Sitting of 3 April 1876

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Merchant Shipping [49]—R.P.
Second Reading—Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) [106].
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders* [102].
Considered as amended—Drugging of Animals* [85].
Third Reading—Mutiny*; Marine Mutiny*, and passed.

DEPUTY CLERKS OF THE PEACE (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the fact that many of the existing Deputy Clerks of the Peace gave up practice as solicitors on their appointment, and have for many years ceased to practice, and in consequence are rendered ineligible by the 68th Clause of the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill to be appointed Clerk of the Peace in event of a vacancy, the Government will make provision in the Bill for the continuance in office of the existing deputies during their lives, notwithstanding any new appointment to the office of Clerk of the Peace, or will provide for the appointment of existing Deputy Clerks as joint principals, as promised by the late Government in 1871; and, whether the Government will introduce a scale of superannuation allowance for Deputy Clerks of the Peace?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the Solicitor General for Ireland had already introduced a Bill defining the duties and position of these officers, and if the hon. Gentleman would refer to that Bill, which would be circulated to-morrow morning, he would find the information he desired.

INLAND REVENUE—FRIENDLY AND BUILDING SOCIETIES—FEES ON CERTIFICATES.—QUESTION.
MR. RYLANDSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in the arrangement which he proposes making, in conjunction with the President of the Local Government Board and the Registrar General, for the establishment of a

1097
low and uniform charge for the certificates of deaths of members of Friendly Societies, he will include in the same arrangement the charge for certificates of deaths of members of Building Societies under Clause 29 of the Building Society Act of 1874?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he thought the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. The arrangement with regard to the fees paid on certificates of the death of members of friendly societies was fixed by the Act of last Session. The only arrangement he was now endeavouring to make was with regard to the construction which was to be put upon the words of that statute. It would not be possible for him or any one else, without a new Act of Parliament, to deal with the case of the members of building societies, as suggested.

THE ROYAL TITLES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of Her Majesty being advised by Her Ministers to assume the title of Empress of India, it is intended that such title shall be employed in all public instruments and documents of State in which the full statutory style and title of the Queen is now set forth, and particularly in the case of Writs of Summons to Peers of Parliament, Writs for the Election of Members of the House of Commons; Patents for the creation of dignities of the United Kingdom, Patents for the appointments to offices in the United Kingdom, such as those of Lord Chancellor, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Law Officers, and the Judges of the United Kingdom; instruments relating to the appointment of Bishops in England; Commissions for giving the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament; instruments relating to the summoning, prorogation, or dissolution of Parliament; documents authorizing the meeting of Convocation; Commissions to Justices of the Peace in the United Kingdom; Royal Commissions for inquiry and report into matters not relating to India; Patents for inventions in the United Kingdom; Commissions to Officers in the Army; Charters of Incorporation or for other purposes in the United King-
  1098
  dom; and other like instruments issuing under the authority of the Crown; and, if so, in what manner he proposes generally to limit the public use of the title of Empress to India and Indian affairs, and to restrain its application in respect of acts of State relating to the government of the United Kingdom?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, in the event alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Imperial title will be assumed, as I have before mentioned, in the transaction of all affairs connected with the Indian Empire, and in all communications abroad. It will be assumed solely externally, and not with respect to the internal affairs of the country; and, with regard to the details referred to, they will be provided for in the Proclamation.

THE FACTORY ACTS—BLEACHWORKS AND DYEWORKS.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it be his intention to bring in a Bill this Session to extend the provisions of the Factory Acts to the Bleach works and Dyeworks of the United Kingdom; and, if so, when?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that, from the information he had received, he gathered that the general feeling with regard to the extension of these Acts to bleachworks and dyeworks was that the matter, when dealt with, should be dealt with as a whole, and not piecemeal. That being so, his present intention was not to advise the Government to introduce a partial measure on the subject.

ARMY—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY— LIEUTENANT COLONELS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If the brigades of Artillery at Malta and Gibraltar are commanded by the senior Lieutenant Colonels of Artillery at these stations; if the strength of each of these brigades is at least equal to that of an infantry regiment; and, further, if these Lieutenant Colonels are allowed command pay as at present drawn by the Lieutenant Colonels commanding infantry regiments?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, my reply to the first part of the Question

1099
must be in the affirmative. As to the second, the strength of each of these brigades is somewhat in excess of an Infantry regiment. With regard to the third, previous to the 1st of April, 1875, the brigades at Malta and Gibraltar were commanded by the colonels on the Staff, and the lieutenant colonels, up to that date, had charge merely of sub-districts. Under the new organization, these lieutenant colonels Royal Artillery do not at present receive command pay as drawn by lieutenant colonels commanding Infantry regiments, but the subject has not been overlooked, and is now under consideration.

LICENSING ACT, 1872—BURIAL CLUBS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the present state of the Licensing Law does prevent members of Burial Clubs, who meet on Sundays at their clubhouse for burial purposes, from having refreshment, if such clubhouse is a public house, and the time of such refreshment is during the hours of restriction?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the point of the question was, whether the members of a burial club were entitled to use a public-house, which they were in the habit of frequenting, for the meetings of their clubs, as though it were their own private house. He believed that, in the present state of the law, if they went to a public-house, they would then be in precisely the same position as other persons, and the mere fact of their being in the habit of frequenting the public-house did not take them out of the purview of the Act.

THE CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, in relation to the recent inquiry into the duties and salaries of the different departments of the Civil Service in Ireland, Whether, in cases where reductions have been made in the establishments, and consequent saving of expense, it is the intention of the Government to confer any benefit on the officers retained, by proposing any increase of their salaries?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, in the cases in which reductions have been made in the different Departments of the Civil Service in Ireland, and additional duties have been imposed upon the officers who have been retained, their position and prospects have been generally improved, the salaries now assigned to them having been fixed after careful consideration of the claims of the officers and of the duties falling upon them.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— THE EASTER RECESS—QUESTIONS.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to know when it was proposed to adjourn for the Easter Recess?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the time and period of adjournment will depend, to some extent, upon the progress of Public Business; but, at present, I hope that, after the sitting on Monday, the 10th of April, the House may adjourn till the Monday week.
In reply to Mr. ANDERSON,
MR. HUNTsaid, that the Navy Estimates would be taken on Monday next, and that the Papers relating to the Mistletoe would be in the hands of Members on Wednesday morning.
In reply to Mr. PEASE,
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Merchant Shipping Bill would be proceeded with on Thursday.

WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Raikes, before I begin to lay before the Committee the Statement which I have to present, I would beg permission to say a very few words with regard to the manner in which I introduced the Budget of last year. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that I stated last year the amount of the estimated Expenditure, and the amount of the estimated Revenue; and taking the amount of the estimated Revenue according to the careful calculations that had been made by the Heads of the

1101
different Revenue Departments, I brought the two estimates of Revenue and Expenditure to within about £400,000 one of the other—that is to say, I reckoned I should have a surplus of a little more than £400,000. I proposed, in my speech, to take off some £60,000 for remissions of taxation, reducing the surplus to about £340,000 or £350,000, and I proposed, also, to make a provision for the Debt, which involved a further deduction, bringing down the surplus to about £100,000. At the same time, I stated to the Committee that I had not included in the Estimates which I proposed to them any Supplementary Estimates, and that I had not even made provision for one large Supplementary Estimate that I knew would be required—namely, on the Irish Education Vote. But I said, at the same time, that, although by the course I was pursuing I was leaving myself for the moment a somewhat narrow margin, or even with the prospect of a deficiency, I was confident that the Estimates which I submitted were so moderately framed, and I also felt confident that the prospects of the year justified me in anticipating so much larger a revenue than was estimated, that I was very willing to place the matter before the Committee on those terms. I was willing to make no special provision for Supplementary Estimates, but to trust to the growth of the Revenue in order to meet them, not anticipating how I should apportion that growth as between Customs and Excise, because I felt that there was great uncertainty as to the heads under which growth might accrue, but trusting confidently that in course of the year the growth would be found sufficient, or more than sufficient, to cover the charges I should have to meet. Well, the Committee accepted that view; but it was subsequently criticized and commented upon, not only by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but by various other hon. Gentlemen, who considered that I was taking a novel and rather adventurous course. Hon. Gentlemen will see what the result of the year has been. They will see that, in point of fact, the anticipations I then made have been justified by the result. They will see that the Estimates submitted to the Committee have been very largely exceeded by the actual produce of the Revenue, and they will also observe
1102
that while I was justified, as the result showed, in anticipating a large increase of Revenue, I was also justified in the caution I displayed in not attempting to apportion it under the two great items of Customs and Excise, for, whereas, the revenue from Customs has largely exceeded my estimate, the revenue from Excise has fallen short of it; and I felt at the time, and expressed at the time my belief, that it was not safe for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to say whether he would rely upon increase from one particular branch of the Revenue or another. Therefore, if I were disposed to justify my conduct last year by the result, I apprehend that I should have a complete justification. But I must frankly say this—that I should be exceedingly sorry to allow myself in such a case as this to appeal only to the result as a justification for the course I then pursued. For it is perfectly obvious that a Chancellor of the Exchequer might in any case do the same thing; he might ask the Committee to reckon on a surplus the grounds of which he was not prepared to explain, and if, in the course of events, that surplus was realized, he might come forward and say—"I was right." I consider that that in itself would be a most unjustifiable course for any Finance Minister to take, and it is one which I should never be prepared either to adopt or to justify. I conceive that the only grounds on which my action last year was justified were that I had before me sufficient information to enable me to form a very sound and certain forecast that there would be an increase of Revenue; and coming forward on my own responsibility, supported as I was by the authority of my financial advisers, I was just as much justified in saying to the Committee—"This is likely to be the Revenue of the whole year," as "This will be the Revenue of the Customs and that of the Excise." And, therefore, I am prepared to say that in any other year I should be ready to follow the same course as last year, provided the circumstances were similar, and justified it.
Having said so much in introduction, I would now call attention to my estimate of the Revenue for 1875–6. My estimate of the Revenue was £75,625,000, but it proved to be £77,131,693, showing an excess of Revenue over Estimate

1103
of £1,506,693. The Expenditure which I estimated in my Budget, after making allowance for the increased charge for the Debt, at £75,522,000, was afterwards increased in the course of the Session by Supplementary Estimates which made a total—the amount voted in the Appropriation Act—of £77,002,896. The Expenditure proved to be £76,421,773, being less than the sum voted in the Appropriation Act by £581,123, but greater than my Budget Estimate by £899,773, or nearly £900,000, and the result is, taking the Revenue at £77,131,693 and the Expenditure at £76,421,773, you get a surplus of £709,920, or nearly £710,000, and that is the net result of the year.
I will now go more into details. The estimated revenue from Customs and Excise was £19,500,000; but the actual result is £20,020,000, and the excess of Customs over the estimate therefore is £520,000. But, in point of fact, I must inform the Committee that the excess of the Customs revenue was considerably larger than that, for there are payments which have to be made between the two great Departments of Inland Revenue and Customs, and in the last financial year a change was introduced as to the time when those payments were made, in consequence of which the Customs paid £140,000 over to the Excise which otherwise the Excise would not have received. The Committee must therefore remember, when we compare the receipts of the year, that the Customs are £140,000 worse and the Excise £140,000 better than they would otherwise have been, and that consequently there was really an increase on the Customs of £660,000. The estimate of Excise revenue was £27,740,000; the actual result was £27,626,000, being a deficiency of £114,000. And when you add to that deficiency the £140,000 which I have mentioned, the total deficiency of the Excise below the estimate was £254,000. Taking these two Departments together, as you ought to do, I find that the excess of the Customs and. Excise together over my estimates was £406,000. The principal item of increase in the Excise, I am sorry to say, is the Spirit revenue, which shows an increase of £610,000 over last year. There is an increase in the Tea duty of £133,000; on Tobacco of £320,000; the increase on Malt and Sugar for brewing is
1104
£70,000, whilst on Wines there is a decrease of £40,000. I may here mention that in some respects the last quarter of the year has been unsatisfactory in comparison with the previous quarter. In the quarter ended the 31st of March the revenue from Excise, compared with last year, fell off £170,000. The payments into the Exchequer show a greater falling-off, because of the Inland Revenue paying last year into the Exchequer more than they received. Malt in the quarter fell off £164,000; Railways, £58,000; Sugar used in brewing, £5,000—in all £227,000. Excise Spirits, however, increased £55,000, so that the net falling-off is £172,000. The corresponding quarter of last year showed an increase of over £300,000. In Stamps the increase on the year was £412,000. That on the quarter was £82,000—that is to say, the rate on the year was maintained. In Customs the increase on the year was £850,000; that of the last quarter was £208,000. Although the quarter compares favourably with the March quarter of last year, it ought to have compared more favourably, because it is to be remembered that the March quarter last year had a Good Friday, a Bank Holiday, and no 29th of February; therefore, the March quarter of this year, which escaped the dies non and had the 29th of February, ought to show a rebounding revenue; in fact, however, the rate of increase had ceased or retrograded. There are, therefore, indications that are not altogether satisfactory in the condition of the revenue of the last quarter. Turning to the other heads of revenue, Stamps, according to my estimate, were taken at £10,600,000; they actually produced £11,002,000, or £402,000 more than the estimate, and about £460,000 more than last year. The Land Tax and House Duty I estimated at £2,450,000; they produced £2,496,000, being £46,000 more than the estimate. The Property and Income Tax I estimated to produce £3,900,000; they produced £4,109,000, being £209,000 more than the estimate, and only £197,000 less than last year, in spite of the reduction of the Income Tax. The Post Office was estimated at £5,750,000; it produced £5,950,000, being £200,000 more than the estimate. The Telegraph Service was estimated at £1,200,000; it produced £1,245,000, being £45,000 more than the estimate. Crown Lands

1105
were estimated at £385,000; they produced £395,000, being £10,000 more than the estimate. And Miscellaneous, estimated at £4,100,000, produced £4,288,693, being £188,693 more than the estimate. The whole Revenue for the year 1875–6, as I have said, I estimated at £75,625,000; the actual Revenue was £77,131,693, or £1,620,693 more than the estimate, or, deducting the decrease on the Excise estimate of £114,000, £1,506,693,being £2,209,000 more than the produce of last year.
Now, Sir, I stated a few minutes ago that at the time I brought in the Budget of last year I had foreseen that there would be Supplementary Estimates. There always are Supplementary Estimates, and under our present system there always must be Supplementary Estimates, because we have adopted the very proper and business-like proceeding of voting our Estimates as early as we can, and of carrying nothing over from the preceding year. Therefore, as in the course of the year circumstances in one Department or another require it, Supplementary Estimates are necessary. The only way in which that could be avoided would be by taking in the beginning of the year larger Estimates which would cover the Supplementary Estimates anticipated, and to do that, the Committee will see, would not be a very business-like, and would perhaps be rather an extravagant, arrangement. But while, on the one hand, there always are and will be Supplementary Estimates, there always are, and must be savings, and in regard to them I have heard it remarked in public that the savings promised last year have gone the way of all savings. That, of course, is in one sense true, for they have gone into the Exchequer. But if it is meant that there were no savings last year it is untrue, because the savings last year amounted to no less than £580,000. But there were Supplementary Estimates, and they were very considerably in excess of anything I had contemplated at the time I brought in the Budget last year. For instance, the Irish Education Estimate, which I had expected would amount to £120,000, was raised to £185,000 by the grant to teachers. Then there was the grant for defraying the expenses of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India—£60,000 for presents, and £48,000 for the expe-
1106
dition. Then there was a very large sum—no less than £60,000—to make up the Police grant. Besides this, there was—what I had no reason to anticipate—the Navy excess of £238,000, which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty explained in his Statement the other evening, and £500,000 recently voted for settling the account long out-standing between the War Office and the India Office. The consequence has been that the Supplementary Estimates amount to something like £1,500,000, and, taking off the savings, an excess of Expenditure amounting to £927,000 is left.
I shall now run through the total Expenditure of last year under the different heads. The Debt was estimated at £27,470,000; the actual amount charged was £27,444,000. The Consolidated Fund Charges were estimated at £1,590,000, and they only amounted to £1,557,000. The reason why the charges on the Consolidated Fund vary is this—they vary according to the demands from the Bankruptcy Court. We are bound to keep a certain balance. The Army was estimated to take £14,678,000; it took £14,577,000, being a saving of nearly £100,000. The Purchase Vote took £501,638, being a saving on the estimate of £134,000. The Navy, which was taken at £10,825,194, took £11,063,000, including the Supplementary Estimate. The Civil Services, which were estimated at £12,656,000, took £13,119,000. The Customs and Inland Revenue took exactly what they were estimated at—£2,694,393. The Post Office, which was taken at £3,036,000, only came to £2,982,000; and. the Telegraph Service, which was estimated at £1,098,000, came to £1,022,000, so that I am able to congratulate my noble Friend the Postmaster General on having kept his expenditure within the estimate, and having brought in a revenue considerably above the estimate. The Telegraph Service, I hope, has now turned the corner, and I am quite sure the Committee will be glad to gain that information. The Packet Service was taken at £878,000; it cost £884,054. There are two other items:—There is the £500,000 for adjusting the account between the War Office and the India Office; and there is also a sum of about £76,000 in respect of the cost of the

1107
Suez Canal Shares, which are also brought into the Expenditure of last year. The sum of £4,000,000 was raised by loan, but the balance of £76,000 has been paid out of the ordinary Revenue of the year.
Well, now, having gone through the heads of the items of Expenditure, I wish to say a word or two upon them, and especially in regard to the first. The Budget Estimate of Debt was £27,470,000. The actual amount was only £27,444,000. In point of fact, the amount required for interest is something less than was calculated, but the Committee will like to know what the effect of the new Sinking Fund has been. It will be remembered that I estimated the surplus at £255,000; in point of fact, it was raised to £280,000. That has been the amount available and applicable, and of this amount there has been handed over to the National Debt Commissioners £250,000 to buy up and cancel Stock created for the Telegraphs; and the rest, above £30,000, will be applicable for cancelling Stock in due course. We were taunted last year with having devised what would be altogether a futile fund. It was said—"The true way to provide for reduction of Debt is by the surplus of the year, and it is much better to allow your surplus to be applied in the old way." But what I have to point out is that under the old system nothing would have gone to the reduction of the Debt, because, although there is the surplus of £700,000 Revenue over ordinary Expenditure, yet, inasmuch as £4,000,000 has been paid for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares out of the Consolidated Fund, there is, in fact, no surplus at all applicable under the old system to the redemption of Debt. The £4,000,000 is, indeed, provided for by loan, and the annuity of £200,000 to be paid by the Khedive is set against that for interest; but, to keep our proceedings regular, it is necessary that we should assume that burden on ourselves—it is necessary that we should make the payment fall in the regular course on the Consolidated Fund. The question will be asked, what becomes of the £700,000? It goes to strengthen the balances in the Exchequer. We do intend to make a certain provision out of it towards the reduction of the Debt, in this form; we have applied £200,000 out of the balances of
1108
the Exchequer to the payment for local barracks. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Childers) is aware that the charge for local barracks may be, and usually is, met by the creation of fresh Debt. It is legal to provide for it out of the balances in the Exchequer, and, as there is a sum of £200,000, it is better to use it than add to the Debt.
I now wish to call attention to the mode in which the charge for the Debt will be stated in the present Budget and in future Budgets. Formerly, it has been the habit to charge the item of interest and that for the management of the Debt in a single sum; we now propose to charge these items under three heads. They will stand in this way in the Estimates for 1876–7. For our Debt proper there will be the interest of £27,700,000, £300,000 more than last year, in accordance with the Act we have passed; secondly, there will be for temporary Debt £150,000; and thirdly, for Debt incurred for local loans, £160,000. What is the temporary Debt? Temporary Debt is the £150,000 which we shall have to pay as interest upon the £4,000,000 which is to be created as a new Debt for a limited number of years on account of the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. We have to provide that under a charge for Debt. A sum of corresponding amount will be received in the Miscellaneous Revenue from the Khedive of Egypt; but we think it best to keep the matter separate and manifestly before the eyes of Parliament. We desire to keep this clearly outside the charge for the present Debt; and although we reckon with great confidence upon the continuous and punctual payment of the revenue which the Khedive of Egypt has bound himself to pay us, we include that as one of the receipts of Miscellaneous Revenue, and we make our calculations to provide for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the £4,000,000. The amount that will have to be paid this present year will be £150,000, and the amount the Khedive will have to pay in the course of the year will be £200,000, of which, however, we shall not receive above £160,000, the balance going to the Messrs. Rothschild. We therefore have an amount which balances that temporary Debt, but, as I said, we think it very important to keep this temporary Debt outside the provision

1109
for the permanent Debt; and I am anxious to impress upon the Committee what has been the character and the change in the progress of our Debt arrangements of late years.
With regard to the permanent Debt of the country, we have for a great number of years borne the charge for interest, and from time to time have made arrangements, either by way of the operation of the old Sinking Fund or by the way of Terminable Annuities, for the reduction of that Debt. Beyond these provisions for the payment of the Debt charge, it has until lately been the general practice of Parliament to pay all the expenses of the year out of the Supplies of the year; but of late years a system has made its way into notice, and has been adopted in several cases, of not providing for certain services out of the Supplies of a single year, but of spreading the charge for them over a number of years, and of making provision for some great work by borrowing money and repaying it by the creation of Terminable Annuities. The most notable case in which this was done was in making provision for the expense of the Fortifications. I remember at the time it was proposed that I, being younger and also in a less responsible position than I am in now, protested against the principle being introduced; I protested against the principle of borrowing a large sum for this purpose and concealing the payment, as it were, from Parliament by making it a charge on the Debt. In that protest I pushed my arguments perhaps a little too far, and further than they would bear; but I believe substantially I was right in the view I took; and that it would be a mischievous practice, if we were to allow ourselves to fall into it, of providing for any expense which it was inconvenient to meet out of the Supplies of the year by raising a temporary loan, and practically concealing the amount of the charge from the eyes of Parliament and of the public by mixing it up with the ordinary charge for the permanent Debt. I think it is important in all these matters, and especially when they become large, to have a clear and distinct system of finance, and that we should lay before Parliament our accounts and balance sheets, our estimates and results, in a form which makes it perfectly competent for all who
1110
look at them to see how we are spending money and where it is going. I do not go so far as to say that the raising of money for important works, such as fortifications and local barracks, by raising the sum which is to be paid off within a limited number of years is an unsound principle; I think it is even a sound principle and a good principle; I think it would be absurd that, for a work spread over a number of years and which would be of great benefit to our successors as well as ourselves, we should in a single year make an enormous addition to our taxation, and then in the next year have to take it off, for the purpose of buying a large piece of valuable land or for the construction of some great work which required to be immediately provided. Therefore I do not object to the principle of raising a sum of money in that way. What I think you should do is this—For the services that ought to come, say, upon the Army Vote, or upon the Office of Works Vote, or any other Vote, it would be your best principle to borrow the money, to assess the charge, and, having done so, to spread that charge over a certain number of years by providing for it by Votes in the Estimates to which it properly belongs. For instance, in the case of the Fortifications, instead of providing for the annual charge as a charge upon Debt, you would provide the sum required by a Vote on the Army Estimates; and the cost of purchasing land for some great public works you would charge to the Works Department. But in any case what I desire is that you should not allow—now that we have introduced and established this principle of defining the sum which is to be applied to the payment of interest and reduction of Debt—I hope we shall not allow the principle to be infringed by what would be a most dangerous practice—the raising of sums for particular services, and allowing the charge of them to fall upon the charge for the Debt. And, therefore, with regard to the Vote for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares, although, in one sense, we hope the receipts will balance the outlay, as we have estimated, we treat it as a debt, and we keep it outside the £27,700,000.
Then there is the third item, and that is the money which it is intended to provide for public local loans. And here I

