Petition do lie on the Table might be read; and, the same being read: Ordered that the said Order be discharged;"
  and it was further ordered that so much of the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Petitions as contained the Petition should be cancelled. On the 3rd of July, 1874, notice having been taken that a Petition of the Rev. James Thwaytes, rector of Caldbeck, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 22nd of June last, contained imputations on the conduct of certain of the Judges, and also statements affecting the social and legal position of individuals, the Order made on the 22nd of June last "That the Petition do lie on the Table" was read, and discharged, and it was Ordered, "That the Petition, as printed in the Appendix to the Seventeenth Report on Public Petitions, be cancelled, and that the Petition be withdrawn." These are precedents which completely apply to the present case. I am bound to say for myself, and for my Colleagues—whose advice I have had the advantage of obtaining—that we are not at all inclined to put a strict interpretation upon the language used in the Petitions which complain of the conduct of Judges of the Realm. We should pass over much violent and coarse language if an accusation were distinct and not vague, and if the Member who presented the Petition gave security for its authenticity by announcing to the House that he intended to proceed upon it. The administration of justice—the just administration of the law, I would rather say—is, I believe, one of the sources of the great content which prevails, and has long prevailed, in this country. It is one of those blessings that every Englishman duly feels, and of which he is proud; and I am of opinion that we should not too severely scrutinize the language of Petitions which refer to the conduct of the Judges of the land, and impute to them
  980
  an improper and corrupt motive, provided the charges are distinct and not vague, and that the Member who presents these Petitions announces to the House that he intends to take immediate steps to ask the opinion of the House upon the subject. Therefore, so far as this Petition impugns the conduct of the Judges in the particular case concerned, I have nothing further to say, except that if the Gentleman who presented the Petition, who, I believe, is my hon. Friend the Member for the county of Essex (Colonel Makins), announces that he is prepared, having presented that Petition, to ask the opinion of the House upon its contents, I should not, so far as I have gone, oppose the receipt of that Petition. The next point to which I have to call the attention of the House is, in my opinion, of a much more serious character. I refer to the second portion and the second prayer of this Petition. Having concluded their prayer that this House would interfere for the removal of the three Judges, this Petition proceeds to announce that the Petitioners have heard with alarm and surprise that no less a personage than you, Sir, the most eminent Member of this House, had announced that Petitions complaining of unfair trial cannot be received. It is not necessary for me to say that no such opinion was given by you. I am not at all wishing to influence the House in the course I am recommending to them, nor to aggravate the case before us, by showing that it touches so exalted a personage as the right hon. Gentleman who presides over our deliberations, and appealing—as I know I should successfully do—to their conviction that the best feelings and highest interests of this House are involved in maintaining the authority of the Chair. It is certainly not necessary for me to refer at all to this point with the view of ensuring its due influence on our deliberations. Having made the statement that they have heard with astonishment, alarm, and surprise that this expression of opinion has been made by Mr. Speaker, they proceed in a style of invective on the subject, and they end by a prayer that the House of Commons will take measures for the impeachment of Mr. Speaker. I would have the House to observe that in the second part of this Petition there is involved a violation of our most im-

  981
  port and cherished privilege. It is not a question of Breach of Privilege, like that which we may unfortunately have to discuss to-morrow, and in which we are obliged, on the whole, deeming it for the public advantage, to expedite the course of fair play and justice by referring to the obsolete, yet necessary, machinery; but it involves a Breach of the highest Privilege of the Members of this House—namely, that they should not be called in question by persons out of this House for words which they have used in this House. That, indeed, is the only security we have for free discussion and freedom of debate, and that has always been looked upon as the most precious privilege of Members of the House of Commons. They cannot be impugned; they cannot be proceeded against on account of words which are used in this House. Now here is a distinct and gross violation of that Privilege of the House, for the words of a Member of this House, uttered in it, are impugned and threatened by those out of the House, and that in regard to a Member, the most eminent in position, whom the House of Commons are called upon to visit with the penalties of impeachment in consequence of those words. The House will see in a moment—it is not necessary for me to dwell upon it—that if this privilege of free speech is not most rigidly and sacredly guarded in this House, opportunities may be taken by persons of authority and power—whether they be Monarchs or Mobs—the difference would not be great—to crush the freedom of discussion in this House, upon which the liberties of the people and the welfare of this Realm mainly depend. Therefore, as this Petition contains a gross violation of the Privileges of this House by calling into question words used in this House by a Member, I move that the Order for this Petition lying on the Table be rescinded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order that the Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood [presented 6th April] do lie upon the Table, he read, and discharged."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  COLONEL MAKINS: As I am the Member who presented this Petition, the House will, perhaps, allow me to say a few words in explanation. I believe the best course which any Member of this House can adopt when he
  982
  finds that he has by inadvertence or carelessness committed an error, is frankly to avow it, and throw himself on the indulgence of the House. That, Sir, is my case. The history of this Petition, so far as I am concerned, is very short and simple, and if the House will allow me I will relate it. I received a letter from a constituent living at Prittlewell, a day or two before the Easter Recess, asking me whether I would present a Petition for the release, as he termed it in his letter, of "that unhappy nobleman now languishing in prison." Secondly, I was asked whether I would support the prayer of the Petition; and, lastly, whether I would give the hon. Member for Stoke a patient hearing when he brought his Motion before the House. I replied to those Questions categorically, that I would present the Petition; that I could not support its prayer; and that I would not interrupt the hon. Member for Stoke. On my return to town after Easter I found the Petition; and I am sorry to say, without carefully looking at it, or making myself fully acquainted with the contents or the nature of the language in which it was couched, I presented that Petition. I have nothing more to say. I do not intend to take any course with regard to the Petition; I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, except that I only wish to say this—that there is no Member of this House who would feel more regret than I do at having inadvertently become the means of conveying through the Forms of this House an unmerited censure upon the Bench and upon you, Sir. There is no Member of this House who has a greater admiration for the diligence and the ability with which Her Majesty's Judges discharge the most sacred duty of administering justice in England. There is no one who has a profounder faith in the impartiality and integrity with which those duties are discharged. And I am sorry to say there is no one who has a profounder—I was going to say, contempt, but I would rather use the word pity, than I have for the victims of that monstrous delusion, of the existence of which this Petition is evidence—I mean the delusion that the person referred to in the Petition has been the victim of a persecuting conspiracy, whether aristocratic or Jesuitical, and that he has not

  983
  had a fair trial. Thanking the House for having listened to my explanation, I beg to express my regret that I should have presented the Petition.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee his duty in this matter was simply a Ministerial duty, and must be held to have been discharged with the presentation of the Report, which at the request of the Committee he had laid on the Table on Monday last. The matter then passed from their hands to those of the Government and the House. He wished to correct a misapprehension which prevailed as to the functions of the Public Petitions Committee. He was asked why some of the Petitions on the Tichborne Case were not summarily rejected by the Committee. They had, however, no power to reject any Petition which had once been received by the House except on the ground of informality; and therefore it was most desirable that Members undertaking the presentation of doubtful Petitions should, at the time of their presentation, call the attention of the House to the subject-matter, in order that when the Question was put from the Chair that the Petition should lie upon the Table, the House might, if it thought fit, give a negative vote, and thus obviate the necessity and trouble of a proceeding like the present. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that in the case of the Petition complaining of the conduct of Baron Hughes, to which allusion had been made, the ground there given for discharging the Order was that no action had been taken since the presentation of it. Speaking for himself, he might say that, notwithstanding the strong language of the Petition under discussion, he could not have voted for the discharge of the Order if the hon. Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) had stated in his place that it was his intention to follow up that Petition by a Motion. The right of Petitioners to approach that House was an ancient and constitutional right, which did not admit of question. But while the House was always prepared to give every facility for the exercise of that right, it had ever shown a disinclination to allow its Forms to be made use of for the purpose of circulating charges and attacks which it was not intended seriously to follow up. It was scarcely necessary for
  984
  him, on the part either of himself or of his Colleagues, to disclaim the slightest animus in the Tichborne Case. In the discharge of their functions the Committee had but one wish, and that was to discharge their duties in strict accordance with the regulations and practice of Parliament as they understood them, and to mete out to all Petitions that came before them equal justice and courtesy.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I venture, Sir, to differ from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, though I cannot conceal from myself that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is shared by a large majority of the House. A Petition which prayed for the release of the prisoner in question has been adopted by a large majority of the inhabitants of Leicester, and has the signature of 15,000 persons. Here I wish to say that in their views I have no sympathy or belief whatever; but the right of Petition is an ancient and sacred right. It is much more than a right; it is a duty which it is eminently for the interest of the House to cherish and encourage as much as we can, and to hinder and relax it as little as possible by the suggestion of technical difficulties. It is important in the interests of good order that the people of this country should feel that the House of Commons is the Great Inquest of the Nation, before whom they can bring complaints and demand inquiry or redress. It is therefore most important that the right of Petition should be preserved and encouraged, and this is the natural result of free discussion. Now, Sir, it is said that this Petition contains gross libels against the Judges, and against many other individuals. I believe it with all my heart. But what then? All charges against public functionaries must contain libels. The question of acting upon these Petitions, or of receiving them, is, I submit, an entirely different thing. If the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) or the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) founded a Motion on these Petitions, I should unhesitatingly give my vote against them. But that is no reason why great masses of the people should be cut off from petitioning. I believe that this Petition contains libels; but it is not impossible to conceive that there might be such things—indeed, there have been such things—as corrupt and unjust Judges;

  985
  and, that being so, to whom did the people come but to this House to protest, and to seek their removal. I believe I am right in saying that for a period of 200 years—from the time of William and Mary—the Judges have not held their offices according to the pleasure of the Crown, but quamdiu se bene gesserint; and therefore to whom are the people of England to come but to this House, to say that they believe injustice has been done and to ask their Representatives to join and assist them in presenting an Address to the Crown? The right hon. Gentleman says he would not have moved that this Petition should not be received had the hon. Member who presented it (Colonel Makins) declared his willingness to bring forward in this House a Motion in accordance with its prayer. I consider that in that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to do great injustice to the Members of this House as well as to the people who send Petitions here. We have heard of a Petition signed by 15,000 infatuated people at Leicester, but it would be gross injustice to compel the hon. Member for Leicester to bring forward a Motion in accordance with it. The strongest part of the case of the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly the unwise, foolish, and even insulting observations upon yourself, Sir. I shall not show any disrespect for you, Sir, because here, in your presence, I do not lavish terms of laudation. I will only say that your position is such as to enable you to pass by such folly without a word. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) made a great deal more of this matter than he need have done, because he admitted that the words used in the Petition, and attributed to the Speaker, were not used by him, and therefore the rudeness towards you, Sir, was but an hypothetical rudeness. Sir, I give an emphatic "No" to the Motion.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Sir, I assure you it is with great reluctance that I address the House upon this question, and I do so, I hope, with a sense of the responsibility due to the position which I assume. Although I have been sitting by the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), my resolve in this matter has been come to without any sort of concert with him. I think we had better look at this matter before it grows to larger dimensions, and before
  986
  it becomes a question which may very much trouble us, as it has already troubled the constituencies of the country. I am in the same position as the hon. Member for Leicester in this respect, that I am threatened with a Petition to present in the same interest, worded exactly as this is, and founded upon the same delusions. I disclaim any sort of belief in any part of the Petition; but how is the mischief to be cured? What is the mischief that is proceeding? I beg the House to beware of it. It is this—that for nearly a year past the foullest slanders have been allowed to be published, and there has been no hand raised, no Ministerial voice expressed upon this matter; and with the exception of the rejection, Sir, by you, in your capacity of Speaker of this House, of a Petition last year, I do not suppose there has been the slightest notice taken of that which is fermenting in the country. Now, if these slanders are allowed to be stated, what must be the inference in the minds of men who read them daily or weekly? It must be this—first, they are in print, and that to comparatively uneducated minds may give them an authenticity that they would otherwise want; and when they read them, as they do, they must arrive at this conclusion, that if not true, those who disseminate them should be at once prosecuted. But if they are true, is it because you are afraid to prosecute that you do not proceed? Then, if such is not the case, how can you complain of the constituencies believing these statements to be true? If they are true, then I say it is noble and generous of the people to believe them, and they do right to come here to this House and present Petitions, couched although they may be in terms which we might take exception to, but certainly conveying specific charges with which it is for this House to deal. Now, what does this Petition do? It states certain matters which might be inquired into. Where can they be inquired into? Where so fittingly as in this House? A verdict given by a Committee upon these charges would yield comfort to this country. One of the precedents adduced by the Prime Minister was when the House refused to try a criminal over again, and I quite agree with such a precedent as that, but it does not govern this case. In this case it is charged that certain persons in high

  987
  office exhibited misconduct in the course of a certain trial, and four instances of similar charges have been enumerated. But the question is, are the charges true or not? I submit that this House is the only tribunal which can set this ferment at rest, and it can only do so by referring this question to a Committee. These matters should be inquired into. I have only further to say, Sir, with regard to the reflection upon the office which you hold, I really think that that has been brought into too much prominence. The only thing to be done is to deal with this matter in the manner suggested. Nothing else will give peace, or put a stop to that with which we are threatened—namely, a continuance of that which is generous on the part of those who believe it, but which is in the highest degree evidence of their credulity.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There are lawyers in this House, perhaps, who are not unfamiliar with the precedents which have been brought forward by the Prime Minister, and I venture to think that any who have examined the precedents bearing on this case, even though they should be, like myself, humble and unlearned Members of this House, must nevertheless have grave doubts as to the applicability of those precedents to this matter. And one cannot but discover that if there are some precedents which are in favour of the rejection of this Petition there are others which go the other way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) has pointed out that one of the precedents quoted by the Prime Minister has no bearing upon this case, inasmuch as it was a Petition praying for the retrial of a case which had been already decided in the Courts of Law. But there is another precedent which was brought forward by the Prime Minister, which also, I think, has little bearing on this case. He quoted the precedent of a Petition against Justice Best in 1821; and he said that that Petition was rejected after coming to a Party division upon it. But he did not point out that in the same year other Petitions were rejected by this House also upon Party divisions, in which the conduct of Ministers alone was called in question. It is quite clear that in that year, and also in 1819 and 1820, it was by no means uncommon for this House to reject, on Party divisions, Petitions which would
  988
  be received at the present time. Another precedent was that of 1870, four years ago, when a Petition was presented on the 10th of June against the conduct of Baron Hughes, and the reason stated in the Journals for the rejection of that Petition was, that no Member had made any Motion about it in support of the charges which it contained. We are not at the present moment aware whether it is not the intention of some Member to make a Motion upon the subject which this Petition does contain. When the Prime Minister asks the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) whether it is his intention to make a Motion founded upon this Petition, I ask the great Constitutional authorities of this House, whether it is or is not the case that any other Member has just as much right to make a Motion founded on these charges as the hon. Gentleman who presented the Petition? There are one or two precedents which bear strongly in favour of this Petition. On the 23rd of May, 1689, a Petition, alleging the most grossly unfair treatment of a prisoner by the Judges, was received by this House. In 1701 the famous Kentish Petition was presented. It was unconstitutional, because it prayed for war, and was rejected; but a great storm was created about it, and it was afterwards held that it was unwise to reject it, rather than by a Resolution to declare it frivolous and unconstitutional; and in a note appended to the passage in Hansard it is stated that—
  "The same privileges by which the Members in Parliament claim to speak, gives every commoner the right to speak to this House."—[Hansard, Parl. History, 5.]
  In 1725 a Petition was presented to this House from Lords Oxford and Morpeth alleging gross injustice against a Master in Chancery; and there is also the case of the famous Wilkes Petition, in 1768. Mr. Wilkes was, at the time, a Member of this House, and, having consulted Constitutional authorities on this point, I believe I am justified in saying that it was held that the fact of his being a Member of this House made no difference in his position. The Petition brought a charge of subornation of perjury against Mr. Secretary West, and it was received by the House; and many weeks afterwards, on a Resolution being submitted to the House declaring that Petition to be frivolous,

  989
  the Resolution was adopted. On the 10th of December, 1779, at the time that Lord North was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Petition of the freeholders of Middlesex was not rejected, although it preferred a formal charge against Lord North of the most wanton and arbitrary use of his power, to the utter subversion of the free election of Members to the House of Commons. That Petition, also, was received. In 1804 there was a Petition impugning the conduct of Mr. Justice Fox, who was then a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, in Ireland. That Petition charged Mr. Fox with the most gross and wilful violation of the rights of the subject, and in this respect it was entirely on all fours with the allegation of the present Petition against the Lord Chief Justice, and that Petition also was received. I think, therefore, the right course to pursue on this occasion ought to be pointed out to us, not only by the Prime Minister, but by those to whom we are expected to look for guidance upon all Constitutional questions. I cannot but perceive from the tone of the Prime Minister that there is some doubt as to the line which ought to be taken; and I should not have presented myself before the House had the Constitutional authorities informed us what was our duty on this occasion.
  MR. HERSCHELL: As a lawyer, I desire to say a few words on this question. No one in this House more than myself feels that it is of the utmost possible importance that freedom of Petition should remain to the people of this country. I feel that it would be utterly impossible to do anything more calculated to produce mischief hereafter than to throw any doubt upon the right of the subject to petition this House in a matter that concerns the administration of justice in this country. I cannot doubt, therefore, that it is within the province of any subject of Her Majesty to petition this House, that an Address may be presented to the Crown for the removal of any of the Judges who, it is alleged, have acted improperly or corruptly; and I cannot doubt that the Petition in question ought to be received, if the language used in it be not disrespectful to this House, and if the facts stated in it be germane to the prayer of the Petition. That seems to me to be the essence of the case. I can understand its being said that the Petition, containing scan-
  990
  dalous charges against the Judges, concluded with a prayer to which these charges had no sort of reference, and that, therefore, the Forms of this House were being made a mere vehicle for abuse. But when the allegations in the Petition are germane to the prayer of the Petition, and when the prayer is one which may be legitimately addressed to the House, I do not see how the House can take exception to the Petition; because they may disagree, as I utterly do, with the charges contained in it, or because they may have the deepest and best founded belief that those who are presenting the Petition really are not bringing forward the facts of the case. Nobody can doubt that the charges made in the Petition have the strictest reference to the prayer with which it ends, so far as that prayer relates to the removal of the Judges; and I feel an indignation which it is difficult to repress at hearing the scandalous charges which are scattered broadcast throughout the country against those for whom I have, from almost daily contact and experience, learnt to respect and honour. It is difficult under such circumstances to keep one's judgment calm and restrain one's indignation so as to keep within the legitimate constitutional course. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that it may be desirable at some time or other to deal with and settle this question once for all. It is a matter which, if fairly discussed in the light of day, need not be afraid of that discussion, and it will be a far better course to have these charges dragged into the day-light than left to simmer as they do now. But I cannot agree that the proper course would be to refer this Petition to a Select Committee. As far as I can see there is one way, and only one legitimate way, by which this question can be set at rest for ever, and that is, by moving an Address to Her Majesty for the removal of the Judges whose conduct is impugned. And then comes the question, what should be done with this Petition? I do not understand that the Prime Minister, in his Motion, has in any way disputed the propositions I have laid down as to the first part of the Petition, neither do I think that they will be contested by the hon. Members for Leicester and Stockport. I understand the Prime Minister to acknowledge, in the fullest way, that there is a

  991
  right to petition with reference to the removal of the Judges, even though the statements referring to the subject might be offensively worded. I do hope, therefore, that we shall clearly know what we are proceeding upon. The right hon. Gentleman asks the House to discharge the Order for this Petition on different grounds, which I think bear upon the point upon which I have been addressing the House. It is said that this Petition contains charges against a totally different person, to whom the prayer does not apply, and that it is a Breach of the Privilege of this House, that any hon. Member should have scandalous accusations made against him by reason of his conduct or speech as a Member of this House. The right hon. Gentleman who occupies the Chair as the Speaker is not less entitled to protection than other Members are, and surely there is no danger whatever in laying down this proposition—that if a Petition presented to this House infringes against that rule and attacks a Member of this House, that is a Petition which ought not to be received by this House. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) says that, after all, the charges made against the Speaker are not very grave. Be it so. But then are we to overlook them? By rejecting them we shall not be limiting the right of the people to petition this House, and to state the grounds on which they petition it, however vague the charge which they may convey against the persons attacked. I trust, therefore, that it may be possible for the House to come to a unanimous decision on the question before it.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) there is no point in the Petition which could quite properly come before this House. I fully agree in all that has been said as to the manner in which it violates all the Rules of the House. If a Petition is laid before the House praying for the removal of the Judges, it ought to set forth distinctly the grounds on which such removal is prayed for, in the same way as in any Petition presented in the Court of Chancery. Now, I had an opportunity of carefully reading this Petition, and after a careful perusal, without any bias whatever, I venture to say that no person can read it without coming to the conclusion that there is
  992
  no ground on which this House can act. The allegations in the Petition are such as would be rejected in the Court of Chancery as scandalous and irrelevant. The language used is coarse, low, vulgar, scurrilous, and libellous against some of the most eminent persons in this country. I regret that the Petition has been allowed to be presented, and its rejection by the House may at least have some effect in stopping the progress of this wretched business, and dispel delusion. My creed is that of Dean Milman, who said, "I believe in the immortality of humbug;" but the proceedings of this House have had—and I hope always will have—a considerable effect upon public opinion, and we may do something to stop the spread of the delusion, though we cannot entirely put it down.
  MR. WHITBREADsuggested that they ought to consider what should be the position of the House with regard to the reception of Petitions similar to the present one, but making no reference to the Speaker. He thought such Petitions ought to be received, and that hon. Members presenting them ought not to be required to bring the charges they contained under the special notice of the House. At the same time, it would be unjust to the Judges and undignified on the part of the House to allow these Petitions to remain indefinitely upon the Table. If there was any Member of the House ready to substantiate the charges, let him name an early day and bring his charge; but if, after a Petition had been for some reasonable, and not long, time upon the Table, nobody was found ready to bring its allegations to the test, then it should be the duty of the Prime Minister, as Leader of the House, to move that the charges appeared to be without foundation, and that the Petition be rejected.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The speech which we have just heard confirms me in the belief that the Motion which I am about to submit is a proper one. I venture to propose what may be called a middle course—which is, perhaps, not a course I often take. I have a difficulty in making up my mind upon this subject, for the advice we have received has been so various that, while we well know that doctors differ, we have equal reason to say that lawyers differ. But we have had a want of advice from one quarter, I want to have some advice

  993
  from my natural Leader. I have seldom this Session seen the front Opposition bench so well filled as it is to-night, but its occupants all sit silent; not a word of advice do we get from them. Yet they are not always silent. My noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition dined out last night with the Fishmongers. I read his speech this morning, and I was very much impressed by the manner in which he expressed his sense of the excellent and admirable qualities of Her Majesty's Government. Now, does he think they are so excellent in the course they take that they are able to carry on the affairs of this House without any assistance at all from the Opposition? I hope he will get up and give us a word or two. We ought to be told what is the policy of the Liberal Party on this question. I do not want and certainly do not mean to discuss this question as a lawyer. It appears to me to have a wider aspect than the legal aspect. We ought, I think, to consider what will be the effect of the proceedings of this House upon public opinion out-of-doors, especially with regard to the monstrous and, I am afraid, spreading delusion about the Tichborne Case. I do not believe for a moment that any Resolution we can pass or any step we can take in this House would effectually quell that delusion, because my creed is the same as that expressed by Dean Milman when he said—" I believe in the immortality of humbug." But the proceedings of this House have, as I think they always will have, a considerable influence upon public opinion, and we may do something to check the delusion, though we cannot entirely put it down. I do not think we are at present taking the right way to do that. I think I could see all through the speech of the Prime Minister that he felt he had put his foot in it. He saw that the proceedings to-night would do nothing to quell the Tichborne demonstrations. Now, if these charges against Judges and other men high in authority which are going about are not true, I say let those people come out and prosecute the libellers. That is the proper thing to do. So far as we are concerned, if they are not true, as I believe they are not, let us treat them with utter and complete contempt. The charges consist partly of attacks on juries. I see before me the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan).
  994
  He has been in prison—like most of the Irish Members. I do not—and I say it candidly—I do not honour my hon. Friend a bit the less for his having been in prison. I am, on the contrary, glad to see him here. But why was he put in prison? It was because in a time of very great political excitement he wrote an article in his paper condemning the finding of a jury with regard to the Fenians who were subsequently hanged at Manchester. But he did nothing half so strong as has been done by the hon. Member for Stoke and his friends. He alleged no corruption against anybody. He simply said that the jury had acted under a panic. We have got wiser now, and do not imprison people for writing all this rubbish. In those days Sullivan was sent to prison; in these, Kenealy is sent to Parliament. Now, let us treat all this matter with the contempt it deserves. Sir, I only wish to make one more remark by way of justifying the Motion with which I am going to conclude. The strong point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that which had reference to the insulting imputation cast by the Petition upon you. I am not going to make a speech in your favour. As the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) has said, that is entirely a work of supererogation. But I do wish to say that a requisition in a Petition to this House that we should impeach you is so utterly outrageous and absurd, that, as sensible men, we ought not to consider it for a moment. Let us go to the Budget, which we are all anxious to hear, and let us dismiss from our minds all this contemptible rubbish, which has been occupying our attention for the last hour and a half. For the purpose of facilitating that step, I beg respectfully to move the Previous Question.
  MR. POTTERseconded the Motion.
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not vote for the Previous Question, but must vote with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) for a direct negative. It ought not to be allowed to go forth to the public that the House of Commons would in any way permit the right of Petition to be questioned. Though those

  995
  who signed this Petition had made a mistake and done wrong in the allusion to the Speaker, yet it could not be denied that a feeling had become very general that there had been corrupt conduct on the part of the Judges. It ought not to be allowed to go forth that when the people complained of unjust conduct on the part of the Judges, the House would not allow it that consideration which it ought to have. He wished to correct a false impression which the Prime Minister's speech—although, of course, unintentionally—might give rise to. The Petition did not pray that the Speaker should be impeached. It was simply a hypothetical statement that if the Speaker had used words which he did not use he ought tobe impeached. The prayer of the Petition, as he understood it, was the legitimate opinion of the people who signed it. Therefore, in defence of the right of Petition, he should vote with the hon. Member for Leicester against the rejection.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has appealed to me in order that he may know what is the opinion of Gentlemen who sit on this bench. I do not know that I can give him any assurance of absolute unanimity here any more than among his friends the doctors or lawyers; but on one subject I am sure I can give him the unanimous opinion of this bench, and that is that this question ought not to be treated in any sense as a Party question. I can assure him that his allegiance as a Party follower will not be tested on this occasion by any appeal to him in that capacity. Sir, I do not suppose that any Member of this House—certainly no Member who sits on this side of the House—would wish in any degree whatever to restrict the undoubted right of Petition. Various precedents and authorities of great weight have been urged in the course of this debate. There are, however, two Resolutions of the House which appear to be so apposite to this question that I will call attention to them. In 1669 two Resolutions were passed by the House. The first declared—
  "That it is an inherent right of every commoner in England to prepare and present Petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievance, and the House of Commons to receive the same."
  And the second declared—
  996
  "That it is the undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to judge and determine concerning the nature and matter of such Petitions, how far they are fit or unfit to be received."
  Now, these Resolutions maintained in the widest possible way the right of every subject to Petition, and the equal right of the House of Commons to consider, discuss, and decide how far such a Petition was fit to be received. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has stated, in general terms, the grounds on which he thinks that this Petition is unfit to be received, and I certainly am not going to take any exception to the general conclusion at which he has arrived; but I must say that upon some grounds I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it inexpedient that the Petition should be read from the Table. I admit the force of the objection that it would probably have been some satisfaction to the persons who prepared this Petition that their libellous charges against the Judges and the Speaker of this House should obtain the notoriety of having been read publicly here and subsequently printed. At the same time, I do think that there is no very great advantage in being so extremely punctilious. I feel that the character of the Judges who administer justice in the Courts of Law, and the character of the right hon. Gentleman who presides over our deliberations, and the character of this House, are such that no harm whatever can have resulted from the widest publication of this Petition and the libels it contains. I think the course suggested to us may be open to the objection that it should go forth to the world to-morrow that the House of Commons refused to entertain a Petition, without having it read at the Table, upon the mere statement of its contents by the Leader of the House. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was right in his criticism upon one part of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as my recollection of the Petition goes I do not think that the second part of it concluded with any prayer for the impeachment of the Speaker. On the contrary, it appears to be open to a charge of informality on the ground that it makes an assertion about the right hon. Gentleman without making any prayer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Petition is divided into two parts. As to the

