Sitting of 15 March 1880

MINUTES
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£6,000,000,Terminable Annuities; £60,000, Exchequer Bonds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Sinking Fund Act (1875) *.
Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment* [113].
Ordered—First Reading—Metropolitan Commons (Supplemental) * [112].
Second Reading—Probates of Wills, &c. [104]; Customs and Inland Revenue* [111]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Glebe Loan (Ireland) Amendment Act (1878) Amendment* [81].
Withdrawn—Alkali Acts Amendment, &c. * [74]; Post Office (Money Orders) * [62]; CensusZ* [85]; Census (Scotland)* [86]; Census (Ireland) * [101]; Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) * [110].

QUESTIONS.

  LORD CLERK REGISTER (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1879.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps have been taken to carry into effect the provisions of the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act of last Session, giving the Treasury power to appoint all officers required in the Register House, and, with the consent of the Secretary of State—
  "To regulate any of the said offices, and to change the designation thereof and the duties of officers employed therein, and the terms on which appointments shall be made thereto;"
  and with power to the Treasury, to grant superannuations to such officers, and also to officers appointed under the former Acts?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, there was at the present moment, and there had been for some time past, a scheme under consideration which involved the adjustment of the staff of the various Departments and the increase of salaries. He regretted that the revision of the scheme had been very much delayed from various causes, including among them that one referred to by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in the answer he gave the other night—a cause they all deeply regretted.
  MR. M'LARENasked when it was expected the scheme would come into operation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not say, but had mentioned that the matter had been very much delayed by the illness of the gentleman he had referred to, whose duties were very much connected with this Office. Of course, that was a matter entirely out of the control of the Government.

  AFGHANISTAN—EXECUTIONS AT CABUL—GENERAL ROBERTS'S REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If General Roberts's Report on the executions at Cabul has been received; and if he can explain the discrepancy between Lord Lytton's statement that only eighty-seven Afghans have been executed, and that of General Roberts that up to 15th December ninety-seven had already been executed by the Com-

  1009
  mission without counting those executed without trial and those executed since 15th December?
  MR. E. STANHOPE,in reply, stated that he could not quite say when the Report referred to by the hon. Baronet would be circulated, but it was put into the hands of the printer on Saturday morning.

  THE BRITISH MUSEUM—SALE OF DUPLICATES.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN)asked the Right Honourable Member for Cambridge University, If the Trustees of the British Museum will consent to give to local authorities, having charge of museums, the opportunity of purchasing the duplicates which the Trustees propose to dispose of. at prices less than might be obtained by public auction, but sufficient to provide the balance of the sum required by the Trustees for the purchase of the collection offered to them?
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE,in reply, said, that it had been deemed advisable to issue advertisements announcing that the sale of these prints would take place on the 21st April by public auction. Those advertisements were issued, not merely in this country, but in France, Germany, and the United States, and he thought that if they were to withdraw any portion of the prints they would injure the sale of the others. He might say that the authorities of the Museum were now, and had been, considering how far they could aid local authorities by granting duplicate prints to local Museums. They had already given some, and were intending to set apart others for this purpose.

  MUNICIPAL AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1872—GOOD FRIDAY.
  MR. SCOTT (for Mr. GREGORY)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Good Friday would count as one of the days in the computation of time prescribed by the Act 35 and 36 Vic. c. 33, Part I., for giving notice of an Election or in computing the interval of time required between such notice and the day of Election?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, Good Friday would not count in either case.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—GLANDERED HORSES.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made on the 3rd of March in the Kensington Vestry to the effect that no less than 116 glandered horses have been slaughtered in that parish during the last six months; whether he considers that efficient means are taken to ensure the burial of the whole body of each animal; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the spread of this disease? He added, that from information subsequently received, he found that 40 of the horses mentioned were affected in an adjoining parish, and he was also informed that the fat of these animals was sold for the manufacture of a compound known as "butterine."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I am informed by the head of the Veterinary department that 60 cases of glanders and 50 of farcy have been returned in the period named. No facilities exist in the Metropolis for burying carcases. The local authority, under licence from the Privy Council, cause the carcases to be disinfected and removed under charge of one of their officers to a "knacker's" (approved by the Privy Council), where they are destroyed by boiling. I have heard nothing as to the manufacture of butterine. The increase in the number is probably due, not so much to any increase in the disease, as to greater activity on the part of the local authority in prosecuting persons under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act for not giving notice of disease.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwould like to know if it was possible to disinfect the body of a glandered horse? He considered it very doubtful.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the information he had given was on the authority of Professor Brown, the head of the Veterinary department. He said the carcases were disinfected, and he presumed, therefore, that it was possible to do it.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that the Contagious Diseases Acts are, or have