1111
am anxious to call the serious attention of the Committee to the progress of this expenditure. Some years ago there was a system under which the demands which were made for assistance from the public funds were limited to the cases in which there were works to be undertaken in which it was desirable to raise money on good security, but under circumstances which made it difficult to borrow in the open market, and application was made to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the amount required. They had a very limited sum at their disposal, and according to the regulations in force they could only lend that money at a comparatively high rate of interest—I think, 5 per cent. There were, by degrees, exceptions introduced; and first of all came the harbours of refuge, and then one thing and then another; until by degrees, as Parliament was anxious to encourage localities to incur expenditure for purposes which seemed to be of national importance, clauses were included in Acts of Parliament, passed from time to time, which although of the very simplest appearance, yet had the effect of giving one party and another party, for this purpose and the other purpose, a right to come to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and say—"You must, in compliance with the wishes and directions of Parliament, advance us money at the easy rate of 3½ per cent." My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), and other hon. Gentlemen who have served so long and with such great advantage to the public upon that body, began to find themselves placed in a position of great embarrassment. They found, on the one hand, that they had a too limited sum at their disposal, and they were, on the other hand, oppressed by these applications, which it was difficult for them to refuse without seeming to fly in the face of the intentions of Parliament. By degrees matters became considerably strained as between the different Departments concerned. Naturally, the Local Government Board was anxious in every way to promote sanitary improvement, and to urge the locality to undertake works that were of importance; and naturally, the locality would say—"Having undertaken to do this work at the instance of the Government, let us raise money,
1112
and ask the Local Government Board to support us in our application for its advance on easy terms." The Loan Commissioners would feel themselves in a difficulty under such demands, and the Exchequer was placed in a difficulty; because it is the duty of the Treasury to find the money so called for, and it often happened that large sums were called for which we were not at all prepared to lend. Of late years the pressure for social improvements—and social improvements which cost a great deal of money—has induced a very large extension of this principle of borrowing money; and in order to meet the difficulties to which we found ourselves exposed, we last year introduced and passed a Bill which was intended to regulate the system of loans. The principles of that Bill I will take the liberty to briefly mention. In the first place, the Public Works Loan Acts are amended and consolidated; in the second place, Parliament is to be informed each year of the progress of loan transactions; thirdly, Parliament will provide each year the sum required for loans, and old running loans which have hitherto escaped the attention of Parliament are now condemned, and will be put an end to. Fourthly, Parliament will be empowered yearly to borrow what is necessary to enable them to make loans, and no loan is to be remitted or compounded without the authority of Parliament. This was one of the great evils—that pressure was constantly put upon the Treasury to remit or compound a loan which Parliament had granted, but about which it would hear nothing more. In the next place, the estimates are to be sent in by the 31st of December from all bodies and corporations intending to apply for loans in the succeeding financial year. Next, the interest and the principal of the loans have been separated, and this is a very important point to which I must again direct the attention of the Committee. In former times the money that was lent out was repaid, and repaid with interest, but the interest was not separated from the principal that was repaid, and therefore that interest came into the hands of the Exchequer without Parliament knowing anything about it, or having its attention called to it. There was thus provided a fund, which was constantly accumulating in the Exchequer; it was properly Revenue, but it remained

1113
to be made use of by any one who wished to deal with it as the Chancellor of the Exchequer might deal with the Exchequer balances. In consequence of that, it would sometimes happen that the Exchequer was so full of money earned in this way, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would justify himself to the House—I have known it done by high authority—in estimating for a deficiency; "because," he would say, "my balances are so good, that I can very well afford to spare a large sum out of them." Well, that is a system which is now put an end to, because the interest is now separated from the principal. The interest is now put, as it ought to be, to the Revenue, and it amounts to a sum of £500,000 or £600,000 at the present time, and as it goes on, it will become an increasingly important source of Revenue. Besides that, we have now the means of ascertaining what the loan assets of the country are. We have obtained fairly exhaustive Returns of the loan transactions from the commencement of the system in 1792 to the present time, and we are now preparing the amount of irrecoverable balances after a minute inquiry into the circumstances of each case. Lastly, the Controller and Auditor General now has these matters submitted to him, and looks into these accounts. In addition to these improvements, which I shall have to speak of more fully on another occasion, when I bring forward, as I hope to do after Easter, a Bill authorizing the raising all the loans for the purposes of next year, I shall then be able to show more fully what the probable working of the system is. Without going more into detail, therefore, at the present time, I shall just say this—that the effect of what has been done has called forth a most luxuriant crop of claimants for assistance of this kind. I am told that the applications to the Public Works Loan Commissioners do not fall far short of £10,000,000, and that there are, besides, other applications which will be made to the Public Works by the persons who have charge of this matter in Ireland, so that in all probability these demands will not fall short of £11,000,000. That only indicates the way in which persons not knowing exactly what they may want will be sure to ask for enough. I do not anticipate that anything like that amount will be required, and I do not
1114
make provision for anything of the sort in the Budget, nor indeed would it be possible to ask Parliament to authorize any loan for so very large an amount as that. I have no doubt, however, it will be something like £3,000,000 which will have to be provided. I do not pledge myself to the amount, because it will have to be discussed on the introduction of the Bill, but I mention it now in order to account for the item which I spoke of—of £160,000 as the charge for the interest on local loans. The principle of the matter is one which is really outside the finances of the year, yet it is one which always ought to be brought before Parliament, and which Parliament ought to be aware of when it is dealing with its finance as it does in the Budget. The principle upon which we ought to go in these matters is to charge everything we can, explaining, of course, how much of it is really a charge for the year upon the transactions of the year, and how much stands apart and is otherwise regarded. Therefore, I shall make this provision distinctly and separately for the interest of the money required for local loans.
As I am now speaking of these matters I must refer to another topic, which is the state of the balances in the Exchequer. The balances in the Exchequer are at this moment, I think, literally £5,119,000; but I must take them at a higher figure, because by Friday next we shall receive £700,000, which properly belongs to the Exchequer in respect of advances which have been made by the National Debt Commissioners to meet the payment for the Suez Canal Shares. It was the National Debt Commissioners who advanced the £4,000,000, which advances were to be made at such times as might be most convenient for them. They were receiving the money in part out of the Irish Church Fund, which was coming to them at different dates, and the payment for advances made to the Exchequer were to be regulated according to the dates most convenient to them. It was found that the last payments were most conveniently made on the 7th April, and in the Act passed providing for the sum, provision was made for allowing the payment to take place on the 7th April, and therefore I treated the Exchequer balance as £5,819,000. That is a small amount. When I first came to the office I now hold, two

1115
years ago, the balances in the Exchequer were £7,442,000. Since then the transactions have been as follows:—We have, on the one hand, received a surplus revenue in two years of £1,303,000; we have received on different advances repaid, £163,000; we have borrowed £850,000 for fortifications and local barracks, and £3,200,000 for the purpose of making advances to public borrowers under the Public Works Loan Commissioners. We have also borrowed for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares £4,000,000, making £9,516,000 received in the course of two years. Then, on the other side, what has been the expenditure? We have bought the Suez Canal Shares—£4,000,000; we have advanced in excess of the repayments £4,725,000; we have expended on fortifications and local barracks £1,050,000;we have redeemed Debt by the old Sinking Fund to the amount of £1,087,000, and paid off Exchequer bills £278,000, making altogether £11,140,000. The Exchequer balances have therefore been reduced by £1,623,000—being now £5,819,000, and, as I have said, that is not a large balance to have in the Exchequer. Its smallness is due to the excess of advances we have been obliged to make for the purpose of the Public Works Loans, but some of that drain on the Exchequer is now closed by the new system we have adopted. Upon the whole, I am not dissatisfied with the amount of the balance, provided it does not go lower. There are, in fact, as the Committee is aware, advantages as well as disadvantages in a small balance. As far as we are concerned, it is not our object to keep a large sum of money in the Bank which yields none or at most a low rate of interest. On the other hand, it is undesirable that we should run the balances so low that in the event of a sudden call being made we should have to borrow, perhaps at a time when it was inconvenient. There are two opposite theories held on this subject. There are those who say you should keep your balance as low as possible and borrow freely whenever you require to do so; and there are others who say you must keep your balance at such a point that in ordinary years you will not have to borrow at all. It has been estimated in ordinary years that if you could keep a balance of £8,000,000 in the Exchequer at the present time
1116
of the year, say, the 31st of March, it would be unnecessary to borrow at all in the course of the year; but if you were to attempt to raise the balances to £8,000,000 you would find you would have to pay a considerable amount on account of the public, for you would be charged interest on what you borrowed. I have here a Paper drawn up by one of my ablest assistants at the Treasury, Mr. Welby, whose name ought always to be mentioned with honour in this House, and I will quote from it a few figures. Mr. Welby says—
"The old Public Works Loans Act did not enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow the sums which he had lent to local bodies. The result was, of course, that his balance was diminished. Suppose that he had obtained a special borrowing power to restore the balance to £8,000,000, he must have borrowed £560,000 in 1874–5, £1,180,000 in 1875–6, and he would have to borrow about £440,000 in 1876–7. These loans would probably have been in Exchequer Bonds at 3½ per cent interest, and the charge would have been £19,600 in 1874–5,£60,900 in 1875–6, and £76,300 in 1876–7—total, £156,800. In fact, the Government paid to the Bank as interest on deficiency-advances in 1874–5, £6,927; in 1875–6, £8,946; and in 1876–7 we expect to pay £10,500, or something in excess of £26,000; making a difference in favour of the public of about £130,000."
Consequently it must be obvious to the Committee that it would be an extravagant arrangement to raise our balances to too large an amount. But, obviously, that is a principle which ought not to be pushed too far, and it is clear that we have brought the balances of the Exchequer to a point below which it would be wrong to sink them.
Speaking of these loans, it is a point worthy the consideration of the Committee that we have £20,000,000 of public money lent on these works, exclusive of the £4,000,000 advanced for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares. These advances to public bodies in England have been made upon admirable security and after the most careful examination by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and there are, as I have said, about £20,000,000 of these assets. That is an important item, and it is an amount that is increasing. I draw attention to these things not only to show the exact position of our Exchequer and of our balance-sheet, but because I wish to impress upon the Committee that all this new system which has been growing

1117
up, makes it all the more necessary for us to be careful to maintain the system for keeping down and reducing our own National Debt. We cannot shut our eyes to the introduction of the system to which the House referred—that—namely, of raising money on easier terms to meet great works. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we have become responsible, to a certain extent, for this great mass of loan which is now standing to the credit of the Treasury, but which nevertheless represents a sum of money which, if there were any difficulties or failures, the nation would be responsible for. Therefore, it is peculiarly necessary that, in days like these, we should avoid anything which might even seem to tamper with the credit of the nation, and it is most important, if we wish to keep the nation in the position which she occupies in the face of the world, and for the sake of which we are ready to spend large amounts on our Military and Naval Services, and to incur considerable expenditure for the promotion of the health and comfort of the people—I say it is absolutely necessary, if we are not to sacrifice that great and Imperial position to which we should look, to maintain our national credit on a sound and solid basis. To that end I believe the step taken deliberately last year in forming and expanding a system for the gradual and moderate reduction of our National Debt is a greater source of strength to us than even the addition of regiments.
Well, Sir, I will now proceed to give the Committee the details of the Expenditure and anticipated Revenue for next year. I have already mentioned that the charge for Debt for next year will come to £28,010,000; the Consolidated Fund charges are £1,590,000; the Army Expenditure, £15,282,000; Army Purchase, £464,000, which is less than was taken last year or the year before. It has been estimated after a most painstaking investigation, but it is impossible to say with absolute confidence what the actual sum will be that will be taken out of the Vote, as it depends upon the claims of those officers who may be desirous of retiring. I propose, too, to take a sum of £170,000 for charges that may have to be met during the year through the War Office on behalf of the Indian Government.
1118
Those charges, as the Committee are aware, are, in fact, matters of account between the Indian Office and officers of the Indian Army, but the settlement goes through the hands of the Imperial Government. The item might be kept entirely out of our accounts, and the charges be met out of a reserve fund; but I think it is a more businesslike transaction to deal with it in the way we propose to deal with it, by placing on the one side of the account the amount we are liable for, and on the other the corresponding amount we shall receive. Well, the Navy will cost £11,289,000, the Civil Service £13,309,000, the Customs £2,730,000, and the Post Office Service £3,120,000. There is also a Bill passing through Parliament for the erection of a new Post Office at Manchester, which is urgently required, and which will involve an expenditure of about £100,000. The Packet Service I estimate at £852,000, and the Telegraph Service at £1,128,000, making a total expenditure for the year 1876–7 of £78,044,0000. That is the Estimate we make as compared with the Estimate I submitted last year in my Budget Statement of, in round numbers, £75,388,000, showing an increase of no less than £2,656,000, and the increase this year upon the actual expenditure of last year is £1,622,000. Now, Sir, how does this increase arise? I will not trouble the Committee with minute details, but will give the figures roughly. The Army Estimates show an increase of £604,000, the Navy of £504,000, the Civil Service of £533,000, the Revenue Departments of £144,000, the Manchester Post Office £100,000, and the Permanent charge of Debt £300,000. Now, with regard to this additional charge, I will not enter into the questions involved in the great items of Army and Navy expenditure. They have been already explained to the House by my two right hon. Friends, and I will not attempt to open up the discussion which will arise upon them. I will only say that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have looked very jealously upon those proposals. As a Member of the Government, however, I have had to consider them in a somewhat different light, and I have undoubtedly felt this—that if you are to have a military Force kept up it ought to be one worthy of the country. But inasmuch as, from the

1119
circumstances of the population, it cannot be a numerous Force, it ought to be well appointed and well equipped; and, inasmuch as it cannot be recruited by conscription, but by voluntary service, it must naturally be attended with a rate of remuneration which will induce men to join it. Therefore, without going into details which may be more properly left to others, I have joined with my Colleagues in assenting to the proposals which have been made, and which, as far as we have gone, have been accepted by this House. But if upon this occasion I may look at the matter more narrowly from the stand-point of Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must remark that those two Services have laid a very heavy burden upon the country. In my first Budget, two years ago, I took the Army and Naval expenditure at £24,815,000. In the present year I estimate it at £26,571,000, showing an increase on the two Services of £1,756,000. So much for those two great cardinal heads of increase. I have already alluded to the increase of the charge for Debt, and as there is not a very large increase in the Revenue Departments, I will say nothing about them. If our Departments are to earn more money, especially the Post Office and Telegraph Services, it is obvious that you will have to expend more to earn it. We are endeavouring to keep down the expenditure on those Services, and, I hope, with success. I trust that every year will show that, as compared with the expenditure they involve, the Service charges have become more and more moderate. But I will now go to the Civil Service, for the expenditure on which I am, perhaps, more especially responsible. We are constantly told that there is a good deal of extravagance or want of sufficient control in the expenditure on the Civil Service, but I will ask the Committee to allow me to take a broader view of the matter than merely to compare the present Estimates with the Expenditure of last year. In this year's Expenditure there are those Supplementary Estimates to which I referred. What I wish to do is to compare the estimated expenditure of the Civil Service of this year, not with last year's, but with that of the year before we came into office, because when we are told that we are a very extravagant Government—extravagance is a relative
1120
and comparative quality—I want to know what hon. Members mean when they say we are extravagant? Do they mean that we spend more than ought to be spent, or that we spend more than our Predecessors spent? Generally speaking, the criticisms that one sees are to the effect that we do not hold that tight hand upon the expenditure which our Predecessors did, and consequently we are blamed for being an extravagant and uneconomical Government. Well, although it may be admitted that the expenditure is a good deal higher now than it was two years ago, we cannot admit ourselves to be chargeable with extravagance or want of economy as compared with our Predecessors, because our Estimates are larger than theirs. There are many circumstances which render thatnecessary—the growth of population, and other circumstances, and the new policy which is initiated in one and another direction, thus leading to the continued demands for fresh services involving fresh expenditure. For instance, the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is now under the consideration of the House, is one which, if passed, must increase the charge upon the general funds of the country, by reason that a staff of officials will be necessary to carry out the provisions of the measure. I again admit that there has been an increase in the amount of the Civil Service Estimates in late years, but I should like to point out to the Committee the reasons which have caused the increase in question. In the year 1873–4 the expenditure under the Civil Service Estimates was set down at £11,067,000, while in the present year it has gone up to £13,308,000, or an increase of £2,241,000; but let me ask, what is the reason for that increase? ["Hear, hear!"] Well, I supposed that would be cheered. It is more than accounted for by two items—the increase in the grants in aid of Local Taxation, amounting to £1,400,000, and the Education Estimates, amounting to £910,000, or more than £2,310,000in all. Therefore, as the total expenditure is only increased by £2,240,000, it shows that, setting those two points aside, these figures not only account for the increased Expenditure, but if hon. Members will compare them with the Estimates presented to the House by our Predeces-

1121
sors, they will find that with an increasing population we are actually spending less money by £60,000 than was expended by the previous Government. I was going to say we were attacked by what savours sometimes of a word which it is now forbidden to use in this House—I was going to say "Party"—but, without anticipating any such objection, I do not think it would be at all desirable that we should bandy about Party quarrels on such a subject as this. It is more important that we should show the country, if we are able to do so, how and where it is that this imaginary increase in the expenditure of the country is really to be found, and therefore I desire to extend the comparison which I have made between the Expenditure of the coming year and that of the last year of our Predecessors, and with the permission of the Committee to go back 20 years; and I would ask to be allowed to compare the general expenditure for Civil Services in 1857–8 as compared with the year 1876–7. The total expenditure on the Civil Service in 1857–8 was £8,167,000 as against £10,394,000 in 1873–4, and £13,095,780 in the past year. Of this amount the grant for Educational purposes has risen from £790,000 to £2,758,000, and the sum of money paid in aid of Local Taxation has risen from £1,430,000 to £4,150,000. Therefore, without disputing small matters of detail, the Committee may take this as an ascertained fact, that the great increase in the last 20 years in the Civil Service expenditure is to be attributed to these two things—the increase of the charge of Education, which I believe everybody welcomes, and to Local Taxation, which both our enemies and friends tell us is a mere bagatelle.
I have now to turn from the Expenditure of the year to the other interesting branch of my subject—namely, the estimated Revenue. The Estimates of Revenue have been prepared on the same principles as last year, and with the same care, caution, and due regard to the circumstances of the time—prepared, too, under a consciousness that the circumstances of the country are not exceedingly flourishing, and that trade prospects are not as bright as could be wished, and more especially with reference to all the circumstances which particularly affect the consumption of
1122
those articles from which a large part of our National Revenue is derived. The Estimates have been prepared also with reference to the peculiar minute considerations, and to the fact that we have a day less than last year, which was Leap Year, and in which there was no Good Friday or Bank Holiday. Having taken all these matters into consideration, these are the figures which I have to submit to the Committee. The Customs we take at £20,250,000 as against £20,020,000; the Excise, £27,650,000, as against £27,626,000 last year; Stamps, £11,000,000, which is about the same as last year; Land Tax and House Duty, £2,500,000, which is just about the same as last year; for Income Tax we take £4,100,000, which is a fraction less than what it produced last year; the Post Office we take at £5,950,000, which is the same as last year; for the Telegraphs we take £1,325,000, which is in advance of last year, when it was £1,245,000; for the Crown Lands, we take £395,000, the same as last year; and for Miscellaneous we take £4,100,000, as against £4,288,693 last year. That makes the total estimated Revenue £77,270,000, against an estimated Expenditure of £78,044,000, showing a deficit of £774,000.
Before saying a word on the manner in which we are to meet the deficit, I wish to mention a matter which, though small in itself, is not without its interest, and which has caused a great deal of friction, although it involves only a trifling amount of Revenue. There have been complaints with regard to the tax levied on boys employed as servants for an hour or two in a day, and it has been pointed out that this bears very hardly upon many persons of limited means, and also upon the boys themselves. It is said that it operates to deter boys from going to school, and that we ought to exempt school-boys from the tax. I am not able to make a distinction between school-boys and other boys, nor am I able to make a distinction as to age, because there is no reason why, in great houses, a little boy should not be taxed, although he happens to be dressed in a suit with a great many buttons upon it; but I propose to alter the definition of male servants in this way—to make the term include such persons only as are bonâ fide domestics

1123
exclusively engaged for that purpose, and giving their whole time to their employers. This will relieve from taxation under this head such persons as only employ boys during a few hours in each day, and farmers whose labourers take part occasionally in discharging domestic duties. In fact, it will in many ways remove a source of annoyance at a trifling expense to the Revenue. I put the amount at £26,000; it may be £30,000, but I put it at £26,000 for the sake of symmetry, which brings up the deficit to £800,000.
Now, the question arises as to what we are to do with the deficit? One thing, I think, is quite clear. We cannot leave it to take care of itself. Last year I came to the House and presented something like an equilibrium between Revenue and Expenditure, and I made no provision for Supplementary Estimates, for I said there was a prospect of a spring in the Revevenue covering any Supplementary Estimates that might be presented. I have been justified by the result, and I think if the circumstances now were the same as last year, I should be prepared again to adopt the same course. But there is a very great difference between coming forward with an equilibrium before we knew anything about the Supplementary Estimates and coming forward with a deficit of £800,000. We made the proposal last year at a time when there seemed to be a fair, if not a good, prospect of a harvest, and when there were signs of a revival in some branches of trade, and a hope for improvement which has not, I am sorry to say, been altogether realized; but there is a great difference between that state of things and the circumstances of the present year. Well, then, if we are not to leave this deficit alone, how are we to deal with it? There are only two ways of dealing with it. One is to propose an addition of taxation in order to cover it—the other is to tamper with the arrangement made last year with regard to the National Debt. Now, I never stated that that arrangement was to be a law of the Medes and Persians, and that under no possible circumstances should any interference be allowed with it. Indeed, I can conceive circumstances under which, when taxation was very high, when a great emergency was upon us, or when it was necessary to make
1124
some very great national effort, it might be wise and prudent to interfere with that arrangement. But if, in the very first year after you have adopted it; if, before it has even come into operation, for the purpose of meeting a trifling deficit of £800,000, which it is quite possible, though I do not venture to prophecy, may be recovered from unexpected improvement of the Revenue, and at all events which we may look upon as being only a temporary deficit—if under such circumstances we, and especially we who were the authors of the proposal, were to come forward and ask you to arrest the arrangement for the sake of avoiding an addition to taxation, we should not only be arresting and suspending the arrangement; but we should be manifestly destroying it altogether. One of the most plausible, if not the strongest argument adduced against my proposal last year was, that it was a proposal which was good for fair weather, but that the moment it was tried it would break down. I was told that something of the kind happened 20 years ago, and that when the arrangements of that time were made they had to be given up, and I was taunted with the prospect of having myself to come forward to propose to cancel the arrangements which Parliament, at our suggestion, had adopted. But the circumstances under which that former Sinking Fund was abandoned were as different as light from darkness from the circumstances of the present day; and, therefore, I do not think it at all necessary to enter into distinctions which will be obvious to those who know the history of that period. I trust and firmly believe that the idea of suspending or interfering with the arrangements in regard to the National Debt will not commend itself to any Member of the Committee and will not be expected from Her Majesty's Government. Well, Sir, since we are driven to meet this deficit, which we cannot prevent, and which we cannot provide for without recourse to additional taxation, we come to the second question, which is, Of what character is that taxation to be? Now, I can conceive of but two alternatives. It would be possible to make an addition to the Spirit Duties, or it would be possible to make an addition to the Income Tax. With reference, however, to the idea of making an addition to the Spirit Duties, I would

1125
remind the Committee that, in the first place, the consumption of spirits at present is not quite in the condition that renders it very certain that you would realize any very large amount from that source; and, moreover, any meddling with the taxes on intoxicating drinks would raise a series of questions and a complication of difficulties which I think the House would be sorry to have to encounter. Therefore, Sir, I am driven, as a last resort, to the decision of asking the Committee to make an addition to the Income Tax. I need not say that I do it with reluctance. I need not say I had hoped that our tenure of office might not be marked, at all events, with any addition to that particular tax. But, Sir, the logic of facts is too strong for me. I have been unable to resist, and I do not see how the Government could have resisted, the claims that have been made upon us for additional expenditure; and I do not see how we could have done more than we have done in order to keep down our expenditure with a due regard to the demands of the country. Therefore I do it without hesitation, though with reluctance, feeling sure that both the House and the country will respond to what is certainly a very disagreeable call in the spirit in which it is made by Her Majesty's Government.
If we were to add 1d. to the Income Tax it would increase our Revenue for the present year by £1,480,000, which would leave £320,000 to be brought to the charge for the next year. We do not require yet the full amount I have spoken of, and I think this is a time in which we might fairly carry further the exemption of small incomes. When Sir Robert Peel first introduced the tax the limit of exemption was fixed at £150; subsequently my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich carried the tax to £100; and I think one of the reasons he gave was, that he wished to carry the tax down to a point at which it would reach the wage-receiving classes. Wages have risen considerably since that time, and I think we should not be doing an unreasonable thing in reverting to the exemption originally proposed by Sir Robert Peel; and, at the same time that we make the difference in the total exemptions, we should be disposed to make a corresponding addition to the amount which is deducted from incomes above
1126
that amount. At present, I think, the limit of total exemption is fixed at £100. The deduction is fixed at £80, and goes up to £300. We propose to make the the reduction £120, instead of £80, and to carry it up to £400 a-year. That is to say, all incomes below £150 will be wholly exempt, while those from £150 to £400 will have £120 taken off. Well, the financial result of this will be that we shall receive during the present year £1,168,000, and deducting from that the £800,000, we shall be left with a surplus for the year of £368,000. In conclusion, I must now thank the Committee for the kindness with which they have listened to me. I am very sorry it has been my duty to lay before them a proposal which I fear cannot be otherwise than unpalatable; but at the same time, events have rendered it necessary, and we, therefore, submit it with confidence to the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That there shall be charged, collected, and paid for one year, commencing on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, 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 all such Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A) (C) (D) or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Three 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 Halfpenny; and
In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of One Penny Farthing."
MR. DODSONsaid, he trusted that the Resolution which had just been read would not be pressed upon the Committee that night, and that an opportunity might be afforded them to consider the lengthened and complicated Financial Statement which had just been made to them. The right hon. Gentleman, after making the alteration in reference to the tax upon male servants, estimated his deficiency at £800,000, and he proposed to meet that deficit and obtain a surplus by placing an additional 1d.