  997
  first, which relates to the Judges, I have had an opportunity of perusing it and forming my own opinion. The Petition contains language of a character which renders it unfit to be received by this House. It does not contain definite charges supported by statements as to facts within the knowledge of the Petitioners, and it appears to me that the charges, such as they are, are couched in very violent terms of an insulting character; therefore, I have formed the opinion that the Petition on this ground is one that ought not to be received. At the same time, I must admit that, in the unfortunate state of feeling of a certain section of the population with regard to what they may believe to have been a failure of justice in the Tichborne trial, I think there is a certain danger in allowing this Petition to be rejected without its being very clearly understood that it is rejected on account of the exception taken to the mode and manner of the statements, and not on account of the statements themselves so far as the alleged misconduct on the part of the Judges goes. I think it should be distinctly understood that Petitions have been already received imputing misconduct, and that no Petition will be refused by this House, although making grave and serious charges against Judges, so long as it is couched in temperate language. The right hon. Gentleman lays down that no Petition even couched in proper and respectful language ought to be received unless the Member who presents it is prepared to take action on it; but I do not understand that any Constitutional authority supports that view. Certainly, some of the precedents he referred to do not apply. He mentioned the case of Baron Hughes, but there the Petition was presented and lay upon the Table for six weeks, and at the expiration of that time it was moved that the Order be discharged, not be-cause the Members present did not vote upon it, but because no Member founded any Motion upon it. That I take to be the proper and usual practice of this House; and if a Petition were presented which contained offensive allusions to the Speaker, that would be quite sufficient ground for rejecting it; but I do not think we need trouble ourselves with a hypothetical case. There can be no doubt whatever that the way in which the Speaker is referred to affords ample
  998
  grounds for the discharge of the Order. When a Petition is presented which does not contain these expressions of disrespect, and when the charges are framed in a proper and temperate manner, then it seems to me it will be time enough for the House to consider it. We are dealing at present with this Petition, and with this Petition alone. After spending so much time as we have devoted to the consideration of this question, it would be subject of regret if we were to postpone decision upon it; and if I may give advice to the hon. Baronet, I hope he will be induced to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I would only remind the noble Lord of the fact that we are not moving on this Petition without having our attention called to it by the Committee on Petitions, and the reason why my right hon. Friend did not call for it to be read, was that the substance of it was read in the Report of the Committee. But of course it is perfectly competent for any Member to ask that the Petition be read, although my right hon. Friend did not counsel such a course. It is true that the Petition does not contain a prayer that the Speaker be impeached; but its words and its character have exactly that bearing. The Petitioners state, first of all, that they have heard that the Speaker has made use of certain expressions, and that if he did so it was an act of high treason against the Constitution which deserves the most severe reprobation of the people's Representatives in the House of Commons and calls for their immediate action, by impeachment or otherwise, as the House may deem expedient.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had confirmed the opinion held by many Members that the words of the Petition which referred to the Speaker were based on a hypothetical case. He (Mr. Mundella) hoped the House would not reject the Petition merely because of the foolish and absurd hypothesis contained in its last two lines.
  MR. MACDONALDfelt that this was a very grave question. He had the most perfect confidence in the purity of our Judges, and, as a rule, in the decisions of our juries; but he could not fail to see that statements were circulated which were calculated to bring both the Judges and juries of the land into contempt. Those who were giving

  999
  currency to those statements had an opportunity now, on the floor of the House, of vindicating their conduct. Statements which could not be defended in that House were unworthy of the consideration of the British public outside. Now was the time, and that was the place when those charges which had been sown broadcast should be defended if they could be, and as the hon. Member for Stoke was now within that House, he called upon him to rise and support his statements. He hoped, however, the House would not press the Motion to a division, as that House was the place for the meanest in the land to come for redress.
  DR. KENEALY: The hon. Member for Stoke did not intend to present himself at this period of the debate. He was waiting to hear some of the statesmen of this House take something like a statesmanlike view of the question at issue. He did not intend to enter upon the question of miserable legal technicalities; but he wanted to be guided in his observations to the House by those high authorities to whom this country had long been accustomed to look, and who were not only the guardians of the Constitutional Law of this country, but who were also supposed to be the guardians of the Constitutional liberties of the people. I must say that it is with the greatest possible regret I find that none of the Gentlemen on the front benches beneath me have condescended to favour the House with their opinions on this great question, because a great question it is, and a great question, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the people of this country are determined to make it. Sir, I know very well the utter disdain of the language which has been addressed to a large number of the people because they are of the humbler classes. ["No, no!"] I should like to know why, then, except that they were of the humbler classes? I have heard no reasons given by those Representatives of the people who have presumed to talk of the millions of our countrymen as acting under a delusion. I know the character of my countrymen well, and I have never been able to see the great universal common sense of the English people converted into delusions, as we are told to-night it has been. Surely it was quite enough that they
  1000
  should have been grossly insulted as fools and fanatics, without these men—who could have no interest in the case whatever, except that of sturdy Englishmen anxious to see justice done, and who assembled in hundreds of thousands in Hyde Park to protest against what they considered the injustice of the great trial—being again branded as an ignorant, deluded, and infatuated multitude. We have heard a great deal of the bad language used on the Tichborne side; but it appears to me that the language used on the other side, both in this House and elsewhere, is quite as bad. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will give me leave to say so, seems to be leading the House, if not into a ditch, at least into a dilemma. He wants this particular Petition to be rejected because the hon. Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) is not prepared to support a Motion founded upon it; but that might occur with regard to many similar Petitions, and in what position would the House then be placed under such circumstances? One hundred Gentlemen might present such Petitions in the course of the Session. As to the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had shown they were nothing but cobwebs and delusions. I speak under correction, not having had the advantage of looking into the four precedents which the right hon. Gentleman has cited; but I believe there is not a single instance to be found where a prayer for the removal of a Judge on grounds set forth in a Petition has ever been rejected by the House. I think it a very great pity that it seemed expedient to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss a Petition of which the House was actually in ignorance. ["No!"] Some Gentlemen profess to have read portions or the whole of the Petition; but the great majority of the House, as it appears to me, were ignorant of the language and the complaints of this Petition. Why has it not been read at the Table? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to shield any persons mentioned in it? The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are statements in this Petition said to have been made by right hon. and hon. Members of this House. I do not know whether they are present; but, if so, and if the First

  1001
  Lord of the Treasury had that Petition read, they would have had an opportunity of stating on their honour as Gentlemen, in the presence of Parliament, whether they were true or not. It seems to me that the Petition, not having been read, an injustice has been done to the Judges in whose interest he is acting. If I, for my own part, had the honour of being one of those Judges—[Laughter]—perhaps I should rather say if I had the misfortune—I would have challenged, in defence of my own honour, the reading of this Petition, and an examination of the allegations which it contains. It was thought one of the greatest things, said Cæsar, and I agree with him, that Cæsar's wife should not be suspected of dishonour; and I say a British Judge should not allow himself to remain under charges such as alleged against those Judges. I am glad to observe the altered tone of this debate as regards the right of persons petitioning Parliament. It is notorious that in the last Session of Parliament statements were made in this House challenging the right of Petition because the petitioners complained of injustice and unfairness in a trial, and I say those statements deserved impeachment because they were in violation of the law of England and the Constitutional right of every Englishman. There are two statutes which guarantee the right to the removal of Judges for misbehaviour on an Address from the Houses of Parliament. But how is the misbehaviour of Judges to be brought to the knowledge of this House except by Petition? I want to know before whom a complaint of corruption or dishonesty on the part of a Judge can be brought if not before the Grand Inquest of the Nation? Such a position as that maintained by the right hon. Gentleman would not bear examination for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman hardly ventured to grapple with any of the difficulties of the question, which is entering very deeply into the English heart and soul, and if by the result of a division it shall appear that, acting on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, this House is prepared to refuse to entertain a Petition complaining of the conduct of Judges, it will raise a tempest in this country which it will not easily allay. I will not criticize the language of the noble Marquess who followed suit to a great
  1002
  many other hon. Gentlemen. The noble Marquess seems to have arrived in his own mind at some peculiar knowledge that the allegations of this Petition are false and scandalous. Why are they not proved to be false and scandalous? I hear no reply to that. I hear no cheer—no assenting voice. Is it that both sides of the House have made up their minds that the Judges acted fairly in that trial, and that the Claimant is Orton beyond all possibility of doubt? ["Hear, hear!"] Gentlemen, I do not envy you your judgment. ["Order, order!"] I am committing no disorder. ["Order!" and "Chair!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is one of the Rules of this House that every hon. Member should address himself to the Chair.
  DR. KENEALY: Sir, I beg pardon if I addressed the House by the name of gentlemen. I understand that is the breach of Order I have committed, and will take care not to do it again. I was remarking that I did not envy hon. Members the judgment they have arrived at in that most wonderful and mysterious case. They probably imagine that they have better grounds of forming an opinion, and pronouncing that opinion here, than I have, and declaring every allegation in this Petition to be false because they do not happen to coincide with it. Sir, as far as I have had an opportunity of forming an opinion on that complicated case, full of doubts and mysteries, I have formed a very different conclusion from that which prevails in the minds of hon. Members. I was referring just now to the noble Marquess. He read the two Resolutions passed in the House in the year 1669; but, not being a very sound Constitutional lawyer, he omitted to notice that the second of these Resolutions had nothing to do with pretending to impose restrictions on the language of petitions: it simply guarded the House against the claim set up by the House of Lords to criticize the conduct of petitioners who presented Petitions here, and it had nothing whatever to do with the question of limiting the language of Petitions. I do not profess to be a very profound student in Constitutional Law or in the Usages of this House; but I have always understood it to be in accordance with Constitutional Law and the Usages of this House that Parlia-

  1003
  ment requires all Petitions presented to it to be couched in language respectful to itself; and that is the only limit imposed. I may be wrong; and, if so, I shall be glad to be corrected by any high Constitutional authority in the House, but I believe what I have said to be both law and usage. I have really heard no language cited by the right hon. Gentleman, or by the noble Marquess—and that is another reason why the course he has adopted of not having the Petition read is extremely inconvenient—I have heard no language cited from the Petition which comes properly under the designation of slander. If a man is complaining of corrupt, bad, dishonest conduct, he must use words to convey the idea of corruptness, badness, and dishonesty. With some mealy-mouthed individuals, no doubt, language of that kind is slander; but that is not the true interpretation, because slander implies falsehood. Slander can never be supposed to be involved in truth; and if the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Marquess say there are any falsehoods in these Petitions, they ought to call on the House to investigate those falsehoods and trace them to their source; but they have made no such proposition. I do not know that I have anything further to say. If any such Petition as that should be forwarded to me—I never yet had one—I shall be perfectly prepared to present it to this House, to have it read at that Table, and to demand an inquiry into the conduct of the persons it impugns. The House would reject it, of course—that I can easily see from the temper prevailing on both sides; but let the House settle that with the country outside. I shall have performed my duty when I have done what I have said, and shall have liberated my conscience. If the House grants an inquiry, it will have an opportunity of learning for itself whether the accusations against the three Judges are true or false. In justice to those Judges, they ought to have an opportunity of showing whether the accusations against them are true or false; but if this House says—" We will have no inquiry, because we have made up our minds beforehand," I can only say, with the greatest possible deference to this House, that such a course is not calculated to elevate it very highly in the opinion of the English people.
  MR. BRIGHT: On this occasion we are discussing a rather complicated question. Some hon. Members are discussing one-half of it, and others the other half. Some naturally address themselves to the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I do not complain of that, for I think it arose out of the form and wording of the Petition. One question is about the freedom—I will not say permitted but existing—with regard to petitioning this House, and the other is to the language of the Petition with regard to the Speaker. Now, it is obvious from the discussion, beginning with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and from what has fallen from every hon. Member who spoke, that everybody in this House is in favour of the unlimited right of Petition, of such right of Petition as the people of England have ever demanded. As far as I can judge, the speeches of he hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop-wood) tend to the same thing. Whatever may be the result of this debate, there is no man in England, in the United Kingdom, or in the world who can charge this House with wishing to limit the right of Petition. But if we think it necessary to support the right of Petition, this House is acting just as much in the interest of petitioners and of the nation itself, when it insists on maintaining its own rights and the rights of the eminent Gentleman who fills the Chair. There can be no manner of doubt why the House, if it feels itself at liberty to discharge the Order, should do so. If it be discharged, what harm is it to the petitioners? They are not barred from approaching the House again in favour of any propositions which they have to submit, or any charges which they have to make, or any demands that the House should make any inquiry which they think for the public service. Therefore, if this Petition for the time be discharged the same petitioners may come to the House again leaving out that portion of the Petition which the House unanimously condemns, although by its vote it may not unanimously condemn it. I will undertake to say there is no hon. Member of this House, not even the hon. Member for Stoke himself—[Dr. KENEALY: Hear, hear!]—who would, in the presence of this House, or

  1005
  in the presence of any body of his countrymen, declare that it was for the interest of the people of England that any petitioner, by making gross and groundless insinuations, should bring a charge against the President and Speaker of the House of Commons. Then the House is agreed, I think, upon two things—that it will support the right of Petition; that it will support its own rights; and that it will support the rights of the Gentleman who presides over its deliberations; and I think all this can be done consistently with following the course which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has proposed. Now, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, spoke to me about this matter some days ago, I took the trouble to read the Petition over very carefully, and I gave my opinion then, as I have given it from that moment to this without change, that as far as the complaints of the Petition with respect to the late trial and the Judges were concerned, I thought there were no serious grounds which would justify me in voting for its rejection. But I said that the statements with regard to the Speaker of this House were of so important, so serious, and so gross a character, that if it were proposed by the head of the Government to reject the Petition on that ground I should find it extremely difficult to resist. Therefore, I am quite ready to vote for discharging the Order, limiting myself to the ground of the base and baseless insinuations with regard to the Speaker. On that ground I can vote with a clear conscience for discharging the Order. I should like to say a word on the case which the right hon. Gentleman brought before us of a Petition presented five years ago, complaining of the conduct of an Irish Judge. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the date when the Order was discharged, and he said it was about seven weeks after it was presented. Now, if this Petition had no reference to the Speaker of the House I should not be able, because the Petition attacked the Judges, to agree to discharge the Order within 1.0 days of the time when the Petition was presented; because 10 days is scarcely sufficient time to ascertain whether any person holding the views of the Petitioners would bring
  1006
  the subject before the House. It seems to me that we are not only guardians of the character of the Bench, but the guardians of that large interest which the people have in possessing and believing that they possess an incorrupt administration of the law. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Stoke has just spoken, and I listened as attentively as I could to all he said—perhaps he may have been confused in one or two of his last sentences—but he does not appear to me to have taken the position which the House had a right to expect on this occasion. I do not object to anything he said, or to anything that he has said since he came into this House. All I say is, he has not been here often enough, and has not proceeded with the proposition which he undertook to submit to the House on the second night after he entered it. At that very early period he gave Notice that he would bring the case of a recent remarkable trial in which he was engaged as counsel, before the House, and that he would move a Resolution. I believe there is a Notice of that kind on the Paper now—Dr. Kenealy—The Queen v. Castro—
  "To call attention to the Government Prosecution of the Queen v. Castro, and the conduct of the Trial at Bar and the incidents connected therewith, and also to certain incidents of the said trial which have occurred subsequently thereto; and to move a Resolution."
  Now, judging from the publication with which the hon. Member for Stoke is connected, and judging from what we hear everywhere, and from speeches made by him and by his friends, the House is forced to the conclusion that one great object of that Resolution would be to impugn the conduct of the Judges. This Petition impugns the conduct of the Judges. The hon. Member, I think I may assume, is the Member of the House who, above all others, is called upon, if anybody is called upon, and should be willing, if anybody is willing, to move a Resolution in support of the prayer of the Petition. I came down here on the night when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) asked some questions in regard to Judges and juries—I came down to the House specially early that I might see if the hon. Member for Stoke was in his place; and I intended on that occasion to ask him distinctly when he proposed to fix a day for the Motion of which he

  1007
  had given Notice. I say the hon. Gentleman has no right to come down to the House and give a Notice of this character, to remove it to some other day, then to some other day, and after that to let it remain on the Paper without any day being fixed, and then to leave London to visit towns and other parts of the country, and there to make his statement of the question—I will not say to inflame the minds of the people of this country, I will not say to make charges which are false—I will say rather to make statements which he believes it his duty to make. It is not right to make such statements, I will not say to defame, but to charge eminent Judges, and to create in the mind of the people a belief that men upon their trial before the Judges and a jury of this country cannot hope for fair, open, and complete justice. I say he has no right to do that, and leave a Notice of that kind on the Paper week after week and month after month; and I think the House ought to insist that a question of this nature, upon which so much hangs—a question as to the judgment of the House upon the character of eminent Judges—that this question ought not to be left undecided. The House ought to take some steps by which it shall either be adjudged or got rid of for ever. I think the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) made a manly declaration. He made an appeal to the hon. Member for Stoke which he cannot disregard. That hon. Gentleman knows that I am not one of those who, in private or public, defame him, or object to his sitting in this House, or show by what I shall say contempt for the constituency which has sent him here. I respect the great constituency which has sent him here. That constituency acted, perhaps, in great ignorance, but, I believe, thoroughly upon generous and honourable principles. But the hon. Member for Stoke, being the Representative of that constituency in this House, ought to feel that he is the one above all other—and this is the place above all others—in which he should bring to the adjudication of the House the serious charges he is constantly making against the Judges. He will have a fair hearing. I can sit from 5 till 12, if necessary, to hear the whole case. I have read some hundreds of columns of it during the time when he was so much
  1008
  before the country in connection with it; and if I have read so many hundreds of columns of print I can listen, and listen with attention, and probably with interest to the speech which he will make. But I protest against this question being left over. If the hon. Member had given Notice that he was about to bring a Vote of Censure against a Member of the Government, the First Minister would say—" This cannot be allowed to remain week after week. It must be decided. The Government enjoys the confidence of the House, or it does not." But it seems to me even more important if you have three of the most eminent Judges of the land, and heap upon them charges of the most grave character. I say that the man who makes those charges, and who hesitates to come forward and, to the best of his power, to substantiate them, at any rate will have no right to say anything against the Judges, for however evil may be their character, I suspect his will not bear examination. I conclude by saying—and I say it with no unfriendliness to the hon. Member for Stoke—I think I have a fair right to appeal to him to answer my question, and to state to the House whether it is his intention immediately, or on the first convenient day—and I hope the House will be ready to make any way for him—to bring this matter before the House, so that it may be fairly discussed, for I am, at least, as anxious as he is that justice should be done, and that the great mass of the people of this country, whether they take his view or the view of the majority of this House, should have another opportunity of correcting their opinion, and of coming, it may be, to a just decision upon a question which has excited so many of them. Upon the ground that we are to vote for the discharge of this Order, because of the attack that it has made upon the Privileges of the House, and the insinuations against the character and the conduct of the President and Speaker of the House, and upon that ground only, I shall give my vote with the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. KENEALY: I think, Sir, you will allow me to say—[" Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make an explanation I have no doubt that this House will hear him;

  1009
  but he is not entitled to make a second speech on the question before the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask a question. I rise to Order—["Order!"]
  DR. KENEALY: I wish to make an explanation. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated to the House, that on the second night I entered it I gave Notice of my intention to bring forward the question of the "Queen v. Castro," and move a Resolution. At that time I had every reason to believe that I should be supported by floods of Petitions to this House; but I very soon learned that, although Petitions had been sent to hon. Members, they were informed on the authority of high functionaries here that it would be illegal and irregular to present them. ["Name, name!"] I therefore, in the full exercise of my right of discretion, postponed that Motion until I should be supported by numbers of Petitions. I beg leave to inform the right hon. Gentleman that until I see myself properly supported by Petitions sent into this House I shall not bring forward the Motion. If hon. Members want to have the matter brought before the House, let them not refuse to present the Petitions from their constituents of which I have spoken.
  MR. DISRAELI: Some hon. Gentlemen and the Member for Stoke have argued this question to-night as if there were some Government measure before the House, and as if the Government had shown a want of policy or discretion in calling on the House to decide the question; but I should hope the vast majority of Gentlemen in the House are perfectly aware that in calling on the House to come to a decision on this Motion I am only acting in conformity with the regulations of the House. It is in consequence of a Report prepared and submitted to the House by one of the most influential permanent Committees of the House—the Committee on Public Petitions—that I have been obliged to call upon the House to consider that Report and to state to the House what I believe the right course and the right view for them to adopt. I should not have ventured to take that course on my own responsibility. I took occasion to request the assistance and advice of my Colleagues on a point of this nature,
  1010
  and we arrived, after due consideration and investigation, at a conclusion which I may state in few words. It was our opinion that had the Petition been confined to impugning the conduct of the Judges, though we might regret that a Petition should be expressed in such language, still, considering that it was signed by a considerable number of persons, who, we doubt not, sincerely believed they had formed a correct opinion, it was not for the public interest that such a Petition should be rejected; and I, therefore, should not have hesitated, had this Petition been one which simply impugned the conduct of the Judges, feeling how important it is that the right of Petition should always be respected in this House, and that on no subject more important than the administration of justice can Petitions be presented, to recommend, and we should have recommended, the House, however much we might have regretted the language in which the Petition was couched, to have accepted the Petition; but, on examining that Petition, we found other matter than that which is alluded to in the Report of the Committee on Petitions; and we believed that matter to be not only most offensive to the House, but matter which, if it passed unnoticed, would be of an injurious character, for it violated, in our opinion, the most precious Privilege of the House in making an attack upon the character of one whom we respect above all others. It also invaded that liberty of speech which is the privilege of individual Members, and the most valuable privilege of the House, and which we have guarded by our Ordersand by our traditionary and constant respect from being challenged and assailed by those out of this House, so that the privilege of freedom of discussion may be protected. Upon that ground, and that ground alone, I recommend the House to agree that the Order for this Petition to lie on the Table should be discharged. I must say, notwithstanding the jesting philosophy of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who, in idiomatic phrase, informed the House of the position in which I had placed myself to-night, that I think the consequence of this discussion has been to justify the course I have pursued, and there is a universal concurrence that the advice I have given to the House is the correct one. I hope, therefore, the hon.