  1011
  been, enforced beyond the fifteen mile radius from Queenstown; and, if so, what legal authority is there for such a proceeding?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, as far as the War Office is aware, these Acts have not been enforced without the radius of 15 miles of Queenstown. If, however, the hon. and learned Member is in possession of any information which would lead him to suppose the contrary, I will have an inquiry if he lets me know of it.

  NAVY—CAPTAIN BEDFORD PIM.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, In reference to the Petition presented to this House by the honourable Member for Gravesend, praying that an inquiry may be held into the justice or otherwise of keeping back his Rear Admiral's rank, to which he was entitled in March, 1878, and whether he will refer the matter to Mr. Attorney General, or some other competent and impartial Member of this House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, he had no right to inquire into any Petition which was presented to the House. Promotions on the Retired List were made in strict accordance with the regulations under the Orders in Council. Those regulations had been followed in every case with great exactness, and he did not think it would be right to refer a question of this kind to the Attorney General or anyone else.

  SUPERANNUATION OF POOR LAW OFFICERS—THE TENTERDEN GUARDIANS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has been furnished by the guardians of the Tenterden Union with reasons satisfactory to himself for their refusal to grant superannuation to Mr. Terry, late their medical officer, who is seventy-four years of ago, and incapacitated, after forty years' service?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I have been furnished by the Tenterden Guardians with their reasons for declining to grant a superannuation to Mr. Terry, their medical officer. I cannot say their reasons are satisfactory to me, because they are to the effect that the Guardians disapprove the principle of such super-
  1012
  animations, especially when the whole time of the officer has not been engaged in the public service, whereas the law expressly authorizes superannuations to be given tinder those circumstances. On the other hand, I am not prepared to say that the Guardians have failed to exercise a right judgment in this case without more information than I possess, because the real question would generally be, what proportion or relation the salary and public service of a medical officer has borne to his whole professional emolument and duties?