1127
upon the income tax, which, subject to the exemptions he proposed, would produce in the present year £l,168,000. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a very moderate estimate of the growth of the Revenue for the year, it being only £347,000. Last year, however, he estimated the growth at £946,000; but, although he stated in his Budget speech that £946,000 was a careful and accurate estimate of growth, as soon as he had to meet Supplementary expenditure, it appeared that he had in reserve another estimate of growth beyond that. Though he never gave any detailed estimate of this ulterior growth, it became evident, towards the close of the Session, that the whole growth he reckoned upon must be about £2,000,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What I stated towards the end of the Session was, that I thought that probably the Revenue would be from £800,000 to £1,000,000 more than I had stated it in my Budget Estimate.
MR. DODSONsaid, that fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, his esoteric estimate, which was much more sanguine than his exoteric one, was realized, for there was an increase in the Revenue of £2,400,000 over the Revenue of the preceding year, and notwithstanding the large Supplementary Estimates, amounting in all to £1,405,000, he reached the conclusion of the year with a surplus. The right hon. Gentleman had called their attention in a very marked way to the sluggishness of the Revenue in the latter portion of the last year, and to the larger growth of the Revenue in the earlier portion of the year. Is was true that the larger portion of the growth of the Revenue was due to the first six months of the past year, when the growth of the Excise and Customs was over £700,000, while in the last six months it was only £250,000. The truth was, that the right hon. Gentleman had made his fortune last year by Stamps and Miscellaneous Receipts. The increase of the latter was over £500,000, and the growth of the stamp duty was estimated at £60,000, while the actual growth was £460,000. Both these items partook of a casual character. Stamps embraced really a very mixed and miscellaneous subject of Revenue, because items proceeding from very different sources were all classed under the head of Stamps. There were some stamps, such as those upon bills of
1128
exchange and transfers, which tended to show that trade was upon the increase, and that there was activity and prosperity throughout the country; but there was also a large amount of stamp duty the income from which should be treated rather in the nature of a windfall; such, for instance, as the probate, succession, and legacy duties. He hoped that in the course of the discussion upon the Budget the right hon. Gentleman would analyze for them a little the total amount received from Stamps, and would state in what proportion the increase was due ta the increase of trade and business throughout the country, and what portion of it was due to the good fortune of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in consequence of death during the year making havoc among rich people. A very large portion of the amount credited to growth of the Revenue was from what was called Miscellaneous Revenue, but which would more properly be called miscellaneous receipts. There had been an increase under this head of upwards of £500,000 in the year, though £300,000 of this might properly be treated as belonging to the preceding year. In comparison with last year, the right hon. Gentleman had taken a very moderate estimate of the growth of the Revenue for the coming year when he placed it at only £347,000 upon all branches of the Revenue, except Miscellaneous Receipts, the produce of which he reckoned at less than last year. It would be indiscreet in them, perhaps, to ask questions upon that; but still he could not but think that, considering what passed last year, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, as last year, reserved some esoteric estimate of a further growth of Revenue beyond that which he had just stated to the House, and, if so, what that estimate might be? As to the additional 1d. on the income tax, he wished to throw out a suggestion for consideration, without, however, expressing an opinion upon it, as to the future mode of collecting the tax. It was proposed to place another 1d. upon the tax, which, as at present levied, would produce upwards of £2,000,000. Now, there was a certain amount of inconvenience in a tax which they could only vary by an amount so large as £2,000,000 at a time in one direction or the other, and he would suggest whether the time was not come when it

1129
would be well to mate provision that they might deal with it by a ½d. at the time, so that the amount of the tax could be increased or decreased by £1,000,000, which would certainly be a more convenient sum than £2,000,000. A strong appeal had been made to them by the right hon. Gentleman to support the new Sinking Fund instituted last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the charge for which this year would be £570,000. The deficit was £770,000; but had it not been for that charge for the new Sinking Fund the right hon. Gentleman might, by taking a little more sanguine estimate of the growth of the Revenue, have been in the position to propose no increase of taxation whatever. He would, indeed, have been in the position to introduce the most sensational Budget of modern times, for he would have been able to say that the estimate of Revenue was so much, and the Expenditure so much, so that they just met each other; and, therefore, he could have proposed that they should stand where they were, making no alteration whatever in the taxation of the country. No such Financial Statement had been known for years past, and it would have been a most appropriate Budget to come from a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Dodson) did not at present wish to commit himself in reference to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped that the Government would consent to the Chairman reporting Progress, so that the matter might come on for consideration upon some other evening.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating the great pain with which he had heard the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to the moment of stating the Estimates for the current year the course of the Budget was quite satisfactory; but those Estimates, as had just been said, were very moderate ones. He was not prepared for the announcement of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet his self-created difficulty in an artificial deficit. How much of the £78,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated as the necessary charge upon the taxpayers of the country for the year was to go to the reduction of the National Debt?
1130
Would it be much less than £5,000,000? The sum devoted to the reduction of Debt had been increasing year by year, and was increasing very fast before the right hon. Gentleman came into office; and he (Mr. Hubbard) was exceedingly anxious that the Debt should not be further reduced by the means which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. Last year he introduced a scheme which eclipsed the schemes of his Predecessors, and in the course of a few years would be found impracticable, and which had already landed us in a great difficulty. He (Mr. Hubbard) objected not to the reduction of the National Debt, but to the means by which it was proposed to be effected. We had an income tax which, as at present levied, was acknowledged to be one of the most bungling, demoralizing, and inequitable taxes that had ever been imposed. It was originally imposed for three years in order to do a specific work; and it had been continued for 30 years, and no Minister had yet had the courage to reform it. Yet, properly levied and collected, an income tax was the best tax that a country could have, and it was a reproach to justice and to the ability of the Members of that House that this tax should continue in the condition in which it was now. He had imagined that with a 2d. income tax we had reached a point at which the Government should reconsider the whole matter. There was no difficulty whatever in placing an income tax upon a thoroughly equitable and satisfactory footing; but until this was done he should protest with all his heart against increasing its aggressions upon the consciences and pockets of the community. He must entirely object to the application of the income tax, in its present unreformed state, to increase the Revenue in order that a surplus might be applied to the reduction of the National Debt. Everyone should contribute according to his ability, and there was no principle in taking £400 as the limit for the commencement of partial exemption from the tax, and in the entire exemption of incomes under £150. These exemptions were the sop offered in order to obtain consent to the scheme proposed. It was not his intention on that occasion to make an income tax speech; but he gave Notice that he should, on a future day, move a Resolution to the effect—

1131
"That it is inexpedient to increase the revenue by adding to the burden of an inequitable and demoralizing Income Tax, particularly when the surplus anticipated is to be applied tot he reduction of the National Debt."
MR. LAINGthought that, as a rule, they should not discuss the details of a Budget upon the first night; but upon the present occasion the real issue seemed to be narrowed down to the question how the increased expenditure was to be met, and under those circumstances it was right that those who, like himself, had a strong opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing the right, if an unpopular thing, to state that opinion and participate in the unpopularity of it. On two former occasions he had criticized the Budgets of the right hon. Gentleman, and urged on him a policy resembling that which he had now adopted. In reference to the Sinking Fund, he said last year that it ought not to be proposed, unless there was a positive certainty that there would be an excess of income over expenditure; because, with a deficit, it would not carry with it the appearance of sincerity in the proposal. On the present occasion it was evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had but three courses before him. He might have trusted, as he did last year, to sanguine estimates of Revenue, or he must have abandoned his scheme for the reduction of the National Debt; or, finally, he must have done what he had done that evening—namely, proposed an addition of 1d. to the income tax. As to meeting the deficit, which was a temporary one, by an addition to the permanent taxes on articles of consumption, such as the spirit duties for instance, that was a proposal which could not be regarded as worth a moment's consideration. Looking to the present circumstances of the country, it would have been most unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to have indulged in sanguine Estimates, knowing how much the credit of the country depended on the Estimates being correctly framed. He (Mr. Laing) had been opposed on previous occasions to taking too close a view of the Estimates, because such a view would tend to produce want of confidence and mistrust. Another reason why they should not run the Estimates too close was the state of the balances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer candidly admitted that the balances now were lower than it was
1132
desirable to have them. It was a most wholesome rule that we should keep our balances in such a state as not to have to go as a large borrower to the Bank of England, least we might create a crisis, and, looking at it from the point of view of the Exchequer, lose thousands where we were gaining hundreds. The circumstances of the last quarter were conclusive against any prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer venturing upon any sanguine Estimates, especially considering that he had in it the benefit of three days—the additional day in February, Good Friday, and the Bank Holiday, which might both have come in March—and these three additional days ought to have given over £700,000 or £800,000 more than would otherwise have been received. For his part he (Mr. Laing) was astonished that the Revenue kept up so well as it did, when they knew what was the state of trade in most of its leading branches. In many branches they were at present making no profit, and in others trade was hardly ever so bad; whilst it was notorious that wages, which had risen so rapidly in 1873, were now rapidly subsiding to a lower level; and, therefore, to take a sanguine view of the Estimates would certainly not be a prudent course. The only resources there were left open then to the right hon. Gentleman, as he had said, were an increase of the income tax, or the abandonment of the Sinking Fund arrangements of last year. Looking to the growing wealth of the country, he could not think that the income tax, reduced to one-half of what it was when Sir Robert Peel proposed it, could be considered a crushing amount of taxation as affecting the resources of the country. When it became evident that the time had come for making a moderate provision for the reduction of the National Debt—it might be right or wrong—but that step having been taken last year, they could not undo it afterwards without a shock to the credit of the country. With regard to the main principle—that relating to the income tax—he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. The additional 1d. allowing certain exceptions to small incomes, was, he considered, a fair proposal to make, although an additional ½d. without those exceptions would have been the same thing in its financial results, and it was a fair question for discussion which

1133
would have been the better. The right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, shown a considerable amount of moral courage in making a sound financial proposal, avoiding the temptation of resorting to unsound temporary expedients to meet the difficulty. He thought it only fair and right that he should say thus much, having criticized the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman last year.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, he thought that his right hon. Friend had acted wisely in adding 1d. to the income tax. He had also listened with peculiar pleasure to the statement of his right hon. Friend that he intended to further extend the exemptions under the tax. He wished they could be carried further, and he was inclined to believe, on a little more reflection, he might move on a future day that they should be extended still further. In consequence of the falling off in the Excise during the past year, he considered it was unsafe and unwise to calculate on a considerable increase in that Department, and to do so was taking too sanguine a view of the matter. The adherence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proposition he made last Session for the reduction of the National Debt struck him (Mr. Sandford) as peculiar, from its having broken down in the first year of its trial; because, disguise it as they might, they had increased and not diminished the National Debt. We were paying this year £700,000 towards the reduction of the Debt, but we had added £4,000,000 to the Debt; and if we reduced the Debt only at the rate of £700,000, adding to it at the rate of £4,000,000, we should, in 1885, arrive at a very different result from that calculated upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt, the annuity of £200,000 from the Khedive was to be hypothecated towards payment of the interest on the £4,000,000; but could the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckon on receiving it? He thought it extremely uncertain, and he warned his right hon. Friend not to place too much reliance on Egyptian securities. It was an unhappy fact that in the first year the arrangement should have so far failed, and he called attention to it in the hope that future Chancellors of the Exchequer, instead of Icarian flights with a view to the reduction of the Debt, would direct their attention to the prevention of deficits, by
1134
taking the practical course of reducing the Estimates.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assumed that there were only two ways of putting an end to the deficit; either to propose additional taxation, or to tamper with the arrangements for the reduction of the National Debt; but he must remind him that there was a third mode of dealing with it, by the reduction of expenditure. The difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entirely arisen from the enormous expenditure of the Government; and he had attempted to justify that expenditure by urging that they were no worse than their Predecessors, and that the additional increase in the expenditure arose from the increase of the population, and other unavoidable circumstances; but he entirely over looked the fact, that whenever there was a Conservative Government in power, the expenditure of the country went on increasing. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was continually giving the country surprises—either by some extraordinary stroke of spirited foreign policy, or by some unexpected measure of home legislation; and so much was this the case, that hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House were as little able to calculate on what the right hon. Gentleman would do next, as those on the Opposition benches; but, at least, in the matter of expenditure, the course taken by the Prime Minister could occasion no surprise. In that respect, history invariably repeated itself. When Lord Palmerston was in power in 1865, and was succeeded by Lord Russell, the expenditure of the country stood at about £67,000,000; but in 1867 and 1868, Lord Derby and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) increased the amount by about £3,000,000, exclusive of the charges on account of the Abyssinian War. In 1870–71, the expenditure under the Liberal Government was £69,698,539; and, although that amount was unnecessarily increased, owing to the panic arising out of the Franco-German War, yet when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) left office the expenditure stood at £72,000,000. The present Government immediately commenced enlarging the Estimates—last year the total expenditure had increased to

1135
£75,431,000, and for the coming year it was estimated at £78,044,000—an enormous sum, which could not be justified by the increase of the population. It was thus that the beneficent reductions of taxation which they had received from the right hon. Member for Greenwich were entirely lost so soon as the right hon. Gentleman opposite came into office. He (Mr. Rylands) was sorry to be obliged to admit that increased Estimates were popular with many hon. Members, with the London Press, and in the London clubs. The spending servants of the Crown had great influence over hon. Members of that House, over the Press, and over the clubs, and they formed a great trades union to support one another in their demands upon the public purse. His complaint against the Government was, that they yielded to, instead of resisting, the pressure that was brought to bear upon them to increase the expenditure. He believed that in every Department there was more or less waste, or needless expenditure; and in some instances, as they had recently seen in Committee on Civil Services, there had been actual jobbery. If the House would adopt the principle urged by Mr. Cobden of limiting the expenditure of the Government to a fixed and reasonable sum, he had no doubt that the unnecessary charges would be cut down, and that the Services would be kept in a state of efficiency at a much lower cost. It was perfectly scandalous that in a time of peace, and under general circumstances of a favourable character, the people of this country should be called upon to pay £78,000,000 a-year. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed that evening, and that time would be allowed to the country to express its opinion upon the proposals of the Government. At all events, it would now be seen that they could not have a Conservative Government without increased taxation, and that the "blundering and plundering" of the Liberal Government meant the reduction of taxation, and the increase of the comforts of the people.
MR. CHARLES LEWISsupported the request that the Resolution should not be taken that evening, and expressed his great disappointment, as a Conservative, that the Government was departing from what was understood to be one of the leading lines of its policy—the aboli-
1136
tion of the income tax. He had not forgotten that when the Government came into power, they found they were obliged to apply a portion of the surplus to the reduction of the income tax, which they had now re-imposed. He protested against its being carried out. In 1873, when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) brought forward a Motion with reference to the income tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer manfully protested against its being made a balancing entry from year to year, but last year it was put down, and this year it was to be put up. This income tax, which was originally proposed for three years, had been kept continually hanging round the necks of the people for 34 years under different pretences. They were told that it was not a permanent tax; but in reality it was, because every Chancellor of the Exchequer made his arrangements with regard to the reduction of taxation in a way to prevent the annihilation of the tax. The time had now arrived when the Government should deal plainly and fairly with the country in connection with this tax, for there was no security that they would not be asked next year for another 1d., with an endeavour to charm the country by increasing the line of exemptions. These exemptions were delusive, and were full of incongruities. An income of £400 at 2d. in the pound paid 800 pence under the proposed rate of exemptions, at 3d. in the pound it would pay 840 pence. He called upon Her Majesty's Government and the House to devise some scheme to meet the case, for if they left the subject untouched, they would still have a tax which was unequal, unjust, and oppressive, and, in the words of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, provocative of false returns. He would urge on the Government the absolute necessity of affording to the country a full opportunity of considering this serious increase of the income tax—this breach of an understanding come to two years ago that they would keep to 2d. in the pound—["No, no."]—well, if there were no such understanding, it was full time that an understanding should be come to, and that the public should be made aware upon what principles the income tax was not only to be continued, but increased. By their present proposal, they shut their eyes to a great

1137
social and commercial evil, and deserted the duty which rested upon the House and the Government to effectually grapple with the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sufficient ability to deal with the income tax on a fair and equitable basis, and unless some understanding to that effect was come to he should feel bound to vote against the proposal of the Government.
MR. PEASEsaid, that concurring in what had been said as to its unjust incidence, he felt that the proposal to increase the income tax could not but be unpopular with the country; but he nevertheless thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been too sanguine if he had gone beyond the figures which he had laid before the House. He regretted two great items of this increased expenditure—the large amount devoted to paying off the National Debt and the additional cost of the Army and Navy, the latter exhibiting an increase of £1,100,000 on the year, and of £2,200,000 in excess of the estimates of the preceding Government. He had always objected to paying off the Debt by a hard and fast line, and it would have been much better as to both these items if the Government at a time of commercial depression had left the money to fructify in the pockets of the taxpayers. The country would do well to pay off the Debt in times of prosperity; but, under the present Budget, they would be paying it off at a time when it was incumbent on the Government to economize by every means in their power. Had they been economical, instead of their having to propose an increase on the income tax of 1d. in the pound there would have been an ample surplus. He trusted that the Resolution for an increase of the income tax would remain for some days in the hands of the Committee before a vote was asked upon it.
COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHsaid, he had pleasure in congratulating his right hon. Friend on the excellent nature of his Budget. His (Colonel Leigh's) idea of a Chancellor of the Exchequer was one who paid his debts and kept the country out of all scrapes, and he thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not brought them into any scrapes. His right hon. Friend had proposed a fair mode of taxation, for it hit those who could afford to pay, and allowed those who were not possessed of
1138
such worldly means as others to escape. When "invasion" was talked of, it should be remembered that no small portion of the increased expenditure was required for the purpose of providing against an invasion of ignorance. The Government had been obliged to raise the pay of the Army, because, when every other description of labour had increased in value, that step was inevitable. No one grudged the increased expenditure for education, and it was unfair to blame the Government, who in that respect were only doing what their Predecessors ought to have done long ago.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, there was no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really obliged to provide for an expenditure of £78,000,000, he could hardly have brought before the House any other Budget than that which he had brought. He entirely approved two features of the Budget—the relief given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the paltry and vexatious tax on boys, and his determination to maintain the principle of reducing the National Debt. With regard to the former, he was astonished its aggregate amount was £40,000; that showed, however, what a vexatious impost it must be; while as to the latter, it would effect much more than the mere payment—it would have a good moral effect on the country. It would call out the best characteristics of the country and show that there was a moral obligation to do that as a nation which every private individual would accept as a moral obligation. He was also glad that the right hon. Gentleman had done his best to gild the pill by reducing the income tax on the smaller incomes—and he had really tried to lighten the burden upon them. But they all knew what the Inland Revenue did in such cases. They gave the screw another turn, so as to bring the man of small income within the prescribed amount. The House had seen how expansive the 1d. of income tax had been in the hands of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer; but he wished the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to its unjust incidence. No one could have forgotten the strong appeal made a few years ago by the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary to the Treasury when in opposition, yet the injustice and in-

1139
equality of the tax remained unchanged. The Associated Chambers of Commerce had passed an unanimous resolution against any proposal to re-enact the income tax in any shape or form. Why was the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the necessity of imposing this extra 1d.? He rejoiced to see the increase of the Education Vote; but it only formed a small part of the present excess of expenditure. It was the profligate and unnecessary expenditure of an additional £1,100,000 upon the Army and Navy, at a moment when we had nothing to fear, which rendered it necessary to increase the income tax.
COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had pleasure in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the exemption from income tax which he had made in his Financial Statement in favour of those with small incomes. In his humble opinion, it would be approved by the country at large. The increase of the amount now exempted from tax on incomes of £300 per annum, from £80 to £120 would be a boon to men with small incomes; and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his statement which would go forth to the country, and be hailed with gratitude by the large body of men numbering hundreds of thousands, who would derive the benefit of this just legislation.
MR. D. DAVIESconsidered that the addition of 1d. to the income tax was not much, and he also thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he dealt with the matter. He and those on his side of the House had no choice but to submit, and for his own part he should give his hearty support to the laying on of the additional 1d. The constituents of hon. Members on his (Mr. Davies's) side would have no tax to pay, and it was therefore very honourable and the right thing for the right hon. Gentleman to do. He was afraid, however, the right hon. Gentleman had been over sanguine as to the next year's revenue. He—and he was not alone in doing so—thought they were just on the borders of bad times, into which the country would in the ensuing year be more deeply plunged. He was perfectly disinterested in saying that he should willingly pay 1d. or even 2d. extra income tax; for, if the extra amount had been put upon spirits, he should
1140
have paid nothing, as he did not drink them.
MR. PELL, while he acknowledged the Chancellor of the Exchequer's concession to small incomes, would be glad if some definite principle could be stated—some point fixed below which there should be no favour shown. He was afraid that the experiment was one that might be carried to a dangerous length. It was a sound principle that no part of a man's income should be taxed which was necessary for the support of life; but, in his opinion, a man with £400 was as much entitled to pay as one with £500 or £600. He also was desirous to know whether they were to have Supplementary Estimates: or in estimating their surplus at £368,000, had the Government not taken into consideration the paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to the introduction of a Prisons Bill? Reference had been made to a sum of £4,000,000 as the present amount of Treasury Grants towards Local Taxation, and he was at a loss to know how that amount was accounted for unless it included £1,000,000 sterling which was to be appropriated to the police of Ireland. A very large sum, it should be observed, was devoted to the purposes of education. Regretting that something more had not been done for the relief of local taxation, he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his remarks on the modern system of loans. Every local authority, down to the smallest Vestry, had got into a confirmed habit, rendered possible by the Public Loans Commissioners, of borrowing sums for the most evanescent improvements. For instance, at a recent meeting of the Metropolitan Asylum Board there was a proposition to borrow a sum of money to be expended on iron tanks, and although the tanks would be sure to be full of holes in a few years, the repayment was to spread over 60 years.
MR. MONKcongratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the unsensational character of his Budget. There were, however, two items in it to which he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the stamp duty and the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated £11,000,000 from stamps and £5,950,000 from the Post Office; but he would draw attention to the fact that although the receipts from stamps and taxes as well