  1011
  Baronet will make some compensation for his too hasty criticism on my course by withdrawing the awkward Motion that he has made, and not prevent us still further from listening to a discussion more interesting, I believe, to the English people than even the Trial at Bar. A division may then take place; but I hope, on reflection, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) may be inclined not to break the unanimity which we all so much desire. We need again have no discussion on this issue respecting the precedents with regard to the conduct of former Judges to which we have referred. I did not bring them forward to confirm the opinion which I had myself formed of the advice which I intended to give to the House. It was my duty to give the House as much information as I could upon the points connected with the Report of the Committee on Petitions. I do not lay any stress upon them; but I believe they perfectly apply to the portion of the Petition which was under the review of the Committee. I think the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) will also agree that it is expedient, after expression has been given to so general a feeling in the House, which did not surprise me, that it is not to the honour or interest of the House of Commons to offer obstacles to the right of Petition because Petitions do impugn the conduct of Judges; and, however much we may disapprove of the language in which Petitions are expressed, the matter is of too grave a character for us to allow our conduct in any way to excuse the fostering of that suspicion by which the public mind may be possessed if we refuse investigation or inquiry into any subject, save upon such a ground as that on which I am now asking the decision of the House. The violation of our Privilege in the language used is aggravated when we remember to whom it is applied; and, discarding, as I am sure every candid man will, the trivial defence offered by the fanciful hypothesis upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) chose to rest his argument, I hope the House will agree with me in the Motion I have made. If you sanction for a moment on such a ground the circulation of any calumnies which may be invented of any individual, and then say afterwards that they were
  1012
  only hypothetical, that nothing was meant against him if he really was not a robber and a murderer, but being a robber and murderer he is to be denounced to public indignation and punishment, I think we will soon find that all the Orders that we have constructed, and all the Privileges we have hitherto maintained to sustain our freedom of discussion, and to guard our free Parliamentary life, will soon be found to be endangered. I therefore appeal with confidence to the House—and I hope an unanimous House—to support me in the Motion that I have made.
  MR. WHALLEY: I must request, Sir, that this Petition be read. The right hon. Gentleman, although he thought fit to close this debate by speaking, did not state correctly that part of the Petition which he considered to be the most important, and upon which it was almost entirely that he made his appeal. As I have a Notice on the Paper for to-morrow night I should not have presumed to address the House on this occasion, but for the remarkable omission to which I have referred. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) stated distinctly that we have been misled by the right hon. Gentleman in saying that you, Sir, were insulted, and that your conduct had been impeached. Why, this House to impeach you! This House to impeach itself! As it came from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the thing sounded ridiculous and absurd. I say again that the hon. Member for Sheffield did charge the right hon. Gentleman with having stated deliberately that the Petition contained as its most obnoxious portion that which it does not contain. There is another point. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman did not allow me to address the House before he replied. He himself, if any man in this House, is responsible to this House and the country for what is obnoxious in that Petition. ["Divide!"] I will explain if the House will patiently listen. Why these very charges against the Judges were brought forward by me before the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, and I had a Petition in my hand from my constituents, signed by more than half of the electors, charging these Judges with distinct partiality and substantial corruption, but the right hon. Gentleman said,

  1013
  " We will not inquire into that, we will not go further," although he it was who appointed the Committee. Then, Sir, how could these Petitioners from Prittlewell, in Essex, and all over the country, amounting to hundreds of thousands, suppose they were offending against the Privileges of this House in appealing to the House to investigate charges against Judges which have been brought in terms quite as strong in other Petitions. During last Session I was rebuffed and snubbed and treated with obloquy in language which, as the hon. Member for Stoke has asserted, was equal to any that has been used in the Petitions in favour of this unfortunate convict. I brought a distinct charge against the Judges, and they knew it well. And what was the result? ["Divide!"] Let the House consider that they are not justified in shouting down the question, and saying that it was a delusion because they have prejudged the question. They, in spite of my protest, and the protest of others, found the money for the prosecution of this man, and you exonerate the Attorney General from responsibility in doing that which no Attorney General ever did before. When I ventured to bring this question before the House I was interrupted and shouted down continually until I was almost exhausted. And what was the result? The whips on both sides of the House laid their heads together, and counted out the House. I distinctly challenged those proceedings not only in the country, but in this House, in the name of my constituents. But the House took no notice of the matter, though I presented many Petitions upon the subject. Now comes this Petition, one of a vast number signed, I am told, by hundreds of thousands throughout the country, but which we are not allowed to present simply because it complains of the conduct of the Judges. Surely this must give strength and additional grounds for such complaints as were extended to the conduct of the Speaker in rejecting these Petitions unless by some means or other inquiry is conceded. That is all pthe etitioners want, and all that I now urge upon the Government. I ask, on behalf of the petitioners, that the Petition shall not be rejected. I say they were fully justified in supposing that their charges would not be suppressed, especially when they declared
  1014
  that they were prepared to support those charges either at the Bar of the House or any other tribunal that might be appointed. Under any circumstances, before the Petition is rejected I think we ought to take time for further consideration, and in order that that may be given I hope the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) will press his Amendment of the Previous Question, for which I shall vote. Meantime, before a vote is taken, I think the least that can be asked is that the House should know what the Petition is which they are called upon to reject, and I therefore move that it be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Petition be read?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it would be better that the Petition should be read. Earlier in the evening I gave reasons why I thought it would not be desirable to read the Petition, and we have also had before us the Report of the Public Petitions Committee, calling our attention to the language of the Petition. I believe, however, that it is in the power of any hon. Gentleman to have it read, and as an hon. Member has moved that it be now read, I shall support the Motion.
  Petition read.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, amid cries of "Divide!" said, he had only a few words to say, which the House would, he hoped, deem to be not altogether out of place. The Select Committee on Public Petitions had thought it their duty to bring to the notice of the House an objectionable Petition, which commented in an unbecoming manner on the Speaker, and on the proceedings of that House. Now, it was well-known that there was at the present moment a regularly organized machinery, directed by a Member of that House, whose object and business it was to get up and promote the signing of these objectionable Petitions. An important part of this machinery consisted of a newspaper, edited by the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, and so long as that paper was allowed free licence to tell week after week the most abominable and palpable lies in its leading articles, he did not see how hon. Members could lay much blame upon the poor people who, by thousands and

  1015
  thousands, read those articles, and somewhat naturally believed them to be true, because they were left uncontradicted. He had in his hand an article of this description, which he would back against almost anything written. It was from The Englishman newspaper—
  "The Ministry, Parliament, and the Press are living in the most serene Fools' Paradise, and apparently are no more aware of what is going on in the actual world than if they were the Seven Sleepers. Hardly a day passes that some dirty dog of a Member, who would be a fitter tenant of a pig-sty than of a seat in the House of Commons, does not get up, and in a drunken, after-dinner speech, without any provocation, assail Dr. Kenealy in the most loathsome language of scurrilous abuse. Some have the fatuity to write of him to their constituents in terms of reproach and insult, and in this they manifest their low and mongrel nature, which inclines them to bark though they dare not bite; for we need hardly say not one of these 'curs of low degree' would dare to face Dr. Kenealy from the House of Commons' benches. But at their drunken dinner tables, surrounded by persons who are as drunk, or ignorant, or foolish as themselves, or in their counting-houses, where they concoct the frauds by which ships are lost and sailors are drowned and insurance offices pillaged, and creditors are defrauded, they are as valiant as ancient Pistol; and when the hour comes, as threatened by their papers, when Dr. Kenealy is to be hissed and hunted down, we have no doubt that they will play their parts in that ignoble species of attack with the most absolute perfection. Amen! So be it. If the Speaker allows the House of Commons to be disgraced and degraded, as it will be before the world should this take place, it will be no affair of ours."
  He would not have brought that extract before the House if it had not been that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) called upon the Member for Stoke to bring on his Motion without delay. The Member for Stoke replied that he should wait until the House had a number of such Petitions as the present before it. Now, he wished to point out to the House that the Member for Stoke was going about trading upon the ignorance of those poor people, and telling them palpable lies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham said that the Member for Stoke was returned by the generous and honourable convictions—
  MR. SPEAKER: If I caught the observation of the hon. and gallant Member correctly, he said of the hon. Member for Stoke that he went about the country telling palpable lies. I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that such remarks are not Parliamentary.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he was afraid he had confounded what he had intended to say with the article in the paper for which the Member for Stoke was responsible as editor. He intended to have said that that paper put forth those falsehoods, and he withdrew the words imputing the language to the Member for Stoke directly. He was at a loss to suggest any mode by which the editor or the printer of this paper could be called to account for his unprincipled conduct; but if any Member would suggest a way he should be happy to co-operate with him in bringing the law to bear upon the offender. He thought forbearance for insults might be carried too far, both by private individuals and by private bodies, and that a public contradiction of such lies as those he had read rested as a duty on some Member of the House.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that when he came up to the House he had not made up his mind as to the way in which he should vote, though he thought it most probable he should vote for the reception of the Petition. But without in the slightest degree wishing to infringe the freedom of petitioning or denying the undoubted right of the people to petition, he intended, having heard the debate, to vote for the proposition of the Government. He thought that if a division could be avoided, a certain amount of painful feeling in the country might also be avoided; and on that ground he would appeal to the hon. Member for Carlisle to withdraw his Motion. Something had been said in palliation of that part of the Petition which referred to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair of the House. It had been said that the charge was only made by implication. The fact that the charge was only made by implication made it only the more cowardly. He believed that the hon. Member for Stoke would soon find that, although he might have a certain following now and receive cheers at public meetings, there was nothing that the English people liked so much as a man to have the courage of his opinions. Sooner or later he would find that those who crowded round him now would be the first to denounce his conduct if, feeling half what he had said he felt about three of the Judges of the land and other distinguished people, he lost a single

  1017
  day—nay, a single hour—in bringing forward those charges in the best of all tribunals, where they could be supported or refuted—the House of Commons.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that if he withdrew his Amendment he would not thereby save the House the trouble of dividing, as his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was determined to divide the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is for the House, and not for me, to judge and determine whether the Petition now under the consideration of the House should lie upon the Table, and thus become one of the permanent records of the House. The House has always maintained the undoubted Constitutional right of the people to complain of grievances, and to pray for their redress; but that right may be abused, and the question for the consideration of the House now is whether the petitioners in the present case have or have not abused the right of petitioning which they undoubtedly possess. With respect to the Petition, so far as it relates to myself, with the permission of the House, I decline to take any notice of it, because I am wholly indifferent to such attacks so long as I enjoy the confidence and approval of this House.
  Previous Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 391; Noes 11: Majority 380.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Order that the Petition from Prittlewell and neighbourhood [presented 6th April] do lie upon the Table, read, and discharged.

  NOES.

  Biggar, J. G.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Ronayne, J. P.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Kenealy, Dr.

  TELLERS.

  Macdonald, A.

  Lawaon, Sir W.

  Mundella, A. J.

  Taylor, P. A.

  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I propose to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent if he will name a day when he intends to proceed with his Motion?
  MR. WADDY: I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday I will ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent whether he is prepared to give the names of those
  1018
  Members of Parliament to whom Petitions have been sent, and which Petitions have not been presented?

WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid, Mr. Raikes, that the exciting overture which has just concluded is not a very encouraging one for the tame speech and uninteresting details to which I shall have to invite the attention of the Committee. But I have at least this consolation—that the state of our finances in the present year is, happily, not such as to cause any great anxiety, or to occasion much alarm, in the mind of the House; and although I hope that I may be favoured with the attention of hon. Members for the few remarks which I shall have to make upon the condition and prospects of the Revenue, and the arrangements which I shall invite the Committee to co-operate in, still, there will be nothing which is likely to cause any very considerable excitement.
Sir, the income of the year 1874–5, which has just terminated, was estimated by me, when I brought forward the Budget last year, at £74,425,000, and it has proved in the result to be £74,921,873, showing a surplus—an increase of Revenue beyond the estimate—of £496,873. The Expenditure Estimate in the Budget was £73,958,000. The Estimate as it stood in the Appropriation Act passed at the close of the Session, was £74,083,527, and the expenditure in the result was £74,328,040, exceeding, as a result, the Budget Estimate by £370,040, and the Appropriation Act Estimate by £244,513. The surplus, which in the Budget Estimate I took at £467,000, and at the time of the Appropriation Act at £342,000, has proved to be £593,833, being more than the Budget Estimate by £126,000, and more than the Appropriation Estimate by £251,000.
Now, Sir, I think that this is a statement which, upon the whole, may fairly be described as a satisfactory result of the year. I am aware that in some quarters criticisms have been passed, and dissatisfaction has been expressed; but I hope I am not wrong in attributing

1019
that to the proverbial love of grumbling which prevails among Englishmen, and to some natural feeling in a few quarters, perhaps, of disappointment—agreeable disappointment, of course, I mean—of many of the predictions which were freely indulged in in the course of the year. I have been told that my Estimates last year were exceedingly over sanguine—that the position into which I led the House and the country in the matter of finance was a perilous one, and that if it had not been for the happy accident, or, as I should rather say, the happy Providence of an exceedingly good harvest, we might have found ourselves landed in a most terrible and disastrous deficiency. I think it will be seen that these complaints have been somewhat exaggerated. I cannot say that there were no mistakes in the Estimates of last year, no mistakes in details. I admit there were some mistakes; and I suppose there never was a Budget in which some mistakes were not made—some errors on one side or the other. But I think those who candidly consider the general results of the Budget will admit that the errors on the present occasion were not of a very serious or dangerous character; and I must frankly say that, as to the idea of there having been any danger of a serious deficiency, such an idea was something in the nature of a delusion. It is said that we should be in a more comfortable position at the present time if we had taken a less sanguine Estimate last year. If by that it is meant that we should be in a more pleasant and comfortable position if we had kept the Income Tax at 3d. instead of 2d., and extracted something like £2,000,000 more than was required from the pockets of the people in order to show a great surplus now of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000, and so have the pleasure of taking off taxation, I must say that is a view I do not concur in. I am better pleased to think that the money has been left in the pockets of the people, than that I should have to come forward on this occasion and parade before the House a very large and handsome surplus. I would rather stand in a reverse position to that of a gentleman we read of, who was believed to be distinguished at Athens, but who, being a miser, was despised. He found himself unpopular with the
1020
people, and when he ventured abroad he was hissed; but he used to console himself when he went home by looking at the huge sums of money in his cash-box. I, on the other hand, console myself—whatever may be the hisses of a few instructors of public opinion—with the reflection that the money is not in my cash-box, but in the pockets of the people.
Sir, I am told that the Estimates, though they have in the gross been fairly justified, were in detail very erroneous. I should like just to say a word on that subject. The Customs Estimate has very considerably exceeded my expectation; and the Excise Estimate has by a less considerable amount fallen short of my Estimate. But I think I did on one occasion last year say that which I know has been frequently and justly said by other Chancellors of the Exchequer, that in estimating your Revenue you ought to take, in practice, Customs and Excise together. Because your Estimate is founded very much upon a calculation of the power and ability of the people to consume taxable articles, and those articles are to be found not under the head of Excise alone, but under the head of Customs also; and I certainly myself expected that if there should be any deficiency on one of these heads, it would probably be made up by a surplus on the other. And so it has proved, and very naturally proved. In the first place, let me ask where has the deficiency been? There has been a deficiency, and a considerable one, in the result of the Estimate for Spirits in the Excise Revenue. But, on the other hand, there is a remarkable excess in Customs, also under the head of Spirits; and if we carefully look into the peculiar circumstances of the case, you will find that that is owing to a rather remarkable cause. There was a very good potato harvest in this country last year; there was also a good potato harvest in Germany. When there is a deficient potato harvest in this country, large quantities of potatoes are imported from abroad, but there happening to be a large potato harvest here, that quantity of potatoes was not needed in the form of vegetables. The consequence was that a very large quantity of potato spirit was made in Germany and sent into this country; that potato spirit is used for various purposes—very much of it, I believe,

1021
for methylation; whatever purposes it was used for, it took the place of a large quantity of British spirit; and my friends at the Board of Inland Revenue are a little jealous at finding that their Estimate has fallen short by something like the same amount as that by which the Customs Revenue has exceeded the Customs Estimates; and they say you ought to give us, and not the Customs, credit for this excess of Revenue from rum and from the German spirits. I do not go into this question. I do not think it is worth going into. But there is another consideration, and one which, I think, is so curious that I should like to call the attention of the Committee to it. It is not only the competition of one class of spirits with another, but it is the competition of those articles which pay duty under Customs with those articles which pay duty under Excise to which I wish to call attention. The Revenue from spirits has somewhat disappointed calculations, but the Revenue from tea has very largely exceeded expectations; and it occurred to me that it would be interesting to have a comparison made in order to see whether we had misjudged the consuming power of the people—to have a comparison made of the amount which the public must have been expending in the purchase of tea, which produced a large Revenue this year, with what they must have expended to produce a corresponding amount of Revenue from spirits. I find these remarkable results. The duty on tea produced last year £320,000 more than the year before. That represents an additional consumption of 12,800,000lb. of tea, at 1s. 11 d., the average market price in bond in 1874, including the duty, which would cost £1,226,750. If the consumers, instead of spending that £1,226,750 on tea, had spent it on British spirits at 13 s. 3d. a gallon, which was the average price for the same period, it would have represented 1,851,700 gallons, and produced an increased Revenue of £925,000. Thus, instead of a Revenue of £320,000 from tea, we should have got, at the same cost to ourselves, £925,000 from the people on spirits. That is remarkably satisfactory. It is satisfactory, in the first place, as showing that tea is to some extent, perhaps, taking the place of spirits; and, secondly, as showing—as I hope we may infer—
1022
that the relief given last year by the reduction of taxation was relief that was especially valuable to that class of the community who are consumers of tea rather than of spirits. I can hardly venture to think that this curious result can be taken as evidence that the great masses of the people who are spirit drinkers have to any great extent given up spirits in favour of tea. But it may be taken as evidence that the class of people who, with their families, are habitually consumers of tea to a much greater extent than of spirits—that is, probably, the lower class which pays income tax, the house duty, and the charges upon persons possessing incomes from £100 to £300 or £400 a-year—were so much relieved by the remissions of last year that they have increased their expenditure in a direction which has led to the result we have witnessed. When I consider how much relief was given by the abolition of the sugar duty, the reduction of the income tax, and in the form of subventions to the rates last year, I cannot help hoping that some cause like that may have been at work, and may have produced the remarkable result to which I have referred.
I am anxious not to detain the Committee by going into figures, although I have them in my hand, which might be interesting as showing what the present condition of the people is. ["Go on!"] If I were not afraid of being wearisome I could read them. ["Go on!"] Well, if the Committee are patient I will quote some of the figures. In the first place, I would observe, in regard to the consumption per head of the population, that, taking the article of tea, in 1872 the consumption per head was 4 lb.; in 1873, it was 4 lb. 1 oz; in 1874, it was 4lb. 4oz. Of malt the consumption per head in 1872 was 1·93 bushel; in 1873, it had risen to 1·97 bushel; and in 1874, it dropped again to 1·93 bushel. But although the consumption of malt has fallen off this year, the consumption of sugar used for brewing has considerably increased, sugar having, to a considerable extent, come into competition with malt. That may be due partly to the cheapness of sugar, and partly to the high price of barley; for, although last year there was a very abundant wheat harvest, yet the barley harvest, though good in

1023
quality, was not abundant in quantity; and the price of barley has, I think, been higher in proportion to that of wheat than it has been known to be for many years. That circumstance has, doubtless, had some effect. Again, the consumption per head of tobacco has a little increased. In 1872, it was 1 lb. 6 oz; in 1873, it was 1 lb. 7 oz; and last year it was also 1 lb. 7 oz. Taking spirits, the increased consumption of which is not, perhaps, an advantage, except financially, the increase has continued, though not at so great a rate as before. In 1872, the consumption per head was 1·14 gallon; in 1873, it was l·23 gallon; and last year l·26 gallon. Then I take the Savings Banks. The excess of deposits over withdrawals for the year has been £1,398,000. That is not quite so high an excess as there was in the year before, when it amounted to £1,566,000; still less was it equal to the year 1872, which was £2,470,000. Although there has been a decrease in the rate of the excess, the excess has continued, and the people have apparently been able to deposit their savings in the savings banks. With regard to the number of paupers, I am happy to be able to give a good account. The total number both of indoor and outdoor paupers in England and Scotland last year was 937,000, against 999,000 in the year before. I have not got the return for Ireland upon the whole of these points. I do not know that there are any other figures with which I need trouble the Committee; but, looking at these points, I think that, on the whole, we may say that the condition of the people is fairly satisfactory, and that, although there may be nothing that should be depicted in very glowing colours, yet there is nothing that need cause us any present uneasiness.
As to another head of Revenue, on which there has been a falling off—namely, Stamps—I must freely confess that there was an error in the Estimate. We were, perhaps, too sanguine as to the revival of trade which we hoped for last year; and when I say that on almost every head of Stamps there has been a disappointment in the rather sanguine Estimate of last year—which principally shows itself in Bills of Exchange, on which there has been a loss of £75,000—I admit frankly that the anticipations of last year's Budget were higher than
1024
circumstances have justified. At the same time, although Stamps have fallen nominally £10,000 below the receipts of the previous year, yet that is a small sum in comparison with the size of the Revenue; and when we remember that last year was a peculiar one, because there were two Easters in it, and therefore there was a great number of holidays, when no business was done, I think we may regard the Stamp Revenue as showing something like an equilibrium.
The next item is the Post Office. The Budget Estimate was £5,300,000. The receipts were £5,670,000, or £370,000 over the Estimate. The Committee will bear in mind that all these accounts are accounts not so much of receipts as of Exchequer payments; that they do not represent the exact amount received by any Department of Revenue, but the amount which that Department is able to pay into the Exchequer. That is a distinction with which right hon. Gentlemen and a few others who have studied these subjects are conversant, but I very much doubt whether the general public are always alive to this fact; and that explains some of the wild and altogether unsound conclusions which were occasionally drawn in the course of last year from the statements showing the Exchequer receipts from week to week, because persons would look on them as if they represented the receipt of the Revenue, which was not the case. Many circumstances would make a difference between the two. Undoubtedly, surprise has been expressed that there has been irregularity in the progress of the Revenue from the Post Office. But that is not due to any irregularity in the net receipts, but from the mode in which the Exchequer payments were made. A year or two ago a good many remarks were made as to irregularities in the way in which the Post Office revenues were dealt with, and several rectifications had to be effected in order to bring the Exchequer payments into proper relation with the receipts week by week. I am happy to say those rectifications have now been satisfactorily made, and we may rely upon the payments from the Exchequer to the Post Office, fairly representing the net receipts of that Department. I have here a statement for a good many years past of the Exchequer payments

1025
and the net receipts of the Post Office. I will not trouble the Committee with the figures; but they may take it on my authority that the net receipts represent, on the whole, a very fair and steady rate of progress, much more than is indicated by the Exchequer payments, which have been fluctuating from the cause I have stated. The Committee may also take this on my authority—that the receipt which has been carried to our credit in the present Budget, £5,670,000, represents payments into the Exchequer duly proportioned to the bonâ fide net receipts of the Post Office for the year. The net receipts of 1872 were £5,212,000; in 1873, £5,481,000; and in 1874–5, they are estimated at £5,750,000.
As regards the Telegraph Revenue, I am sorry to say there has been a falling off; and it is of a character which I can only present as illustrating the difficulties of that undertaking. Undoubtedly, the Telegraph Service has not as yet been brought into a remunerative condition. We are not, as yet, really paying our way, or paying anything towards the interest even, of the debt which was incurred for the purchase. And we can only hope that, by exertions that are being made to improve the service and bring it into a more economical state, we may by-and-by set that matter right. The difficulties under which we have to administer a service of that kind—a service which interests everybody, and which leads to demands being made in all directions—are very great indeed. I know well that hon. Members are continually pressed by their constituents to make complaints that proper telegraphic communication is not afforded to this part of the country, or another part, and hon. Gentlemen are very reluctant to accept the answer that the Government cannot afford to deal with the matter. There is a feeling that the Government ought to be able to deal with it, and Government cannot give the answer that private companies could and I am sure did give. This is a point worthy of consideration, not so much in regard to the Telegraph Service itself, in which we are now fairly embarked, and of which we must make the best we can, as in reference to suggestions of acquisitions of other forms of property, and the conduct of other kinds of business, in which I hope the House will
1026
never be led to embark without very carefully weighing the results of this remarkable experiment.
I do not know that there is any other head of Revenue with respect to which I need say anything, except that which is called by the mysterious word "Miscellaneous." The Committee have observed, no doubt, that the Revenue from "Miscellaneous" has fallen below the Estimate. But I think it right, in perfect frankness, to say that this is not an accident. It was owing to my having given instructions that there should be no haste in calling in certain receipts which might have been paid in before the 31st of March, but which it did not appear necessary to call in, and which it would be better to leave for this year. They amount to something like£300,000. The reason for that step, as I think it is only candid to mention, was this:—Last year we made considerable reductions in taxation. Those reductions were intended to affect the finances, not only of last year, but of this, and among those reductions were considerable subventions to local rates. At the time I brought forward the Budget last year, I over-estimated the proportion of those subventions which would have to be paid within the last financial year. When I found that a great proportion of them would not come in course of payment last year, it appeared to me that we should have for that year a larger surplus than would be necessary, and that the finances of this year might be somewhat embarrassed. I thought, therefore, that it was fair, regarding the two years as one, to give instructions that certain payments which might have come into the Exchequer before the 31st of March should be made afterwards. If those receipts had been called in at the usual time we should have had a surplus of nearly £1,000,000. As it is, the finances of the present year benefit by that arrangement.
Having gone over the Revenue of last year, I do not know that there is anything in the Expenditure which calls for special remark except the point to which I have just referred—namely, the difference between the amount paid for the subventions to different local taxes which were promised last year and were not paid. The total amount on account of local expenditure last year was £512,000, and the amount which stands over for

1027
this year will be an addition of £642,000, making a total for the two years of £1,154,000. One of the items was the subvention or contribution made by decision of this House in aid of the rates on places where the Government has property. I think it right to inform the Committee that the process of ascertaining the amount to be paid for those subventions has been carried on under the immediate direction of the Treasury through one of its officers, Mr. Vincent Griffiths, who has discharged his duty with the greatest care and ability. Very satisfactory settlements have been arrived at with the greater part of the places concerned; with Chatham, where we have a dockyard, arsenal, and barracks; Rochester, Woolwich, Plumstead, Portsmouth, Portsea, Plymouth, Greenwich, Deptford, Sheerness, and, in short, a large number of places which I need not enumerate. The arrangements have been made in a manner which has satisfied the Treasury and has also obtained the assent of the local authorities. I think we may arrive at a very fair and reasonable basis for the settlement of this difficult question by the course adopted. The general feeling of the persons interested in the receipt of those contributions has been consulted, and, at the same time, the Treasury have kept a vigilant eye on the bargain made with a view to the interest of the public. I may mention that the expenditure on the Ashantee Expedition has been closed, and it has been found that the total is only £933,544. It is right that the fact should be put upon record, for it is very much to the credit of the Government which conducted the Expedition.
With respect to the expenditure of the coming year, there will be an increase. I will give the items in the usual manner. The Estimate for the interest of the Debt is £27,215,000. That is £70,000 more than last year, owing partly to the effect of the arrangement made with regard to the Terminable Annuities. The Consolidated Fund Charges will be £1,590,000. And here I ought to apologize to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for not having this year done what he asked us to do—namely, to lay a statement of the Consolidated Fund Charges on the Table, but before I conclude he will see why I have not done so. The
1028
Estimate for the Army is £14,678,000, and for the Army Purchase Commission, £638,000. The Estimate for the Navy is £10,785,000. For the Civil Service it is £12,656,000. I can hardly mention the Civil Service without expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) for the very great pains he has taken in keeping down, as far as possible, the Estimates for the various branches of the Services. The Estimate for the Post Office is £3,036,000; collection of Revenue—Customs and Inland Revenue, £2,694,000; and collection for the Telegraph Service, £1,098,000. The Packet Service Estimate is £878,000, and the total estimated expenditure of the year, £75,268,000. The increase in the Post Office is due to the very considerable advance in the salaries, amounting, since the Estimates of the last Budget were presented, to £117,000 a-year. The Packet Service has a decrease of £121,000, which is mainly due to a reduction of subsidies.
I now come to the estimated Revenue of the year. I may say in approaching the Estimates of Revenue, that I propose to build them upon as safe and cautious a principle as I can. I do not think it right altogether to disregard the undoubted fact of the normal growth of Revenue. It is quite certain that for many years past there has been—good years and bad years taken together—a very considerable and, upon the whole, a very steady growth of Revenue. But it should also be borne in mind that although the result of a series of years may be drawn to an average, the results undoubtedly fluctuate from year to year, and therefore it is always necessary for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the immediate arrangements for a Parliamentary year, to look to the particular circumstances of the moment at which he stands. He may feel confident that any causes which may prejudicially affect the progress of the Revenue will be only of a temporary character, but still he is bound to look to both the present and the future; and although at the present time there is, as I have said, a very fair and reasonable ground for being satisfied with the general condition of the people, still there are causes for prudence and caution. We have not yet seen that revival in trade which we are looking for; and

1029
some of the figures I read to the Committee earlier in my Statement, I think show that we must not look on this year as one likely to be very remarkable for a great advance of the Revenue. At all events, it would not be wise to treat it so. At the same time, I must remind the Committee that this will be in some respects a favourable year. It is Leap Year, which gives us a day more, and makes a considerable addition to the Revenue; and, in the second place, it is a year in which there is no Easter or Good Friday, and therefore it is a model year for the financier.
I have gone very carefully, with the heads of Departments, through the Estimates I am about to submit to the Committee, and I submit them with confidence that they are reasonable Estimates, and such as the Committee may fairly accept, as being neither deliberately too cautious, nor, on the other hand, over-sanguine. I take the Revenue of the Customs, which last year produced £19,289,000, at £19,500,000. I take the Excise at £27,800,000. That is an addition to the Revenue of last year, which was £27,395,000; but it is an addition which has been very carefully calculated, and by which I think we may fairly undertake to stand. Stamps I take at £10,600,000. Last year they produced £10,540,000; but with an extra day this year and the absence of holidays, I think I may take them at £10,600,000 as an equilibrium. The Land Tax and House Duty, which last year produced £2,440,000, I take substantially at the same figure—£2,450,000. The next item is the Income Tax, which produced last year £4,306,000. It has been growing very steadily, and there has been a remarkable increase in the produce of the penny per pound. It is customary to compare the present yield of the penny with what it was when Sir Robert Peel first imposed the tax; but that is not altogether fair, for the tax has since been extended to Ireland, and there have been other changes. Still the growth of the yield has been very remarkable. In the early years of the Income Tax, from 1842 to 1852, when the rate of the tax stood at 7d. in the pound, there were fluctuations from year to year, and the progress of the yield was very small. The yield per penny, which was £800,000 in the first year, had only risen to
1030
£847,000 in the last. In the next period, from 1853 to 1862, when Great Britain and Ireland were included and certain other changes in the assessment were made, the rate rose to £1,030,000 in the first year, and £1,249,000 in the last. In the years since 1863–4, when there have been constant fluctuations in the rate of the tax, as indeed was the case in the preceding period also, there was a steady rise in the value per penny, rising from £1,249,000 in 1862–3 to upwards of £1,900,000 in the year last passed. The explanation of the Income Tax receipt is shortly this:—It was estimated last year upon a scale in which I took the penny as yielding £1,840,000. The tax produced £4,306,000. Undoubtedly the arrears were under-estimated. But the produce of the penny, instead of £1,840,000, was more than £1,900,000; and we take it this year at £1,950,000. The estimate of the assessment at 2d. I take at £3,900,000. I have a statement showing the amount of arrears actually now due and in hand, and I can give to the House the amount outstanding. It was about £800,000 at the beginning of this year, which will be brought in. The sum received from the 1st of April is £319,000. The Post Office I take at £5,750,000, being a moderate increase over the receipts of last year, which were £5,670,000, and fully justified, I think, by the experience we have had. The Telegraph Service I take at £1,200,000; last year it produced £1,120,000. Crown Lands I take at£385,000, the same as last year. The Miscellaneous Estimates I take at £4,100,000, and this will produce a total Revenue of £75,685,000, as against an estimated Expenditure of £75,268,000. We have, therefore, a prospect, on these figures, of a surplus of £417,000. I am bound, however, to say that although the surplus may be estimated at that amount, there will still be some Supplementary Estimates, especially for Irish Education, the precise amount of which I cannot now state, and this must be taken into consideration in deciding on the arragements for the year. Well, Sir, that may appear a very small and unsatisfactory surplus; but I must remind the Committee that the remissions of taxation made last year were made not for one year but for two, and that a considerable proportion of them are due this year. The total amount of remissions of Imperial taxation last year may