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE POLICE AND CROWN WITNESSES.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that on the trial of Michael Kelly, Luke Brown, and Simon Brown, at the last Mullingar Assizes, the Crown applied for a postponement of the trial on the ground of an affidavit sworn by police constable Fitzgerald that he had material evidence from a person named Gibbon, who had, he alleged, disappeared and could not be found; whether it turned out that Gibbon was at the moment sitting in court close by the constable so swearing, who, affecting to look around the court, avoided looking at the place where Gibbon was in waiting; the judge thereupon refusing the postponement; whether it is true that the principal of those Crown witnesses and several others examined for the prosecution swore that they had been frequently, in the course of the summer of 1879, supplied with porter and other intoxicating drinks by the above mentioned constable Fitzgerald and other members of the force in charge of Curraghmore police station, such drinking having gone on both in the station and in the fields; whether constable Fitzgerald admitted that he had so supplied the witnesses with drink, the mother of the principal Crown witness stating to the court that her son Patrick was constantly supplied with whiskey and other drink by constable Fitzgerald, and that she found about her place a large number of bottles, whiskey, beer, and porter, given by Fitzgerald to her son; and, whether any and what censure has been passed upon such practices on the part of the Irish constabulary towards those persons whom they desire to produce as witnesses on criminal prosecutions?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, it is not the intention of the Government to institute any proceedings in connection with this case. The charge against the persons named was one of agrarian outrage, and I fear their acquittal cannot be regarded as otherwise than a failure of justice. I am disposed to think that, although the conduct of the police witnesses was perfectly satisfactory, there was a good deal of perjury committed at the trial; but it would not be the Crown witnesses against whom proceedings should be taken if any were to be instituted at all. It is the case, I understand, that a postponement was applied for upon the ground of the absence of a witness named Gibbon, who, it subsequently transpired, was in Court at the time. This witness eventually gave evidence differing materially from previous statements he had made, and I understand that he was found, after the postponement referred to, in an obscure part of the Court, behind the Crown witnesses, by whom he would not naturally have been seen at the time the affidavit was put in. With reference to the supply of drink to witnesses, I gather from the reports that the statements are considerably exaggerated, though it appears that the constable, when engaged upon special duty of a detective character, had occasion to meet some of the parties who afterwards appeared as witnesses, and supplied them with refreshment. It would manifestly be undesirable to lay down any very definite rule as to the liberty of action in that respect of a constable employed upon detective duty. I have arrived at the conclusion, after considering the report made to me, that the constabulary did not exceed their duty in the matter.
  MR. SULLIVANasked, if anyone had contradicted the statement that the police plied the men with drink while getting up their evidence?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that it was admitted at the trial that drink was partaken of by parties at the constable's expense; but it was some time before the trial.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCE OF A TENANT RIGHT MEETING AT PORTADOVN.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What measures
  1014
  have been taken to bring to justice the rioters at Portadown?
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in reply, said, parties assaulted on the occasion must prosecute the assailants in the ordinary way before an inquiry could be instituted into the occurrence.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL POX (METROPOLIS).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has observed that smallpox is increasing in the Metropolis, though not in the other large towns of the Kingdom; and, if he is satisfied that the arrangements for public vaccination are efficiently carried out in the various districts of London?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I am aware that at the beginning of the year there was an increased prevalence of small-pox in the Metropolis—not a very serious increase, and confined, for the most part, to four or five parishes. During the last four weeks the returns from the asylum hospitals show the number of patients to have been stationary. I could refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of Dr. Bridges, recently circulated, on the last two small-pox epidemics, as illustrating his Question. He enters very carefully into statistics, and I think the Report throws a good deal of light on the special circumstances of the spread where has it taken place. The vaccination arrangements for the Metropolis work well and give me satisfaction, though it cannot be said that the Metropolis is so efficiently vaccinated as the rest of the Kingdom, in consequence of the fluctuating character of much of its population. The right hon. Gentleman will find this subject specially noticed in the recent Reports of the Local Government Board.

  THE CRIMINAL CODE BILL—LETTER OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
  MR. DODSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will lay on the Table a letter which has been addressed to him by the Lord Chief Justice of England containing a comment on the Criminal Code and Indictable Offences Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, I have already had the letter in question printed, and I was