1141
as from the Post Office had increased steadily for some years past, the right hon. Gentleman had put the former down at less, and the latter at the same sum which they produced last year. He regretted to find that to meet a deficit of £800,000 the right hon. Gentleman had taken the retrograde step of proposing an increase of 1d. in the pound in the income tax. He thought it would have been better had a ½d. instead of 1d. addition been made to the tax, and he failed to see the justice of exemption to so high a figure as £400 a-year. A far better plan, and one of which the country would have been more tolerant, would have been to have increased the duty on spirits.
MR. GORSTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer included among grants professedly in aid of local taxation many sums which were really expended for Imperial purposes. For instance, the first item that struck him was a grant of £10,000 a-year in aid of the Fire Brigade. He also found that the right hon. Gentleman had set down a large sum as what he called grants in aid of the criminal prosecutions of the country. He further found that of the £4,000,000 in aid of local taxation more than £1,000,000 was granted in aid of the Irish Constabulary. If the various items which did not properly come within that description were deducted, the £4,000,000 for grants in aid of local taxation would be reduced to a very small amount indeed.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in the face of a deficit, and although it was not a large one, yet he had to meet it, and he had stated he had only two alternatives—either to tamper with the scheme of last year for the reduction of Debt, or to increase the income tax, and he had chosen the latter. He (Mr. Anderson) by no means admitted that these were the only two alternatives. Last year he was one of those who denounced the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, and the experience of this year ought to have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that that scheme was altogether erroneous; for if he had not shut them up to the payment of £28,000,000 through good and bad times, and irrespective of the condition of the country, he would not have been in the position to-day of having to face a deficit, but his accounts would
1142
have balanced. Amongst other alternatives, the right hon. Gentleman might have increased the duty on spirits, which he thought would have been a proposal which would have been more popular with the country. There was also another thing to which he had not alluded, and which he (Mr. Anderson) commended to his consideration. That was the question of legacy and succession duty on property in the hands of corporations. There was an immense amount of property in the country which was shut up in that way without bearing its fair share of national taxation. It was put into the hands of corporations, and these corporations lasted for ever, and therefore the succession and legacy duty was not paid upon that property to the same extent that it was paid upon property left to private parties. It was believed that property in the hands of private persons paid legacy and succession duty on an average about once in 18 or 19 years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bring the property of municipal and all other corporations under a similar payment, because there was a great mine of wealth untouched there at present. The real fault of the Budget, however, was not in the way the right hon. Gentleman met the deficit, but in the fact of having a deficit at all. They did not complain of the increase in the Civil Service Estimates, except in one or two particular cases to which the attention of the public had been drawn, and they did not complain even of the increased expenditure on the Navy, because that might be necessary too. What they did complain of was, the large expenditure in connection with the Army. It was there entirely that the mischief was done, and the Government ought to give their attention to the matter, or the expenditure would go on increasing, at the same time that the financial difficulties of the Government were increasing.
MR. WHITWELLthought the right hon. Gentleman's system with regard to local loans was most commendable, and wished to know how much of the additional 1d. of the income tax would be absorbed in the further exemptions? Instead of making an abatement on incomes up to £400, he would suggest that it would be better to make an abatement of £300 in the case of all incomes.
SIR HENRY PEEKthought that, as between an increase of the spirit duties and the income tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in falling back upon the latter, for he doubted whether, through illicit distillation, an increase in the spirit duties would lead to an increase in revenue. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not touched upon one point in his Statement—an amalgamation between the Customs and Excise Departments. There were now two very extensive Governing Bodies, and, considering that nineteen-twentieths of the Customs revenue were produced by the duties on four articles—tobacco, spirits, tea, and wine, he thought a considerable saving might be effected by such an amalgamation. That suggestion led to another—the propriety of doing away with the minor Customs duties, which now only yielded the difference between £19,300,000 and a little over £20,000,000. It would be of great public advantage to abolish the duties on coffee, chicory, and cocoa, among the other minor articles now subject to Customs duties. Another duty which might be reduced with advantage was the duty on silver plate. There was a complaint just now of a depreciation in the value of silver; but if the duty were diminished, silver plate would be largely substituted for electro plate in this country, and the consumption of silver would thus be increased.
MR. MELLORsaid, he had entertained the hope that in the advent of a Conservative Government to power a period of economy and retrenchment had arrived. They were, however, now living in a period of as great extravagance as ever, each Department vieing with one another as to which should go at the most rapid rate. In the item of superannuation of retired officers a constant increase was going on. There appeared to be a system of frequent reorganization and abolition of public offices; the holders were pensioned off frequently at an age at which they were still qualified to do good service to the country. In that way annual grants were being constantly created, and the consequence was there was never any reduction in the annual cost. In 1868–9, 130 pensions were granted, involving an annual charge of £27,591. In 1869–70, 243 pensions were granted,
1144
creating an annual charge of £85,129. In 1870–1, 280 pensions were granted, creating an annual charge of £63,737. In 1871–2, 117 places were abolished, the result being an annual charge of £27,243; and in 1872–3, 52 places were abolished, creating an annual charge of £23,449. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to this vicious system, which appeared continually at work, and more especially when there was a change of Government. It appeared to him as if people were sent adrift in order to extend the patronage of the Government. In the Woods and Forests Department also there was infamous and scandalous mismanagement, which should be looked into by the Government. In England and Wales, upon an annual rental of £312,944, the arrears amounted to over £52,000, of which a large proportion was declared to be irrecoverable. In Ireland, upon a rental of £42,000, the arrears were £86,000, or 201 per cent, £53,000 being declared to be irrecoverable. In Scotland the rental was £23,000, and the arrears £45,000. Such a state of things could only be explained by gross neglect on the part of those from whom greater vigilance was to be expected, and but for whose neglect there would be a considerable increase of revenue under this head. As some safeguard for proper accounts he would suggest that the names of defaulters whose rent was deemed irrecoverable should be given in the annual Returns of the Woods and Forests. In conclusion, he greatly regretted that they should have a national expenditure of £78,000,000 per annum, and he hoped that instead of adopting the alternative of putting a further duty on spirits, or of increasing the income tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Heads of Departments would turn their attention to the reduction of expenditure.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that after the general wish which had been expressed that the Resolution should not be proceeded with that evening, the Government would not press it. The dividends would be paid in a few days, and it was a matter of convenience to ascertain as soon as possible the rate of the tax and the deductions. However, he found that it was not absolutely necessary to

1145
pass the Resolution to-night, and he should therefore propose to report Progress and take the Resolution on Thursday. Though a considerable range of topics had been introduced, the point for discussion was a narrow one, upon which he hoped that hon. Members would be able to make up their minds on Thursday. As to the remarks which had been made that evening, he did not propose to enter into the general question of the merits or demerits of the income tax, or the consistency or inconsistency of his proposals. The proper time for doing so would be when the real discussion came on. Meanwhile, he would only correct one or two misapprehensions of his meaning. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) asked whether, in estimating the surplus of £368,000, the Government had taken into consideration the paragraph in Her Majesty's gracious Speech referring to the Prisons Bill? He believed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Cross) would introduce the Prisons Bill shortly after Easter, and his explanations would satisfy the hon. Member that there was no inconsistency between the terms used in the Queen's Speech and the Budget Statement. The hon. Member had also asked, with reference to the grants in aid of local taxation, how much was included in the £4,000,000 of which he had spoken? The £4,000,000 was the sum set out in the two explanatory pages printed this year with the Miscellaneous Estimates, and they included those items to which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) referred—the Irish Constabulary, costs of criminal prosecutions, and so forth. He did not quite understand the objections of his hon. Friends. He was not endeavouring to raise any question as to the propriety of these Votes. What he wished to point out was that the additions to the expenditure formerly incurred under these heads had formed the main increase which had been complained of in the Civil Service Estimates. In fact, the whole increase could be accounted for partly by the increase in the Education Vote and partly by the addition to the Votes included in this class of services. Whether or not it was right to call them grants in aid of local taxation, they were sums which had been trans-
1146
ferred from local to Imperial funds, and that point should be borne in mind when an increase of expenditure was spoken of. It was not altogether an increase, but rather a shifting of the burden from one shoulder to another. Then the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) challenged one or two of his estimates on the ground that they had been taken too low. With respect to Stamps, he did not think he had been at all too cautious in taking them at the same amount as last year. He remembered in his first Budget he made a very handsome calculation for an increase on Stamps, but, most unfortunately, he found himself thrown out by £340,000. On that occasion, Stamps were within a fraction of the same sum they had yielded the year before. Warned by that, he took Stamps last year at very nearly the amount they had produced the year before, and they more than answered his expectation. This year he also took them at the same amount as they had produced. He must remind hon. Gentlemen that the Stamp revenue was just the revenue which would be affected by the two or three days which we were to lose this year—the two Good Fridays and the Bank Holiday. Therefore he thought he had acted prudently in taking Stamps as he had done. So with regard to the Post Office, he had put the revenue as high, or rather higher, than the actual receipts justified. As they were this year bringing £50,000 out of the Post Office balances, which were somewhat larger than was necessary, that would make the receipts larger than the amount earned would justify. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), that the succession tax might be laid on corporations, he did not say that it would not be an equitable thing in itself, but he felt satisfied it would be a difficult tax to levy, and he must take time to consider the proposal. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Surrey (Sir Henry Peek) reminded the Committee of his favourite proposal for amalgamating the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. Though such a proceeding might appear economical, it would not be truly so. We might carry amalgamation too far, and might find that we were doing more harm than good. His hon. Friend had talked of abolishing small duties of Customs, such as on coffee, chicory, and fruit. But that

1147
was a proposal hardly apposite to the present occasion, nor was he in a position to consider such tempting suggestions. As to the abolition of the duty on silver plate, he would like first to hear what should be said by the Committee now sitting on the depreciation of silver. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor) had made some very valuable remarks. He did not know, however, whether they bore on the proposals under consideration. But a Gentleman who devoted himself as his hon. Friend had done to the items of expenditure was doing, and would do, a good work. Chancellors of the Exchequer were always thankful to have their hands strengthened by those who would take the trouble to look into those matters, call attention to them, and censure what was wrong. Though it was not a very agreeable thing to listen to attacks on the Administration and to defend the office attacked, he thought such Gentlemen did great good. With regard to the income tax, what he said was this—that to add 1d. without making any alteration in the present arrangements would give £1,480,000 this year, and £320,000 next year, or £1,800,000 altogether. But if they took the exemptions proposed, he estimated that we should have £1,168,000 this year, and £230,000 next year, or about £1,400,000 in all. He thought it would be best for the Committee to consider the general question, and the discussion both of the propriety of meeting this deficit by increasing the income tax, and the manner in which the income tax should be assessed, on Thursday next. With that in view, he would propose that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [BILL 49.]
(Sir Charles Adderley, Mr. Edward Stanhope).
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL— [BILL 49.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th March.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (Power to detain unsafe ships and procedure for such detention.)
  MR. T. E. SMITH, in moving as an Amendment, in page 2, line 19, to leave
  1148
  out "British," said, he had never been much alarmed by the proposed legislation with regard to shipping, for he had felt sure that any system adopted by the House would be applied equally, and for the interest of the whole, and though there might be a loss to the consumers, he had not thought legislation would materially affect the shipping interest individually. His private opinion was, that if the House were to legislate in such a manner as that no fresh capital were to be put into the business for the next 10 years, it would be a great deal better for those who had capital in it now. He did not, therefore, think if the subject were treated on a broad and general principle, it would materially affect the interests of particular shipowners. But he did feel that a proposition which dealt in a very strict and severe manner with regard to British ships was likely seriously to interfere with the interests of British shipowners. He therefore proposed that this legislation should apply to foreign ships. To the objection that the House would go beyond its province in legislating for foreign ships, he replied, we already legislated for them in regard to passengers, and surely the lives of sailors would justify equal interference, and such interference as was already found practicable in Canada and in the United States. Many ships sailing under foreign flags were just the ships the House desired to deal with; they sailed under foreign flags to evade existing British regulations, and the number of such ships would be increased, if this legislation were confined to British ships. Again, the exemption of foreign vessels from our legislation placed British ships under special disadvantages in the competition for trade, and he would give as an instance the fact that the other day the case was brought before him of two ships loading for the same port. One was an English ship, manned by an English crew, which was, of course, subject to Government supervision; the other vessel, built in England, and with British seamen on board, was under the Russian flag. The latter of these was going to sea with six large threshing machines on deck, which the other vessel would not be allowed to carry. That was not fair competition, and he hoped the Board of Trade would be able to find a remedy. For these reasons, he

  1149
  would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, to leave out the word "British."—(Mr. Eustace Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'British' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in opposing the Amendment, said, he would admit that the point raised by the hon. Member was of very great importance. There could be no question that vessels which were exempt from restrictive laws in this country were placed in a position of considerable advantage. That was so much felt in Canada that strong language had been used in the Dominion Parliament, and they had asked to be treated as foreigners, if the Imperial Parliament did not impose the same laws upon foreigners as upon British subjects. It was no doubt a hardship upon the British shipowner that he should be stopped from putting to sea because his vessel was overloaded, when by his side there might be a foreign ship still more overloaded which was allowed to go to sea. The case might be put still more strongly, for the foreign ship, overloaded as she was, might take on her voyage the very cargo which had been taken out of the British vessel and convey it to a foreign port. That was an advantage of a somewhat iniquitous kind, and as it involved danger to human life, it was not a very creditable kind of competition. It must, however, be borne in mind that it could only be maintained at a countervailing risk, and possibly loss. The first argument he drew from this difficulty was that nothing could show more strongly the dangers of over-interference with British shipowners. If we strictly refrained from interfering more than was absolutely necessary for safety, those who were free from interference were also unsafe. No doubt we should as far as possible make all necessary Government interference weigh equally on our foreign competitors and ourselves. What was the state of the law on this subject? As a general rule foreign ships in our ports were subject to our municipal law, and their crews were amenable to our criminal law. Practically, however, our Courts did not deal with matters affecting the discipline and management of a foreign vessel, or any concerns
  1150
  of her own, but only with what might affect general law, and then only in extreme cases, and that with reference always to their Consul. When a foreign ship took emigrants from an English port the Government saw that our rules were observed; but it was our own interest which was then looked after as it was when a foreign State took precautions against the landing of infected emigrants upon its shores. The English Government also surveyed foreign passenger steamers going between two English ports. The proposition, however, of the hon. Member for Tynemouth went much further. He proposed to say to foreign ships—"We will detain you, if we think you overloaded or in any way unseaworthy, and you shall not drown your men by running risks which we do not allow our ships to run." But that would be a great stretch of assumed jurisdiction over foreign subjects, and it would be a strong measure, in order to enforce it, to inflict penalties upon foreigners. They had been told that Canada dealt with foreigners in the same way as with Canadians; but Canada might venture to do things under cover as a colony which England, as the first maritime nation in the world, could hardly do without giving rise to disputes, and even running the risk of war. It would open the door not only to disputes, but to acts of retaliation. The Chilian Government only last year, after the loss of the Tacna, imposed a law for interference with our ships, and nothing but our stout remonstrances caused that law to be dropped. How could we, within the space of a few months, remonstrate against and enact against others such interference? How would English shipowners, moreover, like their ships in French, Spanish, or Italian ports to be subjected to be overhauled by the surveyors of those Governments as to the mode in which they should be loaded, equipped, and manned, according to whatever laws they chose to lay down, before they were allowed to enter or leave their ports? He knew the narrow jealousy with which our maritime superiority was regarded in some parts of the world, and would be sorry to see our ships under the control of foreign surveyors. If the proposal were agreed to, we must be prepared for retaliation, which would inflict far greater injury upon the multitude of British ship-

  1151
  owners than could occur to any foreign State under the Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) had given Notice of a clause which should empower Her Majesty by Orders in Council to impose our merchant shipping laws upon such foreign nations as were willing to accept them. Treaties might be immediately entered upon for this purpose. That was a safe proposal, which could give no offence, and would be more likely to carry out the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view than the Amendment before the House. Safe terms might be carefully proposed on both sides. Other countries were showing a disposition to follow our lead in regard to the measurement of tonnage, the rule of the road at sea, and other maritime subjects. They were proposing also to prevent the transfer of unseaworthy ships from our flag to theirs. He was willing, as far as could safely be done, to follow the views of the hon. Member, but he trusted the House would reject the present sweeping Amendment.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he thought that great hardship would arise if British and foreign ships were not placed upon the same footing. Two ships might be loading side by side, the British ship being prevented from going to sea because she was overloaded, and the foreign ship being allowed to go, although in an equally dangerous condition. The foreign ship might, moreover, take as many English sailors to sea as were in the British ship and drown them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would view the Amendment in a more favourable light, as he did not think the alternative proposition would be acceptable to his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. If his hon. Friend insisted that the same law should be applied to foreign shipowners as was applied to English shipowners, he should follow him into the Lobby.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, the British shipowner had a perfect right to expect of the British House of Commons that they should not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with foreign shipowners. There could be no doubt we had a right to exercise powers of inspection as to equipment and loading over foreign ships in our ports, and the only question was how far that right ought to be exercised. It would be wrong in the in-
  1152
  terests of English shipowners if we allowed foreigners to come into our ports and to load more deeply than English ships. He thought by leaving out the term "British" a great portion of the object of his hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth would be attained. He, however, would strongly advise the Committee to be cautious how far they legislated for foreign ships. He himself would not go further in this direc-than overloading and other cognate subjects. In supporting the Amendment, he must be allowed to express his great gratification at the evident interest which was now being taken in the subject.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that he wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. T. E. Smith); but he would like first to call the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause as it stood in the Bill. It would be seen that in any case it was purely a permissive clause, and would not oblige the Board of Trade to deal with foreigners; but, on the other hand, if the Amendment were accepted, the clause would no longer, as was the case at present, specifically exclude foreign vessels coming into our ports from the operation of all such legislation. It was quite wrong that there should be any legislation for British vessels except such as could be equally applied to foreign vessels in British ports. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated what he considered to be objections to this Amendment; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) had no doubt whatever that the clause so amended could be worked without any of the disadvantages which the right hon. Gentleman feared. The President of the Board of Trade spoke of foreign nations retaliating; but he (Mr. Mac Iver) saw no ground for fearing retaliation so long as our British laws were reasonable and just, but, of course, if we made a law that was not reasonable, it could not be right in the case of either the British shipowner or his foreign competitor. The hon. Member for Tynemouth referred to the inspection of foreign emigrant vessels in our ports, and the President of the Board of Trade replied somewhat in this way—that we did that for the sake of the British passengers on board of those vessels; but was that

  1153
  a sufficient reply? Did not the fact remain that we do deal with foreign vessels, carrying emigrants from British ports in the same way as we deal with British vessels? And he would remind the Committee that there were instances where we equally interfered under other circumstances with arriving foreign vessels. It was not possible for foreign vessels to bring gunpowder or petroleum into the docks of Liverpool any more than it was for British vessels to do so. It might be said that these were precautions dictated by considerations for the public safety; but he replied that it did not matter what might be the considerations, the fact remained that we could do these things, and that we did them. He did not wish to detain the Committee, but he desired to say that another strong reason why foreign vessels should not be specifically excluded from our legislation was that we had to face the question of transfers, and the case especially of those who might be disposed to transfer unseaworthy British vessels to foreign flags. He assured the Committee that that was no imaginary case, for he knew of vessels, more or less doubtful, of which there were presumable reasons to believe that the money for them was found in Great Britain, but which were registered in Norwegian and other names. Therefore he thought it ought to be in the power of the Board of Trade to reach such vessels, and he begged to support the Amendment.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREheartily wished that the Amendment could be adopted, but doubted whether, as a matter of maritime policy, we could make these regulations as to foreign shipping lying within our ports. From time immemorial it had been the policy of the British Government to protest against any regulations imposed by foreign Governments upon British vessels in foreign ports, and it would not be wise to depart from that policy. He suggested, however, whether, by consultation with foreign Governments, these clauses might not be applied to the vessels of those countries in English ports, with the consent of the Consuls of those countries.
  SIR JOHN HAYregretted that the President of the Board of Trade could only accept the new clause of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone),
  1154
  which would hardly be sufficient for the object in view. A foreign ship might be perfectly unseaworthy; it might have been transferred the day before to a foreign flag; it might have British seamen on board. Why, then, should not the Board of Trade take upon itself provisionally to stop it?
  MR. MACGREGORsuggested that foreign vessels should be surveyed only as to overloading, and not for structural defects. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) were adopted as well as that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, the difficulty would be met.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would point out that by the 3rd sub-section of the 11th clause there was a provision by which an English ship, which might while in port have become a foreign ship by transfer, should still be subject to English rules and regulations.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would acknowledge the difficulties attending the question. It seemed unequal justice that foreign ships sailing from British ports should not be subjected to the same restrictions as British ships, and that thus not only life should be risked, but foreign shipowners should be enabled to compete on unequal terms with the British shipowner. It was almost impossible, however, to subject foreign ships to these restrictions under the present clause. From the point of view taken by its Mover, the Amendment appeared to be unanswerable; but, if our rules were to apply to all foreign vessels, it must be remembered that that did not confine them to all vessels starting from any of our ports. It would apply to any which came in either from stress of weather, or calling under the conditions of charter party, or any other transient cause; and, by the clause, all such foreign ships would become subject to the legislation of this country. His solution of the difficulty was to apply our municipal law to foreign vessels as far as we could by means of a separate clause.
  LORD ESLINGTONthought it was scarcely worth while giving the Board of Trade a power which they would probably never venture to exercise. He was of opinion that if we framed regulations for our shipping which were found to be salutary, foreign nations would imitate us.
  MR. WILSON, as a shipowner, said, he could not imagine a more dangerous practice than an interference with foreign shipping in our own ports. Shipowners were much divided in opinion on this question, and he for one hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would adhere strongly to the views he had expressed with reference to the subject.
  MR. GOURLEYdeclared that the clause as it stood would handicap British ships by subjecting them to foreign municipal law.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsupported the Amendment. It was impossible that they could have restrictions and regulations applicable to British ships with the view of saving life and property, and exempt foreign ships from the same provisions in our own ports. He could understand free trade, and a total absence of all restrictions and regulations; but while such legislation applied to our shipping, it ought in justice to apply all round. It was said that foreigners might retaliate on our ships when they were in foreign ports, but so long as the object was the same as our own—the protection of life and limb—let them retaliate.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKadmired the good intentions, but not the law and the policy, of the hon. and learned Gentleman. By the repeal of the Navigation Laws we gave foreigners certain rights in our ports, which no doubt we had not in foreign ports. It was impossible for us to legislate for foreign ships. We had no right to bring foreign property under our jurisdiction, and if we attempted it we should fail.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think this was a case for retaliation. The object of the Amendment was simply to place foreign ships which came into our ports in the same position as our own. He could not understand why they should be treated differently, and he should therefore vote for the Amendment.
  MR. A. PEELsaid, that if they made rules distasteful to foreign countries, foreigners might impose disadvantageous regulations on English ships in their ports. This was entirely a matter of conciliation and agreement, and resolved itself into a question of expediency. There were precedents to be found in the digest issued by the Board
  1156
  of Trade. Power was given by Order in Council to apply certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act to foreign ships by agreement with foreign Powers—with reference to collisions, for instance, and the engagement and discharge of seamen. This matter might be placed in the same category, and all distinctions might be done away with.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that as the strongest proof that what was proposed could be carried out without difficulty, he must be again allowed to refer to the successful working of the Canadian law with the United States. He must express his regret that the course adopted by the President of the Board of Trade left him no option but to take the sense of the Committee upon the question.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 89: Majority 70.
  MR. PLIMSOLL MR. PLIMSOLL moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 20, after "or," to insert "where any ship is." Its object was to secure that the provision of the clause relating to overloading and improper loading should apply to foreign as well as to British ships.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, it was useless to re-open a question which had already been discussed and decided. He had suggested a way in which foreigners might be treated with, which would come under discussion.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that foreigners were surprised at the way in which this question was being treated in England, and they took care not to follow our example.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that, as the law now stood, an English ship unfit for sea, if sold to a foreign owner, could not be stopped. He asked if there was no cause, however gross, that would induce the Government to interfere and stop a vessel, no matter what her nationality was?
  LORD ESLINGTONhoped the President of the Board of Trade would take the subject into his consideration.
  SIR HENRY JAMESproposed that there should be added to the Amendment words which would limit the effect of the hon. Member for Derby's (Mr. Plimsoll's) Amendment to foreign ships