1031
be stated at £3,830,000, and there will be some £490,000 due to this year. A great part of that is due to the balance of the remission of the penny of Income Tax, and a certain portion to the balance of the remission of the Sugar Duties. I forgot to mention that last year we received as the balance of Sugar Duty £68,000; we also received as part of the Horse Tax, in operation in the early part of the year, about £25,000. Something like £90,000 is due to these two heads, and about £400,000 of Income Tax makes a remission for the two years of £4,321,000. With regard to local taxes, the subventions, which are, in fact, remissions of taxation in the form of rates, amounted last year to £512,000, and this year they will be £642,000, making together £1,154,000. The total relief of taxation, Imperial and local, in the two years will thus amount to £5,476,000, of which £1,133,000 will become due in the present year. We must not, therefore, consider that we begin with a surplus of only £417,000; we may rather look at it as though we were beginning the year with a surplus of £1,500,000, and were proposing to give £1,100,000 in remission of taxation. It was pledged beforehand; it comes, nevertheless, out of the finances of the present year. We thus arrive at a surplus of £417,000, subject to some deductions in the way of Supplementary Estimates. Every pains will be taken to keep them low, and I have no reason to suppose they will be of great consequence. Even if the surplus could be taken at the full amount of £417,000, the House and the country would be satisfied it was not a case in which we ought to think of any reductions or remissions of taxation. I must mention two small re-adjustments which we propose to make. The most important is what I practically promised last week in the discussion upon Brewers' Licences. I have carefully re-considered the scale of those licences, and I am satisfied that the scale as it at present stands is not fair to the small brewer, and that it weighs heavily upon him in comparison with large brewers. I therefore propose that the present scale shall be superseded by a scale of a uniform character, in which the charge shall be at the rate of 12 s. 6d. for every 50 barrels brewed. The effect will be that nobody will be a loser, and the small brewers will be gainers. The result to the Revenue will
1032
be a loss of £60,000. With regard to any other remission, and especially with regard to the suggestion which was made, and which I said I would consider, without pledging myself on the subject—namely, the postponement of the payment of any portion of the duty—I find myself unable financially to attempt such a thing: and, after ail, it is clear it would be a mere gift to the brewers, and that those who would profit by it most would be the large, and not the small brewers. I therefore consider it, will not be in my power to make any offer of the kind. I content myself with remedying what appears to me to be a decided injustice in the scale. This is the only re-adjustment which will cost anything to the Exchequer. There is another small re-adjustment which I propose to make, and which, so far as I can judge, will produce no financial effect—it relates to one of the Stamp Duties. As the Committee will remember, last year attention was called to the heavy Stamp Duty which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other officers were called upon to pay in respect of their appointments; and it was then stated that the Government were looking into this question of the Stamp Duties. They are in a very unsatisfactory position. The present state of the law is that a duty of £5 per cent. with smaller ratios upon small incomes, is charged upon the first year's value of every appointment made in writing; while appointments which are not made in writing pay nothing. That applies not only to the public service, but also to all private employments; and, although I do not suppose the Stamp Duty is always rigorously paid, it is certain that, under the regulations, all such persons as secretaries of railway companies, clerks in banks, and persons accepting any kind of private appointments made in writing would have to pay a duty of £5 per cent upon the first year's income. In the public service that operates in a most extraordinary and unequal manner. There are certain appointments which must be made in writing, and which are so taxed. There are certain others of equal or higher value not made in writing, and which escape being taxed. I am speaking not only of political appointments, but of appointments in the permanent Civil Service, The Controller of the

1033
National Debt Office has been challenged by the Auditor General, and has been told he is liable to stamp duty on his appointment. The permanent Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, who receives a higher salary, is not appointed by writing, and he pays nothing. This uncertainty is very inconvenient, and I propose we should solve the difficulty by largely reducing the amount of the tax, which is really unreasonable, by making it uniform, and, so far as relates to the Civil Service, making it a rule that all appointments shall be made in writing. The proposal, therefore, is that the charge, instead of £5, be 5s. per £100 of the first year's salary. That will be a very moderate tax on first appointments, which those who are appointed will generally be willing to pay. This arrangement will have an incidental effect upon Civil Service appointments in this wise. We now appoint young men upon probation, and the understanding of that probationary employment is that if the person is found after 6 or 12 months to be unfit for the employment he is to he told that he cannot have the office and that he must look out elsewhere. This is a very invidious duty for the head of an office to perform, and it is very often not performed. Now, if the rule is made that every man upon his appointment should receive a writing, and pay a small stamp duty on it, it would be easy to see that a person would not pay upon an appointment on probation. This is an incidental advantage; but the object of the proposal is to get rid of the inconvenience to which I have referred. [An hon. MEMBER: Will it apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?] It will; but it is not to be retrospective. We have thus reduced the moderate surplus of £417,000 to £357,000. As I said, looking to our general position, further remissions are impossible. Although there are no remissions, I may be asked whether there are any re-adjustments. I really do not think it would be agreeable to the Committee, to Parliament, or to the country that in the present state of our finances and of our taxation, we should attempt to revise the system under which we find ourselves—that being, as I may say in general terms, pretty well off, we should attempt to make revisions, in the hope of finding ourselves in a better position, but with the chance of finding our-
1034
selves in a worse position in the end. I do not mean to say that the present financial arrangements of the country and our fiscal system are absolutely without blot; I do not mean to say that our system is ideally the best that could be proposed. I am not prepared to say that in the years before us there may not arise cases for modifications and improvements in our system; but I do think we may fairly hold up our heads and say that there is no great cry or urgent necessity for any great reform or re-adjustment in our system of taxation. Looking back for a considerable period of time, we have seen how one tax after another which pressed upon national industry has been removed, and how in one way or another great relief has been given to the public. I do not say that there are not taxes that are disagreeable to those who pay them; but I doubt whether there are any that can be fairly said to be injurious to the public interests of the country. There is, no doubt, a good deal of feeling which exists in reference to one tax. It is one that the Committee have heard a good deal of for many years, and it is, perhaps, one upon which my Estimate of our financial condition might by some be challenged—I refer to the Income Tax. Last year we claimed that, considering how recently we had acceded to office, and considering the position of the finances, we might reserve our opinions with regard to this tax. I do not think that it would be candid to attempt to make a case with regard to that tax in exactly the same spirit now. Of course, we have been obliged to consider it, and whether it would be desirable to do that which it is quite possible to do—to make arrangements and re-adjustments by which we may dispense with it, or materially modify it. The Income Tax has its merits and demerits. It has merits as a war tax, for it raises enormously the power of the country, with reference to any strain upon our military resources. We all know, also, that it has merits as an engine for effecting great reforms in our system of taxation, and that what has been done with its assistance during the last 30 years has been work of a very important character. This could not have been carried out if it had not been for the assistance derived from the Income Tax.

1035
On the other hand, I admit the objections which are raised against it and against the inequality in its incidence. It is, no doubt, a tax unequal in its incidence, and with all respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), who has hopes of getting rid of these inequalities and of making it fair for everyone, I must say I am afraid that those inequalities are inherent in the nature of the tax, and that it is impossible to do more than shift the inequality from one quarter to another. There are also other objections to it which are undoubtedly patent, as, for example, the disagreeable manner in which it presses upon certain classes of people, and especially upon those who have to undergo what they call an inquisitorial examination of their affairs. But I am afraid that if you are to keep the tax at all, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to divest it of this inquisitorial character. Something might be done to mitigate it, and, undoubtedly, whatever can be done, it is our wish to do. Anything we can do to mitigate these objections, and to make the pressure less felt, it will be our duty to do; but I cannot hold out any glowing hope of our being able to remove all such objections. These objections against the tax, however, press a great deal more against the tax when it is high than when it is low. Certainly, if we look at the tax with reference to its inequality, there is no doubt that this objection fades almost into insignificance when you keep the tax at a low rate; because though it might be exceedingly unfair if you raised the whole or the greater part of your Revenue by it, the unfairness on particular persons is very much less when you are only raising an insignificant proportion of your Revenue by it. I may also say that there is another objection which has been felt against the Income Tax, and that is the uncertainty which has attended for many years the use to which it was put and the rate at which it was likely to levied from year to year. When a man was unable to say whether the Income Tax of the coming year would be 8d. or 10 d. or 1s. in the pound—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever the state of the finances of the year, might come down and say he had great reforms to propose and great experiments to make, and when he might propose, at a mo-
1036
ment's notice, to double the Income Tax—then, undoubtedly, the tax was much harder and more oppressive than it could be if it were kept low, uniform, and, as far as possible, steady. Now, if we have not made our fiscal system perfect, we have gone so far in that direction that with a prospect before us of a fair annual growth of the Revenue and a reasonable hope and trust in the prosperity of the country, we may say that this use of the Income Tax may be considered to be at an end. We may, in asking you to renew the Income Tax at 2d. in the pound, do so with the hope and belief that it may be regarded as a tax useful in point of amount, but as held in abeyance—ready only for some great emergency, and not to be called upon for trivial occasions.
That being the state of the finances generally, there is one subject to which I should like to invite the attention of the Committee. The total amount of the National Debt on the 31st of March, 1874, was £779,283,245. On the 31st of March, 1875, it was £775,553,577, showing a diminution of £3,729,668 in the course of a year. But not only has there been this alteration in the total figures of the Debt; there has also been another alteration to which I wish to call attention—that is, as to the form in which the Debt now exists. On the 31st of March, 1874, the Debt was thus composed:—The Funded Debt was £723,514,005; the Terminable Annuities valued in Three per Cent Stock were £51,289,640; and the Unfunded Debt was £4,479,600. On the 31st of March, 1875, that Debt was diminished from £723,514,000 to £714,000,000, or nearly £715,000,000; while the Terminable Annuities valued in Three per Cent Stock had risen from £51,289,640 to £55,358,722. The Unfunded Debt had also risen to £5,239,300. It is obvious that that change involves a reduction of the Funded Debt, and the increase as represented by Terminable Annuities is due mainly, if not entirely—is due in great part at least—to the new Annuities which we set up last year, and by which we cancelled £7,000,000 Stock on account of the Post Office Savings Banks, and created Annuities of between £400,000 and £500,000. The operations on the Debt during the year were as follows:—We have in the course of the year

1037
increased the Funded Debt by the creation of Terminable Annuities by an amount equivalent in Stock to £7,000,000. We Lave increased it by Terminable Annuities on account of Fortifications and Local Barracks, equivalent in Stock to £750,000, and in Exchequer Bonds, issued for local loans, by £1,000,000. I can hardly pass by the subject of Terminable Annuities for Fortifications without saying that the expenditure on that head is practically closed. I am not sure that it is quite closed; but it is very much to the credit of General Sir William Jervois, whose original estimate was rather more than £7,000,000, to state that the amount required has been within that estimate. So much for the increase of the Debt. On the other hand, the Debt was diminished—1, by Stock cancelled by means of Sinking Fund, £831,000; 2, by Stock cancelled in exchange for Savings Banks, amounting to £7,000,000; 3, by Stock cancelled on account of Life, &c, Annuities, £767,000; 4, by equivalent in Stock of capital paid off by Terminable Annuities, about £3,640,000; and 5, by Exchequer Bills paid off, £240,600. The condition of the National Debt is a subject to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has very frequently addressed the attention of the House of Commons, and it is one upon which I myself made some remarks last year. I am no enthusiast on the subject. I do not take either the extreme view of those who think that everything ought to be sacrificed to the diminution of the Debt, nor of those who represent it as merely a question of buying Consols at 92. I think we ought to make continuous and steady efforts for the reduction of the National Debt, and that our efforts ought not to be violent and spasmodic. They ought to have reference to the general condition of the country and of its taxation. If you are in a state of circumstances in which taxation bears very heavily indeed upon the interests of the country, no doubt it would be a great deal better to devote your energies to reducing taxation instead of devoting them to reducing Debt. But where, on the other hand, our taxation is in a tolerably fair condition, we certainly ought to be doing something in the other direction. I am bound to say that I do not think that this House or that Parliament has any great reason to be proud
1038
of the amount we have expended in the past year in the payment and reduction of Debt. We are doing a good deal, but we are far from doing all that we might do. I take the Estimate for the Debt. We are paying this year £27,200,000 for the Debt; but let us remember that up to the year 1860, our ancestors from the time of the Peace, and ourselves in our earlier days, never paid less than £28,000,000, and often very much more, per annum as a charge for the Debt.
Now, let me turn to a comparison between what we were doing in 1859 and at the present time. In 1859 we were paying £28,673,381 interest on the Debt, while in the year 1874 we paid only £27,094,480, being less by £1,578,000 than we were paying in 1859. But what has happened since 1859? I do not much like the system on which calculations are made as to the net amount of taxes imposed and repealed. There is a good deal of fallacy in that mode of stating the question. But it may be well to remember the remissions in taxation made since that time. The duties have been entirely remitted on the following articles:—Paper, sugar, corn, butter, cheese, eggs, leather, tallow, silk manufactures, rice, wood and timber, and various other articles of less importance. Besides these, the duties have been reduced on various articles. The duty on tea has been reduced from 1s. 5d. to 6d.; on wine from 5s. 5d. to 2s., and a considerable reduction has been made on the duties on coffee, currants, raisins, and so forth. We must remember that this was when we were paying 5d. in the pound on the Income Tax, while we are now only paying 2d. If you look at the comparison of the wealth of the country as tested by the yield of the Income Tax, I find that a penny Income Tax in 1859 gave only £1,150,000; whereas in 1874 it gave £1,900,000, or an increase of 65 per cent. There has thus been a decrease of 5 per cent in what we are paying for the reduction of the Debt, and an increase of 65 per cent in the wealth of the country, as measured by the produce of the Income Tax. Well, now, I admit we are doing and have done a good deal in the way of paying off Debt; but I will ask the Committee to recollect what are the different forms in which we have been dealing with the Debt. In the early years after the war

1039
there was a system of Sinking Fund which was established on false principles, and which, although it showed very considerable energy and patriotism on the part of those who bore it, yet, being conducted and supported by loans, it was impossible for us economically to approve. Since 1829 we have acted upon the Debt partly by the present system of Sinking Fund and the application of casual surpluses, and partly by the system of Terminable Annuities and the creation of new Terminable Annuities, which has reduced the Debt at the rate of £800,000 a-year. Now, what has been the effect of the Sinking Fund? It has redeemed about £40,000,000 of Stock, but in the course of years we have added to our Debt for the Irish Famine Loan £8,000,000; for the Crimean War about £35,000,000; for the Slave Compensation £20,000,000; and for the purchase of the Telegraphs £10,000,000; making a total of £73,000,000. against which the Sinking Fund has only provided us with a reduction of £40,000,000. If, therefore, we only had the Sinking Fund and the casual surpluses to trust to we should not have been very successful in our operation upon the Debt. But we have in the same period paid off by the action of Terminable Annuities about £120,000,000, showing the superiority of a regular system of proceeding. Now, I have heard it said that we ought to maintain the principle of the Sinking Fund of 1821, and that anything we may do which differs from the Sinking Fund of 1829 is false in principle. We are continually told, and it is quite true—indeed, an axiom in finance—that the only way of relief is by the surplus of Revenue over Expenditure. Nobody since the Finance Committee of 1828, at all events, or for several years before, has doubted the absolute truth of that axiom that we can only redeem Debt by the surplus of Revenue over Expenditure. But it does not follow that you can do that only by those casual surpluses. Well, Terminable Annuities are, no doubt, very useful and very advantageous; but there are drawbacks to that system. In the first place, we know quite well that if you went into the open market and attempted to redeem any considerable amount of Debt by creating Terminable Annuities, you would not find them taken up, or, at all events, not
1040
upon terms which would satisfactorily carry through the operation. You are therefore obliged to have recourse to money which is under your own control—money which comes from the Savings Banks, and to invest that in Terminable Annuities, and so cancel your Stock. Well, primâ facie, one would say that you are making use of money which is national money, entrusted to you for the purpose of making a proper use of it and of paying the depositors interest for it—at first sight one would say you are not as a Government making the best possible use of those deposits, for you invest them largely in what would be in the open market an unprofitable security. There is, of course, no doubt Terminable Annuities are a less disadvantageous investment for those Savings Bank monies than if they were offered in the open market. But I have another objection and a more serious one to the operation of Terminable Annuities, and it is, that they produce a kind of spasmodic action. You are paying a large sum in the shape of Annuities which in 10 years hence will suddenly fall in, and you will be relieved of the payment of about £5,000,000 a-year, which will come into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, who must consider what he will do with it. Well, now, Sir, we have had experience on this subject. I refer, first of all, to the Long Annuities which fell in in 1860, and which amounted to £2,000,000 a-year. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) brought forward a new Budget, with an entirely new plan of finance, involving very large remissions of taxation, against which I do not wish to say a word. They were large remissions—boons to the taxpayer which my right hon. Friend was able to give to a great extent by the reduction of the interest charged upon the Debt from above £28,000,000 to a little more than £26,000,000, and it has taken us all this time to get the charge up again to £27,000,000. Well, the same thing, but on a larger scale, will happen in 1885, and not only will there be a great temptation to make use of the windfall, as I may call it, in the same way; but you will find, if you attempt to set up a large amount of fresh Annuities, a great difficulty in obtaining stock enough to cancel at once by means of the creation

1041
of such Annuities. Therefore, I wish the Committee to consider whether it is not possible to devise some plan which might put us upon a way of securing a more regular, more constant, and more stable action upon the National Debt. Sir, the proposal I have to make is this—I propose that we should set before us an object to be accomplished. It cannot be done this year; but it may be done by two steps that we should arrive at a point of making the charge for our Debt the same amount which it was before 1860—that is to say, bringing it up to £28,000,000 a-year—I say what I propose is that, instead of applying our surplus simply to redeem the Debt, and giving ourselves the advantage of the saving of interest on the Debt so redeemed, we should keep the charge at the fixed amount of £28,000,000 a-year permanently, by Act of Parliament; that we should pay £28,000,000 a-year to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and that they should apply the balance above what was required for payment of the Debt in the year to the redemption of stock. The rate at which I should propose to proceed would be this—I should propose to fix the amount that we should charge for the present year at £27,400,000: I think our finances will bear that. For the next year, 1876–7, I propose to fix it at £27,700,000, and for the year 1877–8 at £28,000,000. I have no doubt, under ordinary circumstances and with the ordinary growth of Revenue, we shall be very easily able, without any distress to the country, to bring up the charge for Debt to that amount. Well, I shall be asked what would be the operation of that plan, and I may say that though I use these figures with some little hesitation, yet they are figures which I think the Committee will accept with the understanding that they must not be taken as being absolutely certain, for the reason that if you were to continue to operate largely upon your Debt for a considerable number of years, you would probably affect the rate of interest and the operations in the Funds; and these calculations are made upon the assumption that the price of Funds shall continue stationary throughout the operation. Well, assuming that, you would, taking the price of Funds at the average of the last 30 years, have reduced by the end of the year 1885 £6,800,000 of Stock, and in 30 years
1042
you would have reduced£162,000,000 of Stock. But, assuming besides that, as I think we fairly may, the surplus Revenue would keep at the average of £500,000, assuming also that Stock cancelled by Life Annuities and Land Tax redemption continue at their present rate, about £770,000 a-year, the following amounts of Stock will be cancelled:—By 1885 you will have cancelled £21,000,000, and in 30 years from this time you will have cancelled no less than£213,000,000. Well, Sir, these are large figures, which appeal a good deal to the imagination, and which, I fear, although they might in former times have had an effect favourable to my proposal, may, at the present time, have a somewhat contrary bearing. I am quite aware, when I make a proposal which involves something which looks like the principle of the old Sinking Fund, although under very different circumstances, that I shall waken up old prejudices which have prevailed for many years against that principle. But, Sir, I wish most distinctly to remind the Committee that the proposal which I make is one wholly and entirely free from the evils which attach to the Sinking Fund of Dr. Price. I will take the liberty of reading a very short extract from one of Dr. Price's works, which will show the absurdity of the calculations on which his scheme was founded. He said—
"Let a State be supposed to run in debt £2,000,000 annually, for which it pays per cent interest, in 70 years a debt of £140,000,000 would be incurred, but an appropriation of £400,000 per annum, employed in manner of a Sinking Fund, at compound interest, would, at the end of this term, leave the nation beforehand £6,000,000. "
So that, while the nation was supposed to be borrowing £2,000,000 a-year, it would, in fact, at the end of 70 years, have £6,000,000 in place of this liability by the operation of this marvellous Sinking Fund. But when that was submitted to a proper arithmetical test, it broke down at once. I will now quote from a very different authority. One of the last and heaviest blows which was struck at the old Sinking Fund was struck by Lord Grenville, in a pamphlet written in 1826 or 1827. Disagreeing as he did with the views of Dr. Price, he made this important admission, that—
"Possessing an effective and permanent surplus, a State may maintain a Sinking Fund even

1043
at compound interest without resorting to still further taxation. The fixed allowance and the successively redeemed Annuities which compose the Fund will severally continue to he defrayed from the same revenues as before, and by the progressive addition of those Annuities to the fund itself, it may ultimately be carried to any extent not exceeding their amount."
That is a description of a Sinking Fund such as I propose to establish. Lord Grenville did not advocate its establishment at the time he was speaking, because he considered that the pressure of taxation was then so great that he desired to devote the first energies of the Government and of Parliament to the reduction of taxation, with the view of setting free our various industries. Our position at the present moment is very different. We hope that we have attained such a position where we may consider that we have an effective and permanent surplus, which we may fairly ask the House to devote in the manner I have proposed to the reduction of our Debt. I may, of course, be met by a different kind of objection. I may be told—" Do this, if you please; but you will never be able to bind future Parliaments, and the very first time that a Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to raise an additional Revenue without increasing taxation he will put an end to your Sinking Fund, and will shatter all your dreams of reducing the National Debt by some hundreds of millions." That may be perfectly true; and I say that, under circumstances different from the present, it would be a very reasonable thing for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do. If the circumstances of the country should materially alter, it would only be right that we should take steps to take off that which we now propose to put on, in view of the present and the probable immediate future of the, country. One thing is quite clear—that if we do not put it on, it will certainly come to nothing, and that we shall be in the position of the gentleman who would never wind up his watch because if he did not wind it up it would never stop. Notwithstanding all the objections to the scheme, however, I still think that the experiment is worth making; because few Chancellors of the Exchequer would like to come down to this House and propose the repeal of an Act of Parliament establishing a Sinking Fund of this character, on the plea that they did
1044
not like to increase the taxation of the country, unless they had very good reasons for making such a proposition. But we do not argue a priori only; we have experience to guide us. What I am asking you to do is not to do a new thing, but to continue that of which we have experience. We have the Terminable Annuities, and if there are Gentlemen who say that these Terminable Annuities are excellent things, and that it would be a pity to disturb them, my reply is that we do not wish to disturb them. Within the limit of our £28,000,000 a-year we shall be able to create as many Terminable Annuities as we please, by means of turning so much Stock into them. On the whole, therefore, I submit that there are really no practical objections to our undertaking these good and benecial operations in the present state of our finances. I must, however, further explain that there are two classes of Debt which I wish to keep outside of this fixed sum of £28,000,000. The first of those two classes of Debt comprises our temporary loans. For instance, in the event of the House being disposed to go further in the course that they followed in the case of the building of our fortifications and of our local barracks, and to borrow the sum required for such works for a short period upon Annuities, I propose that such a transaction shall be outside the £28,000,000 in question, so that the operation may be marked, and the House and the country may know what we were doing; for if you did not adopt that course I admit there would be danger, and that you might be disposed to throw the services at large upon this fund, in order to get the money and avoid increasing the taxation. Thus, assuming that the amount of interest payable upon the Debt and upon the Sinking Fund is £28,000,000 a-year, and that the interest payable upon the temporary loan is £50,000, we should put the charge for interest for the year at £28,050,000. Another class of loans which I propose to keep outside of this arrangement are those which we contract for the purpose of lending again to the various local authorities. To some extent such loans involve a mere book-keeping account, because while, on the one hand, we have to pay interest upon them out of the National Exchequer, on the other we receive interest on them, which goes