  1015
  prepared to circulate it among the Members of the Committee appointed to consider this Bill. I shall be happy to lay it on the Table.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE EASTER MONDAY VOLUNTEER REVIEW— THE GENERAL ELECTION.
  MR. ASHBURYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there is any Statute which renders the holding of the Volunteer Review at Brighton on Easter Monday illegal; and, having regard to paragraph 419 of the Volunteer Regulations, if the review and march-past could take place without infringing or straining the Constitution, provided that no Brighton Volunteers took part in it or were in uniform on that occasion; or would Her Majesty's Government facilitate a short Bill to be passed whereby Volunteers could assemble at any time, except on polling days?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, by a Statute passed in 1847 it is provided that soldiers quartered within two miles of any place where an election is going on shall not leave barracks, except for the purpose of mounting guard or giving their votes. This Statute, does not, in my opinion, apply to Volunteers, although, no doubt, the assembling of armed Volunteers in place were elections are being held, would come within the mischief the Statute was intended to prevent. I may, however, remark that the Act in question does not provide that soldiers should remain in barracks after the issuing of the Writ for the election, but "on every day appointed for the nomination, or for the election, or for taking the poll." This being so, there seems to me nothing in the Statute which should prevent even troops of the Line attending the Review on Easter Monday if the Writs are not proclaimed before the Thursday; for, as Friday and Sunday are dies non, the nomination could not take place till the Tuesday, by which day the Review will be over. I must add that under the Order for regulating Volunteers, issued in April, 1878, which, I presume, can be modified, no Volunteers can be assembled in the neighbourhood of their headquarters between the issue of the Writs and the termination of the elections. As to the latter portion of the Question of my hon. Friend, it seems to me that a Bill is unnecessary.
  MR. ASHBURYasked whether, in all the exceptional circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government would arrange for the Volunteer Review to take place on Easter Monday at Brighton?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, since my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War answered a Question on this subject on Friday, he has been compelled to go on pressing business into the country. He has, however, been communicated with, and it has been decided, subject to the legal opinion of my hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers of the Crown, and to the nomination day not being earlier than Tuesday, that the Volunteer Regulations should be suspended, and that the Review shall take place. I may add that there is reason to believe that many of the Volunteer regiments may suffer loss if the Review does not take place, as they may be unable to extricate themselves from the contracts into which they have entered.
  MR. FAWCETTasked, with reference to the reply of the Attorney General, whether the holding of the Review depended on the nomination day for the particular borough of Brighton being not upon the Tuesday in Easter week?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Attorney General, if he would be good enough to inform the House whether Good Friday would count as a good day in Scotland, where it was not recognized?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, in his opinion, Good Friday would not count in Scotland; but the whole question was dealt with in the Ballot Act, 1872, and he would refer the hon. Gentleman to that Act. With regard, however, to the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he believed that the Volunteer Review depended on the nomination day at Brighton being not prior to the Tuesday. The Writ would probably not be proclaimed in that borough till the previous Thursday; and therefore, as Good Friday and Sunday would not be counted, the two clear days between the proclamation of the Writ and the nomination would not expire till the following Tuesday.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (NO. 2) BILL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what course he

  1017
  intended to take with regard to the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (No. 2) Bill, against which a page of Notices of Opposition and Amendments had been given?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am aware that there are a large number of Notices of opposition to the Bill; but the Bill has been introduced, I believe, with a view to the general convenience of a large body of Members who wish to have the point which is raised by it decided. I, therefore, think it would be right that we should proceed with the Bill.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE DISSOLUTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at what hour the House would meet to-morrow, and what would be the Order of Business up to the day of Dissolution?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take that opportunity of moving—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion, Government Orders having priority, and that Government Orders have precedence on Wednesday."
  He thought that it would probably be convenient for the House to meet somewhat earlier than usual on Tuesday and Thursday. They might sit either at 2 o'clock or at 3 o'clock, and he thought the latter hour preferable. The course of Business would be to take day by day the different stages of the various Money Bills now on the Order Paper. They had before them the Probates of Wills, &c, Bill, which, he hoped, might be read a second time that evening, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and the Sinking Fund Bill, which would require a short time every day up to Friday. He was not aware of any necessity for the House to meet on Monday or Tuesday in next week, unless the state of Public Business required it. As far as he could judge, by sitting every day they might be able on Friday to send the last of the Money Bills to the House of Lords, who would sit on Saturday, and those Bills might receive the Royal Assent in time for the Dissolution on the Wednesday. On that day the House would meet, probably at 1.30 p.m., to be prorogued, and immediately after the prorogation the proclamation of Dissolution would be made
  1018
  and the Writs would go out that same evening.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have precedence on Wednesday.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

ACROBATIC PERFORMANCES BILL.
(Mr. Edward Jenkins, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Justin McCarthy, Mr. Edge.)
ACROBATIC PERFORMANCES BILL.

  [BILL 60.] WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  MR. E. JENKINS: Sir, the third Order of the Day on Wednesday is the Acrobatic Performances Bill, which is brought to an untimely end by a dangerous performance on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to say, in withdrawing it, that although personally I shall not be able to bring it forward in the next Parliament, I hope it will be brought forward by some other hon. Member. As a large number of persons have been thrown out of employment by the introduction of the Bill, arrangements have been made to render it of such a character as will prevent its interfering with ordinary and legitimate acrobatic performances.
  Bill withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PROBATES OF WILLS, &c. BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  PROBATES OF WILLS, &c. BILL.