  1157
  "wholly or partially laden" in British ports.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was a matter of some importance and some delicacy. The question was a difficult one to settle, as the Government had to steer between the Scylla of giving foreign ships an advantage over our own ships by imposing on our own ships restrictions which did not fall on foreign ships, and the Charybdis of so legislating with regard to foreign ships as to expose our own ships to retaliation in ports abroad. There ought to be time to consider this matter, and he would therefore suggest that both Amendments should be withdrawn. The Government would endeavour to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby, in order as far as possible to deal with the case of foreign ships overloading in a British port.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he gladly accepted the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY JAMES SIR HENRY JAMES moved, as an Amendment, that the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may" in the clause, his object being to cast upon the Board of Trade the duty of immediate action when they had reason to believe that a vessel was unseaworthy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALargued that the word "may" in this instance was equivalent to "shall," and that the proposed alteration was unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. E. SMITH MR. T. E. SMITH moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "three" and insert "seven," with a view to give the shipowner additional time to appeal against the report of a Surveyor of the Board of Trade.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYconsidered the extension of the time unnecessary. It would also inflict unnecessary expense on the shipowner. But if the shipowners themselves saw no objection to the delay, and hanging up a survey for so long in suspense, it was not for others to be afraid on their account.
  MR. MACGREGORsupported the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. E. SMITH, Amendment made, in page 3, line 7, by leaving out "twenty-four hours," and inserting "three days."
  MR. GOURLEYproposed an Amendment, in page 3, line 10, sub-section 5, providing that in all cases where the master of a detained ship complied with the requirements of the local surveyor the latter should have power to release the ship.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that that was the wrong time to propose it. It would come more properly under the 8th and 10th sub-sections which dealt with the power of release; but certainly that power could not be entrusted to all and any surveyors, but only to the same officers who could detain: and any reference would now have to be made only to the district officer who could not be far off, and probably within a few minutes of time, by telegram.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would have no objection to insert the words at the close of sub-section 10.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ESLINGTON LORD ESLINGTON moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, after sub-section 11, to insert the following new sub-section:—
  "(12.) In every case where the Board of Trade shall provisionally detain a ship, such Board shall forthwith deliver to the owner or master of such ship a statement in writing of the information upon which they have acted, and the name of the person from whom such information was received, and, if such information was given in writing, an entire copy of such writing shall be included in the statement so to be delivered."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he did not object to the proposed sub-section down to "and the name of the person," &c. If those words were omitted, he should not oppose the sub-section.
  Words struck out.
  Amendment, as amended, considered.
  MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, a provision of the kind had been adopted in 1871, with the effect of stopping all information, and had been deliberately with-

  1159
  drawn by Parliament in 1873. He was now defending an action for libel because he had forwarded to the Board of Trade a telegram which he had received respecting a ship which was surveyed and reported to be seaworthy.
  SIR HENRY JAMESopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would, if acted upon, necessarily disclose the identity of the informant.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsupported the proposal for the protection of the shipowners against rash and ill-considered information. He thought that the shipowner had a right to know who made the complaint against him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Amendment only sanctioned the present practice of the Board of Trade of furnishing the shipowner with the information upon which they acted.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREopposed the Amendment as it would lead to the discovery of the name of the informant, and would thus tend to check the giving of information.
  MR. NORWOODcontended that, in justice to the shipowners, the Board of Trade ought to be compelled to notify them of the information upon which they acted.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsuggested that the Amendment should be altered by omitting the word "information" and substituting for it "a statement in writing of the grounds upon which the Board of Trade have acted."
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYasked the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, promising that on the Report he would introduce into a prior clause, where it would be more appropriate, words which would effect the object he had in view.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, reserving to himself the right, if he did not approve of the words introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, to oppose them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
  MR. MAC IVER MR. MAC IVER moved its rejection, on the ground that it would establish a most un-English system of espionage.
  Motion negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Constitution of court of survey for appeals).
  MR. T. E. SMITH MR. T. E. SMITH moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from "experience" to "judge," in line 20, and insert—
  "And shall be appointed, one by the Board of Trade, either generally or in each case, out of a list of persons periodically nominated for the purpose by the local marine board of the port, or if there is no such board, by a body of local shipowners or merchants approved for the purpose by a Secretary of State; or, if there is no such body, by the Judge, and the other out of such list by the parties nominating same."
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he would move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and that the Committee would allow him to take the next three clauses.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Goldsmid.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 204: Majority 161.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. ["Oh, oh!"] The clause with which it was now proposed to proceed was one affecting the interests of the Courts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in opposing the Motion, said, the Bill they were now discussing was a most important one to the shipping interest of this country. The division that had just taken place showed what the feeling on the subject was. He ventured, therefore, to appeal to the hon. Member who made the Motion not to press it. There were three clauses, and only two Amendments which they were anxious to dispose of that night, and he hoped the Committee, by its resolution to go on, would show the country that the House of Commons were not playing with the Bill. The hon. Member could hardly know the effect of his own Amendment, which would be to put an end to the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODseconded the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Dundee would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. GOLDSMIDdeclared that during the tenure of office of the last three Go-

  1161
  vernments it had been the practice to adjourn discussions in Committee on important Bills as soon after 12 o'clock as possible. ["Oh, oh."] That allowed a reasonable amount of time for any other Business on the Paper. But the present Government were constantly proposing to go on with important measures at a very late hour, which he considered most unsatisfactory, especially before Easter. He defended the Motion on the ground that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had voted in the minority.
  MR. PLIMSOLLexplained that he had voted in the minority for the adjournment of the debate because he had sat there so many hours that he was tired. Moreover, he considered these three most important clauses, and hoped the Government would permit them to come fresh to the discussion.
  MR. PEASEexpressed his concurrence.
  MR. BECKETT DENISONremarked that when the Irish Church Bill, the Ballot Bill, and the Education Bill of the late Government were under consideration, they had constantly been in the habit of sitting in Committee until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he remembered divisions on the Irish Church Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 198: Majority 169.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they had better either get on with their business or go to bed. It was perfectly clear that they would not be allowed to get on with their business, so they had better assent to the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 106.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 106.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmade an appeal to the Government to postpone the second reading of the Bill until after Easter, because it was drawn in such a manner that its provisions were not yet understood in Scotland.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not object to postpone the Bill until after the Easter holidays. At the same time he begged to give Notice that he should raise a point of Order, if the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) persisted in his Amendment against the Bill when it did come on.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, his belief was that the Bill contained no principle at all, and therefore he joined in the appeal that it should be put off until the people of Scotland had had an opportunity of considering what its provisions were.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 27 th April.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inns of Court* (47); General School of Law*(48); Mutiny*; Marine Mutiny*.
Committee—Royal Titles (41).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)*(39).
Report—United Parishes (Scotland) * (19).

ROYAL TITLES BILL—(No. 41.)
(The Lord President).
ROYAL TITLES BILL—(No. 41.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, it is with the greatest grief, and yet with the deepest conviction, that I venture to submit a Resolution to your Lordships—a Resolution of an Address to the Crown, with a prayer that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased not to assume the title of "Empress." Now, my Lords, allow me a few words of explanation and apology for the course I have taken. First, I say that I do it with the greatest grief, because I feel most reluctant—as every loyal subject of Her Majesty would feel—to stand in opposition to the wishes of the Crown, especially when graced, as it is, with so many virtues; and secondly, I do it with the deepest conviction, because I am certain that the assumption of such a title in addition to that of Queen or King, under which we have so long enjoyed prosperity and freedom, will not only fail to advance, but will actually diminish the Royal dignity and the Royal esteem, even to the extent of making ridiculous the high honour which the title has hitherto enjoyed both among Her Majesty's subjects and among the other nations of the world. Had not my convictions on this head been profound and unalterable, nothing should have induced me to move in the matter. So much, my Lords, for my doing it at all. But why, I may be asked, do you come forward alone and without the aid and counsel of persons wiser than yourself? My Lords, I plead guilty of presump-
  1040
  tion and so anticipate the accusation—but listen to the reason. The entire or almost the entire debate in "another place" ran upon the assertion that the resistance to this measure proceeded from factious, from political, and not from Constitutional, motives. Some Members, indeed, went so far as to say that, though they hated the proposition, they would support it against a factious assault. I thought, therefore, that the first note of resistance in this House should be sounded by some one wholly disconnected from either of the two great divisions that agitate and adorn it. But even then I hesitated; and it was not until a certain speech had been delivered by a great man in the House of Commons on the third reading of the Bill, a speech which made disclosures so novel and prodigious, that independent Members, so it seemed to me, were forced, under a positive obligation, not to be silent on such an occasion that I made up my mind to undertake this onerous and delicate duty. The issues on this subject are very short and very simple—for I shall not wander from the text of the Resolution—they are simply, the effect which the assumption of the title of Empress may produce in India and in this country. I need not detain your Lordships, even if I had learning enough to do so, with long and various historical disquisitions. I feel certain that no amount of historical research or antiquarian lore can recommend the proposal to the people of England, nor, indeed—so I believe—to the people of India. The people of India, so far as we know, do not desire it; and the people of England utterly reject it. I do not deny that the people of India would gladly accept a title that would bind more closely their connection with the Crown of England, but then it must be a title of assimilation, and not of distinction, between them and the other subjects of Her Majesty. Now, what proof has been adduced—what proof can be adduced—to show their predilection for the title of Empress? Not even a shadow of evidence is at hand. So far as I can judge, the effect on them would be the reverse of satisfactory. I have, of course, no experience of India, nor any knowledge of it beyond what I have derived from books and conversation. But here is a fact, and it is worthy of your attention. A year or two ago,

  1041
  but long before this question had been stirred; I collected, at my house, some 50 of the Natives of India—youths and men of middle-age, who were in London for various purposes, some on business, some as students of Law, Medicine, or Theology. They were from all parts of India, from Bengal, Madras, from the South, and even from Rajpootana. I endeavoured to extract from them all the information that I could relating to the inner thoughts, feelings, and views of their countrymen, of which they all maintained that the greater part of the English officials and of the residents also knew but little. They were very open and unreserved. They told me that they regarded the Government of England in India as one of the greatest boons that had ever been conferred on their country—they spoke of the English Government as essential, at least for a time, to maintain internal peace and advance the people in the social scale. But one and all, without a single exception, and in the strongest terms, denounced the old Mahomedan Government and the Empire of Delhi, as the grand source of all the miseries and calamities their country had endured; and I am satisfied that if the proposed Emperorship is to revive in any way the notion of the Great Mogul, or if it be presented to the people with the same appellation, it will be received in India with universal dislike and apprehension. But this consideration has acquired additional force from the language of those who supported the Bill in the other House. In the course of the debates there on this question, it was asserted—and it was not contradicted, although uttered in the presence of the First Minister—that the title of Empress was required to notify to the people of India the despotic authority we exercise over them. My Lords, this is a sad announcement—it will go to the extremities of India—it will be listened to in every town, village, and bazaar of that vast country. There will be newsmongers in abundance to carry the intelligence to the remotest parts, and it will be heard with avidity—for though, as I heard the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) say, "public opinion" is dumb in India, public feeling is by no means inaccessible, and this is a matter that will probe them to the quick. When the Natives of India ask
  1042
  the reason why India should be governed by one name and England by another, they will be told that a beneficent Parliament has given them the title Empress which they do understand, instead of the title of Queen which they do not understand—"What is this?" they will reply, "not understand it? remember our zeal, our hospitality, our fervour, our affection to the Prince of Wales—they were given to the son of the Queen and not to the son of the Emperor." My Lords, I use the word "Emperor" intentionally, because we shall in the course of time have many more Sovereign Emperors than Sovereign Empresses. There are many things at the present time to gild the title of Empress. It would be held by an illustrious Lady who has reigned for nearly 40 years, known and beloved; it bears, too, an impression of feminine softness; but as soon as it shall have assumed the masculine gender, and have become an Emperor, the whole aspect will be changed. It will have an air military, despotic, and offensive and intolerable, alike in the East and West of the Dominions of England. Now, my Lords, let us turn to the people of England. What do they say on the present discussions? My Lords, I will begin by the assertion that, even if they were breast-high in favour of this new title, I would spare no effort to dissuade them from it. I would say to them—"Ye know not of what ye speak, or whereof ye affirm." But there will be no need for such instruction. I believe that if a pollwere taken, head by head—man by man, woman by woman, child by child—beginning with the two Houses of Parliament, the immense majority would be against the assumption of the title of Empress. I say child by child; for remember your day and Sunday schools, where they early imbibe a true, and lasting affection to the Royal name. Now though there is, as yet, no open and wide opposition, there is much silent dislike. The noble Duke the President of the Council affirmed that at first the Public Press, and even the people, were, apparently, for it. Why, here he furnishes us with a powerful argument. If the Press has changed, is it not a sign that the public has changed also? Did the Press ever persist in opposition to public opinion and the public will? Suppose we allow that at the outset the proposal was not

  1043
  rejected; reflection has brought other thoughts, and a slow, gradual conviction has far more of decision and continuance in it than any sudden outburst of popular indignation. My Lords, I have done what I can to obtain information. I know the working classes well, and I can assure your Lordships that a great change of feeling has come over them from the highest to the lowest. They are beginning to talk of their feelings, and to give open expression to the views they entertain. From the small tradesman upwards I find the greatest repugnance—it is universal. Of the mass of the working people, some are displeased, some ignorant, some indifferent. But a for more serious feeling is becoming manifest. In some of the great towns of the North opinion is openly expressed; but in those places they seem to have thrown aside the question of the title itself, except so far as it marks a difference between two parties, and they are hotly divided between the supporters of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. Now, my Lords, much as I respect those eminent men, I tremble to see their names substituted for great principles. Here is another proof of the unhappy tendency of the people in modern days to forget principles and look only to persons. It is an approach to the true democratic spirit, which, taking up a man one day and striking him down the next, alternates perpetually between insolence and servility. Now, my Lords, I could produce an abundance of documents, letters, and the like, even from Whitechapel, where, of all places just now, you might expect a ready acquiescence, but they speak of Emperors as cruel and despotic men. "They have," they say, "their suspicions." What does all this mean? they ask. An agent of great experience writes to me—"It requires but a moderate amount of agitation to call out a strong feeling." This is the tenour of the whole. Now, if these thoughts be entertained in happy times and after recent favours, what will they become in days of distress, low wages, high prices, and general discontent? Are there not already emissaries of mischief abroad, who are making capital out of our discussions, and urging on a section of the people that as the present Parliament is doing something to advance the dignity of the Queen, they must, on their part, do something to take away
  1044
  from it? And now that the traditions and almost the compacts of a thousand years are broken, you must not be surprised, say they, that as you are trying to turn your King into an Emperor we also shall be making an effort to turn him into a President. Now, my Lords, on a matter like this we have a right to demand a large amount of evidence. We ask for it, negative and positive. Now, of negative evidence we have very little, and of positive, absolutely none. Perhaps I ought not to say absolutely none, for the Prime Minister, besides his own assertions, adduced a letter from an "enfant terrible" and an extract from Whitaker's Almanack. But the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the other way, for he declared that the people were driven by an unreasoning "panic"—a fact which, whatever might be the epithet attached to it, showed that, in his estimation at least, the people disliked the measure. But the people, it is said, present no Petitions. My Lords, is it a subject on which they are likely to meet in assemblies, draw up memorials, and lose a day's work? Does it touch their homes, their pockets, their right of free action? Their silence is quoted; but is not silence as often a sign of contempt as of consent? If you have any doubt, read the papers which form their current literature, and which are found in every gathering-place of working men. You will soon be undeceived, and see how unanimous is their favourite Press in denouncing the addition of Emperor to the title of King. Why, here is a letter received only a day ago from a body of miners—"We may be," say they—
  "Insignificant men, but we have sense of honour enough, to hold in contempt which we cannot express, those who are endeavouring to attach the title of Empress to that of our Royal Queen."
  But, my Lords, I have been more appalled by the assertion of the Prime Minister that the repugnance, wherever it exists, among the people is a mere sentiment. Sentiment, my Lords, to be sure it is, and a sentiment of the kind that ought to be cherished, and not to be despised. Now that the principle of Divine right to the Throne has departed from the people—now that they are in possession of almost Universal Suffrage—your Lordships' House and the Throne

  1045
  itself are upheld by sentiment alone, and not by force or superstition. Loyalty is a sentiment; and the same sentiment that attaches the people to the word "Queen" averts them from the word "Empress." We saw the force of loyalty exhibited in 1848. What Throne or Empire was undisturbed but the Throne of England? And why? Would it have been so had George IV. been King in that day? Far from it. The personal character of the Sovereign alone attracted and tranquillized the people. There were many agitators abroad who urged them to look across the Atlantic, and there see a Republic in the height of power, freedom, and prosperity. "And why not here?" said they. "No," replied the people. "We hold to the traditions of a thousand years." "Kings have been our nursing fathers and Queens our nursing mothers;" the crown of Alfred, the Edwards, Elizabeth, and George III., is worn now by Queen Victoria. "We want none of your revolutionary doctrines," said they; "and now," say we, "we want none of your Imperial diadems of yesterday." Destroy this sentiment and where are we? But some people try to comfort us by saying that the title may be localized and confined to the regions of, India. But the great understanding and candid admission of the Lord Chancellor have dispelled the delusion. I never believed it, for besides no end of documents, deeds, proclamations, signatures, and the like—and what they are in number and weight may be judged from the list that was cited the other evening by the noble Earl (Earl Granville)—flattery, common parlance, and mischief-making spirits will bring it into use. Can any one believe that the Crown will be Imperial to India and remain only Royal in England? that the epithet will never travel across the ocean or by the overland route? And even were it possible would it be right? First, it would leave in full vigour all the objections as affecting India, and next, as affecting our own particular look at it:—in this view the want of national unanimity in confirming this title is bad enough, but the want of confidence as to the use of it by the Crown would be almost worse. If given at all, it should be given freely. I heartily concur with my noble Friend (Earl Granville) that it is undignified to bestow an alias on the Crown;
  1046
  to enact that the Sovereign might go to India and figure away in all the glory of Parliamentary styles and titles; but when he returns to this country he must doff all such honours repudiated by the people of England. My Lords, I may pause to ask how can this title be offered after this fashion; and I may even go further and say, How can it possibly be accepted? Now, my Lords, I ventured, when I began, to urge, as one great objection to the mode in which this measure has been argued, that the name of the Emperor of Russia was, in a manner so novel and so violent, dragged in by the Prime Minister. Surely, it is a monstrous thing—what less term can you apply?—that the First Minister of the Crown should thus speak in public debate of a great Sovereign with whom we are professedly in most friendly alliance, and state that, in order to curb his ambition and damp his courage, he proposed to invest the Crown of England with a new name as a standing bulwark against his incursions. I say nothing of such a wonderful effort of the imagination; but I desire very earnestly to call your attention to this point. By the Bill before us that language will almost receive the force of statute. I cannot agree with my noble Friend that, bad as it is, it is unworthy of serious notice, for, by enacting this title, the temporary flourish of the Minister becomes the permanent flourish of the Parliament. It must affect, too, the representation of the Crown at that Court—and I should have been glad of an opportunity of asking the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Crown will be represented at St. Petersburg by an Imperial or Royal Ambassador. If by an Imperial one, the change will affect our external as well as our internal relations, and be a standing menace to the Court; if by a Royal one, it will be tantamount to a confession that our manifestation is as idle as a puff of wind; and whether the Emperor of Russia treats it seriously or with contempt, the Crown of England will have lost a vast amount of its ancient dignity. My Lords, it is not yet too late to return to wise counsels—let the Minister recall his advice; and there will be no shouting of triumph, but one universal expression of gratitude throughout the country. My Lords, it is sad, indeed, to find division on a subject

  1047
  so delicate, so important, and on a subject too, where, in the depth of their hearts, all parties are agreed, and where there is so much to lose and. so little to gain. What could be gained by India beyond a name which is repudiated by the English people, and which could bring to India no increase of happiness or freedom? What would be gained by the people of England beyond the knowledge that they had imposed a title on the people of India which they themselves utterly reject? And what by the Crown, if such a power be conferred, without full and enthusiastic unanimity? But though little can be gained by India, something may be lost. India would lose, if by such a distinction as this we turn the Natives from unity of heart, unity of spirit, and a sense of common rights with the people of this Kingdom. Our duty is to enlarge their views, raise their thoughts, and strengthen their minds, by the communication of everything that we ourselves enjoy. Lose India, my Lords! we shall never lose India but by our own fault; but a time may come when, after a long course of happy rule, we may surrender it to Natives, grown into a capability of self-government. Our posterity may then see an enlargement of the glorious spectacle we now witness, when India shall be added to the roll of free and independent Powers, that wait on the Mother Country, and daily rise up and call her blessed. But to attain this end we must train them to British sentiments, infuse into them British principles, imbue them with British feeling, and rising from the vulgar notion of an Emperor, teach them that the deepest thought and the noblest expression of a genuine Briton is to fear God and honour the King. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment.
  An Amendment moved—
  To leave out from ("That") to the end of the motion for the purpose of inserting ("an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  "That this House ventures to approach Her Majesty in sincere and earnest devotion to Her Majesty's person and dignity, with an humble and hearty prayer that She may be graciously pleased to assume a Title more in accordance than the Title of Empress with the history of the Nation and with the loyalty and feelings of Her Majesty's most faithful subjects.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the assurance of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that he places himself in an attitude of opposition to this Bill with deep regret is one which I frankly and unreservedly accept. I accept equally the statement that the noble Earl has taken the step of moving his Resolution without concert or co-operation with any Party in Parliament; but, at the same time, the noble Earl must permit me to offer him my congratulations on the great and unusual good fortune by which he, a fortuitous and unexpected General, has found ready to his hand a disciplined and compact army, prepared not merely to follow his footsteps, but to accept that line of battle which he himself, without any concert with them, has chosen. My Lords, I will follow the example of the noble Earl, and will not shrink from any of the arguments to which he has referred in favour of his Motion; but there is one part of the artillery of the noble Earl to which I feel myself unable to reply. I cannot follow the noble Earl through the gloomy forebodings in which he indulges: in that field the noble Earl is without a rival. When we come to forebodings we enter upon the realm of prophecy, and when we enter upon the realm of prophecy there are only two alternatives possible—belief or rejection. My Lords, I am not a believer in the forebodings of the noble Earl.
  I ask your Lordships to consider, in the first place, how completely the issue between us is narrowed on the present occasion. We have here to-night no controversy as to an addition to the title of the Sovereign—the Bill authorizing that addition has passed the second reading, and the noble Earl, by the words of his Resolution, does not propose to object to an addition, but, on the contrary, asks the Sovereign in words to make that addition. But, my Lords, the issue is narrowed somewhat further. It is not merely that there is no longer any dispute that there is to be some addition to the Royal title, but it has become even a narrower question, and the only issue now is as between two titles—the title of Queen and the title of Empress.
  On the occasion of the second reading of this Bill I anxiously observed the observations made on this point from