1045
into the Exchequer again under the head of Miscellaneous Revenue, according to the arrangement of last year. I should, therefore, propose that under the heading of Debt we should bring separately to account the interest upon these local loans. Thus, for the present year, our charge for Debt will stand thus—for Debt, £27,400,000, and for local loans £70,000. I must say a word or two respecting these local loans. For the last two years we have advanced somewhere about £3,000,000 for these purposes, £2,000,000 of which we have paid out of the balances, and £1,000,000 we have raised by means of Exchequer Bonds. Now, we pay 3½ per cent interest upon these Exchequer Bonds, and as we only receive the same interest for the money we so lend, on the whole we are, at all events, not gainers by the transactions. Large and increasing demands under this head are being constantly made upon us, and we shall have in the future to meet the demands for local loans for the purposes of the school boards and under the Artizans Dwellings Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We must, therefore, be prepared to meet demands of this character to the extent of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year for the next two or three years. I need scarcely say that this is a very unsatisfactory arrangement for the Exchequer, because we only get 3½ per cent. and have to pay 3½ per cent. These, however, are not the only contracts which press hardly upon the Exchequer. In the course of the present Session, and at other times, a remark has been made as to the growing Savings Banks deficiency, and that is, no doubt, a matter which ought to receive consideration. The state of the case with regard to the Savings Banks is this. In November of last year, when the accounts were made up, the amount due to the Trustees of the old Savings Banks was £41,826,000, as against £38,463,000 in hand. You will find, therefore, that there was a deficiency of £3,363,000. I have not got the Returns for the Post Office Savings Banks, because they are not yet made up; but, generally speaking, they do not show any deficiency; on the contrary, they show a considerable surplus. The deficiency on the old Savings Banks account arose from our paying those banks a higher rate of interest than we were
1046
earning, and that deficiency has accumulated until it has reached its present proportions. At present we do not pay the Savings Banks a larger rate of interest than we are earning, and if we could once get rid of the deficiency we should be able to pay our way. But, as it is, the interest on the old deficiency goes on accumulating, and the result is that that deficiency increases year by year. It might be got rid of either by issuing Stock equal to its amount, or by placing it upon the Consolidated Fund; or we might reduce the rate of interest to depositors in the Savings Banks. I should, however, be very sorry to reduce the amount of interest paid to the depositors in such banks. Two other courses, however, may be taken which would materially aid us in getting rid of the deficiency in question. One would be to amalgamate the accounts of the old Savings Banks with those of the Post Office Savings Banks, and the other, to give greater facilities for investment. Such facilities for better investments may, I think, easily be found, in connection with local loans. Returning from this digression to the subject of the local loans, I wish to say that, without reference to the question of the interests of the Exchequer in the matter, the system under which the local authorities are borrowing money requires to be very carefully looked into. The total amount of local indebtedness in England at the present time is about £80,000,000; in fact, taking the School Board loans into consideration, it amounts to somewhere about £84,000,000, and it is rapidly increasing, with very little check or control. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and some check ought to be placed upon the further extension of the system. No doubt, Parliament has given authority to these local bodies to borrow money up to a certain extent, and has laid down regulations under which before they are permitted to borrow, they must obtain the sanction of the Treasury, or of the Home Office, or of the Local Government Board, by whom the amount of the loans and the period of repayment are fixed. But, in point of fact, these regulations are most unsatisfactory; and, although a great deal of trouble is given to the local bodies when they wish to borrow, yet when they have once succeeded in borrowing the money nobody looks after

1047
what they are doing in the matter. But not only is the present system objectionable as regards the local bodies, it is still, more so as regards those who lend their money to such bodies. The lenders of the money have obligations placed upon them which it is scarcely possible they can fulfil; and therefore they are often in peril of losing their money in consequence of some noncompliance with statutory regulations on the part of the borrowers. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has taken a great deal of pains in obtaining for the information of the House a very interesting Return, showing the amounts which have been borrowed by these local bodies and the rate of interest which they pay. Taking the Returns together, we find that out of a sum of £93,000,000 which has been borrowed, and which is represented in those two sets of Rturns, only £18,500,000 have been raised at and under 4 per cent; and more than £12,000,000 at above 5 per cent and running up to 6½ per cent. That is a considerable burden upon those localities. I will just state what the proposal is that we have to make with regard to this matter. It is intended to simplify the system under which these local debts are contracted. We propose to introduce a Bill which will have the effect of providing in future that all debt which may be contracted by local authorities shall be in the form of debentures. We propose that those debentures—for which we have the precedent of the Debenture Act passed a few years ago, though not much use has been made of it, and several local Acts—shall be registered at a Government office and authenticated by a stamp, proving that the borrowing power has not been exceeded and that the statutory provisions have been complied with. This will secure a registration of loans that may be contracted hereafter. We desire to bring about a complete system of registration, also, of past indebtedness; but that cannot be done at once. We hope by-and-by to effect that, and ultimately to put the local debt of the country into a state in which it will be freed from many of the inconveniences and complications by which it is now surrounded. There will thus be a simpler mode of borrowing, and the debentures will be of such a character as will make them more popular than the pre-
1048
sent form of mortgage. You cannot now lend money to a Corporation without having a cumbrous mortgage, which involves considerable legal expenditure, difficulty of transfer from hand to hand, and additional cost on every fresh loan. Then we have an interesting and important element in the Local Budgets, which we hope in future years to bring in. I will say only one word before I conclude on that question of Local Budgets. In the present year, of course, we are not in a position to give anything in the nature of an elaborate Local Budget; but I may state that the rates in England and Wales, exclusive of tolls, dues, and duties, amounted in 1870–71 to £17,817,000; in 1871–2 they advanced to £18,035,000; in 1872–3 they advanced further to £18,572,000. The Rturns for 1873–4 are not yet complete; but we have every reason to suppose there has been a still further advance; and we may assume without much doubt that if no further subvention had been given from Imperial funds, the present amount of rates, exclusive of tolls and dues, would not be less than £19,000,000. But the additional grants in aid, which come to something like £1,000,000, bring down the amount for the present year to £18,000,000. The grants in England are £2,250,000; the amount raised by rates and dues is £22,000,000, making together a total of £24,250,000. That is exclusive of Scotland and Ireland. We think that the whole system requires more care and attention than it has hitherto received. We desire to extend the annual Rturns that are required, so as to make them include loans; we propose to have them sent in before the 25th of March, so as to be in time for the Budget; and we shall also require them to show—what they do not show now—the distribution of the grants in aid. Another point that we aim at is that it is only fair and reasonable, considering the assistance which is now directly given by the Government, and which will be given by the system of registered debentures, that we should insist on introducing an efficient system of audit. We have been accused of doing nothing in the manner of Local Taxation. No doubt we are still a little short of the magnificent promises held out by the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who promised a relief of £1,200,000: but we have given

1049
£1,154,000, and that is something better than talking about doing so. And although we are not proceeding by leaps and bounds, we are still advancing steadily and safely, and are not losing sight of the question. Last year we introduced the principle of an Imperial subvention for purposes fairly requiring it. We also extended the area of rating by abolishing certain classes of exemptions. This year we are taking a step towards improving the system on which local loans are contracted, giving greater security and greater advantages to the investor; and we are endeavouring to bring about a system which shall be the foundation of a Local Budget. Next year, if not this year, I hope we may be able to take a step further, and that the promise given earlier in the evening by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board may be redeemed by the introduction of a Valuation Bill that will improve the system of assessment and remove some of the anomalies that now exist. We cannot do more than we have done; but we are honest in our attempts, and we have endeavoured to deal with the subject in the best way we can. If we have not made strides sufficient to satisfy the impatience sometimes manifested on the other side of the House, I hope our friends will believe that we are doing what in us lies, and that what we have done is only an earnest of what we hope in future to do. I must now thank the Committee for the kindness with which they have listened to my rather wearisome statement. I have endeavoured to make our proposals clear. I can only say that if we have aimed at no ambitious re-construction of our fiscal policy, our object has been to consolidate and add stability to our financial system; and we trust that the proposals we have made after careful deliberation will be received with candour and consideration by Parliament and by the country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Resolution.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, until the first day of August, one thousand
1050
eight hundred and seventy-six, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

s. d.

Tea.

the lb.

0 6

MR. CHILDERS: I am quite sure that the concluding words of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be re-echoed through all parts of the House—that is to say, that his very interesting statement to-night, which was not more long than interesting, will receive the most candid consideration from every part of the House. Of that statement I hardly know which part was the more interesting. My right hon. Fiend gave us very tersely the figures which have appeared in different places, by no means so clearly, as to the progressive advance of the country and the condition of the people, particularly as illustrated by their powers of consumption, so far as those powers can be tested by the Rturns of the Customs Department. And that statement must be very re-assuring to many hon. Members and persons outside of this House, who some time ago had doubts whether, in this respect, the condition of the people was so improving as it evidently is. My right hon. Friend, in the latter part of his speech, gave us very clear information as to local taxation, pointing out in what respects the old and cumbrous arrangements for raising money have imposed serious burdens on the people, and showing, I think, to the House excellent remedies—namely, first, that of granting to local bodies those powers of raising money on debenture which are now employed by all bodies requiring loans; and, secondly, that of requiring that the accounts of these bodies should be submitted first of all to public audit and then to public notice, in a manner which will certainly have the effect of greatly improving the financial condition of those bodies and bringing them under the view of Parliament. In all these respects, I do not think any one can have heard my right hon. Friend without receiving very great instruction, and feeling that if this is not a very magnificent Budget, at least it is one which will be of value to all who take a general interest in financial affairs. Now, after stating very candidly—to use my right hon. Friend's words—what appear to me to be the great merits of his statement, I will venture to speak in detail on one or two of the pro-

1051
positions which he has stated to the Committee. I will point out in which respects I think the proposals of my right hon. Friend should receive that deliberate consideration which proposals of that kind deserve at our hands. And I have risen immediately after my right hon. Friend because I ventured late in the past Session to doubt whether, unless there was a greater improvement in the state of the finances, especially in the state of trade then exhibited in the country, the proposals which my right hon. Friend made last Session could be accepted as perfectly safe. In the criticism I made on the proposals of my right hon. Friend, I specially guarded myself by the remark that if the country enjoyed, what then was doubtful, a good harvest, I thought the Estimates of my right hon. Friend would come up to the mark which he had given to the House. Now, having stated that, let me first call the attention of the House to the results of the finances of the last year, 1874–5, as stated by my right hon. Friend, and as they appear by the accounts which were given to us a few days ago. My right hon. Friend has said, and said correctly, that the Revenue has exceeded the Estimate which he placed before the House by £496,000; that the Expenditure has exceeded the Expenditure which he proposed by a small amount, an amount less than the excess of the Revenue; and he has stated that the result has been a surplus of £594,000. My right hon. Friend said he thought that, at any rate, was a satisfactory result. Now, I do not think that it can be deemed altogether a satisfactory result, and I will give one or two qualifications of the statement of my right hon. Friend. In the first place, he has been satisfied by an increase of receipt over his estimated receipt. It is perfectly true that the increase is £496,000; but when we come to look more narrowly into it, we find that three items of receipts which it has always been the practice to watch, and which indicate, above all, the progress of the prosperity of the country, and are tests of its financial advance—I mean Customs, Excise, and Stamps—for the first time since the year 1868 show £ deficit when compared with the amount; estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The deficit is, indeed, small—only £6,000—still it is a deficit. That,
1052
I think, is not altogether satisfactory. Again, I do not think you can find an instance during a long series of years—except in times of war, or apprehension of war—in which the Treasury has allowed the ordinary expenditure of the country to exceed the Budget Estimates of expenditure, unless in a year when the receipts have very greatly exceeded the Budget Estimates of receipts. Such a year was 1863–4, when the Revenue Estimates were some millions below the result. But what is the case as to the present year. I find that my right hon. Friend estimated the payments for the year charged on Supply Votes—not including payments in relief of local taxation—at £44,223,000. The actual expenditure has been £45,649,000, of which sum he just now told us that £512,000 had been paid in relief of local taxation. This leaves the expenditure of the year out of Supply Votes at £45,137,000. It thus appears that my right hon. Friend has expended during the year on the Army, Navy, and Civil Services £914,000 more than he estimated at this time last year. I can hardly regard this as a satisfactory state of finance in a year in which the Customs, Excise, and Stamps produced not more but less than the original Estimate. Let me carry the matter of surplus a little further with reference to the reduction of the National Debt. My right hon. Friend stated that the surplus of last year was £593,000, but as the amount necessary to be paid on account of Fortifications and Army Localization for the year was £600,000, and as this has to be taken into account before the final balance is struck, instead of their remaining a surplus to be paid to the National Debt Commissioners in reduction of the Debt, there was, in fact, a deficiency of over £6,000. This, again, can scarcely be regarded as a satisfactory state of things. But this is not all. In the miscellaneous receipts of last year there is a very remarkable and unusual item of £300,000, which arises in the following way:—The Treasury, in addition to its other functions, carries on a very large business as managers of an exchange bank, having transactions with all quarters of the globe. The name of that bank is the Treasury Chest, and up to two years ago the working capital assigned to it was £1,300,000. Two years ago it was found unnecessary,

1053
owing to the improved means of communication with foreign countries, and the reduction of our Army in the Colonies, to employ so large a capital; and an Act was passed reducing the amount of the capital of the Treasury Chest to £1,000,000. This sum of £300,000 which, strictly speaking, formed part of the capital of the country, and should, therefore, have contributed to the reduction of the Debt, has been actually treated as if it were ordinary revenue, so that, in fact, adding this amount to the £6,000 already mentioned by me, the actual deficit on the operations of last year was £306,000. My right hon. Friend has stated that there were £300,000 of miscellaneous revenue which might have been paid in just before the end of the last; but the receipt of which he postponed until the beginning of the present, financial year. My right hon. Friend took credit to himself for having done this, on the ground that the reductions of taxation agreed to in the last Session affected not only 1874–5, but also 1875–6. This is true; but I am not quite sure that it is desirable that such a licence as to the time of paying in Revenue should remain in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend admits that he has received a sum of about £300,000 from the Post Office Department beyond the nominal Revenue of the year, this being due, no doubt, to the better arrangements which have been made in the Department in question. These two sums balance each other, so that the real result on the basis established by the Act of George IV. is, as I said before, £300,000 on the wrong side. I now proceed to the Estimate for 1875–6. My right hon. Friend anticipates that, including the £300,000, payment of which was postponed from 1874–5, the receipts for the year will be £75,685,000, and the expenditure £75,268,000, which leave a balance on the credit side of £417,000. In stating the details of estimated expenditure to the House, my right hon. Friend did full justice, which I am very anxious to endorse, to the Secretary of the Treasury, who has exercised his powers with great skill and success in keeping down the expenditure. In some respects he has been fortunate—for instance, during this year some 12 great public buildings, the erection of which had been
1054
carried on at a great expense for four or five previous years, will have been completed, and the commencement of other new buildings has been stopped. What I wish, however, to impress upon my right hon. Friend and the Committee is that, taking everything into consideration, the estimated expenditure of the coming year is £1,330,000 in excess of that which, this time last year, was estimated to be necessary for the year which has just closed. But it will be said, "You have not included the Supplementary Estimates." My answer is they cannot be included now; the only comparison you can make with the Budget Estimate of one year is the Budget Estimate of the preceding year. Now, let us see what the result of my right hon. Friend's proposals will be in actual figures with reference to the surplus of the year. I may say, in passing, that I doubt whether, on the Revenue side, he has not over estimated the Miscellaneous receipts and those of the Post Office. [The CHATTCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The Post Office is under estimated.] Well, I will accept the statement. First of all, the Estimates omit a large item in the Vote for Irish education, which was stated last year at £118,000. We are told on high authority that it will be more this year, but I leave it at that, though I am sure in that respect I am doing my right hon. Friend more than justice. Then there is the loss of £60,000 on brewers' licences; there is to be an additional charge of £185,000 in connection with the National Debt, and this is not to include £70,000 a-year for interest on advances for local purposes. Now, the four sums added together make £433,000, and the surplus estimated is £417,000, so that my right hon. Friend deliberately proposes to Parliament that this year shall end with a deficit of £16,000. In my Parliamentary experience of 16 years I have known the same thing to be done only once, and in such a humdrum year as the present, it seems to me quite unjustifiable. I have no particular remarks to make at present on the modification of the Brewers' licences, or the alteration of the fee on appointments, though these questions might, I think, have been dealt with in a bolder manner; but I confess I do not at all like the tendency of the National Debt plan. Careful as my right hon. Friend was to

1055
distinguish it from the Sinking Fund, in operation before 1829, it is, I think, open to the objections which led them to the abolition of that fund. My right hon. Friend has changed his mind since last year as to the great merits of Terminable Annuities; but I think he has underrated—at any rate, he has not alluded to one great advantage which that system possesses. His remarks were to the effect that if you left the Savings Banks Commissioners in possession of large securities in the shape of Terminable Annuities, a time might come when you might want money, and they would not be very convertible. Now, under the Terminable Annuity system there is paid to the Savings Banks Commissioners every year a much larger sum out of the Revenue than they require, and a constant purchase of Consols and other stock goes on out of the difference between what 3 per cent upon their capital would have been, and what Terminable Annuities bring. That very process keeps passing into your hands every year a large amount of precisely the same securities which would have had to be sold or converged in case of pressure under the former system. I gather from what has fallen from my right hon. Friend that he does not propose to dispense with the system of Terminable Annuities altogether; but he proposes a new scheme by which the interest on the Public Debt is to be fixed at £28,000,000, besides whatever sum may be necessary in the way of interest on special loans, or loans raised for the purpose of advancing money to a public body. Now, whatever the merits of this plan may be—and I do not intend to enter into the discussion of them on the present occasion—it possesses, at all events, this great advantage to my right hon. Friend, that it enables him to propose a scheme, in a year when there is no surplus, for the reduction of the National Debt at, it may be considerable cost, to future Chancellors of the Exchequer. This plan requires, in my opinion, very deep and careful consideration. It is simply a plan to secure to my right hon. Friend credit for a very large reduction of the National Debt by applying for the next 10 years far less than the average sum applied by the late Government; and then 10 years hence and for the following 20 years nearly £10,000,000 a-year; averaging thus £7,000,000 a-year with
1056
next to nothing at first. These are the only observations which I now wish to make. I do not find fault with my right hon. Friend for having made so little change as he has done by his financial proposals. There is nothing, in my opinion, more objectionable than the constant shifting of taxation, and I think the most prudent course to pursue is that which was adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone)—to wait till the time arrives when a great blow can be struck. I will only say, in conclusion, that I am sure my right hon. Friend's statement will be received with all the consideration which it deserves.
MR. PELLcould not say that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very cheering one in regard to the subject which he and other hon. Members had at heart. He should like to know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a system of audit in the case of the accounts of local authorities, he meant that the whole of those accounts were to be submitted to audit, or only those portions of them which happened to be connected with the loans which they received? Nothing, he was sure, would tend so much to the diminution of any waste of money there might be as a proper system of audit. It would also be desirable that they should know whether the financial supervision of local taxation was to be carried on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the President of the Local Government Board? Since 1869 up to 1874–5, there had been a remission of Imperial taxation to the amount of £20,000,000, or, making allowance for the addition to taxation of some £3,000,000 in the time he had selected, a reduction of over £17,000,000. That was certainly a cheering state of things. In the course of eight years there had been an increase of local rates to the extent of £2,500,000, and he did not think this fact had been fully realized. The amount of in debtedness in respect of loans to local authorities was also a matter for very serious consideration. It was now £84,000,000, of which only £24,000,000 was under audit. If, however, audit was carried out to the extent he had been led to understand, his mind would be relieved of a great anxiety. Another cause of increase latterly was the establishment of school boards, which had

1057
swallowed up no less than £3,000,000 since the system came into operation. He was thankful most heartily for the splendid harvest they had had, to which so much of the financial success of the Government might be attributed, but he warned them not to rely too much upon such a precarious contingency. It was not often they had two good harvests in succession.
MR. LAINGsaid, unless in case of war, or some other extraordinary contingency, there should be no reasonable apprehension under a Budget that there would be a deficit. Can anyone say that of this Budget? When the Irish schools were provided for, and other expenses incurred in connection with the National Debt, what became of the right hon. Gentleman's surplus? No allowance was made for Supplementary Estimates, and there were other contingencies for which no provision had been made. What if they were to have a bad state of trade, an alarm as to European politics, or bad harvests? Could they then rely on these Estimates being realized? They could not, and the result would be they would be landed in a deficit. Could anyone say there would be no Supplementary Estimates of considerable magnitude in the course of the present financial year? There was the visit of the Prince of Wales to India. The information they had on that matter was not very explicit. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman that if the illustrious Prince went to India, the House of Commons would be the first to hear of it. But, seriously, if the visit was to be made, its political value would depend on the business being well done, and the bill being paid by the people of England. Considerable Supplementary Estimates must be the result. This was a Budget which did not show a surplus; on the contrary, it might show a deficit. What was the promise and performance with regard to the National Debt? They were promised a scheme by which, in the course of 30 years, they were to get rid of £200,000,000 of National Debt, and the performance was in two years of peace and prosperity they had no surplus at all. Previous to last year the practice had been to keep the Estimates always on the safe side. They were sure of having a surplus. Now they were reduced to the critical condition of depending on a good harvest. This
1058
state of uncertainty inflicted a great deal of mischief on trade, and if last year the right hon. Gentleman had maintained the income tax at 3d., and not reduced it to 2d. in the pound, there would have been no danger of a deficit. If, again, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking off a penny from the income tax, had taken off only a halfpenny, he (Mr. Laing) would have felt greater confidence in the soundness of his finance. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that the plan of the present Budget was open to the suspicion of a seeking for popularity at the expense of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
MR. SCOURFIELDregretted that no attempt was made to reduce our National Debt. As long as we had a National Debt, no matter how large our surplus might be, we should have no embarras de richesses. If we did not reduce the Debt now how could we expect to reduce it in times of difficulty? He would like to see an attempt made to put local taxation which at present fell on one description of property, on the same footing as Imperial taxation. In Liverpool 1d. in the pound on the property and income schedules would produce as much as 6d. on assessable property, and the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that id. in the pound on the poor rate assessment would yield a sum equal to 1d. in the pound on the property and Income Tax schedules. The whole expense of education fell upon local taxation, and there was a growing feeling in the country that local burdens had been most unfairly increased, and were likely to be increased still further.
MR. TILLETTthanked Her Majesty's Government, as representative of a great commercial community (Norwich), for the Financial Statement made that evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He also thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he had given to do all in his power to diminish taxation. He might, however, state that he concurred with the hon. Member (Mr. Scourfield) that there was a feeling of great dissatisfaction arising out of the manner in which local taxation was increasing. With regard to the heavy and disastrous taxation which the industrious classes suffered owing to the absence of reliable

1059
security, he submitted that it was desirable to adopt some measure that would give them confidence, and his impression was that if the right hon. Gentleman were to issue bonds and debentures, the effect would be that they might be saleable and accessible as security for their money, which they were now afraid to deposit. With regard to the local burdens upon one description of property, they now amounted to the enormous sum of £20,000,000.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he had listened with great attention to the important statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he congratulated him and Her Majesty's Government on that statement. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had any complaint to make, it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoiled the future surplus of the Gentleman who might take his place. He never ceased to regret one tax which had been taken off in a former Budget, and that was the 1s. duty on corn. That 1s. duty would enable a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do a great deal of good; but when taken off it was done as a sop to sentiment. He appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's idea of establishing an efficient system of audit, which, if adopted, could not fail to prove of great importance and give great satisfaction. With regard to the claims upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were very large, and the expenditure, it should be borne in mind, was very large. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet with a strong hand the demands which were made upon him, and in this respect he was to be congratulated upon not having a large surplus, as the effect of that was that there was no encouragement to every particular interest to put in its claim for exemption. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be Chancellor of the Exchequer till 1885, in order that he might realize all the anticipations he had formed of that happy era.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he thought it would be absolutely necessary that some Supplementary Estimates should be presented. It would be much better that the Prince of Wales should not visit India at all if he went there as a private individual. He felt satisfied there would be considerable expenses attending that
1060
visit, and he believed there would be a strong feeling throughout this country against that expenditure being treated as if it were merely an expenditure to be properly paid out of the revenues of India. He understood the determination of the Government was to throw the expenses as far as Suez on England, and the remainder on the revenues of India.
MR. WHALLEYprotested against Imperial taxation being applied to local purposes by way of loans, because it tended to destroy the principle of local government by which people were enabled to tax themselves. He also objected to the continuance of the Income Tax. All fixed property depended for its value upon muscle, brain, and energy; and therefore it was for the interest of that property that Schedule D should be abolished, and that the revenue derived under that Schedule should be levied upon real property.
MR. MUNDELLAobjected to the country losing £60,000 a-year from the sale of intoxicating drinks, particularly as the vexatious interference with trade, which was so much complained of—namely, private brewing—was to be left untouched, and very small beer would pay the same duty as the strongest and the best. The £60,000 might have been saved by raising the malt tax from 21 s. 8d. to 22 s. 6d., and in that way every glass of beer would have been dealt with in proportion to its strength. The time had probably come when spirits would again bear an increase of duty. With respect to the Income Tax, he believed that if all incomes under £300 had been exempted, it would have been very acceptable to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had adduced the funds deposited in savings banks as a criterion of the condition of the working classes; but that was no safe criterion, because they now found more profitable modes of investment for their savings in the shape of building societies and co-operative industries.
SIR HENRY PEEKobserved, that if the Excise, and Customs Departments were fused the saving would, he believed, be sufficient to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit the smaller duties now levied.
MR. FAWCETTremarked that the Budget had been brought before the House at an unusually late hour that

1061
evening; and he should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a general discussion of the financial policy of the Government could take place, as it was then too late to enter into anything like a discussion on such a subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he quite recognized the importance of the suggestion to set apart some convenient time for the discussion now raised by the Budget proposals. He was not able at that moment to name a day, but would take care in conference with his Colleagues that a convenient time should be fixed for that purpose. He did not think that much had been said upon which he need now trouble the Committee. The principal criticisms which had been made were criticisms for which he was not altogether unprepared. His right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had taken very much the same line with regard to the proposals he had submitted. They certainly pointed out that the Budget could hardly be said to show a surplus Estimate for the year, taking into account the probable Supplementary Estimates. At the present moment, there was a very small surplus left; but, in the first place, he believed that the Estimates had been taken at a very moderate and reasonable figure; and, in the second place, he was not proposing to sacrifice the surplus by the remission of taxation, but by appropriating a larger amount to the payment of Debt. It was not therefore a case in which there was so much imprudence in running rather close to the wind as it would be if he were proposing to give away £200,000 or £300,000 in remission of taxation. His right hon. Friend had called attention to the Post Office, and spoke as if he thought they were making an imprudent Estimate; but he did not seem quite to understand the figures. In 1872–3 the net receipts for the year were £5,212,000, and the Exchequer receipts for the following year were £5,792,000; more than £500,000 over the net receipts of the year before. In 1873–4 the net receipts were £5,481,000, and the Exchequer receipts of the following year were £5,670,000, or nearly £200,000 in excess of the former year, Last year the net receipts, so far as they had at present been made up, were estimated
1062
to produce £5,750,000, so that, according to the law which prevailed, he might take the Exchequer payments next year at a much higher sum; but instead of doing that he had made no advance whatever upon the Post Office receipts. There would be some small sum required for Supplementary Estimates, as, for example, in the Irish Estimates. The Committee must not take the Supplementary Estimates of last year as a guide for the present year. The present Government did not hold themselves responsible for the Supplementary Estimates of last year, since they did not prepare the original Estimates. Immediately after the Budget, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) found he must have a Supplementary Estimate for the Navy. The Government accordingly were called upon to provide £240,000 for the Navy, and another sum of £150,000 for the Telegraph Service. Last year was altogether an exceptional year. This year the present Government were responsible for the Estimates, and he hoped that the Supplementary Estimates would not be on the same scale as those which were necessary last year. He had been told that he was rather strange in the field of prospective finance, and that he was binding future Parliaments. His proposal, on the contrary, was one which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to set aside. It was remarkable that while the right hon. Gentleman disapproved his proposal, he approved the creation of Terminable Annuities. If, however, his proposal bound future Chancellors of the Exchequer, they would be still more bound by the creation of Terminable Annuities. There had been one omission in his Statement which, in justice to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board, he wished to supply. There would be in this year's Estimates a sum voted towards the expenses of the Registration Bill. The Government promised last year to pay a portion of these expenses, and they had determined to pay a fourth.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, until the first day of August, one

1063
thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

s. d.

Tea.

the lb.

0 6

Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That in lieu of the Duties payable on Licences to Brewers of Beer for Sale (other than Brewers of Spruce or Black Beer) there shall be charged, collected, and paid on such Licences to be taken out on and after the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, the following Duties (that is to say):

£

s.

d.

For and upon every Licence to be taken out yearly by any Brewer of Beer for Sale,—

If the quantity of Beer brewed within the year ending the thirtieth day of September next preceding shall not exceed fifty barrels, the Duty of

0

12

6

If the same shall exceed fifty barrels, then for every fifty barrels and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of fifty barrels, the Duty of

0

12

6

And for and upon every Licence to be taken out by any person who shall first become a Brewer of Beer for Sale the Duty of

0

12

6

And there shall also be charged upon and paid by the last mentioned person in respect of his Licence, such further sum as with the said Duty of Twelve Shillings and Sixpence shall amount to the Duty which would be chargeable on a Licence for a quantity of Beer equal to the quantity brewed by him during the existence of his Licence, and such further sum shall be paid within ten days next after the expiration of the Licence."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(2.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year, commencing on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):
For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A) (C) (D) or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Two Pence;
And for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act:—
In England, the Duty of One Penny;
In Scotland and Ireland respectively,
the Duty of Three Farthings;
Subject to the provisions contained in section twelve of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1872," for the exemption of Persons whose whole Income from every source is under One Hundred Pounds a-year, and relief of those whose Income is under Three Hundred Pounds a-year.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.
MR. CHILDERSsuggested that the Resolution should be postponed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not then press it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERannounced that it would not be convenient to take the Friendly Societies Bill next week.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the provisions of "The Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872," with respect to the annual Returns from Mines, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SEEWIN-IBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]

  FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Law with reference to the Falsification of Accounts, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Mr. FRESHFIELD, Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, and Mr. LOPES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 121.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Heading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation* (53); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2) * (54–55), and referred to the Examiners; County Courts* (57).
Second Reading—Agricultural Holdings (England) (39).

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 39.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—(No. 39.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, that as in the opinion of his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill (the Duke of Richmond), there were reasons which rendered it expedient that there should be legislation of some kind on this subject, he should not say anything further on that point than that he concurred with his noble Friend. But in respect of the Bill itself, this very important question arose—namely, whether it was of such a nature as to satisfy all the reasonable requirements of the tenants, while it maintained freedom of contract; whether it should secure compensation for improvements where both landlord and tenant were willing to come within its provisions; or whether it should be compulsory, and compel both landlord and tenant to come under its operation, excluding freedom of contract altogether. Now, if the compulsory principle ought to be adopted, this Bill was worthless; but, on the contrary, if freedom of contract was to exist, then it appeared to him that there was no deficiency in the Bill which might not be amended in Committee. There were a considerable number of gentlemen who were entitled to speak with great authority on agricultural subjects, who condemned the Bill because it was not compulsory. One of those gentlemen said that because the Bill did not set aside freedom of contract and was not compulsory, it was not worth the paper on which it was printed. That gentleman, and those who acted with him, professed to repre-
  920
  sent the tenant-farmers of the country. Well, he much doubted that they did speak the opinion of the great majority of the tenant-farmers in respect of this Bill. Let their Lordships take the case of Scotland. Before Easter a deputation from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture waited on his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond), and placed in his hands two resolutions which, he believed, had been unanimously agreed to at a meeting of that body. Those resolutions were—
  "1. That if the hindrances which obstruct agriculture were effectually removed and producers were thus made safe to apply their means freely in developing the capabilities of the soil, there would be a largo and rapid increase to the production of food and to the resources of the country.
  "2. That if all laws of privilege and unequal presumption adverse to the producer of food were effectually taken away, there would be no need to interfere with freedom of contract."
  Of course, it was very difficult to ascertain what was the opinion of the majority of the tenant-farmers; but he would remind their Lordships of a rather remarkable election in the county of Cambridge last winter. A gentleman who was said to have been brought forward by the great landlords of the country withdrew, and an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rodwell), who beyond all doubt was the candidate of the tenant-farmers, was returned. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that, though he was in favour of compensation, he was utterly and entirely opposed to doing away with freedom of contract;—so that the tenant-farmers in that country were not in favour of doing away with free contract. It seemed to be generally admitted that the landowners of England were not disposed to deal unjustly with their tenants. A gentleman who was one of the strongest advocates of a compulsory measure—Mr. James Howard, of Bedford—spoke the other day in terms so eulogistic of the landowners that as he was one of that body he was almost afraid to quote them. Mr. Howard told his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) recently that he had no indictment to bring against the landowners, and he stated on the other occasion to which he had just referred that they had done their duty nobly. But one of the arguments put forward by the advocates of compulsion was, that the presumption

  921
  was now against the tenant, and that limited owners had not power to charge the land with compensation paid for improvements. The Bill before their Lordships met that argument. It altered the presumption of law in favour of the tenant who had made improvements, and it enabled the limited owner to charge the estate with the compensation paid for those improvements. Mr. Howard was reported to have made these observations in his speech at Hexham—
  "He spoke rather feelingly upon this question, because some years ago he took two farms belonging to two friends of his, who were limited owners and had not the power to enter into an agreement to pay compensation. He (Mr. Howard) however drained the land 4 feet deep and 30 feet wide, and since that time one of his friends had died and the estate of the other had changed hands; so that in a year or two he had to give up the farms and he had no claims upon the owners."
  But the Bill now before them would have completely met this grievance of Mr. Howard's, inasmuch as it gave power to owners of settled estates to charge their properties in respect of compensation to tenants for improvements made by them. It was said that this Bill would be of no use because landowners would contract themselves out of its provisions. Without claiming for landowners the possession of sense superior to that of other men, he thought it fair to assume that in the conduct of their business they would be guided by their own interests; and every landowner knew that, in the long run, it was for his benefit that the tenant should have security for improvements. Such security gave the landlord a better tenant and better rent, and rent more punctually paid. The probability, therefore, appeared to him to be that instead of setting themselves to make the Bill of no effect, the great bulk of the landlords would—he did not say adopt this Bill, but set themselves to act in accordance with the spirit of those provisions in their dealings with their tenants. In saying this, he was not speaking on mere conjecture. He believed the landlords and tenants of Norfolk had lately met and agreed on a scale of compensation, which scale had been adopted in that county. A similar step had been taken in other parts of England; and if a considerable number of landlords became parties to such
  922
  agreements their conduct would bring a pressure to bear upon others—for the latter would see that those who had adopted the principle of compensation got better rents. It was one thing to be in advance of a law of this kind; it was quite another thing to be behind it. He thought that those who advocated the setting aside of private contract were bound not only to show that their object would be effected in that way, but also to show that it could not be effected in any other way. He would not venture to indulge in prophecy; but it seemed to him more reasonable to suppose that landowners having a regard to their own interest would endeavour to frame agreements in accordance with the spirit of the Act, than to assume, as the advocates of compulsion did, that they would set themselves to make its provisions of no effect. Those who advocated the setting aside of private contract as between landlord and tenant had been at great pains to show what no one denied—that there were other cases in which private contract had been set aside by the Legislature. Mr. Howard referred to railways; but it must be borne in mind that railway companies came to Parliament to ask for certain powers, and Parliament said that if those powers were granted it would be on certain conditions. There Parliament imposed conditions no doubt; but the action of the railway company was voluntary from beginning to end. No one asked it to come to Parliament, and no one asked it to take the Bill if it did not wish to do so with conditions annexed. He was willing to admit that if a case were made out for Parliamentary interference with free contracts as between landlord and tenant, that interference would be justified; but he denied that such a case had been made out. Again, they were told that in this case other interests besides those of landlords and tenants ought to be consulted, because the public had an interest in the matter. He was glad to accept that issue. It would not be hard to show that compulsory legislation in reference to the relations between landlord and tenant would be injurious not only to both those classes, but to the public at large, for not only would it work injustice between the parties themselves, but it would be likely to affect the public in a way the promoters did not appear to have foreseen, and against which they

  923
  had failed to guard. The Lincolnshire custom was very much held up to commendation. No doubt it worked well in Lincolnshire; and his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond), when introducing this Bill, said that if he could have seen his way to doing so he would have been glad to have adopted it for the whole country. But his noble Friend could not see his way to doing that, and he believed that those best acquainted with the subject concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that no attempt of the kind would prove successful. The Lincolnshire custom had grown up under a system of free contract. In an interesting collection of letters written by Mr. Caird, it was shown that in Lincolnshire itself modifications had been made in the custom as it existed formerly—and that in some cases the landowners had found it necessary to limit and define it. In the case of Lincolnshire it should also be borne in mind that they had a body of arbitrators who had been trained to undertake the duties of arbitration, and a scale of compensation which was the result of long experience. They had no such body in a great part of England and Scotland; and if the Bill were made compulsory, questions of great importance would be left to the decision of arbitrators who had had no previous training. It was difficult to guard against fraud. Suppose, for instance, a tenant held two different farms lying close beside one another, and that he wanted to hold one and give up the other. He might consume feeding stuff on the one he intended to keep and charge compensation for it as against the farm he was about to surrender. He should not wish to have to act as arbitrator in such a case as that. A very curious light was thrown on this branch of the subject during the sittings of the Select Committee on Improvement of Land, presided over by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). Mr. Sanderson gave this evidence—
  "Therefore what you know is only by hearsay? (as to the failure of drainage executed by the landowner with money borrowed from the Land Improvement Company.)—Only by hearsay. There was a case in Lincolnshire I was employed upon some years ago, where an incoming tenant was to pay a certain amount for drainage done by his predecessor. I was agent for the owner of the estate. He appealed to me that he would not pay the charge. I examined
  924
  the drains; they were 16 inches from the surface and full of soil. They were never examined by the valuer who assessed the difference between the incoming and outgoing tenant."
  The other day he (the Earl of Airlie) heard of a Scotch farmer who, in reply to a person who said to him that a requirement for the production of receipts would be a check against fraudulent claims for compensation, said he knew men who would give him as many receipts as he liked for a glass of whiskey. In a letter written to The Times some time ago by Mr. Hope, who had had experience as a tenant farmer, that gentleman remarked that in the consideration of this matter the interests of the consumer ought to be regarded. That was very true. Was it for the interest of the consumer that the outgoing farmer should be over-compensated? Certainly not, because in 99 cases out of 100 the consumer paid what the incoming tenant had to hand to the outgoing one. If the incoming tenant paid too much he had the less capital to lay out on his farm. He was not speaking on this point merely from conjecture; it was well known that in the counties of Surrey and Sussex, where the customs were very onerous, the condition of agriculture was, or till a recent period had been, more backward than in any other part of England, and the reason was obvious—the incoming tenant was so burdened by the payment of exorbitant sums to the outgoing tenant, that he had but little capital left for the proper cultivation of his farm. Some gentlemen who spoke on this subject always assumed that the whole of the expenditure on a farm was made by the tenant, and that the landlord had no outlay at all. Landowners knew that not to be the fact; but he was very much afraid that if they were exposed to extravagant claims for compensation they would restrict their outlay as much as they could. Then it was to be remembered that every year men who had made money in commercial and other pursuits showed an anxiety to invest in land. He did not think that such men would continue to invest their money in land so freely as they had done hitherto if that freedom of contract, which was the life and soul of business, and to which they had been accustomed all their lives, were to be abolished by Act of Parliament. Two years ago the advocates of legislation for giving compensation did not go

  925
  so far as they did now. At that time they were content that the claim for compensation should not extend beyond improvements made with the consent of the landlord; but now they went much further, and wanted that the claim should be held good whether the landlord had consented or not. Mr. Howard was reported to have made use of these observations in his speech at Hexham—
  "With respect to Clause 9, which made the previous consent of the landlord indispensable with regard to permanent improvements, it was a very natural provision for the owners to wish to see inserted in the Bill; but he was strongly of opinion that it would act disadvantageously to their interests, inasmuch as it would check the outlay in permanent improvements, and the great object of legislation was to encourage outlay on the part of the tenant in making improvements. Looking to the facts of the case, that the enjoyment by a tenant of his improvements would lessen his claim for compensation, that at the end of 20 years his claim altogether ceased—looking also to the fact that should he quit before the expiry of his lease his landlord would have the satisfaction of a valuation, and that the outlay had been of a suitable character and had added to the letting value of his holding—surely the interests of the landlord were amply secured without this proviso of previous consent."
  He would mention to their Lordships a case within his, own experience. A few years ago he had occasion to let some land in the neighbourhood of Dundee. This land he knew would, before very long, be required for a reservoir in connection with a proposed supply of water to the town. He felt anxious to facilitate the object which the promoters of that scheme had in view, and, in order that he might be in a position to do so, he entered into an arrangement with the tenant to whom he was letting that he should be allowed to re-enter on the land at a short notice, and that compensation for improvements should not go beyond a certain amount. Subsequently the promoters of the water scheme did come for the land, and he was able to sell it to them at a price which certainly was satisfactory to himself, but which appeared to them to be reasonable. Now, if he had not provided against large claims for compensation, the town of Dundee might have had to pay 30, 40, or 50 per cent more than they actually did for the site of a reservoir; because the compensation would not have fallen upon him, but upon the town. But he ventured to think that a good supply of pure water for the town of Dundee was
  926
  of much more importance than that a bushel or so more grain per acre should have been grown for a few years on this land. They could import any quantity of grain, but they could not import supplies of water for their great towns. There was another consideration in connection with this matter. Complaints were being made of the overcrowding in great towns; and in the other House of Parliament the Government had introduced a Bill to, in some way, remedy that state of things. But increased space would be required now and in the future, and the burdening of land with indefinite and, it might be, exorbitant charges for compensation would stand in the way of the acquisition of sites for building. It appeared to him, therefore, that from whatever point of view they looked at it—whether from the point of justice as between landlord and tenant, or from that of justice as between the incoming tenant and the outgoing one, or from that of consideration for the interests of the public—freedom of contract ought to be upheld. For those reasons he believed his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) was right in not proposing a compulsory measure, and in inserting safeguards against extravagant claims under this Bill. Having said so much, he wished now to submit that in one or two respects the Bill appeared to be a little one-sided in favour of the landlord. Clause 14, having described the several things which, under the Bill, should be regarded as waste, concluded with these words—
  "But nothing in this Act shall prevent any act or thing not specified in the section from being deemed waste diminishing the letting value of the holding."
  That certainly appeared to be a little one-sided. Then, as to the terms at the expiration of which improvements were to be deemed exhausted, the term in the case of a house was 20 years as the Bill was now worded. Well, there was no denying that a house must be somewhat the worse after 20 years; but it might be worth something even after that period. Then, again, as to "liming," to which the term of seven years was applied. It was stated that in some places liming was good for 14 years. As to the provision in Clause 20, giving power to the Referees and the Umpires to administer an oath, and providing that any person giving false evidence

  927
  should be deemed guilty of perjury, that seemed to be a strong measure, seeing that the appeal from the Umpire was to the County Court and not to a criminal tribunal. It might, however, be right. As to the appeal, it would be from the nominee of the County Court Judge to the County Court Judge himself. He had not made those criticisms in any spirit of hostility to the Bill, but because he thought the points to which they were directed ought to be looked to by the noble Duke and their Lordships' House. With regard to the Bill as a whole, he did not think it would produce any violent or sudden change. Indeed, he did not think that even a compulsory Bill would give those who advocated it all that they expected from a measure of the kind. Some of them seemed to think, for instance, that it was a great evil that we had to exchange our manufactures for food. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) lamented that the other day at the Farmers' Club; but with great respect for his hon. and learned Friend and those other gentlemen, he had thought that one of the benefits of the repeal of the Corn Laws was to enable us to make such an exchange. He believed that the Bill would give a considerable stimulus to good farming; that the progress made under it would be steady and continuous; and that there would be no risk of that re-action which might be the consequence of a more stringent measure. For the reasons he had stated, he thought his noble Friend had exercised a wise discretion in not making the measure compulsory.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he could not say he regarded this measure with the same pleasure that had been manifested by the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Airlie). As, however, the attempt at legislation which he made last Session was pronounced by the noble Earl to be ill-timed, and by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) to be crude, he could not but regard this Bill as a recognition that his attempt was neither so ill-timed nor so crude as it had been pronounced to be. There were only two provisions of the Bill to which he thought it necessary to draw attention, to both of which his noble Friend had already referred. The first of these was the right to appeal to the
  928
  County Court from the reference to arbitration. Was not this unusual and somewhat absurd? In the Irish Land Bill arbitration and resort to a Court were given, but only as alternatives. The parties could not have both arbitration and appeal. After two men had agreed to settle their differences by the assistance of two arbitrators mutually chosen, and an umpire appointed by the arbitrators, who ever heard of an appeal? The second point, to which reference had been made by the noble Earl was this—the great difference in the Bill between the definition of deterioration and that of improvement of land. Surely Clause 6, defining "Improvements," should have a corresponding clause to the Proviso in Clause 14 equally applicable to the landlords. In Clause 14, after an enumeration of acts of waste, it seemed rather one-sided to provide that—
  "Nothing in this section shall prevent any act or thing not specified in this section from being deemed waste diminishing the letting value of the holding."
  The real question, however, was as to the principle of the Bill, and if it was made optional to the landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill, as was provided in Clauses 37 and 38, the statute would become a mere dead letter. From the speech made by the noble Duke when introducing the Bill, he was led to believe that the object of the Bill was to introduce a custom where a custom did not exist; but the adoption of the Bill was optional and the security illusory. He believed that with one single exception all the Chambers of Agriculture, some 30 or 40 in number, which had met during the Recess, had carried resolutions against the Bill, and there had been published a number of letters from farmers saying that the Bill was unsuitable. On the occasion of the first reading, the noble Duke, when asked why he did not give a right of appeal in the case of claims by owners of small farms, said that the man with 20 acres would never lay out a shilling that would entitle him to compensation. But did not the owners of orchards, who in many cases were the holders of only small farms, lay out money in improvements? The noble Duke, when introducing the Bill, said it would "satisfy all reasonable and moderate men." He did not concur with the noble Duke; but he believed it would satisfy reasonable

  929
  landlords, who already gave their tenants as much as the Bill would afford them, and that it would also satisfy immoderate and unreasonable men who would snap their fingers at it.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that if their Lordships failed to be guided to a wise decision in relation to the subject with which the Bill dealt it would not be from want of criticism on it. He had carefully considered the remarks that had been passed upon the measure by the various Chambers of Agriculture; and while he admitted that there were some parts of the Bill that required amendment, it struck him that the objections referred principally to matters which were subjects for consideration in Committee rather than on the Motion for the second reading. The extreme objection to the Bill appeared to be that it preserved the principle of freedom of contract—but that to him was the chief merit of the measure. It might, perhaps, be said that if it only maintained the principle of freedom of contract, the Bill was not wanted at all, because, as the law now stood, the landlord and tenant could make any agreement that they thought mutually beneficial. But he did not think that was quite correct. He thought it would be very advantageous that some rules should be laid down by Parliament for the guidance of landlord and tenant, and to which both parties might appeal as suggesting a fair basis for mutual agreement. But freedom of contract was the essence of the Bill, as it was of most dealings in this country. The framers of the Irish Land Bill had tried in every way to prevent freedom of contract from being introduced in that measure; but whenever an attempt was made to prevent by legislation freedom of contract, cunning was sure to step in and defeat that legislation. He was sure he should speak the opinion of all who had watched the working of the Irish Land Act when he said that in the case of that measure the attempt had been evaded, and means had been found to set its provisions at defiance. But their Lordships would recollect that in the case of the Irish Act Parliament had insisted that, while freedom of contract was destroyed in the case of small holdings, it must be preserved in the case of large ones. Now, what was regarded as a large holding in Ireland was looked upon as a small one
  930
  in this country; so that in upholding freedom of contract in the case of English farms the noble Duke was only following the precedent laid down by Parliament in the case of the Irish Act. Farmers were, as a rule, perfectly well able to manage their own affairs and to make their own agreements—very frequently, indeed, they knew more about these matters than their landlords did. As a class, the landlords of England were a body of men who would not take an unfair advantage of a tenant. He did not wish, however, to praise them for this, because he believed such a course of action was dictated by the most powerful motive—namely, the motive of self-interest. It was their interest not to drive hard and unfair bargains with their tenants, because in the long run such a policy would not answer. He was persuaded that if their Lordships attempted to interfere to prevent landlord and tenant, being free and competent contracting parties, or if their Lordships attempted to lay down a hard-and-fast line by legislation from which no departure was permissible, we should again set to work the ingenuity of lawyers who would try to evade the Act. Therefore, whatever provisions their Lordships might see fit to introduce in Committee he earnestly hoped they would not go the length of making any change in those clauses which preserved freedom in contract. There were not the same reasons in the case of England which existed in the case of Ireland. There was not in the sister country any very large outlet for commercial enterprize, and consequently those persons who were precluded from obtaining agricultural holdings on fair terms had not the opportunity of carrying their capital elsewhere. But no one ever maintained that those conditions existed in this country, where there was an ample field for the employment of any amount of capital and enterprize. Sometimes he remarked with astonishment the number of energetic men who were still content to carry on the business of agriculture with the moderate returns it generally gave for the capital invested as compared with capital invested in strictly commercial undertakings. Their Lordships must be aware from personal experience of the extreme difficulty of obtaining a skilful tenant who was willing to devote himself wholly to agriculture and not to be

  931
  diverted into some of the minor branches of commercial enterprize—such as auctioneering, valuing, and other occupations which would take him more or less from his proper work of agriculture. When a landlord succeeded in getting a good and improving tenant on his property, he was very loth to part with him. This being the case, he submitted that no cause had been shown why the freedom of contract should be interfered with, and why these provisions should be left out of the Bill. On the contrary, every reason of prudence and of policy would dictate their retention. He was convinced that if in an evil moment Parliament was induced to sanction their omission, the measure would be fraught with serious injury to the interests of the very class of the community whose welfare it was ostensibly intended to promote.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, this was in no sense a Party question, but it was one in which their Lordships, as landlords, were largely interested, and therefore it was most important to give it a fair consideration and to carry out, as far as they could, what he understood to be the principle of the Bill—namely, compensation to the tenant for his improvements and compensation to the landlord for waste. He put altogether aside a great deal of the talk there had been in the country about the position of the agricultural tenants. It was said, for instance, that the farmers were the great improvers and that the greater the power given to them the greater would be the improvement of the land. He maintained, on the other hand, that the land was improved by the owner, who looked to permanent improvements more than was done by the tenant, who looked to more immediate profit. He deprecated any change which would disturb the harmony at present existing between landlord and tenant. It was said that if the productive power were increased, the farmers would devote their whole energies to feeding the people cheaply. Well, when the farmers opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws, they had not the same anxious desire to see the people cheaply fed. Again, it was said that the agricultural labourer would profit by the Bill. But a farmer, whether he were an owner or an occupier, strove to invest his money profitably; and if, on the one hand, he looked to increased production, on the
  932
  other he looked to economical labour. The Agricultural Returns showed that between 1872 and 1874 no fewer than 600,000 acres of land were laid out for permanent pasture. This was partly owing, perhaps, to the demand for animal food, but far more to the fact that the labourers had exhibited restlessness, striking for higher wages, and leaving their work without notice, and that the tenants were arming themselves against the future by laying out their lands in permanent pasture, on which it would not be necessary to employ so many men. Passing to the principle of the Bill, he agreed that compensation to tenants for agricultural improvements was just—but not exactly in the direction in which this Bill went. He found fault with almost everyone of its provisions, from the first to the last. First, as to the date at which the Bill was to come into operation, he pointed out that it ought to come into operation either at Michaelmas or Lady Day. Then the landlord's written consent was required for all permanent improvements; and he did not deny that some supervision was required as to what might be done by the tenant under this term; but, on the other hand, no limit had been placed on the extent to which a limited owner might charge his property. Then as to the second class of improvements—those which the tenant might do without the landlord's consent, there was no restriction at all. A tenant might, for instance, fancy to grow hops, and for that purpose kilns must be erected. Now, the cost of a kiln would be about £1,000, and this must be incurred if the plantation of hops were allowed. As regarded Kent or Sussex the power to plant hops might be very useful; but he should be very sorry to see hops planted on his land, and should object very much to have to pay for them. He thought there ought to be a much more careful schedule with regard to artificial manures, and that in all cases of proposed artificial manuring of land the tenant should give notice to the landlord, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering whether such manuring would be useful to the land. It was of great importance that some Bill should be carried on this subject which would satisfy both landlord and tenants that the Legislature desired to deal fairly between them; and he thought

  933
  that when the Bill got into Committee they might be able to impart such a character to it.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYrejoiced that the noble Duke who had just sat down (the Duke of Somerset) approved the principle of this Bill—namely, that tenants should be compensated for unexhausted improvements; but he thought that the principal part of his remarks were more calculated for Committee than for the present occasion, when the question before their Lordships was the second reading of the Bill. The remarks of the noble Duke were well worthy of attention, and with regard to one or two of them he thought the noble Duke was not at all wrong. He hoped that the noble Duke would put down his suggestions in the form of Amendments, and that other noble Lords who objected to clauses of the Bill would also give Notice of Amendments before the House was asked to go into Committee on the Bill; and he could assure them that if they were put formally into shape, they would receive due consideration. The noble Duke was wrong in supposing that landlords would be bound under the Bill to bear the expense of any experiments conducted by their tenants except such as proved successful, and added value to the rental of the farm. The noble Duke, on the other hand, was light in saying that it would be sufficient to estimate the value of manures which had been sunk in the soil, and therefore the Bill provided that ample time should elapse after the manures had been used before any attempt was made to estimate the amount of value which their application had added to the farms. If a landlord and tenant chose to settle the amount between themselves they could do so; but in the event of their disagreeing it was provided that a settlement should be arrived at by the employment of arbitrators, an umpire, or, if necessary, the County Court. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent landlords and tenants following custom if they chose, for the Bill was voluntary. If it had been compulsory—as was desired by the noble Marquess who had spoken in the course of the debate (the Marquess of Huntly)—the contracting parties would not have been free to follow custom, but would have been bound within the strict letter of the Act. The Bill of the Government was intro-
  934
  duced with the purpose of laying down some just principles on which compensation might be based as between landlords and tenants, leaving it to the parties themselves to arrange their own contracts. If iron rules were to be laid down for regulating the relations between landlords and tenants, it would inevitably follow that all custom must come to an end, and that the labourers would speedily raise an outcry to be strictly protected by law instead of abiding by the customs regarding service and other things connected with their state which now existed. He hoped their Lordships would bring their experience as landlords to bear upon the Bill in Committee, in order that such modifications might be introduced as might mould it into a thoroughly satisfactory measure.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYthought it would be some satisfaction to the House to know that some of the details of the Bill were to be modified in Committee, and with that understanding he was prepared to support it. He agreed with the principle on which the Bill seemed to be based—that there should be a presumption in law in favour of the tenant where improvements had been executed during his tenancy; but it was also important that care should be taken to provide against the property of the landlords being deteriorated in value through careless or incompetent farming. One of the vital principles of the Bill was embodied in Clauses 5 and 7, which provided that the compensation to tenants should be based, not upon the cost of the improvements, but upon the additional letting value of the farms which the improvements might create. It might happen that an expenditure of, say, £1,000, on a farm would add £100 a-year to the letting value, but it would be hard upon a landlord to compel him to pay to his tenant as compensation the capitalized value of £100 per annum. Again, the letting value of land might be raised by the construction of railways, the erection of buildings in its neighbourhood, or many other causes entirely apart from the action of the tenant; and therefore the utmost care ought to be taken in accurately defining the principle on which the tenant's claim to compensation was to be based; for it would be very difficult for the valuers and arbitrators to distinguish how much