  1049
  the Opposition side of the House. The noble Lord who once occupied the position of Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence) spoke—not in favour of the measure, but at the same time he did not propose any other title than that of Empress except a title in the Indian language, which, naturally, was not received with favour on either side. The noble Lord who was at one time Governor of Madras (Lord Napier and Ettrick), suggested for a moment the title of "Paramount Sovereign;" but he almost immediately appeared to shrink from it, and said it would be an unusual title, and returning again to "Empress," he observed that it expressed more nearly Her Majesty's position in reference to India than did the title of Queen. I know that outside this House other titles have been suggested. "Paramount Power," and "Lady Paramount," have been suggested; and we have heard the proposal that "Sovereign Lady" should be the title adopted. But, my Lords, I do not think that any public man in his place in Parliament has gravely risen and proposed any of these titles. Of all these proposals it is sufficient to say that the words suggested are not titles, but definitions and descriptions. "Paramount Power," "Lady Paramount," and "Sovereign Lady"—not one of these is a title. Your Lordships in the supplication made for the Sovereign in this House offer up your prayers for "our Sovereign Lady," but you add immediately after these words a title which designates the Sovereign Lady as "the Queen." The question, then, is simply this—if an addition is to be made to the Royal titles under this Bill, should that be the title of Queen or the title of Empress?
  Now, my Lords, I will take that division which the noble Earl suggests, and will first look to India and then look to England. What I would desire your Lord ships to consider with respect to India is—first, whether the title of Empress is appropriate; and next, whether it is likely to be acceptable. Now, my Lords, what is the nature of our rule over India? The noble Earl hardly adverted to it. We govern a large part of India directly as dominions of the Crown; but there are enormous portions of India—portions larger than kingdoms and Empires in Europe—which we govern not directly, but indirectly. We find in these portions of India potentates with
  1050
  various titles—such as the Nizam, Scindiah, Holkar, the Guikwar, and the Maharajah of Jeypore, and many others. Over potentates of such magnitude this country exercises power in India. And what is the character of that power? We speak of Treaties made with these potentates, but these are Treaties by which we define the nature of our power. Those potentates cannot make peace or war, they cannot make Treaties with other Powers; they cannot regulate their own succession, and at their Courts, whenever necessary, we have Residents representing English power. This power does not require a better description than that given of it by Lord Canning. That description was referred to on the second reading of the Bill, but I will venture to read it again to your Lordships. It is a description not given without consideration, because it was introduced in a great despatch—the "Adoption Despatch"—which conferred on India a kind of Magna Charta. This is what Lord Canning said in the "Adoption Despatch"—
  "A time so opportune for the step can never occur again. The last vestiges of the Royal House of Delhi, from which, for our own convenience, we had long been content to accept a vicarious authority, have been swept away. The last Pretender for the representation of the Peishwa has disappeared. The Crown of England stands forth the unquestioned ruler and paramount Power in all India, and is, for the first time, Drought face to face with its feudatories. There is a reality in the Suzerainty of the Sovereignty of England which has never existed before and which is not only felt but eagerly acknowledged by the Chiefs."
  I ask is that a true description of the power exercised by this country in India? The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) will hardly deny that it is a true description. And, if it is, I ask, is it the description of a power which would be represented by the title of King or Queen? My Lords, I do not go into that antiquated lore which the noble Earl deprecated, but some of which the noble Earl who leads the Opposition in this House (Earl Granville) entered into the other night. I do not go into the question as to whether what he said as to the Kings of France and Dukes of Burgundy was correct, though I believe much might be said on the other side; but I ask whether in modern times—within these last five or six centuries of which the world has a vivid recollection—there is any

  1051
  instance where the title of King has been used to imply such a power as that which is described by Lord Canning. On the other hand, is there any doubt that with regard to a power which can be described in the terms used by Lord Canning, the title Emperor would be a proper description? I take the term as one indicating a Sovereign who governs not directly, but through other Sovereigns, and in this sense I believe the term "Queen" an inappropriate one, and the term "Empress" an appropriate one.
  My Lords, the noble Duke who spoke the other night first in opposition to the Bill (the Duke of Somerset) asked the question—and I think the noble Earl repeated something of the same kind to-night—"Do you mean to offer the Princes of India a title which would not be accepted in this country?" The noble Earl to-night, following up that idea, said—"We want harmony, and in order to secure this we must assimilate our practice by using the same title for the Queen here and in India." I would like to ask this question—If we merely incorporate the name of India into the title which the Queen bears in this country, and style Her Majesty "Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, and India," what are the Nizam and Scindiah, and Holkar, and the Guikwar, and the Maharajah likely to think? They know how the Queen is Sovereign of England; they know how she exercises territorial dominion over every inch of ground in England. This they know, and they will ask—"Do you mean to say that the Sovereign is Queen of India in the same sense in which she is Queen of England." Do not think that the feudatory Princes of India have no intelligence on this subject. Do you not think they know and understand that the power exercised by the Queen over India is not the same as that exercised by the Queen over England? You should do nothing to excite jealousy of the Princes of India in respect of their territorial rights by conveying a false impression by any title that their territorial powers are impaired. I say, then, that the title of Empress is an appropriate one, having regard to the power exercised by Her Majesty in India.
  I want to ask, then, would it be an acceptable title? We have got some testimony on this subject. My Lords, in
  1052
  inquiring whether this would be an acceptable title in India, in my opinion the great object is to obtain some testimony which may be regarded as unbiased and impartial. I give comparatively little weight to testimony arising after the conflict of opinion has commenced. I attach very much more weight to free and unbiased testimony which was in existence before the conflict began. The first witness to whom I refer as affording the latter class of testimony is Lord Northbrook, and I refer to a letter of his which was brought under the notice of your Lordships on the second reading of the Bill. Lord Northbrook when penning that document, which was directed to an Oriental potentate, could have had no object in applying to Her Majesty a title which he did not regard as appropriate and which he did not think would be understood by the Prince to whom it was addressed. In sending a mission to Yarkund Lord Northbrook described the Queen as Empress of Hindostan. The noble Lord a late Governor General (Lord Lawrence) suggests that the letter might have been written in the vernacular, and that "Empress" might not have been the precise term employed. My Lords, we have no reason to think that. The copy of the letter sent by the Viceroy comes to the India Office in English, and in it the Queen is described as Empress of Hindostan. But there is still further evidence upon this point. I mentioned just now the name of the Maharajah of Jeypore, who is one of the most intelligent of the Native Princes of India, and who is thought so highly of that Lord Northbrook placed him on the tribunal which was lately appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Guikwar of Baroda. What was the manner in which the Maharajah of Jeypore, of his own accord, addressed the Queen when presenting a congratulatory address to Her Majesty on the recovery of the Prince of Wales in 1872? The address was in the English language, and he styled the Queen "Empress of India." But there is another piece of evidence which was mentioned in this House on Thursday night. I allude to the Exhibition medals at Kurrachee. That was a case in which there was no action by any Government official, in which there was no object to be served by any officer of the Government, and no desire to do anything pleasant to those in high position;

  1053
  because, as far as I know, the medals were retained and circulated in the district in which they were struck. But it was a case in which, on the occasion of an Exhibition in which were centred the whole of the commercial interests of the West of India, the community of merchants themselves, both Native and English, in considering a fitting form to present a medal with the title of the Sovereign, of their own accord adopted the title of "Empress of India." Well, let me ask, have we any other witnesses on the subject? Are there not witnesses almost within our own hearing? Did the noble Lord who was Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence) tell us that the title of Empress was unacceptable in that country? The noble Lord spoke, I think, against the Bill on account of its possible effect in England; but, if I recollect right, he said that if Her Majesty were to adopt the title of Empress it would, in his opinion, be received with pleasure and satisfaction by the people of India. Again, what did the noble Lord who was Governor of Madras (Lord Napier and Ettrick) say, and to whose speech the other night I listened, as I am sure did all your Lordships, with great interest, for a more grave, measured, and temperate speech I never had the satisfaction of hearing, or one which conveyed more information? He said the title of Queen would be wholly inappropriate, and that he believed the title of Empress would be hailed with satisfaction by the people of India, who would look upon it as a proof that the interests of India were united with those of this country. I will mention another authority. There is scarcely anyone living, I imagine, who knows more or has seen more of public feeling in India than the great founder of the Missionary Church of Scotland in India—I mean Dr. Duff. His experience of India dates from nearly 50 years back. He has spent a lifetime in India, and his opinion on Indian subjects has been deemed of such value that a quarter of a century ago your Lordships asked for it when inquiring into questions affecting that country. Dr. Duff, I may add, having returned from India, has risen to the highest position in his own Church, having been Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Kirk: and what did he say when addressing, only the other day, a public meeting of his own countrymen—
  1054
  one of those meetings which, according to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), could not be called together without expressing disapprobation of the title of Empress? He said—
  "Remember the tie that exists between us and this region of India. There is no such tie between this country and any other kingdom of heathenism. We have conquered these tribes, every throne in India is prostrate at our feet, and the Princes and Rajahs are feudatories of Queen Victoria. … This tie is peculiar and intensely providential. There is thus an obligation laid upon us by Providence to do this work, and if the British Parliament will do what India has done without being consulted in the matter—regard our Queen Victoria as Empress of India, and the successor of the Great Mogul Emperor—the connection between this country and India will be closer than ever it was."
  He then goes on to say—
  "Even when the last Mogul Emperor was a pensioner of the British Government at Delhi, all India looked to him still as the supreme Prince, and no Prince reckoned himself secure upon his little or big throne until he got the formal sanction of the Emperor of Delhi. All this continued down to the Mutiny and Rebellion of 1857. The last of the Moguls joined the Mutiny, and, being captured by the British Government, was tried for his life. I was at Calcutta at the time when he died in banishment, and I remember quite well what the Indians, both high and low, said then. They said, 'Now we are without a supreme Sovereign. The Great Mogul has gone; the only Empress we have now is Victoria.' And straightway, without being asked, they began everywhere to call her the Empress of India. That is the title by which she is known there."
  To which he adds—
  "All this discussion in our Parliament is an inscrutable mystery to me."
  Now, against this body of testimony—the testimony of acts done in India, of Natives of India, of men who have passed their lives in India, and who thoroughly understand Indian opinion—what have your Lordships to put in the scale? Absolutely nothing—for I am not now speaking of English feeling on the subject—if you only except a drawing-room meeting in the house of the noble Earl, where some young Natives of India appear to have said that they hoped no dynasty which we might establish in India would imitate that of the Moguls—a hope in which we may all safely concur. So much for India.
  I now pass to England, and I ask what would be the effect on the present Royal style and titles in this country if the title of "Empress of India" were

  1055
  assumed for India? My Lords, I am not one of those who look with any dissatisfaction on any amount of jealousy or solicitude here as to any measure that would impair the dignity of the title of the Queen of England. I believe—every one of your Lordships believes—that the title of Queen of England is the greatest and the grandest in the world. It is a part, and no small part, of our national inheritance. I believe—every one of your Lordships believes—that there is no Sovereign on earth, be he Emperor or King, to whom the Queen of England ought to yield precedence. I believe—every one of your Lordships believes—that there is no addition you could make to the title of Queen of England which could add to its dignity. I would say for myself—and I am satisfied I might say for every one of your Lordships—that if I know myself rightly I would forfeit all I possess before I would lend my hand to any measure which in my conscience I believed would dim the lustre or degrade the grandeur of that great title. But I want to know what is the effect which the assumption of the title of Empress of India for India, supposing it to be appropriate and accepted in India, will have on the Royal style and title of this country? I have not said a word, nor am I going to say a word, in this debate about Party motives. I allow to others, as I claim for myself, the admission that we are all actuated by a conscientious desire to do what we think right in this matter. I must, however, protest against some assumptions which, it appears to me, have been too lightly made in the course of these discussions. Those who are opposed to the title of Empress have assumed two things which are of great importance in their view of the case. They commence by assuming that we cannot have the title of Empress without altering and impairing the title of Queen of England. Arguing from that proposition, they go on to say that any measure which would impair the title of Queen of England must be unpopular in this country. Now, I should like to know what is the evidence on which they rely that this measure, properly understood, is unpopular in this country. The noble Earl who has just sat down (the Earl of Shaftesbury) will forgive me for saying that I cannot take his unsupported authority as evidence of the feel-
  1056
  ing of the country at large. I am the less disposed to take it as an authority when I hear the views which he entertains as to the opinions of the people of this country. If I understood, him rightly, he says that in the North of England—where it appears he has been collecting public opinion—he found that the people were not thinking about the merits of the Bill, but rather of the respective claims to their confidence of Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Disraeli. Now, my Lords, I cannot attach much weight to the views of those engaged in this collateral controversy as an expression of public opinion on this measure. In some other parts of the country, also, it seems, the noble Earl endeavoured to collect public opinion, and he says that the working men were so indifferent to the Bill that they declined to attend a meeting or to lose a day's work for the purpose of discussing the subject, but that their wishes might be gathered from the newspapers which they were in the habit of reading. Now, my Lords, I hope no one will gather my opinions from the newspapers I am in the habit of reading; and I can only say that if the opinions of the working men are to be ascertained from the newspapers which they are in the habit of reading they are very much to be pitied. Well, what other evidence has the noble Earl to produce? Petitions. About them I should like to say a word. I speak with the greatest respect of the power of petitioning; but I must be allowed to observe that it is very remarkable with regard to this Bill that, although nearly two months have passed since it was first announced, I am not aware that any Petitions deserving the name have been presented against it until within the last few days. We had a reference the other night to the manner in which these Petitions have been made to order. I think the order has been carefully executed, because if I recollect aright the circular expressly stated that the number of signatures to the Petitions was of no importance—the great thing was to have a Petition. When I looked to-night at the roll of Petitions which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) brought into this House, which appeared to be something of a feather weight, I rather thought the advice given as to the number of signatures had been literally complied with.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I beg your pardon—the signatures are very numerous.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: I only judged by the degree of ease with which the noble Earl bore into this House and laid upon the Table the roll of Petitions which he presented. My Lords, out of curiosity I have looked at the reasoning of these Petitions, and I have selected two which may be taken as samples of those made to order. Here is one—it consists of one sentence:—"That in the opinion of the Petitioners the Royal Titles Bill now under your Lordships' consideration is fraught with danger to the public interests." That is very simple and very dogmatic, but it does not assign much reason. The other does assign a reason. "Your Petitioners," it says, "believe that it is unwise to alter the title of Queen under which Her Most Gracious Majesty has surrounded the Throne with the affection of all her subjects." My Lords, it is sufficient to reply to this Petition by saying that nobody proposes to alter the title.
  Upon a subject of this kind there is in a country like ours a higher authority to appeal to with regard to the views and wishes of the people than Petitions. I have always understood that it was one of the advantages of a country possessing representative institutions that the views of the people of the country could be ascertained through the mouths of the Representatives of the people. It so happens that this Bill has passed the ordeal of the representative Assembly before it has come to your Lordships. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) who spoke the other night near me dealt with this difficulty in a very singular way. He said it was quite true that this Bill had passed the House of Commons by a large majority, but that a great number of those who voted for it did so with great reluctance. The noble Earl is one to whom we look for instruction upon all matters of Parliamentary and Constitutional practice, but it is a dangerous doctrine for this House to hold or listen to, that we are so to regard the votes in the House of Commons. I know what your Lordships would think if, after your Lordships had arrived at a decision, some person in the House of Commons—not some novice, but some one experienced in public life, some vir pictate gravis—should rise in his
  1058
  place, and say—"It is quite true in voting they were discharging a great public function, but in reality their votes were not given on any principle of that kind, but on another principle, and from other motives, with reluctance and against their judgment and conscience." If the noble Earl's observations do not amount to that, I am at a loss to know what they do mean. There is one other observation I may make with regard to the majority of which the noble Earl spoke so lightly. It might be said that the majority supporting the Government were bound by the bond which usually attaches them to the Government; but, my Lords, that ground is entirely cut away from under the noble Earl, because it so happens that the majority which carried this Bill was, if I mistake not, something like double the ordinary majority by which the Government is supported.
  This being the evidence which we have of the feeling of the country, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) asks your Lordships to carry to the foot of the Throne a statement which, under these circumstances, appears to me to be both violent and unjustified. He proposes, in effect, that your Lordships should inform Her Most Gracious Majesty that the title of Empress—even if assumed for India—even if used for India—is a title which will not be in accordance with the loyal feelings of Her Majesty's subjects. That is, he proposes absolutely and unreservedly to state to the Crown—after the House of Commons has stated its opinion—not what is the opinion of this House, but what is the opinion of the people of this country. I must say that if anything could be imagined which is an usurpation of the powers of a representative body, it is for this House to go out of its way to express, not our own opinion, but something which we undertake to say is the opinion of the people of this country. But, my Lords, have we any evidence that the title of Empress is a title which will, in the opinion of the people of this country, properly express the power of the Throne in India? I think we have some evidence on that point. I believe that at the time this controversy was raised there was large numbers of people in this country who were under the impression that Her Majesty was already Empress of India.

  1059
  I recollect, at the time of Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne, receiving a communication, from a keen observer of the public history of this country, which stated that the Government were under a misapprehension on this matter; that in 1858 the Queen had become Empress of India, and that was her title at the present moment. My Lords, I believe that this was really the opinion and belief of a large number of people at the commencement of this year. The noble Earl ridicules the references that have been made to school-books and almanacks, and I know that a good deal of contempt was thrown upon any reference to authorities of that kind. But I must say for myself that I think that the public man who throws contempt upon the school-books of the nation may be a man of very keen wit and of a very sharp tongue; but he is not a man of a very great deal of common sense. When I find that in school books and in almanacks circulating through the country by hundreds of thousands, and circulating for years, the style given to the Queen with regard to India is Empress of India, and that no voice has ever been heard against it, I consider that is very cogent evidence that there is nothing in that title, providing it does not affect the English title, which is objectionable to the feelings of the people of this country. If your Lordships will take up one of those depositories of information which I never open without amazement and admiration—I mean one of those books which contain a statement of the titles and histories of your Lordships—you will find—I think this one which I hold in my hand is about the oldest established in this country—that the title of the Queen is thus described—
  "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof, Empress of India."
  It has, so far as I know, never occurred to any person to protest against the title thus given as repulsive to English feelings.
  I have anxiously endeavoured to discover what were the arguments upon which it was stated that the title of the Queen of England would be interfered with by the title of Empress of India, and I do not desire to overlook any one of them. The first argument that is used is what I may term the
  1060
  social argument. I think it was the noble Duke who spoke the other night (the Duke of Somerset) who said that, of course, the title would be used in England, and that it would be used not merely by the Sovereign, but by other Members of the Royal Family. That argument is very shortly answered. I will read to your Lordships what was stated on these points by the Prime Minister. He said—
  "The noble Lord who has just addressed us has put the case very fairly before us. He gives myself and my Colleagues credit for being sincere in the statements we have made, and feels that we have given honest advice to the Sovereign—and that advice, I am bound to say, has been received with the utmost sympathy—namely, that the title which Her Majesty has been advised, for great reasons of State, to assume, shall be exercised absolutely and solely in India when it is required, and that on becoming Empress of India she does not seek to be in any way Empress of England, but will be content with the old style and title of Queen of the United Kingdom. To all purposes, in fact, Her Majesty would govern the United Kingdom as she has always governed it."—[3 Hansard, ccxxviii. 320.]
  As to the Members of the Royal Family, he said the advice which the Government gave to the Crown and which was received with sympathy was that no change should be made in, if I may use the term, the courtesy titles of the Royal Family. That appears to me to terminate this point.
  But the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had another string to his bow on this part of the question. He said—"But suppose you provide for the Sovereign exercising the title in the way which you say, you must look at the other side—What will people do after the Bill is passed even with these limitations?" It is said that the moment we pass this Bill the country will take up the title of Empress, and that it will in course of time become the ordinary title of the Crown. Now I want the noble Duke who used that argument to contrast it with another which fell from him in the same speech. He said the people of this country disliked the title of Empress—that they would not have it under any circumstances. Now, if that is the case, how does the noble Duke establish his first proposition—that the moment the title is adopted every person will be eager and ready to use it? I must submit to the noble Duke that it is not customary for well-balanced reasoning

  1061
  minds to lay down two antagonistic propositions destructive of each other in the same speech.
  My Lords, reference has been made in the debate to the ancient history of France. I do not wish to enter into a controversy on the subject; but there is one part of it which I think may be usefully referred to in answer to the argument of the noble Earl near me (Earl Granville). My Lords, I believe I am right in stating that during the French Monarchy, and down to the termination of the reign of Louis Philippe—a time during which, if there was ever any people attached to the title of King, it was the French people—it was the rule of the French Government that Oriental Potentates in diplomatic intercourse with France should be addressed—and the Sovereign of France in diplomatic intercourse with those Potentates should style himself—Emperor. I have copies of several such documents, during the reign of Louis Philippe, and I have never heard that the practice led to any general introduction of the title of Emperor of France.
  I now come to the argument with regard to the Royal style in public documents. In answer to a Question the other night, I said, speaking in general terms, and without referring to any definite form of Proclamation, that where it was necessary to use the whole of the Royal style the whole of the Royal style should, as a general rule, be used. The documents in question I believe may be generally classified as commissions, patents, writs, and possibly charters. It is not from the perusal of documents of that kind that the greatest amount of public information is obtained; but any difficulty which might arise from the new title being used in such cases will be avoided. The Bill authorizes Her Majesty to make such addition to the Royal style and titles as she may think fit. In that respect it follows the measures connected with the Union with Ireland in the year 1801. A Proclamation was on that occasion issued by the Sovereign defining the new title then introduced and stating that it was to be used so far as convenient on all proper occasions. But the Proclamation at the same time provided that on all coinage, as well as stamps, dies, and instruments of that kind, the old style and title should continue to be used. Well, my Lords,
  1062
  I have to state that it is the intention of the Government that the Proclamation to be issued by Her Majesty under this Bill shall comply literally with the engagements which have been given to the House of Commons, and that it will provide in a manner analogous to the Proclamation of 1801—that upon all writs, commissions, patents, and charters intended to operate within the United Kingdom, the Royal style shall continue as it is, without any addition.
  There is another, and I believe it is the last, argument that has been advanced—it is said that the new title of Empress of India will overshadow the title of Queen of England. My Lords, that appears to me to be, not an argument, but a mere figure of speech. It is difficult to answer a figure of speech; and I am at a loss to conceive how the great title of Queen of England, unchanged and unaltered and sacred in this country, and beloved by every subject of the Crown, can possibly be overshadowed bythe addition of a title apposite and appropriate to and only to be used in India. But, my Lords, to my mind there will be much in the juxtaposition of those two titles that will appear to the people of India to be both significant and appropriate. There will appear in that juxtaposition to be not an obscuring shadow, but a beneficent lustre, and the light, in my opinion, will not fall from the Empress upon the Queen, but from the Queen upon the Empress. My Lords, the Sovereign of this country is in substance and in fact the Empress of India, but she is Empress of India because she is Queen of England. India does not possess in herself that capacity for self-government which we enjoy; but Providence has fortunately placed her under the power of this country—a power which, while in its action upon India it is paramount, is at the same time in its exercise checked and controlled by all the limits and responsibilities of Constitutional Government. My Lords, it is in the two-fold aspect of this paramount power—its aspect of origin and limit on the one hand, and its aspect of incidence and action on the other—that the pre-eminent fitness of this two-fold title is to be found. And, my Lords, when this measure goes forth to India, bearing—as I trust it will bear—to the Chiefs and people of that great world the assurance that their desti-

  1063
  nies and interests are indissoluby united with those of this Empire, it will serve to remind them at the same time that the Sovereign who claims their submission and allegiance is not only, and not primarily, Empress of India, but that her first, her greatest, her most grateful title is that of Queen of England.
  LORD SELBORNE: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, in his very able speech, has reminded me of that power which is said to be possessed by one of the noblest animals in creation—namely, that of picking up with the peculiar instrument with which it is armed either the largest trees or the smallest objects with equal facility. With his practised and ingenious eloquence he has gone over almost all the arguments which have hitherto been used by the advocates of his side of this question. Two only of those arguments were not mentioned by my noble and learned Friend. I am happy to say that we did not hear him repeat something which I think inadvertently dropped from the noble Duke opposite the other evening, who told us that because Her Majesty's Ministers had announced their intention, if this Bill passed, to advise Her Majesty to assume the title of Empress, therefore your Lordships, by voting for the second reading, would be recording your votes in favour of that title. That argument, I am happy to find, has not been repeated. Another argument of greater importance, and which certainly made no slight sensation in the country, we did not hear from my noble and learned Friend. He has made no reference whatever to the advances of Russia in Central Asia—he has not stated his opinion to be that the assumption of the title of Empress by Her Majesty will have any effect in checking any danger from those advances. I therefore infer that, on further consideration, it has appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the Russian argument is not one on which they can safely base their proposal. The noble and learned Lord has taken the same ground as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) took, when he said that the alternative in the case is between the title of Empress and the title of Queen; and I, for one, am perfectly willing to meet Her Majesty's Government on that ground. We know what other titles have been suggested by other
  1064
  persons. I will not inquire whether any of them are really available or not, because I do not hesitate to express my own clear and strong conviction that the title of "Queen" is that which it would be most fitting for Her Majesty to retain throughout the whole of her dominions; and I want to know why Her Majesty is not to retain, that title with special reference to India? By what title did Her Majesty in 1858 assume the government of India? By the title of Queen; and that, your Lordships will remember, not in a document requiring by law the exact legal style and title of the Imperial Crown—in a document which did not, in point of fact, follow that exact legal style and title, for the language of that Proclamation ran, if I recollect, thus—"Victoria, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, Queen:"—that is, of the whole of the Dependencies of the United Kingdom in Asia—which I presume include India—Queen. If, then, Her Majesty could assume the government of India by the title of Queen, why should she not continue to govern India by that title? Has she not continued ever since to govern India by the name of Queen? Eighteen years have elapsed, and by that name it is that she has become endeared to the people of India. That name has been incorporated in all public Acts and documents, in all laws of the British dominion in India since 1858. Your Lordships will pardon me if I remind you of the language of those laws on some points. In the Indian Penal Code of 1860, the name "Queen" is defined as expressing the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being; and the 4th section of that Code, taking notice both of the territories under the direct government of the Crown and of those under Native Princes, says—
  "Every servant of the Queen shall be subject to punishment under this Code for every act or omission, contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he, while in such service, shall be guilty, within the dominions of any Prince or State in alliance with the Queen, by virtue of any treaty or engagement heretofore entered into with the East India Company, or which may have been, or hereafter be, made in the name of the Queen by the Government of India."
  Section 121 makes it a capital offence to