  935
  of the increased letting value was really due to the improvement. Again, with regard to the classification of improvements, he thought the Bill was very imperfect. For instance, it entirely omitted all reference to the laying down of permanent pastures—one of the most important improvements that could be effected on a farm. As far as the first class of improvements was concerned—he referred to permanent structural improvements—he thought it ought to have been omitted from the Bill on the ground that, as was generally admitted, such improvements ought to be made by the landlords themselves; and as the Bill required the tenant to execute them with consent of the landlord it left things much as they were, except with regard to limited owners, and it appeared that it would be far better to deal with this part of the question in a separate Bill such as the noble Duke had promised to introduce. With regard to the improvements generally, it was provided that in the case of limited owners the cost was to form a charge on the estate. This principle was all very good, but there was no limit fixed to the amount which might be expended, nor any adequate provision that the improvements so charged should be such as actually to increase the value of the property. A provision of this kind was made in reference to loans made by the Lands Improvement Commissioners, and a similar one ought to be included in the present Bill. With regard to the question of compulsion, he thought it eminently desirable that freedom of contract should be preserved. The manner in which freedom of contract was preserved in the Bill he did not approve of. The provision that either of the contracting parties might, by giving notice to the other, exclude himself from the operation of the Bill, appeared to him to be absolutely unique in our Statute Book. He thought the Bill ought to be made generally applicable where there were no leases or written agreements, but that landlords and tenants should be allowed to come to what terms they pleased. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the country would accept the Bill in the spirit in which it had been framed—namely, that the tenant should have compensation for improvements which he had made, while the landlord should
  936
  have a remedy against the deterioration of his land. He thanked the noble Duke for the introduction of the Bill, and trusted that it would be so improved in Committee as to prove beneficial both to landlord and tenant.
  LORD HENNIKERwould not say the Bill was entirely satisfactory, for it required amendment; but, speaking generally, he believed it was an honest, straightforward attempt at legislation. No Bill could be so comprehensive as to include the requirements, or even necessities, of every locality, and, more than that, no Bill could deal satisfactorily in detail with the subject. If anything, this Bill went a little too much into detail. The soil and the mode of carrying on farming operations varied so much, even in the same county, that it must be impolitic to lay down any but a very broad rule. In his own county, almost every field on some farms required a different treatment: therefore, any measure which might be passed should lay down the broadest rules possible. One of the principal reasons for the cry for legislation, and for legislation of a compulsory character, was that tenant farmers very of tenrushed into the farming business without due consideration and without sufficient capital. It was said that persons in this position required protection; but he did not think legislative interference was likely to be a benefit to either landlord or tenant. In other branches of business no one thought it politic that the Legislature should protect people who could not protect themselves. It was worth consideration whether the state of the labour market, and the fact that farmers were at the present time rather unsettled, had not helped to make the cry for compulsion, and whether the desire for stringent legislation was really so great as it appeared to be. There were three classes of grievances—a real grievance, an imaginary grievance, and a grievance which was hardly a grievance at all—one which was an exceptional grievance, or which affected only a small number. This question seemed to belong to the latter category. By the most energetic advocates of a compulsory measure it was acknowledged that legislation was only required for exceptional cases. The fact was that landowners, as a rule, gave more liberal agreements than any of the Bills that had been proposed; and where no agreement existed, there would

  937
  be, nine times out of ten, such a liberal custom of the locality, or of the particular estate concerned, that the tenant had ample security. It was said it would take 20 or 30 years to bring a measure of this kind into operation, whereas five years would bring a compulsory measure into full force. But it was far better to act gradually in a matter of this kind—especially when it was acknowledged that out of 10 cases it was generally only in one that there was any hardship or injustice. Surely there was no ground for disturbing all existing arrangements and setting landlords and tenants by the ears. It was said the landlord had too much power in fixing the rent; but there were two safeguards—first, the tenant ought to know what rent he should give, and, secondly, no sensible landlord would ask more than would give the tenant full opportunity of farming advantageously. Bad tenants generally offered too high rents; most landlords were pretty well aware of this. In 1873 he had a farm to let, and one or two applicants offered, broadly speaking, to give "more than anyone else" for the farm. He knew what that meant; it meant either no capital and no qualifications for farming, or an intention to take as much out of the land as possible, without putting anything into it. It was said that tenant farmers were buying land all over the country. That was true to some extent; but, at the same time, he had known many well-to-do farmers sell their own farms, and farm them or others as tenants, reaping the benefit of 10, 12, or 15 per cent for their capital, instead of 3½ to 4 per cent. at the outside, while it was invested in land. There was something, too, in the fact that almost every Englishman wished to possess land. Every owner of purely agricultural land would be a richer man by investing his capital in almost any other security; but land was preferred on account of the pleasures, the occupation, and the opportunities of leading a useful life, which its possession afforded beyond all other kinds of property. He objected to compulsion as unnecessary, for it was as much to the interest of the landlord as the tenant to give liberal agreements, and he particularly objected to any approach to turning a landlord into a rent-charger. Tenants, too, would find such
  938
  a change to be to their disadvantage. He had been told by more than one Irish landlord that the present state of affairs there made a landlord afraid to spend money on his estate, and that the tendency was to obtain as much rent as possible, leaving the rest, as it were, to take care of itself. As to compulsion, he would say no more than that he believed it was not necessary, and that, if the whole tenantry of England were canvassed, a majority would be found to be opposed to it. Some persons thought, he might add, there was no necessity for legislation; but in that view he did not join, for he thought, as a general rule, it might be said in agricultural matters—Modus vincit legem. Customs were no longer applicable to many places where they existed, and it would be a boon that a good sound rule or custom should be laid down, having all the force of legislative enactment, and a good measure, laid upon broad lines, would be pretty generally followed. Landowners would see that it was wise to alter the custom of the country when it could be ameliorated. His own agreements were nearly according to custom; but he saw where he could alter those agreements beneficially in many respects. He was also of opinion that the customs of his own county might be amended. It was everything to a tenant to have a fair valuation, and if a too high valuation were given by any Bill it would be injurious. In Lincolnshire, taking a calculation upon which he could depend, already quoted in public, he found that 10 farms under the Lincolnshire custom, with an average rent of £1 10 s. 4d. an acre, were allowed for compensation, for average of cake allowed 5s. 10 d. an acre, for artificial manures 5s. 5d. an acre, and for seed, labour, improvements, and fixtures £1 8s. 1d. an acre, making in all £1 19 s. 4d. an acre. Now, in his own county, land might be said to let for 25 s. to 30 s. an acre on the average, taking heavy land and light land, and yet the valuations were said to come to from 50 s. to £3 an acre, and even in some cases to £4 an acre. Surely there must be something which required revision; the much-praised custom of Lincolnshire, with £1 19 s. 4d. an acre, and his own county, with a much higher valuation. He would—for he would not attempt to go into details, take one instance—the

  939
  payment for tillages. These must be taken by valuers more or less on trust; excessive sums were often paid when it was of no benefit to the incoming tenant, and a far better plan was to pay for results, as in Norfolk, for roots. He believed a Michaelmas entry to be the best, for the farming year began, as it were, then; but, if carefully looked into, there was hardly a single custom of any agricultural locality which did not require revision. The Lincolnshire valuers had lately revised their custom; why should not valuers in other counties do the same? He wished for a moment to turn to one or two of the provisions of the Bill. One of the most valuable and important was the year's notice. He was not sure that this or the extended proposal of two years made by the Prime Minister would not have satisfied very many requirements, with a payment for permanent improvements, under proper restrictions. A simple measure—the simpler the better—was what was wanted, leaving small details to be settled as much as possible by those chiefly interested in different localities. Nearly, if not all other improvements were paid for by the incoming tenant, and a satisfactory arrangement could be easily arrived at. However, the Bill must be taken as it stood. Draining, he thought, should be allowed for over 12 or 15 years, instead of 20; but no draining by wood or straw. The difficulty was, how draining was to be valued—whether it were really properly clone. There was a great deal of difference in the mode of draining, and if it were not done properly it was worth but little as a permanent improvement; while if it were well done 20 or 25 years, or more, would not exhaust its value. Ten years was the Lincolnshire system. Clause 33, he might add, would do more than any other, perhaps, to bring the Bill into practical operation, for it would give a fair power of charging a settled estate if the Bill were properly revised, so that the present powers of borrowing were not brought into collision with it. However, details were for Committee, and he would not enter further into them. He did not speak as wishing to legislate for landlords alone, but as much in the interest of the tenant, the labourer, and for the increased production of the soil. While he admitted the Bill might, and probably would, lead
  940
  to increased production, it must be remembered that doubling the produce, or anything of that sort, with the increased cost of labour, was not possible; that much land was now brought into cultivation which did not pay the enterprizing people who brought it into cultivation; and that sometimes two or three sets of tenants might be ruined before any one was really benefited by it. The labourer must be considered, too. If too much were put upon the landlord by stringent rules, cottages, which were required in some places, must be paid for by an increased rent; they were required principally for the good of those who farmed the land, and the labourer would be the sufferer. What was required was some broad simple rule which would encourage tenants to farm in the best possible manner up to the day they left their farms; not complicated rules which would be constantly broken, from the fact that they were inapplicable to certain districts and certain systems of farming. It was said in his county that the best year for a farmer was the year of leaving the farm, the worst when he entered it. This was not to be got over in a moment, and certainly not by regulations which, if carried out compulsorily, would do away with all those farmers who were struggling against difficulties; for if they had to pay excessive valuations for artificial manures, and so on, no one but men of large capital would stand against it, and the occupation of land would become a monopoly. It was natural to skimp a farm when one was not likely to reap the benefit. That was a shortsighted policy now, and it would not be got over in a moment. It was because he believed this Bill would lead to the desired result, to the greatest possible freedom of action on the part of the farmers which could be allowed—and he should like to give all the freedom it was right and fair to give when it had been fully discussed by their Lordships and in the House of Commons—that a measure was necessary, and that it did all, if not more, than the law could usefully do at the present moment, he gave his cordial support to the second reading.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL*: It seems to be the general understanding of the House that this Bill is to receive a second reading at your Lordships' hands. According to Parliamentary usage, there-

  941
  fore, we are to be held as having assented to its principle. And to this I have no objection, provided it be a little more clearly understood what the principle is to which this assent is given. I confess I am not wholly satisfied with the explanations and definitions of principle which have been given, either tonight or on the former occasion when the Bill was first introduced by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond). Allow me then, my Lords, shortly to describe what I understand the Bill to be—what it says, and what it proposes to do. The Bill begins by laying down in the definition clause this sound principle—that the relation of landlord and tenant is simply a relation of contract; that however much, and however happily, in some respects, this relation may be modified and obscured by habit, and tradition, and hereditary feeling, yet at bottom, and in the eye of the law, the relation of owner and occupier is simply and purely one of mutual contract. But inasmuch as over a considerable part of England there seems to be hardly any distinct consciousness on either side that such is the nature of the relation—inasmuch as owner and occupier go on together, sometimes for generations, with no written contracts whatever, this Bill proposes that we—Parliament—shall suggest the substance of a contract which we consider to be equitable; which we will assume to be the contract between the parties where none other now exists; to which we shall give special advantages, in cheap and easy methods of enforcement; and on behalf of which we shall give special powers to limited owners. The Bill then goes on farther to say that when the two parties already have, or desire to have, a different contract of their own, we are not to interfere. Now, my Lords, on this description of the Bill, which I believe to be substantially accurate, and is stated without prejudice either one way or another, it is obvious that more than one important question of principle may be raised. In the first place, it may be asked whether any sufficient reason has been shown why Parliament should do for these particular contractors what it has not done, so far as I know, for any other contractors whatever; whether any necessity has been shown for our interference in the matter? I do not wish to debate this question now,
  942
  because English landowners seem disposed to admit, and I am not disposed absolutely to deny, that in cases where there is no written contract, and where the parties hardly seem to be aware that their relation is one of contract at all, there may be points in which it may be wise to change or modify the presumptions of the law. So far, and so far only then, do I feel myself committed on this matter by assenting to the second reading of the Bill. Then there is another question raised in this Bill, which may well be considered a question of principle. Supposing it to be expedient that Parliament should suggest the terms of a contract in the absence of any other, are we so sure that this contract which we suggest is so certainly the best—still more, are we so certain that it is the only good one—that we are justified in withholding from every other the advantage of the new machinery which the Bill professes to provide? And if this be considered a question of principle, then I must at once say that I do not assent to the principle of the Bill. It appears to me that the object aimed at—of establishing some definite and equitable bargain on the subject of agricultural improvements—may be, and will be, attained in many different forms of contract—many of them quite as good, some of them, perhaps, greatly better, than the one you have suggested, and I see no reason whatever for confining the advantages of your cheap machinery to the particular form of bargain you have embodied in this Bill. Again, the same question arises in a still more important matter when we find that this Bill contemplates the same restriction on the new powers it proposes to confer on limited owners. This is a matter, clearly, on which law can operate with effect; one which is, beyond all question, within the legitimate province of legislation. I am disposed to think that, in all our legislation hitherto, we have been too careful of the interests of the "Remainder-man," and too little careful of the interests of the existing holders of estates, and of their tenants. And if, as I believe, they will make, and ought to be free to make, other contracts quite as good as, or better, than that which you have drawn up, there is no sense or reason in so confining the powers which you are to give to limited owners that they shall

  943
  not enjoy the benefits of the Act unless they adopt your particular form of contract. Again, then, I say that if this be in any respect a principle of the Bill, I do not assent to it in agreeing to pass the second reading. Lastly, my Lords, we come to the declaration in the Bill, that although one particular contract is suggested and recommended, it is not to be enforced; but owners and occupiers are to be free to make what bargains their mutual interests may dictate, whenever these are deliberately entered into and recorded. Of course, on this point the question has been raised whether if you recommend you ought not also to enforce—whether you ought not to compel owners and occupiers, whose relation you have declared to be one of contract, to make this particular contract whether they approve of it or not? My Lords, on this question I must at once declare that I think the Government are right in stopping short when they have established a change in those presumptions of the law which hold good in the absence of special contracts, and that any attempt at compulsion in such matters would be wrong in principle, and must be futile in practice. And yet, even in this matter, I cannot approve unreservedly of the Bill as it now stands. On the contrary, it appears to me that if it had been the aim of the promoters of the Bill to put freedom of contract in the form most obnoxious to popular prejudice, and most injurious to all concerned, they could not have devised a better form for the purpose than that which they have chosen; because it is a form which compels every owner to put himself in the invidious position of appearing to desire to evade the intentions of the Legislature, when in reality he may wish nothing more than to fulfil those intentions—or may have already done so—only in another and in a better way. But I will not dwell on this, because I cannot but believe that my noble Friend opposite will listen in Committee to any well-founded arguments against the particular form in which he has sought to give effect to the principle of free contract; and I will now, therefore, with the permission of the House, state rather more fully than has been done hitherto in this debate the grounds upon which, as it appears to me, it would be both wrong and useless to attempt compulsion in the matter
  944
  of bargain or contract between the owner and occupier of land. Although this may not be the question raised seriously here, it is the question raised by many out-of-doors, and I think it well to discuss it carefully and respectfully to those whose opinions, or at least whose first impressions in favour of compulsion, are not much represented in this House.
  My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not suppose that I am going to do anything so foolish as to waste the time of this House in discussing the abstract right of the State to do this, that, or the other. Such a question is more fit for a debating society, or a young man's club, than for either House of Parliament. I know of no abstract limitation on the ultimate right of the supreme power of the State in respect to legislation. I hold that even the right of religious liberty—perhaps the most sacred of all—cannot be affirmed without certain limitations; and it is really the idlest of all questions what, under supposed conditions, Parliament has or has not the right to do. Only this I will venture to lay down as a principle, or a practical rule never to be forgotten—that as individual freedom is the foundation of all liberty, a heavy—the very heaviest—burden of proof lies on all those who propose any new restraints upon it. Nothing short of the very strongest arguments of necessity ought to obtain a hearing in favour of such proposals, and the highest presumption must always be held against them.
  I turn, therefore, my Lords, at once from the abstract question to those practical considerations which must really determine the action of Parliament in all such matters. I begin, then, by at once making two admissions to the advocates of compulsion. The first is, that the sort of contract which is suggested in this Bill in respect to improvements is equitable in its principle. I say the "sort of contract," because I do not admit it to be the only good or the only equitable form of contract, or even in all cases the best. I mean simply that when a tenant not under lease, but sitting without other security of tenure than a yearly holding, and paying a full rent, executes improvements which add to the letting value, and is deprived of that holding before he has had time to recover by increased

  945
  profits the cost of his outlay, that tenant ought to be compensated by the owner. I say I admit at once that this is only equitable. And the second admission I make is this—that the public have some interest in this equity being observed in the contracts between owners and occupiers of land. Now, my Lords, I know that there are many persons who will say, and who do say, that, these two admissions being made, the question is settled in favour of compulsory legislation. I never hear this conclusion urged—upon this ground alone—without wondering whether the method and the habits of political reasoning are not in as rude a condition as British agriculture is by some supposed to be. The public has an interest in equitable contracts being made in every trade and occupation whatever. The public has a deep interest in the equitable adjustment, for example, of such disputes as those now leading to disastrous results in South Wales. But it does not in the least follow that Parliament should interfere to enforce such adjustment. But, without going into the innumerable cases of the same kind which are connected with the relations between employer and employed, let me illustrate the question by reference to the public interest in the progress of agriculture. Those who have read the evidence taken before various Parliamentary Committees during the last 30 years know the quantity of that evidence which goes to prove that nothing so much hinders the progress of agriculture as the want of capital, and the want of knowledge among the occupying or cultivating class itself. The public has the deepest interest in these evils being remedied. But does it, therefore, follow that it would be wise or just to pass an Act of Parliament requiring, for example, that no farmer should hold land who cannot show that he has capital to the amount of, say £5 per acre? My noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley) says that this is far too little. Well, say £10 an acre. Are we compelled even to consider the expediency of such a law because we admit, as we may most fully do, that there would be a great increase of productive power if the poorer class of tenantry were replaced by a class of capitalists? And in like manner with regard to ignorance of even the rudiments of scientific agriculture, the public
  946
  has a direct and immediate interest in the occupying class having greater intelligence and knowledge. There is at hand a popular and ready machinery—much admired by many—that of competitive examination. I have no doubt whatever that immense public benefit would arise if every farmer were required to have at least a certain minimum of knowledge in the art of agriculture. But does it therefore follow that it would be either just or possible to enact by law that no man should be allowed to take an agricultural holding who could not secure a certain number of marks in an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners? I need say no more, surely, on this head—that the two admissions I have made, the one that this sort of contract is equitable, the other that there is a public interest involved in the prevalence of some such bargain, do not in the least compel us to the conclusion that we should resort to compulsory legislation. I submit that something much more specific in the way of argument is required if this conclusion is to be established. But then it is further urged that Parliament has already interfered with the freedom of contract in other cases, and it is only adding one more case to a long and increasing list of compulsory enactments. In answer to this I might stand, in the first place, upon the principle that the burden of proof lies absolutely on those who propose any and every new restriction of personal freedom. But if the appeal be made to experience, and to the analogy and course of legislation in recent times, and if it could be shown that it would really be according to that analogy to impose by law this particular bargain upon owners and occupiers of the soil, I should be disposed to admit that it would be primâ facie a ground for favourable consideration. But to this test I am not unwilling to appeal, and I think I can show to your Lordships that the teachings and experience, and the presumptions of analogy, are all against, and not in favour of the proposed compulsory legislation.
  My Lords, I suppose there never has been in the history of the world a people or a Parliament so little governed by theoretical and abstract considerations as the people and Parliament of this country. They hardly ever legislate on any abstract principle whatever. It may

  947
  be said with truth that they always legislate by rule of thumb—moving on in the paths of political progress as occasion and necessity may require. Is there some ancient liberty which has been found to lead to intolerable evil?—it is restrained. Is there, on the other hand, some restraint which has been found to be needless or injurious?—then freedom is restored. And so the Parliaments of this country have proceeded from time to time, never asking themselves any theoretical questions whatever as to what is and what is not the legitimate province of legislation. But although they have been singularly untheoretic, they have been endowed in the highest degree with the noble gifts of political instinct; and it will generally be found that some principle can be traced in what they do after it has been done—just as the unconscious growths of language are found to have arisen according to those mysterious laws which govern the development of human speech. Let us, then, look back to the course which legislation has now taken during the course of the last two or three generations, and let us see whether there is not some principle to be traced—and whether that principle is or is not in favour of this kind of interference with individual liberty which is now urged upon us. It is perfectly true that there has been a steady advance of compulsory legislation in one direction; but it is equally true that there has been as steady a retreat of such legislation in another direction. It is quite true that one great province has been more and more invaded; but it is equally true that another great province has been more and more vacated. It is perfectly true that a great number of restrictive laws have been enacted, but, concurrently with this legislation, another great series of restrictive statutes have been one by one repealed. And now, my Lords, I ask, can we trace no principle in this double movement? Can we, in looking back over its course, arrive at no general result in respect to the teachings of experience on the kinds of restraint which it has been found, wise or unwise, to lay on personal liberty? I venture to think that one great principle comes out as clear as day. We have found it wise to repeal all laws whose object it was to regulate the price of anything or to secure the remunera-
  948
  tion of any class. First we repealed all laws which attempted to regulate the price of labour, whether with a view to cheapen or to enhance it; then we repealed all laws to regulate the price of manufactures; then all laws to regulate the price of food, or the price of money, or the price of ships, or the remuneration of the various classes who are concerned with the great interests which these laws affected. Now, my Lords, let us observe that the one common element in all these laws was that they all aimed at securing by legislation some purely economic result; and the great principle which lies at the root of their condemnation and abandonment is simply this—that individual men are always in the long run the best judges of their own pecuniary or economic interests, and that the interests of the public and of the State are best served, on the whole, when men are allowed in all such matters to pursue freely their own natural instincts and desires.
  And now, my Lords, let us look for a moment, on the other hand, to the character of the restrictive laws which it has been found necessary to enact. We have placed restrictions on the hours of factory labour, because we found that a whole generation was growing up under conditions of the utmost moral and physical degeneration. We have put restrictions on labour in mines for the same reason. We have put other restraints on management of mines for the protection of human health and life. We have restrained individual freedom in the matter of education, to avoid, if it be possible, the dangers of ignorance. We have forbidden under the Truck Acts the payment of wages in kind, in order to prevent fraud and to secure that wages should be really equal in value to their nominal amount. At this very moment we are considering the necessity of further restrictions with a view to the saving of life at sea; and I, for one, honour the exertions of Mr. Plimsoll in a cause which is the cause of humanity and mercy. Now, my Lords, if we look back to this series of laws we shall see at once that one general character belongs to them all. They are all laws aiming at some moral, and not at any purely economic, result. And the great principle which underlies them all is this—that whilst economic benefits and results are not only sufficiently but are best provided

  949
  for and secured by leaving men perfectly free, the very intensity and eagerness of this pursuit of wealth often lead them to sacrifice all moral considerations—considerations of health and of life itself; and this to such au extent that it becomes sometimes an absolute necessity to protect these highest interests of all by restrictive laws. This, then, is the double result of our experience as a nation and as a Parliament—that restrictive legislation for the attainment of purely economic ends is not only needless but injurious; and that it is the very power and efficiency of the motives which work for these results which compel us frequently to interfere for moral ends. Need I ask, my Lords, to which great class would belong a law forcing a particular bargain upon the owners and occupiers of land? Are British farmers starving? or are their children growing up a puny and almost imbecile race? So far as I have had occasion to observe, the ample presence and the prosperous outlines which belong to the typical English farmer have, as yet, suffered no serious diminution. The results we are invited to secure are all of the purely economic kind; and I venture to affirm, that so far from the course and analogy of our legislative experience leading in the direction of restraint on individual freedom in this matter, its teachings and its lessons are all condemnatory—loudly condemnatory—of any such attempt. I am not now saying, for a moment, that there can be no possible legislation which is not open to this objection. Changes in the presumptions of law in the absence of contract belong to a wholly different category; and I am not now arguing against the expediency, or even the necessity, of some changes of this kind. I am now arguing exclusively on the question, whether it is wise, or expedient, or legitimate, according to our well-established principles of legislation, to attempt to secure to the occupiers of land certain pecuniary terms in their contract for the hire of farms? And this, I venture to say, belongs to a class of legislation which Parliament has more and more found it wise, and even necessary, to abandon. But here we encounter, my Lords, a special plea—a plea for peculiar and exceptional treatment. In some Papers which have been circulated to hon. Members of the House by Mr.
  950
  Howard, the well-known advocate of compulsory legislation in this matter, I find it stated broadly that no freedom of contract really exists in the case of farmers; and the speech of one gentleman is quoted and re-quoted, with much approbation, in which it is said that—"He would be a bold man who would say that there was equal contracting power between an owner and an occupier of land."
  Now, my Lords, I do not wish to come under the condemnation of being a very rash, or even a very bold man, and therefore I will not now make any general assertion on the subject. But perhaps it may be permitted to me to undertake the humbler task of testing, by a little examination in detail, what is the meaning attached to the word freedom in such passages as these—What is the kind of restraint on freedom which is complained of in the case of the farmer? I will, therefore, take two cases, to one or other of which every offer of a farmer for a holding must belong. I will take, first, the case of a farm which is vacant, and which is in the market. For every farm so circumstanced there are generally some four, or five, or six competitors, sometimes many more. Well, we will suppose that one of these farmers says to the owner—" I will give you 30 s. an acre for that farm, but on condition only that on the termination of the tenancy you agree to recognize my claim to such and such items of compensation." To this offer we will suppose that the former replies—"Your offer, I dare say, is a very fair one from your own point of view; but there are five other men, all of whom have offered me the same rent, without those compensations at the end of the tenancy which you demand. This shows that the article I offer is worth the rent you offer, without the conditions you attach; and if those conditions be attached—it is worth more. Will you advance on your offer as to rent? and then I shall be disposed to agree to your other conditions." The offerer replies, we will farther suppose, that he cannot advance on the rent of 30 s. an acre, and that even this rent he will only give on the conditions referred to. Under these circumstances, he does not get the farm, and it is let to another, not subject to the compensation clauses. Now, where is the want of freedom in this transact-

  951
  tion,as regards the disappointed offerer? Clearly his want of freedom consists in this—that some five or some dozen other men have the same freedom as he has, and they all consider it consistent with their interests to offer for the farm without the conditions on which he insists. And what is the demand now made on Parliament by the friends of this offerer? It is simply this—"We do not consider this man free so long as these dozen other men are allowed the same freedom. Deprive them of their liberty of contract, and then only will our friend's liberty be secured." Is this a reasonable demand? and, if so, what will farmers say to an agricultural labourer who asks wages far higher than other men are willing to work at? Is this labourer not free to contract unless dozens of other men are in like manner to be deprived of the same liberty? Or when a labouring man goes to buy meat, and only offers 8d. a-pound, what is it that deprives him of his liberty to secure the meat at that price, except this, that hundreds of other people are willing to give 10 d. or 1s.? Where is this argument to end which asserts that there is no freedom when the pressure of competition determines economic results?
  Then, my Lords, let us look at the other supposed case—that of a farm which is not vacant, but occupied by a tenant who desires to hold under new conditions as to compensation on removal. What prevents him going to his landlord and saying—"I want to hold under new conditions?" What but this—that such new conditions will probably involve a re-valuation? He may very probably have been holding at a rent not revised for many years—possibly even for some generations; and the owner may very fairly say—" I have every reason to believe that scores of men would give the same rent, and even a much higher rent, for this farm, without any new conditions. You already have, in the lowness of your rent, an ample compensation for any improvements you may effect. But if you wish new conditions I have no objection, provided there be a new valuation corresponding to advantages you seek." If the tenant declines these terms, and chooses rather to remain as he is, where, again, is the limitation of his freedom? Does it not consist entirely in this—that he knows he is sitting at a low rent, and
  952
  that numbers of other persons would be willing to give as much, or more, on the same conditions? His want of freedom, therefore, in this case also, resolves itself into this—that others are not deprived of their freedom in order to enable him to enforce his own conditions. It is the old story. It is competition that is really complained of; and the demand for compulsion is simply the old demand of legislative protection against those results which are the natural effects of freedom in this as in every other trade. But the public have no interest in restraints being placed on the competition for farms. On the contrary, this competition is one of the essential conditions of an improving agriculture. To restrict competition has been the endeavour of every class and every interest in turn. Each in succession has had its plea for special treatment and exceptional laws. Each class-interest has urged these pleas with the most perfect sincerity and simplicity of heart—"We are a class specially circumstanced. Our industry is exceptionally important to the country." And what, during recent years, has been the reply of Parliament to all such pleas? It has not been any denial of the importance of the classes concerned, or of the importance of their industries to the public interests. On the contrary, it has been substantially this—"We admit your importance. We admit the immense interest we have in the success of your industry. But argument and experience have at last taught us, that both you and your industries will flourish best in the atmosphere and under the stimulus of freedom." And, my Lords, if it be against all principle, and all the analogy of our legislation, to attempt compulsion to attain purely economic results in the trade of farming, it is not less evident that any such attempt must fail. If it is competition, and nothing else, which prevents this desired bargain from becoming general except on advanced terms of rent, the same pressure of competition will prevent any compulsory law from securing to the farmer any pecuniary benefits, wherever these do not rest on the sound basis of intelligent contract, and are not guaranteed by the sense of mutual interest. You cannot prevent competition from determining rent; and whatever artificial statutory conditions you may attach to holdings will be discounted in the form of advanced rents.