  1065
  "wage war against the Queen." Sections 125 and 126 impose punishments for the offences of "waging war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Queen," and of "committing depredations on the territories of any Power in alliance or at peace with the Queen." Other sections relate to offences by persons "in the military or naval service of the Queen." Section 230 defines "coin stamped and issued by the authority of the Queen, or by the authority of the Government of India, or of the Government of any Presidency, or of any Government in the Queen's dominions," as "the Queen's coin;" and the offences of counterfeiting and debasing "the Queen's coin" are made punishable by the succeeding sections. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 300, gives power to take security for good behaviour in a variety of cases, according to a form which recites that the party has been "called upon to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour to Her Majesty the Queen, and to all her subjects." And so, throughout the Code, Her Majesty as Ruler of India by the name of Queen is recognized—it is the constitutional language of the law at the present moment throughout British India. Where, then, is the difficulty of adhering to the title which has been used during the last 18 years without mischief or misunderstanding—which has been embodied and incorporated in the whole of the law of British India, and which is to this day in use there. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) said last week that the title "Empress" is more appropriate than that of "Queen" because it signifies "Ruler of Rulers;" and the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said to-night that the title "Empress" is fitter because it means "Sovereign of Sovereigns;" and in that way it is supposed to express more accurately than the name "Queen" the relations of the British Crown to the Princes of India and to those territories which Her Majesty does not directly govern. Now, every part of that argument appears to me to be without foundation. First of all, I entirely deny that there is the least foundation for the assertion that the name of Empress expresses "Ruler of Rulers," or "Sovereign of Sovereigns,"—that it ever did, or ever will, according to the proper
  1066
  meaning of the word. We all know that was not its original meaning. If we go back to the original meaning, it meant the Commander-in-Chief of Armies. But what is the sense it has acquired by usage? As far as my memory goes, there is only one dominion in Europe that has hitherto been described by the name of an Empire, which happens, among its other accidents, to have had this particular accident of the Sovereign being, in some sense, a Ruler of Rulers. And, on the other hand, there have been Kingdoms to which that accident was equally applicable. The old German Empire, and perhaps also the new one, may, with some propriety of speech, be described as being a dominion in which the Emperor is a Ruler of Rulers—not, I think, a Sovereign of Sovereigns. And there, with great deference to my noble and learned Friend, his language seemed to me less accurate than that of the noble Marquess opposite. Taking whichever word you please, the former German Emperors of the now dissolved German Empire were Prince selected by other Princes to a certain kind of primacy, and they were called Emperors. It would, therefore—as far as this precedent goes—be just as correct to say that the word "Emperor" signifies better than "Queen" an elective title, as to say that it signifies a Ruler of Rulers. The title of the present Emperor, recently created in Germany, really rested on the invitation of those other Rulers to him to assume that title: and if that single instance is to impose a new stamp on the meaning of "Emperor," I again say, that election or invitation is as much, implied by the title as "Ruler of Rulers." All other Emperors that I have ever heard of have not been Rulers over Rulers. Is the Emperor of Brazil a Ruler over Rulers? Was the late French Emperor a Ruler over Rulers? Is the Emperor of Russia—or was he before the late conquests in Central Asia—a Ruler over Rulers? Is the Emperor of Austria a Ruler over Rulers? I say that the word "Emperor" in its proper sense has no application to the object to which it is now intended to apply it. If the fact of being Rulers over Rulers is peculiar to Emperors and not to Kings, how do you account for the Kings of France having been, as they were, Rulers over Rulers? My noble

  1067
  and learned Friend referred to the Proclamation of Lord Canning, and to the authority of those who he said, are best acquainted with India. The word Empress is not in that Proclamation of Lord Canning to which my noble and learned Friend referred. We have heard the speeches of two of those persons in this House: and I have seen what has been said elsewhere by others of them. I do not find that any one of them anywhere has said that this word Empress was that best suited to express the relations of the Queen to the Princes and States of India—unless, indeed, it is the Gentleman who is reported to have argued, that we ought to regard the Queen as the direct successor by conquest of the Great Mogul. In this House we heard the opinion of a noble Lord who has been Governor of Madras (Lord Napier and Ettrick), and, certainly, of all the opinions expressed, in this House by independent Members, that of the noble Lord has been, on the whole, the most favourable to the views of the Government. But what did he say? Did he say that he thought this word Empress would appropriately express the relations of the British Crown to the Native States and Princes of India? On the contrary, if I remember rightly, the noble Lord said he did not think it was exactly appropriate for the purpose; he thought that another expression which, at the least, has the advantage of large generality and indefiniteness, and also another advantage of not being fixed in any sense by previous use—namely, the expression Paramount Power—
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: Paramount Sovereign.
  LORD SELBORNE: He thought that Paramount Sovereign was the title best calculated to express the actual position of the Crown in India. If I rightly apprehend the meaning of those words, it is that the Queen is the Great Sovereign of India, whose power is paramount to all other Powers in that country. The noble Lord is not satisfied that this word Empress, according to any known signification of it, accurately describes the existing relations between the Crown and the Princes and States of India, and he described those relations by words certainly not equivalent to Empress. But the noble Lord was preceded in the Government of Madras by another public servant of
  1068
  no small general attainments and of considerable knowledge of India—Sir Charles Trevelyan. He has suggested that the style of the Queen should be "Victoria, by the grace of God of the British Isles, of the Colonies, and of India, Queen." Therefore these two great Indian authorities do not think the word Empress is properly expressive of the relations between the Crown and India: and one of them prefers the title of Queen. But what said a noble Lord who, with perfect respect to the other distinguished persons I have referred to, is, I venture to think, a still higher authority? What said Lord Lawrence, the late Governor General of India? He said he did not doubt that the Princes of India would receive with satisfaction the assumption by Her Majesty of the title of Empress; and my noble and learned Friend has, no doubt, availed himself of that testimony of the noble Lord. But my noble and learned Friend did not also remind your Lordships that Lord Lawrence went on to say, that the Princes and States of India would receive with equal satisfaction the assumption by Her Majesty of the title of Queen of India. He did not stop there. He said the title of Queen was popular and would be universally accepted by the people of England, while the title of Empress was at least with a large part of the people of England unpopular and unacceptable; and that, when that fact became known in India, it would be enough to turn the scale in favour of the title of Queen, and the people and Princes of India would be better satisfied with that title. My Lords, I cannot but think there may be some possible danger—and that there can be no possible gain—in departing from the guarded and careful manner in which, in the public, legal, and authoritative documents hitherto in force in India, Her Majesty's relation to those territories in India, which she does not directly govern, is described. Your Lordships will, perhaps, allow me to remind you once more that the Princes and States of India are described in those formal and legal documents, as Princes and States in alliance with the Queen by virtue of treaties and engagements. It has not been thought necessary, it has not been thought wise, to attempt to define by any term indicative, or which might be thought to be indicative, of a direct assumption of

  1069
  Sovereign authority, the multifarious relations, differing greatly in different cases, which exist between Her Majesty and the various Native States in India. My noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) referred to such great Princes as Scindiah and Holkar and the Nizam, and he asked your Lordships what would they think the assumption of the title of Queen of India would imply? I think it was imprudent for my noble and learned Friend to ask that question. He might well have been content with the answer given to it by the noble Lord behind me who was Governor General of India—namely, that they would not think much about it: because, if it were really to be apprehended that they would regard with so much anxiety the use of the title of Queen, it was surely at least as probable, that they might inquire whether some new assertion of power was not intended on the part of Her Majesty by the assumption of the title of Empress. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) read an extract from a speech which Lord Palmerston made in February, 1858. I own I think that the language of that, and of another speech of Lord Palmerston, in support of the Bill for the transfer of the Government of India to Her Majesty is extremely different from the arguments we have heard as to the proper signification of the word Empress as defining our relations to all the States and Princes of India. In April, 1858, Lord Palmerston expressly declared his agreement with a previous speaker in the same debate, who had said that India is not like one of our other possessions abroad, that it does not contain only a single population, that India is not all under our sway, and that the Indian Government involves relations with independent Princes. When we come to examine those relations, it is very probable, that the word "independent" may require a great deal of qualification as to every one of those Princes. But is it wise, when we have admitted them to be independent Princes, in a broad and practical sense, now to adopt a new term for the express purpose, as we are told, of giving the most accurate possible description of our exact relation towards them? May they not inquire what is meant by the word Empress in other countries, and will the result of
  1070
  that inquiry be entirely satisfactory? I venture to think it will not. It cannot be contended that Her Majesty, whether as Queen or as Empress, exercises sovereignty over all the territories of Hindostan. And why not? Because there are others who have sovereign powers in Hindostan besides ourselves and the Native Princes. The settlements of France and of Portugal in those territories may be small in extent as compared with ours or with the territories of Native Princes, but nevertheless they form part of Hindostan, and by no possible use of the word "Empress" or "Queen" can Her Majesty be supposed to assume the sovereignty over the whole of that Peninsula. Whichever title is used, the word "India" must be taken in a sense not universal; and that being so, ordinary policy and common sense oblige us to say that its actual application to any particular territory must be defined and understood according to the actual relations of this country to that territory. My Lords, that being so, is it not clear that it is better to adhere to the use of the word "Queen," which is the word by which Her Majesty is now described here and in India, and in all other parts of the British territory throughout the world? For my own part, I should have thought that there could have been no doubt on that point. But, my Lords, the argument does not stop there—because, as I view the matter, the word "Empress," thus applied specially to India, is at variance with the ancient constitutional use of the words "Imperial," and "Empire," with respect to the British Crown; a use to which the Bill itself bears testimony. The clause of the Bill to which I refer proposes to authorize Her Majesty to make such addition "to the style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies as to Her Majesty may seem meet." I do not entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord behind me the other evening, that the word "Imperial," occurring, as it does, throughout the whole series of great constitutional statutes affecting the Crown, is no more than an epithet. It is more than that; it has reference to the word "Empire," which is used in several of those statutes. In the Statute of Appeals

  1071
  (24 Henry VIII., cap. 12) we find these words—
  "This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King, having the dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same."
  And in the last Act of that class, that which effected the Union with Ireland (39 & 40 George III., cap. 67), it is recited that it was an object of the Union "to consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British Empire." What, then, does the word "Empire" mean in these great statutes, and what is the meaning of the words "Imperial Crown?" The meaning of those words is that the Imperial power, over all the dependencies and Foreign possessions of this country, resides in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in its Crown. That Imperial power resided originally in England, afterwards in Great Britain; it now finally resides in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That is the Empire, and that is the Imperial Crown; and this Parliament of which your Lordships are Members makes laws, as such, whenever it is found necessary, for India, and for the British colonies and plantations in every part of the world; it is an Imperial Parliament; and the head of this Imperial system is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Can it be maintained, therefore, for a moment, that you can take out of that Imperial system one portion of our territory and treat it as though Her Majesty ruled it by a different title from that by which she governs the other parts of the Empire—not by virtue of the Imperial Crown of this Realm, which she holds, not as Empress, but as Queen—but by virtue of a new title—that of Empress of India? I submit that it is not as Empress of India that Her Majesty rules over that country; it is as Queen of Great Britain. You cannot sever the Imperial quality from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or from the Royal Crown of that kingdom, and apply it to one portion of Her Majesty's dominions only; and if you attempt to do so I venture to say that you will be violating the true construction of these words, in the only sense in which they can constitutionally be used. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when referring to the state of public
  1072
  opinion on this question, applied tests which I should hardly have thought would have approved themselves to his mind. I should have thought that no number of Whitaker's Almanacks or Kurrachee medals could have any tendency to establish by usage an alteration in the style and title of the Crown which was not authorized by law. There is all the difference in the world between the use of inflated language by unauthorized individuals, and a solemn and formal addition, by an Act of Parliament, to the style and title of the Crown. The noble and learned Lord referred to Debrett's Peerage in proof of the popularity of this change in the Queen's title; and he put me in mind of the following lines:—
  "Lament, lament, Sir Isaac Heard!
  Put mourning round thy page Debrett!
  For here lies one who ne'er preferr'd
  A Viscount to a Marquis yet."
  No doubt, it may be natural for that character of mind which those lines describe, to prefer, not only a Marquess to a Viscount, but an Empress to a Queen. Certainly, the Imperial style is harmless as long as it appears in unauthorized publications; but it is absurd to refer to such things as having paved the way to a deliberate alteration of the Royal title by statute. There is, however, another test by which we may learn, even from the conduct of Her Majesty's Government themselves, what is the feeling entertained by the country on the subject of this proposed change in the title of Her Majesty. Her Majesty's Government have pledged themselves that the title of Empress shall be used only in reference to India; but if the title is as popular in England as Her Majesty's Government say it is, why avoid touching it in this country as you would avoid touching poison, and why speak of it here "with bated breath and whispering humbleness?" I should have thought that nothing should have been added to the style of Her Majesty which might not have been blazoned forth in the face of all the world and have appeared at the head of every State document in England, as well as everywhere else. It is by the promise to localize this title in India that Her Majesty's Government have distinctly admitted their knowledge that the name is unpopular in this country. Let us have some title selected which may fitly express the supremacy of Her Majesty in

  1073
  India, which may give satisfaction to the Native Princes of India, and which will give offence to no single human being in this country. The argument appears to me irresistible that no addition should be made to the style and title of the Queen which cannot be everywhere used, and which cannot always be inserted in all charters, letters patent, and other documents in which it has hitherto been thought proper to set out Her Majesty's titles in full. It is certainly not necessary to set out the Royal titles in full either upon coins or on stamps; but it has been laid down, by high legal authority, that it is necessary to do so in such documents as writs and charters. As far back as 1678 the Court of King's Bench quashed and set aside a writ as bad in law because it omitted from the style of King Charles II. the title of King of Scotland; and unless words are inserted in this Bill to meet the case, I incline strongly to the opinion that the title which may be taken by Her Majesty must be universally used in instruments of that character, unless it is meant to run the risk of bringing into doubt the validity of those instruments. It has been contended that addition to the Queen's style is not alteration; but I must be pardoned for taking an opposite view; and I must say further that in dealing with a question affecting that style, associations and sentiments are most important. Her Majesty worthily represents an ancient and honourable title, whose lustre has not only remained unimpaired, but has gone on continually increasing; and while it has never, until now, been thought necessary to add anything to the simple, noble, and august name of Queen, time and events have been unable to subtract anything from its dignity. The feelings of the English people are wrapped up with the glories and great traditions of the Monarchy, in which the grand and simple name of Queen occupies the central place. I feel convinced that the very loyalty of those of Her Majesty's subjects who object to the advice which Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to offer to the Queen compels them to the course which they have taken. The hold which this title has upon the feelings of our fellow-countrymen has continually been strengthened, while transitory Empires in other countries have
  1074
  risen and fallen, and while modern Republics have been searching in vain for the secret of that authority which our Queen has inherited from the past. Whatever else may be thought upon the subject, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it is the duty of those of your Lordships who do not think that the strength, honour, and dignity of the Crown will be really enhanced by this addition to its title—who think that the course proposed is one which involves at least some risk of disturbing those hallowed associations which have centred round the name of Queen—openly to declare their sentiments and to support by their vote what they hold to be the wiser course. Our duty is not only to defend the honour and reverence which surround the Crown of our Sovereign from all external enemies, but also to protest against what we believe to be the misguided counsels of those who are vainly endeavouring to gild its refined gold.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought that the discussion of the various points during the debate had brought their Lordships nearer to the real issue—what was to be the precise addition to the titles of Her Majesty. That some addition should be made was, since the Bill had passed its second reading without opposition, a foregone conclusion. The conditions of Her Majesty's rule in India were totally different from that of her rule in England; for in India she exercised a sovereignty over a population much larger than the population of the British Islands—a large part of which owed no allegiance. It had been contended that other titles—such, for instance, as "Lady Paramount," "Sovereign Lady,"—would logically express the same fact as to the nature of our dominion over India as the word "Empress;" but those titles seemed to him to be open to the same objection which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had brought forward with respect to Her Majesty's second title, when he objected to giving Her Majesty "two handles to her name." He (Viscount Midleton) objected, on the other hand, to using two words where one precisely expressed the relation in which Her Majesty stood to India. The word "Empire," properly used, signified three things—the right to conclude peace, the right to declare war, and

  1075
  the right to direct military operations on behalf of countries the inhabitants of which were not subjects of the Sovereign Power, and owed it no direct allegiance. Such was the nature of the Empire of the First Napoleon, of the present German Empire, and of our own Indian Empire, which no one ever yet heard called a Kingdom. With regard to the effect which the adoption of the title of Empress would have in India, he would observe that it was absurd to suppose that men possessed of the intelligence of Holkar and Scindiah did not already know their true position in reference to the Crown of England, or that any hopes would be excited or any fears raised in their breasts by the assumption by Her Majesty of that title in India. As to the general effect of the proposed change of title in that country, he would appeal to the authority of the late Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence), who had distinctly stated that he thought any addition to the Royal title embracing India would be received with pleasure, although he had no special liking for the particular appellation in question. The view of that noble Lord had been confirmed, and even in stronger terms, by the late Governor of Madras, who, preferring a special title in respect of India, was in favour of one which would distinctly express the sovereign power in India. But then came the sentimental objection based upon the effect which it was supposed the addition to the title would have on the people of this country. Now, he admitted that was an objection with which it was extremely difficult to deal, because it was so exceedingly difficult to ascertain what was the exact force of public feeling on any particular question. To whom were we to look for it? To the Press? But the Press was, after all, at the mercy of a comparatively small number of individuals, who were as likely as others to be mistaken. When, too, the measure was first announced to the world it met with the approbation of the Press, and although there had since been an alteration in its tone he did not think that fact warranted the statement that public opinion in this country had declared itself hostile to the proposal of the Government. To take another test. If there was anyone in this country who might be supposed to understand pretty accurately public feeling, it was, perhaps,
  1076
  Mr. Gladstone. Yet when he, acting upon his view of it, very recently made an appeal to the constituencies, the answer which they returned was not such as to justify the belief that he really knew what the country felt and thought. No one, he admitted, had a better right than the noble Earl who moved the Address to the Throne that evening (the Earl of Shaftesbury) to speak on behalf of the working classes, to whom his whole life had been one of devotion; but personal experiences in such matters were always liable to prove deceptive. He might, however, remark, in reply to what had fallen from the noble Earl on that point, that he himself, in the late Parliament, had represented a constituency numbering some 15,000 electors, composed almost exclusively of the middle classes, leavened by a considerable infusion of the best among the working classes, and that although he was in constant correspondence with them, ever since he ceased to represent them directly, and they were in the habit of communicating freely with him on matters of public interest, not one of them had addressed one word of censure to him on the course which the Government proposed to adopt in the present instance. He warned the House, therefore, against being misled or frightened, as he feared the noble Earl who introduced the Motion had been by his own shadow, and against admitting those gloomy anticipations for which he believed there was no ground whatever. With respect to precedents, it was useless to appeal to the history of this country for precedents in a case which was in itself unprecedented. He believed, indeed, he could find a precedent as far back as the time of our Saxon forefathers, in the case of a Saxon King who asserted that he was Emperor of all Britain. The strength of his position, however, lay in this—that never since the world was known had there been an Empire of the same kind, attended with the same incidents, and held by the same power as the Empire of India was held by England. Precedents, therefore, might be dispensed with. As to the gloomy apprehensions which had been put forward, regarding the effect of this change, he had greater confidence in the common sense, the reasonable feeling, and the unalterable loyalty of his countrymen than to believe that the proposed addition to Her

  1077
  Majesty's title would shake the foundation of the English monarchy or imperil the English Crown or Constitution. In conclusion, he wished to say that he had heard with surprise the remarks which fell from the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) on the previous evening with respect to those who supported the Bill. The noble Duke had spoken as if their only ground for so doing was either a blind adherence to Party ties, or a still more odious motive, which he (Viscount Midleton) believed would not have dominion over any Member of their Lordships' House. As a humble and independent Member of that House he repudiated the noble Duke's insinuation. He at least was not open to the charge of supporting Her Majesty's Government when he was unable to arrive at the conclusions to which they had come. He should give his vote to Her Majesty's Government heartily and conscientiously, because he believed them to be right, and for himself and those who took the same course he asked noble Lords opposite to give them credit at least for this—that in the vote they should give that night they were actuated by no mere Party instinct, but that they had a clear conception of what they were doing—that they were not false to all the traditions of their Lordships' House, but that the vote they should give would be dictated, as he trusted it had always been, by feelings of due regard to the safety, the honour, and the welfare of our Sovereign and her dominions.
  LORD SANDHURSTsaid, that the title of Queen had hitherto satisfied the relations which existed between her and her Indian subjects, and he therefore asked what reason there was for the change? It appeared to him the speech of the noble Lord on the Woolsack had not touched the marrow of the question. If they changed the Royal title there arose the question of the constitutional authority. It was difficult to say what was the idea of the Indian people as to authority. The title of "Queen" did not represent to them a purely despotic idea. They were habituated to appeal for redress to "the Queen in Parliament" and not to the autocratic authority symbolized by the word "Emperor" on "Empress"—a title much more suited to their idea of the Russian or French Monarch, than to the Constitutional Sovereign of England. It was to "the
  1078
  Queen" that appeals from India were made; and since 1835 the image and superscription and the title on the Indian coinage were those of William the Fourth and Victoria, King and Queen of England. The present name of our Sovereign and her relation to India were thus familiar to all classes of our Indian subjects. It was said that the substitution of a new foreign title for the old one would have a great effect on the people of India; but the answer to that was that both "Queen" and "Empress" were translated into the Native languages by the same words. It was difficult, therefore, to conceive how the mere alteration or substitution of one foreign title for another, the people not understanding the language to which either title belonged, could have any effect in India. To attribute even the shadow of importance in the sense of its being gratifying to the Native population of India was therefore absolutely contrary to fact. Therefore, it seemed to him that this was not an Indian, but an English question, and he was bound to say that all he had heard tended to confirm what the noble Earl who first spoke (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had said as to the unpopularity of the Government proposal. It mattered very little to the people of India which title was adopted; but the discussion which the Government had provoked on this subject might be productive of danger. Who could tell what the effect would be of stirring in this way the feelings of the vast population of India, by producing uncertainty and doubt where they did not exist before, and introducing novelties the object of which was unintelligible. At all events, to give rise to such discussions as they had lately listened to in and out of Parliament was most unwise, whether as affecting the minds of the Princes subject to British rule or the educated sentiment of this country. In short, it was impossible not to view the measure as unwise and inauspicious, perhaps more unwise and even mischievous than any to which the Government of this country had been committed for a long series of years. In view of these considerations, and as one who had a deep regard for the Monarchical institutions of this country, he entreated their Lordships to support the Motion.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he had heard a great amount of declamation