  953
  Any attempt at compulsion must result in a general re-valuation of farms; and although there is certainly no public interest involved in rents being so low as to dispense with skill, and knowledge, and exertion—although, on the contrary, low rents mean simply bad and lazy farming—I should regard it as a great misfortune that any change of this kind should take place generally, suddenly, and under the antagonisms which must arise out of a desire to escape from the inevitable injustice of compulsory laws upon such a subject.
  And here, my Lords, I cannot help asking, what ground of necessity has been laid for asking Parliament to pass a law so exceptional in principle, and sure to be so inconvenient in practice? Is it true that English farmers are, in any appreciable number of cases, suddenly deprived of their farms without compensation for any improvements they may have made? I do not see that even any allegation is made to this effect. No one feels more strongly than I do that tenancies at will, or yearly tenancies, without any written agreement on the subject of compensation in the event of removal, is the most unwise and unsatisfactory footing on which agricultural holdings can be placed. But it is a great mistake to suppose that under this system—bad and slovenly though it be—tenants do not generally enjoy a large, often a very large, pecuniary compensation in the shape of comparative lowness of rent. They may hardly be conscious of it; and, indeed, this is one of the greatest evils of the system. But where farms are rarely re-valued, and rents run on from year to year, and sometimes from generation to generation, those rents are almost always far below the market value. It is curious that the only specific case which is quoted by Mr. Howard as tending to show the necessity of legislation, confirms this fact in a remarkable degree. It is in the case of an estate which Mr. Howard tells us "belonged to a noble family, upon which the tenants had dwelt securely, but which came into the market and was bought by the Crown: even under the Crown the tenants were not safe; they had been paying the average rent of the neighbourhood, but had to submit to an enormous rise of rent, or to break up their homes and go." Now what does this case prove, except that
  954
  the tenants of this estate had been holding—how long I know not—at a rent "enormously" below the market rate; or in other words, that they had been enjoying in this form of a low preference rent an "enormous" compensation for whatever other disadvantages may have attached to their position? The allegation that the rents were equal to the average of the neighbourhood may be quite true, but this only proves that a very low rate of rent generally prevails wherever this system of tenure obtains, and farmers must remember that they cannot enjoy compensation in both ways—both in lowness of rent, and also in capital sums paid to them on termination of the tenancy. In this case the Crown, acting in the interests of the public, appears to have found that the tenants on this estate had been holding at rents "enormously" below those which other farmers were willing to give. And it must never be forgotten that this is the only test of value in farms, as in everything else. Rents, indeed, ought not to be regulated by the reckless acceptance of whatever sum anybody may promise to give; but they must—and in the public interests, they ought to be—ultimately regulated by what good and solvent men may be able and willing to pay; and this case quoted by Mr. Howard is an indication of what I believe to be the truth, that when there are no agreements for compensation, or no written contracts at all, farms in England are constantly and habitually let much below the market value; so that the tenants are, in fact, enjoying considerable annuities over and above the rate of profit on cultivation which would be sufficient to attract competent men. I have myself known of cases where, on the test of competition being applied, it was found that the tenants had been sitting at rents 50, 60, and even 70 per cent below the market value. These may be extreme cases; but the general prevalence of low rents in districts where there are no agreements is certain. And if this be true, and in exact proportion as it is true, the tenants are already in full enjoyment of compensation for any improvements they evermake—greater, probably far greater, than they could ever claim under any compulsory legislation.
  Again, my Lords, I guard myself against saying that I look on this as a

  955
  satisfactory system. Very far from it. But this brings me to another point of great importance. Legislation is urged upon us because it is alleged that "customs"—legal customs—protective of the tenant's interests, like those of Lincolnshire, are not extending. We are told that now it is some 30 years since Mr. Pusey's Committee sat, and that very little progress has been made in the spread of legal "customs." Even this does not appear to be strictly true. But if it were true it would be irrelevant. For the really important question is not whether these "customs" have extended, but whether reasonable private contracts have extended. "Customs" at the very best are nothing but bad and cumbrous substitutes for special contracts. They are always tending to abuse, always liable to become more and more onerous to incoming tenants, until in some counties they have become a serious obstruction to agriculture. The evidence on this head is conclusive. Nothing can be more mischievous than that farmers should be set to think, not how they can profit by good and careful husbandry, but how they can profit by making up a heavy book against those who are to succeed them. And even the best customs, such as that of Lincolnshire, are necessarily changing from time to time, as experience teaches, and as it requires modification of the rules. Moreover, it is the greatest mistake to suppose that even in Lincolnshire the custom has been the cause of the improvement of the county. On the contrary, it was the improvement of the county that gave rise to the custom. It arose simply from the example of a wise and successful private contract, which gave rise to others, and so gradually spread over that and some adjoining districts. But private contracts written and recorded are in all cases better than such customs, which are nothing but contracts erected on the vague basis of presumption. Other counties have improved quite as much without any such custom. Therefore I contend, that the non-extension of legal customs is of no consequence whatever, if it be true that private contracts have been, and are now, extending rapidly. Yet, strange to say, in the First Report of the Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, I find that they have confined their inquiry to the extension of "customs," excluding
  956
  altogether the far more important question of the extension of special contracts having the same end in view. Now, my Lords, I will venture to say that, without inquiry into this, the other inquiry is of very little value. "Customs" may not be extending, for the very reason that special contracts of a much better kind are being everywhere adopted. I have been lately making some inquiry into this point, and the result is, that from personal knowledge I can affirm that special contracts in respect to compensation for improvements are being adopted rapidly over numerous English counties. I have lately seen several of these contracts—and some of them have been drawn up within the last two or three years as nearly as possible in the very terms recommended by local Chambers of Agriculture. I do not say they are all perfect; but I do say, that the very worst of them are better than any general Parliamentary contract you can possibly impose. They will, and they ought to, vary with local circumstances—with the growing intelligence on the subject, both of owners and of occupiers of the soil. There is no root of bitterness in the relations between landlord and tenant in England—nothing to prevent those changes from taking place by mutual agreement in the forms of contract and of tenure which I heartily believe are often much required in the interests of both. But the worst lesson you could teach to the occupying class, is to lead them to believe that Parliament either can, or ought to, make their bargains for them.
  For these reasons, my Lords, and for others with which I shall not now trouble the House, I hold that whatever legislative changes are made should be confined to changes simply in the presumption of the law, and that no attempt should be made to interfere with that complete freedom of contract which is the very breath of life in this, not less than in all other, industrial pursuits.
  LORD WAVENEYsupported the Bill, maintaining that a tenant was fairly entitled to compensation for any outlay he might have expended on his holding.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that what the farmers or their friends demanded was not in itself unjust or immoderate, but he believed that in reality they possessed it already. He was not disposed to object to the general tone of

  957
  the measure introduced by his noble Friend; but he was disposed to think that Her Majesty's Government had not sufficiently considered the difficulties which were innate in the subject. It seemed almost as if the Government had patched up a Bill anyhow from the several measures which had of late years been laid before Parliament and simply flung it upon the Table of the House; but he thought it would be found an extremely difficult measure to work. The Bill, which professed merely to deal with the relations between landlords and tenants, would, in fact, materially alter, if it would not absolutely destroy, the present law with respect to settled estates in this country. The 4th clause defined the word "landlord," as used in the Bill, as meaning "the person entitled to possession of land subject to a contract of tenancy, or entitled to receipt of rent reserved by a contract of tenancy whatever be the extent of his interest." This would include all persons sub-letting to under-tenants land which they held on lease, and would empower such persons to make charges upon such sub-let holdings in respect of compensation due, which charges could be made to extend over—say 20 years, notwithstanding the fact that the leases under which they held from the original owner had not more than a tenth part of that time to run. The noble Marquess proceeded to comment on some provisions of the Bill; and was understood to object to the clause providing that the landlord on paying to the tenant the amount of compensation found due to him under the Act might obtain a change on the holding in respect thereof; that in the case of limited owners it opened a door to collusion between the owner and tenant. With regard to the clauses relating to procedure in respect of claims for compensation—the Bill provided that where the parties did not agree upon the amount of compensation, the difference should be settled by a reference to a single referee or to two referees with an arbitrator, with a final appeal in cases over £50 to the Judge of the County Court, he thought an appeal to the Inclosure Commissioners or perhaps to a Superior Court, would be preferable. Although he thought these arbitration clauses might give rise to difficulties they did not extend beyond what might
  958
  be amended in Committee; and as he approved of the general principles of the Bill he should give it his support.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, one point which has been brought out by the debate is that all the speakers with the exception of a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) have been in favour of freedom of contract: another is, that while the Government have been greatly complimented for having introduced the Bill, the clauses of it have been generally condemned. For myself, I am willing to give the Government credit for the best possible intentions in the matter; but I own I do not think they have acted wisely in bringing the present Bill before your Lordships at all. My Lords, the Government have been credited by the country with being a Government specially called upon to introduce, and with being in a most favourable position for passing, important questions of social reform—and they seem to have had that opinion of themselves, to judge from the very large group of Bills which they have either presented or promised. Their Bills appear to us to be all somewhat of one character. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever observed in the streets little boys carrying bunches of small balloons brightly and variously coloured, and looking light and graceful. I believe these balloons can be had for a penny a-piece, and that you can buy a whole bundle on very much reduced terms. They are very fine to look at, and their lightness makes them float easily; but when you come to examine them closely, you will find they have absolutely nothing in them. That, I believe, is the character of most of the measures which the Government have introduced. They deal with interesting subjects; they have very attractive titles; and when you examine them, either they have nothing at all in them, or they contain clauses by which no one need be bound. This description I think applies to the present Bill. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) grounded its introduction on two principles—first, that it would increase the producing power of the country of food for the people; and second, that it would meet the grievances of tenant-farmers, and place them in the position to obtain any compensation to which they might in equity be entitled. Upon the first point

  959
  I confess I am not competent to give an opinion whether the noble Earl's (the Earl of Derby's) dictum that the produce might be doubled is accurate or not, but I do not see how the present Bill can materially affect that increase. With regard to the second, I may say I have communicated with a good many landlords, both strong Liberals and strong Conservatives—all of them, I believe, wealthy, and all liberal in their dealings with their tenants—and with the result that this principle would seem to fail, for not one of them has told me that he intended to leave himself under the operation of the Bill. I will go so far as to say I have a very strong suspicion that the great majority of the landowners in your Lordships' House will follow the same course. Now, if this course be adopted by the wealthiest and most enlightened landlords of this country, how can you expect that the pauper landlords—the greedy landlords—those whose conduct furnishes the only ground for legislation of this sort—will leave themselves under the operation of this Bill? Without compulsion it is impossible for the Bill to have any effect. I cannot make out that in any case it would cause a large increase in the production of food; and, as regards the grievances it is intended to remedy, I have a very shrewd belief that the great majority of tenant-farmers do not care about it at all. I believe that, although some of them are discontented with the present state of things, they think it better for themselves, on the whole, not to screw up their relations with their landlords too tightly. Those who are contented with their landlords will not trouble themselves about the Bill; while those who have grievances, those who would make demands for compensation, would regard it as the merest mockery that ever was offered them. In giving a "presumption of law" as between landlord and tenant, the Bill may be useful; but that is the sole argument which can be urged in its favour, and I doubt very much whether this will prove of any value in the circumstances which I have described. The Bill, therefore, will fail in its two main principles. I believe, then, that the Government have acted unwisely in stirring up this question at all at the present time, and then in introducing a Bill which will prove inoperative. In my observations I have carefully ab-
  960
  stained from going into matters of detail, because there is a unanimous agreement that the Bill should pass the second reading, and an opportunity will be afforded for fully discussing the various clauses in Committee.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I confess I felt some commisseration for my noble Friend (Earl Granville) when he approached that portion of the Bill which deals with the very important subject of freedom of contract; because he must have felt—and I think his remarks showed clearly that he did feel—the impossibility of answering the very cogent arguments urged by the noble Duke at his side (the Duke of Argyll) in its favour. My noble Friend, as he frequently does, addressed us in a most agreeable and pleasant manner, and likened some of the measures which the Government have brought in to those balloons which we see carried about the streets. This, I must say, seems a little premature, seeing that most of the measures alluded to have been introduced in the House of Commons, and have not yet come before us; and I venture to suggest that, until they do, we are not so competent to say what is inside of them as my noble Friend appears to think himself to be. The simile which my noble Friend has employed seems to be a favourite one on his side of the House. If I mistake not, your Lordships have been described by an eminent statesman as being "up in a balloon." It seems to me there must be something very fascinating to noble Lords opposite in that simile of a balloon. My noble Friend went on to say that I had stated, in the speech with which I introduced the Bill, that the two principles which had guided the Government in introducing the measure were, first, to increase the food-producing power of the country; and, secondly, that I expressed my belief that unless the tenant had security for the capital which he invested in the soil we could not expect our resources to increase to a very great extent. Now, my Lords, I adhere to every one of the statements to which the noble Earl has referred. It is, of course, a question of degree as to how far a measure of this kind will affect the object; but I lay down, without fear of contradiction, the principle that the greater the security which a tenant has for the money which

  961
  he has expended on his farm, the more likely will he be to extract from that farm the greatest possible amount of produce. My noble Friend went on to argue that the Bill was really of no use without compulsion. On that point I entirely differ from him. He also made another assertion, from which I equally dissent. He said that the great majority of the landlords of this country would not allow themselves to be brought within the purview of the Bill, and that therefore, so far as they were concerned, it would be useless. I believe the exact contrary will be found to be the case. I am of opinion that if the Bill be a good one, if the compensation proposed to be given for unexhausted improvements is based on the fair and sound principle on which it is in this measure, then both the landlords and tenants of the country will be very glad to be brought within its operation. I will give my noble Friend an example of what I mean. We are told by those who are acquainted with the custom which prevails in Lincolnshire that it is one of the best which could be devised specially for that part of the country. We find, accordingly, that this custom meets with the general approval of both the owners and occupiers of land. But the custom was one which existed not by the intervention of Parliament, but simply because it was believed by both landlord and tenant to be good. The interference of the Legislature was not, therefore, required. And so it will be with regard to this Bill if the manner in which it deals with unexhausted improvements and the relations between the owners and occupiers of the soil are just, as in the case of the Lincolnshire custom. Then the owner and occupier having regard to their own interests will come within its operation—and that, I believe, will occur in the great bulk of instances. If the Bill is a good one, both parties will come under it, and if it be a bad one you have no right to pass it. If you look upon it as not, perhaps, bad altogether, but unjust in some of its details, then I will merely observe that no one will be entitled to compel a man to come under its provisions. My noble Friend then went on to say that it was unwise of the Government to stir up the question. My noble Friend seems to have a great knowledge of all agricultural pursuits, and I should like
  962
  to know from him whether, if the Government had introduced no measure on this question, he would have said nothing on the adoption of such a course? This subject was brought under the consideration of the House of Commons two or three years ago. On this point, I may add, I must join issue with the noble Marquess who spoke early in the evening (the Marquess of Huntly). I beg to assure him that it was not in consequence of the noble Marquess's "attempt at legislation" towards the close of last Session that we took up the question. A Resolution on the subject had been proposed in the other House. It was opposed by the Government, and the Prime Minister said that the Government would look into the matter, and, if possible, come forward next Session with some measure dealing with it, seeing that it agitated so much the minds of the agriculturists throughout the country. It was in consequence of that statement, and not of my noble Friend's attempt at legislation, that the present measure was introduced. My noble Friend does not, perhaps, read the agricultural papers, but if he did he would find that the subject is one which has been discussed by almost every Agricultural Chamber during the last 18 months. The Government, therefore, I contend, could not have allowed the Session to pass over without taking some action on the question one way or the other, and they were, under these circumstances, of opinion that by introducing a Bill themselves they would be dealing with it in a more satisfactory manner than if they were to wait until a Bill had been brought in by some independent Member of either House, with the inevitable result that it would ultimately fall into the hands of the Government, who would then have to carry through Parliament provisions for which they were in no way originally responsible, and in which, probably, it would be necessary to make alterations which would be attended with a great degree of trouble. As to the provisions of the present measure I can assure the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Bath) that he is in error as to the mode in which they have been prepared. The Government have given the subject the greatest consideration and have observed in dealing with it the utmost caution. He also says that we have picked out

  963
  the Bill from somewhere—whence he did not distinctly indicate—and have flung it on the Table to be considered by your Lordships. But if the noble Marquess had been in the House when I moved the first reading he would be aware that I endeavoured to state the details of the measure as fully as was in my power. I must also notice some other observations which fell from the noble Marquess. He says the limited owner can enter into collusion with his tenant under that clause of the Bill which enables him to put up permanent and expensive buildings, and then under the Bill raise money and charge the estate with the money so expended. I beg, however, to assure my noble Friend that nothing of the kind can be done under this measure. In the first place, if a tenant puts up a building with the consent of the landlord, then when he goes out the compensation to be awarded him is to be paid by the landlord in hard cash out of his pocket, and then only will he be able to get the money made a charge on the estate. There can, therefore, be no possible collusion. Besides, I do not think that it ought to go forth to the country that landlords and tenants are likely to combine together in so very doubtful a proceeding as that to which the noble Marquess has called attention. The noble Marquess next seems to be very much alarmed at the idea of the appeal being made to the County Court Judge, and to prefer the Inclosure Commissioners. Now, I have the greatest respect for the Inclosure Commissioners, but I venture to suggest that the County Court Judge would be likely to have more experience of the locality in which he was living. Then the noble Marquess made some remarks about the appeal to the Judge from a referee appointed by himself. The noble Marquess loses sight of the fact that when the County Court Judge is asked to appoint an umpire he will do so without inquiry as to the facts to be brought before the umpire. All he will have to do will be, with the advantage of a knowledge of the people in the locality, to select an impartial and competent man. I will now touch one or two remarks made by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset)—and in regard not only to them but to other remarks that have been made I wish to say that it will be my duty to consider them carefully, not
  964
  with the view of objecting to them, but for the purpose of making the measure as satisfactory as possible. There is some force in the criticism of the noble Duke as to the importance of requiring that notice should be given to the landlord of an improvement for which it is intended to claim compensation, and I think that a provision in accordance with that suggestion may with advantage be inserted in the Bill. In regard to other observations of the noble Duke, I would say that I think it has not been sufficiently borne in mind that the key-note of the Bill is the principle that the improvement for which the tenant seeks compensation must be an improvement which has added to the letting value of the holding. Clause 14, which deals with what is called "compensation for waste," has been condemned as an unfair clause framed too much in the interest of the landlords. I may say with regard to it that it was borrowed from a measure framed by the Chambers of Agriculture, and therefore has the approval of that body. A difference between the provisions as to waste and those as to improvements was also commented on; but it must be borne in mind that you can define an improvement, but cannot define a waste. With regard to the classes of improvements specified in the Bill, we were desirous, on the one hand, not to restrict them to too small a number, and, on the other hand, not to include a great variety of minor improvements; and we believe that what we have put down will really meet the requirements of the case. As to the principle of freedom of contract, about which something has been said, I will content myself with declaring on behalf of the Government that we hold that principle to be one of paramount importance. I would never have put my hand to the measure if I had thought it interfered with that freedom; and if a provision interfering with it should be inserted by this House or "elsewhere," it will be tantamount to throwing out the Bill, for I, for one, would not be a party to any such measure. In the provisions as they stand, there is, I believe, no such interference. As to Clause 38, I intend to propose in Committee that it be struck out, and that the following be inserted in its place:—
  "This Act, in the absence of or subject to any contract in writing between the landlord

  965
  and tenant, shall apply to all contracts of tenancy taking effect after the commencement of this Act."
  "For the purposes of this section, a contract of tenancy from year to year, current at the commencement of this Act, shall he deemed to take effect from and after the end of the first year of tenancy begun and completed after the commencement of this Act."
  "Except as aforesaid, this Act shall not apply to any contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act."
  The Act will come into operation on the 1st of January, 1876. The end of the first year of tenancy began and completed after the commencement of the Act will, in the case of Lady Day entries, be Lady Day, 1877, and in the case of Michaelmas entries, Michaelmas, 1877; and therefore in cases where, at Lady Day or Michaelmas, 1877, there is no contract in writing between the landlord and the tenant, the Act will begin to apply. There would thus be ample time given to persons interested to study the provisions of the measure. I am speaking now of year-to-year holdings—not of leases. What I have indicated will, I think, be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and it seems to me that with such a provision all parties would, so to speak, slide easily into the operation of the measure. fit was the intention and desire of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill should become law this Session. I hope that your Lordships will be able to agree to the details in Committee, and that the Bill will be sent down in time for the House of Commons to pass it into law this Session if they think fit to do so. 1 can conceive nothing more unsatisfactory than that a question of this sort, which touches the relations between landlord and tenant, should remain open and in a state of uncertainty.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdesired to make some remarks in support of the Bill on political grounds. It could not be said that this Bill was necessary on agricultural grounds, for, or the one hand, the greater part of England was governed by customs of tat country, fulfilling all the objects of this Bill—customs which were gradual extending themselves to those places which did not yet possess them; and, or. the other hand, the Bill was unnecessary on the noble Duke's own showing, since as he said on the first reading, the small holders did not require it, because they
  966
  had no money to lay out on what were called improvements; and the larger tenants, who had money to lay out, were perfectly well able to protect themselves by covenants and leases. It must, however, be admitted that this Bill had become necessary on political grounds, and in order to meet a factitious demand, caused by the agitation of a mixed body, composed of enthusiasts, sciolists, vendors of artificial manures, essayists, and political speculators. The greater part of these writers had more acquaintance with the theory than with the practice of farming; but it was not possible to blame them, when it was remembered that the principal impulse had been given to this school by a leading Member of Her Majesty's Government, who laying aside, or deserted, by his habitual caution, stated ex cathedrâ that the produce of England might be doubled by better farming. Now, when it was remembered that the agricultural produce of England was higher than that of any country on the Continent of Europe, it might be assumed that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had been speaking of Foreign instead of Home Affairs, he would have been careful to state that the produce of England might be quadrupled or quintupled, so as to make it more abundantly clear that he was merely making things pleasant for his Lancashire entertainers; and it might be safely asserted that outside of the Island of Laputa there was no place except the towns of Lancashire where it would be believed that a farmer could obtain any quantity of produce by any amount of reckless expenditure, or that the moderate increase of yield which might be obtained by high farming could be indefinitely sustained, without the soil being exhausted, since it was impossible to force nature. The aims and objects of that portion of the agitators for high farming enforced by legislation were entirely opposed to the interests of the small holders, and to the aims of the political advocates of legislative interference with farming, since they would have the effect of driving out all the small holders. The enemies of the landed interest, who just now, for the purposes of this Bill, affected an earnest desire for increase of production of food, were very inconsistent; for they were the same men who prevented the Government from taking efficient pre-

  967
  cautions to prevent the entrance of diseased cattle into the country, and the contamination of the herds of the country, which they hastened to say were of small importance as compared with the quantity of imported cattle. In the same way, and owing to the outcry which would be raised by these same men, however great might be the danger to be apprehended from the Colorado beetle, Her Majesty's Government would not venture to prohibit the importation of American potatoes, even though all the potatoes of this country should be lost by their not doing so. The objection which had been made in some quarters to this Bill, because it was not compulsory, was based on theory only, and made in ignorance of the facts of the case. In the first place, it would be unnecessary to substitute the provisions of this Bill for the various customs of the country, each best suited for its own district, and which need not be abolished for the sake of uniformity; and, secondly, the hardship of allowing a landlord to notify that he would not abide by this Bill was a purely imaginary hardship, since after it had become law it would be impossible for any landlord to refuse the provisions of this Bill, unless some equivalent custom already existed, or unless he was prepared to offer his tenant some equivalent arrangement. With regard to the clauses of the Bill which provided for compensation to be paid by a tenant for deterioration of the farm, he regarded all such provisions as entirely valueless and illusory, except, possibly, as a set-off against tenants who, besides ruining their farms and themselves, might be tempted by this Bill to claim compensation for doing so. As the noble Duke was not of this opinion, he hoped he would give their Lordships some information on this point derived from his personal experience. According to his own experience and that of all his acquaintances, when a tenant got in a bad way a landlord was fortunate if he got rid of him, even at a loss, and he did not believe that these provisions of the Bill would be of much use south of the Tweed. With regard to the objections to the clauses extending the powers of limited owners, made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath), he disagreed with them entirely, and it seemed to him that anyone who heard that noble Marquess' speech would suppose that he was a believer in the
  968
  doctrine of metempsychosis, and expected to return to this world as his own remainderman.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on Thursday next.

  COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Acts relating to the County Courts—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 57.)
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.