  1079
  and some vituperation in these debates, but no real tangible argument against the addition of "Empress of India" to Her Majesty's title. It had been urged in opposition to this step that it was proposed to change the title of Her Majesty. He yielded to no man in his admiration and affection for the title of "Queen of England," but he maintained that the title of "Queen" remained unchanged by this Bill, and that the title of "Empress" was in addition, and would be accessory and subordinate to it; and so far from losing dignity by that addition, as some seemed to think, he believed the dignity of the Queen of England would be enhanced by it. He denied that that proposal was not in accordance with history. Our Indian Empire had been created, maintained, and extended by the prowess, valour, and enterprize of the English nation, which, in the possession of that great and varied Empire, had all the attributes of an Imperial position: for Her Majesty as the supreme head of such a country "Empress" was no doubt the most appropriate title. The people of England, proud of their independence, and also proud of their Empire, were equally jealous of any attack upon either. The noble Earl who had moved the Resolution (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had professed to speak the sentiment of the people of England and had particularly referred to the people of the North of England. Now he (the Earl of Feversham) happened to know something of the feelings of the people in the North, and he must say that, from all the information he could gather, he did not learn that there existed that popular hostility towards this measure which the noble Earl would lead them to suppose. When he looked at the history of England and remembered the great public liberty which the people enjoyed, he confessed himself astonished that the Liberal Party should have such a poor idea of what the power of the Law of this country was, and of the strong and broad basis on which the Constitution was established, as to imagine that there was any real danger in a mere addition of this nature to the Royal title. He believed that the country generally entertained no such chimerical apprehension, and was ready to see the Sovereign assume an addition to her title which would fitly mark the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown.
  1080
  In a work on India lately published there was an account of a great durbar held there by Lord Lawrence as Governor General in 1867. On that State occasion the Viceroy, representing, for the first time at a general durbar, not merely a Company of Merchants, but the Queen of England herself, was described as having spoken of Her Majesty as Empress of India; and in presiding over an investiture of the Star of India, that noble Lord said that in conferring through him the title of Grand Commander of that Order on a Native Prince, "the Empress of India" wished to thank him for his fidelity and his signal services during the Mutiny. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lawrence), therefore, himself employed the very title they were now discussing in addressing the Sovereign Princes of India 10 years ago. The Prime Minister had been taken to task for venturing to refer in the other House to the Russian advance in Central Asia. He (the Earl of Feversham) would ask the noble Lords on the other side of the House to free themselves for a moment from Party considerations. This question had been argued on their side from a narrow insular point of view, but it should be argued from an Indian point of view. He would ask them to cast their eyes across the great Empire of India and observe the approach of the great Empire of Russia to our frontier. He did not say he was jealous of the approach of Russia, he believed the annexation of the barbarous countries of the East might tend to the civilization, or, at all events, to the increase of the trade and commerce of those countries, but he did not see why England and Russia—those two great Asiatic Powers—should not exist together upon terms of amity. But supposing the two Empires touched each other, or nearly so, would it not be an advantage that the people of India should be able to regard their supreme Ruler as occupying the same exalted position as the Emperor of Russia? It seemed to him that for this purpose it was desirable that our Sovereign should be styled "Empress of India." Looking as this as an Indian question he would remind their Lordships that the two greatest authorities in that House upon Indian subjects had testified that the people of India would receive an addition to the title of the Sovereign directly connected with India with great satis-

  1081
  faction, and that neither had expressed themselves as, on the whole, dissatisfied with the title of "Empress," he regretted that the noble Earl who had moved the Resolution should have attempted to mislead the people of England by inflammatory declamation. A great responsibility rested on those who attempted to rouse the feelings of the people of this country against authorities and institutions instead of educating them and showing them the right patriotic and just course to pursue, and, therefore, he thought the noble Earl had acted most unwisely in moving a Resolution adverse to the present proposition, thereby depriving it of the grace which the general approval would impart to it. He unhesitatingly opposed the Amendment, regarding, as he did, the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to be wise and politic.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYcould honestly say that in the whole course of the few years that he had been in that House he never rose to address it with greater reluctance than on the present occasion; but he felt constrained by a high sense of duty to oppose the measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government. And that he believed was the feeling of all those who had addressed the House on that side against that proposal. The noble Duke who introduced the measure (the Duke of Richmond) had characterized the course of the Opposition on this subject as a course of Party opposition—and on another occasion he made a pointed allusion to himself (the Earl of Rosebery). He would not attempt to imitate the peculiar suavity of the noble Duke; he would content himself with saying that there never was a more uncalled-for and injudicious imputation. Had the opposition to this measure been a Party opposition, what would have been more easy in the House of Commons than to have delayed the progress of the Bill throughout its different stages in that House. Certainly such imputations as those made by the noble Duke were not calculated to throw oil on the troubled waters which divided the two great Parties which had ranged themselves in opposition to each other on this delicate question. The noble Marquess the Secretary for India had complained of the absence of arguments on the Opposition side. With every respect for the noble
  1082
  Marquess he (the Earl of Rosebery) must say he had not heard a sentence from the promoters or advocates of the measure that deserved the slightest consideration as an argument. One of the difficulties of the debate was the attempt to grasp anything like argument in what the other side had advanced. The noble Marquess opposite referred to some instances in which Her Majesty had been called Empress of India. All that had been said about the Queen of England having been occasionally styled Empress of India only proved this—that the title had been wrongly given to Her Majesty; because it was obvious that if she were really entitled to be so styled there was no occasion for this Bill. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) brought forward two arguments of a negative character. He said there was no feeling in the country against this proposal of the Government, and he referred to the absence of meetings and Petitions as evidence that the public feeling was in favour of and not against the proposal of the Government. But the papers which he (the Earl of Rosebery) read led him to come to a conclusion widely different from that of the noble Duke. There had been a great meeting in the City of Manchester, which adopted a Petition praying Her Majesty not to accept the title of Empress. A similar Petition had been agreed to in the ancient and loyal City of Edinburgh and at Liverpool. There had been meetings allover the country which had emphatically declared against the proposal of the Government, and at the present moment the provincial journals teemed with announcements of further meetings for further deprecation. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) flaunted triumphantly in the House in support of the Bill a Petition to which signatures had been obtained in four hours by the incumbent of Blackpool: but he (the Earl of Rosebery) declined to recognize the incumbent of Blackpool as a suitable exponent of the wishes of the nation on this question. In Selden's "Titles of Honour" and in "Blackstone" were to be found passages which bore the strongest testimony to the dignity of the Crown of of England; and if, after having always maintained that the Sovereign of this country was the equal of all other Rulers in the world, we were to condescend to

  1083
  make our Queen an Empress the whole of Europe would laugh in our faces. He much regretted the absence of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, because from his own ancestral history he might have shown that the King of England was entitled to occupy the position of a Ruler of Rulers. Not much more than 100 years ago the Earls of Derby were Kings in Man, and yet as such, they owed feudal allegiance to the Kings of England. The Kings of England had always claimed homage from the Kings of Scotland. William the Lion of Scotland and other Scotch Sovereigns had sworn allegiance to the Kings of England, and the competitors for the Crown of Scotland did homage to Edward the First when he proposed to decide their respective claims. Such Kings were, at all events, of equal rank with the Native Princes of India. Indeed, the arguments that had been made use of in the course of the discussions upon this subject were enough to make King Edward rise from his grave. But, on the other hand, we had modern Emperors—such as those of Brazil and of Hayti—who numbered no Rulers among their subjects, and who therefore by no stretch of imagination could be regarded as Rulers over Rulers. The honest truth was that we had not yet heard the true arguments in support of this proposal to change Her Majesty's title. The proposal could not have been put forward with the view of giving satisfaction to the people of India, because we had been told upon high authority that the people of India were politically dumb; and it could not have been put forward with the object of impressing the people of Europe, because we had always told them that our King was the equal of their Emperors. The truth was, that this alteration of the Queen's title was suggested as being in accordance with the foreign and colonial policy of the present Government. The late Government were always taunted with having no foreign and no colonial policy, and the present Government came in with the intention of initiating a "spirited and an original foreign policy." Consequently, the first act of Her Majesty's Government had been to split up this great Empire, and to separate India from the rest of Her Majesty's dominions. We wished to secure our highway to India, and we purchased 10 votes in the management of the Suez Canal. We
  1084
  wished to secure our Indian Empire from Russia, and we made our Sovereign an Empress. It was impossible to treat the matter seriously—it reminded him of the warlike proceedings of the Chinese—also, by-the-by, governed by an Emperor—who put their chief trust in wooden swords, and shields painted with ugly faces. He trusted we should never be so foolish as to think that the title of Empress would operate as a fortification against a nation of 80,000,000 of people, and which numbered its soldiers by the million. The title affected England as well as India, and his astonishment was great that such a a proposal as this should have been brought forward by the Conservative Party, who, when in opposition, never ceased from warning the House in sepulchral tones not to touch the framework of our Constitution—not to meddle with that which had been perfected by by the wisdom of our ancestors—not to pour new wine into old bottles, and not to mend old clothes with new cloth. And whence came the opposition to this Bill? Not from those who were termed English Republicans and who were opposed to Monarchical institutions, but from those to whom for 16 out of the last 20 years the confidence of both the Crown and of the constituencies had been accorded, and who felt as deeply as the Conservatives the debt which the country owed to its gracious Sovereign. He denied that the opposition to this measure was in any sense of the term factious, or that it was got up for Party purposes. The noble Duke in introducing the Bill said that when the change was first proposed it was generally received with applause by the Press, but that since that time, for some unaccountable causes, the Press had changed its tone. Well, the Press had changed its tone because it was the faithful reflex of the popular opinion, and the Press now knew that the change of title was eminently unpopular among the people. The Government appeared to be very well aware of this, for they now proposed that it should be used in India only, and its use tabooed in this country. So that the Bill might properly be labelled "Poisonous—for outward application only." It was salutary when applied externally, but poisonous when applied to the inner working of the Constitution. He ventured to say

  1085
  on behalf of those who sat near him that they would be glad if a division on this delicate and painful subject could be avoided. They were anxious to avoid a division, not, however, because they would thereby avoid a defeat—they were accustomed to that on that side the House—but because they believed the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to be derogatory to the Crown, as well as unwise and unnecesssary. Above all, they feared that by touching the outward form of the Monarchy they might in some sort touch its inward spirit and dignity.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that when it was first announced that an addition was to be made to the Royal style and title in respect to India, every one anticipated that the title would be that of "Empress." The facts suggested it. We always spoke—even those who were most strongly opposed to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government—of our "Empire" of India—the natural sequence was that the person who ruled over an Empire was an "Emperor" or "Empress," and he had heard no sufficient reason for supposing that that which had naturally occurred to the minds of all men was an erroneous idea—namely, that the Queen of England should as ruler of the Empire of India be styled "Empress." For some time after the proposal had been brought forward there seemed to be a general unanimity on the subject; and at the outset the principal opposition in the other House of Parliament consisted of two ex-Cabinet Ministers, who in debate made a great explosion on the subject; but were nevertheless unable to command the support of those who usually followed them. They then appealed to the country and sought to persuade the people that there was something very dangerous in the assumption of the proposed title; and they pointed to a toast proposed at a Lord Mayor's dinner, and to some words which had been used after dinner by a foolish clergyman as a sure proof that the title of Queen would be overshadowed by the superior dignity of Empress. There could be no reasonable ground for such an apprehension. But surely their Lordships would not be deterred by such feeble apprehensions from giving the force of law to a title which exactly expressed the relations subsisting be-
  1086
  tween the Throne and the Empire of India, which the title of Queen did not. Who ever thought of the Kingdom of India? The expression would be totally inapplicable to the very various relations in which our Sovereign stood to the people and Princes of that vast Empire. He was himself convinced that it would be a great advantage if the people of India were shown that we were desirous of drawing still closer the ties which bound the people of this country to the people of our Eastern Empire.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I altogether sympathize, my Lords, with the desire expressed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery), when he entreated the House if possible to avoid a division on such a question as this. A division would mar the grace and compliment of an act which ought to be hailed with almost universal welcome; in the next place, it would risk the peril of dragging into the mire of political controversy a name which ought to be sacred and above all controversies; and, lastly, it might possibly affect the population of India, leaving we do not know what result behind. We are in this position now—that if there ever was a question of modification or alteration, the course which has been taken this evening places it absolutely out of the power of Her Majesty's Government to recede. It is not necessary for me to go over the whole of the ground which has been traversed in the course of this debate; but I must allude to one point which, though it has not been raised in this House, formed a main ground of the attack levelled against the Bill in "another place." I allude to the fact that no mention is made of the colonies in the alteration which it is proposed to make in the formula of the Crown throughout the whole of this controversy. I have received no evidence of any desire on the part of the colonies to be so included, and I think that in my official position, I should have had an intimation of such desire if it existed. If the time should come when the colonies shall express a desire of the kind, I feel sure that the Government of the day will very carefully consider a proposal of the kind; but I can only say that no such wish has been expressed up to the present, nor have I heard a single expression of dissatisfaction or a single representation from any colony

  1087
  on the subject. The people of our colonies are content to be included under the general title, and it would be inexpedient to propose any change without previous communication with those great communities. Having said thus much on the question as it affects the colonies, I would now make a few remarks on the general question, which resolves itself into a question as to the particular word which shall be used in making an addition to the titles of the Queen. It is admitted that an addition in some form is both necessary and advisable. It is also admitted that there is nothing in the title "Empress" so monstrous, extraordinary, or abnormal as was at first represented; and, lastly, it is admitted that, if any addition is to be made, the present is a favourable time for making it. With respect to the word "Empress" the use of it dates back for several centuries. In a Proclamation Queen Elizabeth describes herself as "Queen of England, Defender of the Faith, and Empress from the Orkneys to the Pyrenees." Coming down to the present time I find that when the Order of the Star of India was instituted it was ordered that Members of the Order should be created on account of services rendered in "our Indian Empire;" and, on the other hand, when the Colonial Order St. Michael and St. George was created, it was ordained that its Members should be connected with "our Kingdom and our Colonial Possessions"—a wide and striking difference. I think this a most appropriate time for making the change. To have added the title of "Empress of India" to the style of the Queen at the close of the Indian Mutiny would have perpetuated the recollection of blood and slaughter; but at the present time it will keep alive in the minds of the Natives of India the recollection of the visit which has just been paid to India by the Prince of Wales—a visit the eminent success of which has been due to the courtesy and ability which His Royal Highness has displayed, and which has won for him the graceful homage of the Native Princes. As far as the title of Empress is concerned I know of no other so applicable. It is generally admitted that in India it is well understood, and expresses the relations which it is intended to represent and convey. The noble and learned Lord who has addressed the House
  1088
  (Lord Selborne) spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to prove that it would not convey the meaning that the personage holding it was a supreme Ruler over Rulers. My noble and learned Friend said that there was not a single instance in which the title of Emperor was used to express relations of that kind. But has he forgotten that during the earliest times the title of Roman Emperor gathered round it many great Kings and Chiefs from the East? Has he forgotten that the earlier Emperors of Germany ruled over tributary Kings, or that the First Napoleon had his anterooms crowded with Kings? Has he forgotten the rule, even, of the Mogul Emperor? I contend that if there be one word in the English language which can convey this particular notion of a Ruler over Rulers it is unquestionably that of Emperor. It did convey that in India, for up to the commencement of the present century there was the Mogul Emperor; he reigned legally, and one of the great reasons which induced Lord Wellesley to gain possession of Delhi was in order that he might gain possession of the person of the Emperor. After that he was known simply as the King of Delhi, till the time of the Mutiny. And what was the first act of the mutineers? To proclaim the old King of Delhi as Emperor of India! Since that day the Imperial title has remained dead; and now we propose that the Queen of England, as the Empress of India, shall, as it were, take up the thread of history, and gather round, her all the feelings and traditions which the title of Empress of India represents. So much for India. As to England, it has been asserted throughout the debates that the title of Empress is not to apply to India alone, but to this country. But your Lordships have heard Members of the Government over and over again emphatically deny that statement. I am at a loss to know how they can do so in terms more explicit. Ghosts generally appear in the dark—but here they come forward in the full glare of light—in the full blaze of debate. Why is it, then, that we have constantly those phantoms conjured up which have no foundation and no reality? It has been contended that this title of Empress could not be localized; but I should be very sorry if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack and the Law

  1089
  Officers of the Crown should be unable to find some means of effectually securing that object. My noble and learned Friend told us how the Proclamation was to be issued, and that the title would be confined to the measures which run only in India, and I should be very loath indeed to doubt his capability to give effect to that intention. I wish further to point out that all those objections appear to resolve themselves into complete contradictions. It is assumed—in my opinion, on the slenderest foundation—that the title of Empress is eminently unpopular, repugnant, and hateful to the English people. Now there is, I maintain, not the slightest evidence that such is the case; but while we are told that it is hateful to the English people, it is said in the same breath that it is a title which will be immediately adopted in every part of England. These are arguments which appear to me to be entirely inconsistent, and I have greater faith in the good sense and right feeling of the people of this country than to believe that they were founded on fact. The real truth is that all this proceeds in a great measure from a mistake—this is supposed to be a measure which is personal in its nature, and that it has been adopted from personal considerations. For my part, I look upon it rather as making an addition to the honours of the State. I have no wish to overrate its importance. Words cannot make or take away an Empire, any more than the material jewelry in a Crown is of the essence of Monarchy. Such things are mere emblems—the mere trappings and externals of Royalty. The real security for our retaining possession of India rests upon guarantees of a very different kind—upon the maintenance of our power and the wisdom of our rule. But India, nevertheless, is a country where words, after all, carry with them a wider and a greater significance than they do in England, and therefore I claim this title of Empress not so much for the Sovereign as for the State—as one more record of that triumphant power which is the result of a long blazon of historic successes. It is that title which appears to me to be the embodiment of the rule and dignity of England—it is the State carried up, so far as words can carry it, to its highest attributes. It is in the most literal sense
  1090
  in accordance with the words of the Roman poet—
  "Famaque et imperi
  Porrecta majestas ad ortum
  Solis ab Hesperio cubili."
  And when the Roman poet made that proud boast he made it not for the Ruler but for the State—not on behalf of Augustus, but on behalf of that great Empire over which Augustus ruled, and to which, after all, this Empire of England approaches more nearly than any other Kingdom which the world has ever seen. It is in this sense I wish to see the Queen of England, who embodies in her private life and in her great office the traditions, the desires—in short, everything that has made this country great—it is in this sense I wish to see her reign as Empress over the broad Continent of India.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he was one of the last advocates of another Government of India in "another place"—for there was once a Government of that country which had established the military prowess of England upon a basis which was almost unique in the annals of history. They overthrew a dynasty and conquered kingdoms. And under what name? Under the modest title of a Company of Merchants trading to the East. They performed exploits and displayed a vigour and courage which could not be improved upon by any name whatever; but it was felt necessary that the extended empire and power of England should be further asserted; and a change in the form of Government in India was effected. When they put down the Indian Mutiny by force, they should then, and then only, have introduced this title. He had good reason to believe that this question was seriously agitated then, but there were very high influences brought to bear upon the proposal; but under the wise counsel of such men as Lord Palmerston, the conclusion arrived at was that the present title of Queen of England as used in the Proclamation was entirely sufficient. If it was sufficient then, and had been sufficient for the 18 years which had intervened, why change it now? They all knew the circumstances connected with the beneficent visit of the Prince of Wales to India. They knew the good that had been effected by his visit to a people among whom personal graces had great

  1091
  influence. Surely nothing had arisen in the circumstances of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India which rendered the change in this title of the Sovereign necessary? He did not understand how the title of Empress touched India at all. Would the people of India connect with the word any different ideas than they connected with the title of Queen? He did not believe that they would, and he could not understand how they should. How was the word Empress or Emperor to be communicated? It would have to be communicated to each nation in a separate language. Therefore it could not be said to be an Indian question at all. It would never come before the Indian people, in any form whatever, except a small discontented, querulous critical population which might be called "Young Bengal," who would try to find every fault they could. This was a serious question. It was not a question of almanacks of this year or last. It was an act which, when once done, was irreversible—once they had altered the title they could not undo it. They would have introduced into the political nomenclature of the country an entirely new word—a word alien, he believed, to the spirit of the English people. The noble Earl opposite had quoted Latin, he should quote Latin also—
  "Multa simul contrà variis sententia dictis
  "Pro Turno, et magnum reginæ nomen obumbrat."
  They might give a new title to the Queen—but no name they could give her would add to the permanence of our power in India.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Feversham) had referred to him as having spoken of Her Majesty at a durbar at Agra in 1867 as Empress of India; but, in fact, the language in which he spoke was Hindoostanee—therefore he could not have used the word "Empress." He could not recollect what was the exact word he used. No doubt it was a highly honourable word as it was connected with Her Majesty, and was probably derived from the Persian or Arabic—but he certainly did not use the word Empress. The other night he endeavoured to convey his view that, with all respect to Her Majesty, it would be better as regarded India to use a word equivalent to Queen or Empress, in one of its
  1092
  classical languages rather than simply Queen or Empress. The translation should be suited to the comprehension of the people. But if the Government intended to write out and direct the word "Empress" to be used, the great mass of the people would not understand what the word meant. They would therefore be indifferent as to what it did imply. But if a word was taken which in their own language conveyed to them the power and the authority of Her Majesty, the object aimed at would, no doubt, be achieved.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 137: Not Contents 91: Majority 46.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lonsdale, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Mansfield, E.

  Brandon, D. (D. Hamilton.)

  Nelson, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Orford, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Poulett, E.

  Powis, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Bath, M.

  Romney, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Sandwich, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Somers, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Cadogan, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Clonmell, E.

  Hill, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Devon, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Erne, E.

  London, Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Alington, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Bagot, L.

  1093

  Bateman, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Bloomfield, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Bolton, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Manners, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Massy, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  O'Neill, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Conyers, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Raglan, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Rayleigh, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Forester, L.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Sondes, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Hampton, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Templemore, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Ventry, L.

  Headley, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Morley, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Devonshire, D.

  Norfolk, D.

  Spencer, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Canterbury, V.

  Sutherland, D.

  Cardwell, V.

  Westminster, D.

  Eversley, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Hood, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Acton, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Belper, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Cawdor, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Cottenham, E.

  Camoys, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ducie, E.

  Durham, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Essex, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Dacre, L.

  Granville, E.

  de Clifford, L.

  Grey, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Minto, E.

  Dormer, L.

  1094

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Monson, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Eliot, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Emly, L.

  Foley, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Hatherley, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Selborne, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Lanerton, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Lovat, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had himself the other evening, and a noble Duke by his side had also put a Question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as to the limitation of the use of the title of Empress to India. The noble and learned Lord in reply said—
  "He was aware that in 'another place' a very ample and complete declaration had been made. It had been stated elsewhere in the most distinct way that although the intention was that the advice offered to the Crown would be that the ordinary and general use of the Indian title should be confined to India, yet in England, wherever a legal or formal document had to be employed in which the full style and titles of the Crown had to be rehearsed, that style and those titles must be rehearsed at length as they might stand for the time being."
  He found that many noble and learned authorities doubted whether a Royal Proclamation on that matter could override an Act of Parliament. Therefore, though he was not an advocate of dual titles, it would be satisfactory to the House to know whether it was proposed to remove that doubt by inserting in the Bill a power to Her Majesty in her Proclamation to limit the use of the title of Empress as she might think fit?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconceived that it was not a question of doubt, but a question of certainty that a Proclamation could not over-ride an Act of Parliament. Nothing that he had stated justified any supposition that the Proclamation would over-ride the Act of Parliament, and therefore he did not think that there would be any necessity for any alteration in the Bill.

  1095
  Then the original Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Power to Her Majesty to make addition to style and titles of Crown.)
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that as far as he could form an opinion, from the authorities in the law books, the law required a certain class of documents, in order to make them valid, to have affixed to them the full style and titles at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom; and the present Bill, as he read the words, did not enable Her Majesty to do anything except to determine what addition should be made to the style and titles now appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom. He apprehended that under those words Her Majesty could not make an addition to the style and title of the Imperial Crown, and, at the same time, proceed to say that that style and title, should not be used in any class of documents in which it had hitherto been required by law that the full style and title should be set forth.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he received with the greatest possible respect any opinion on such a point coming from the noble and learned Lord, who might be quite sure that he would pay every attention to his observation. But he was bound to say, having given the best consideration he could to that matter, he could not take the view which the noble and learned Lord at present adopted. Yet, in deference to the noble and learned Lord, he promised to reconsider the question, and there would be an opportunity of dealing with it. At present it would be unadvisable to enter further into it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

  INNS OF COURT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for the better regulation and government of the Inns of Court—Was presented by The Lord SELBORNE; read 1a. (No. 47.)

  GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to establish a General School of Law in England—Was presented by The Lord SELBORNE; read 1a. (No. 48.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.