    [BILL 104.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, as it was late in the night, or early in the morning, when he asked leave to introduce this measure, his statement was necessarily brief. He would, therefore, ask the House to let him make a few remarks upon the second reading. The arguments for an alteration in the scale of probate duties rested upon two main grounds. He was aware that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), who brought forward the subject last year, introduced it on another ground; but the two motives which influenced the Government were—first, the unfairness of charging a higher probate on small

    1019
    estates than on large; and, secondly, the unfairness of charging intestate estates higher than those received by will. Hon. Gentlemen would see from the Schedule in their hands that an intestate estate under £1,500 paid as much as 3·6 per cent; and, on the other hand, that a testate estate under the large sum of £500,000 paid only 1·33 per cent. The difference was, therefore, enormous, and pressed very heavily upon the lower as compared with the higher grades of estates. They had, therefore, adopted in the present Bill a new code, which abolished the distinction between testate and intestate estates; and, at the same time, they made the percentage charged on the different classes of estates more nearly equal. They made it on the average 2£ per cent. That amount was taken because it was the mean between the two extremes—between 3·6 and 1·33 per cent. They had not found it possible, however, to do what the hon. Member for Stockton desired—namely, to substitute an exact percentage upon all the different values of estates. It had been found on examination that such a course would cause very great inconvenience, and that it would be impossible under it to maintain the principle of paying the duties by stamps. It would be impossible, without enormous inconvenience and waste, to have a sufficient supply of stamps available, and, moreover, there would be a considerable amount of inconvenience to administrators if they were obliged to put forward the exact amount of the estate at the time they obtained probate. It would be said that this would be a heavy burden upon the property of the country, and undoubtedly, as it would yield a considerable addition to the Revenue, it followed that there must be a larger amount of income derived from personal property passing under will. But then they ought to take into account the remissions on the one hand, as well as the additional burdens on the other. In comparing the scale under this Bill with that which existed before, there were two points to which attention must be directed. In all testate estates of £2,000 and upwards the scale became sensibly heavier, and that was the case also with intestate estates of £18,000 and upwards. Keeping these two sums in mind as the points where the new scale operated in increasing the charge, and taking the year 1878–9, they found that the number
    1020
    of wills under £2,000 in that year was 23,744, whereas the number over £2,000 was only 8,296. An enormous number, therefore, would not be affected or would obtain relief. In the case of testate estates the difference was more remarkable. There were 10,310 under £18,000, and 53 only over £18,000. The result of the alteration, therefore, was that while in 1878–9 some 44,000 estates would have obtained relief, there were only 8,349 on which the scale would have been raised. Then he would point out that the small properties would obtain relief, while the large properties would be more heavily charged; that was to say, they reversed the weights which now pressed against the small properties and made them press against large properties. Small estates under £500, which were charged less than 2–50 per cent, and of which there were in the year referred to 13,238 testate and 6,878 intestate, making a total of 20,000, would receive relief by this measure. Another clause in the Bill relieved from legacy duty small sums under £100. That exemption was given now in the case of succession, but had not been applied to legacy duty. The measure was, in his opinion, a reasonable one, and rectified an evil long complained of, and which it was not easy to defend. But it had been said—"If you are dealing with personal property, you ought to deal with landed property also." That might or might not be right; but he did not see that it necessarily followed. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) took occasion to make some rather sharp remarks on that subject the other night at Marylebone, and very amiably endeavoured to set the farmers and landlords at issue, for purposes which were tolerably evident, by contrasting the position of the one with the other. But the right hon. Gentleman omitted to say that the scale as proposed did not bear very unfairly on the farmer. The question really was, were they to wait until the time came for dealing with landed property before doing an act of justice? If they were to take the right hon. Gentleman's view, they would have to wait a longtime. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman himself never made that change in the succession duties while he was in Office? As he understood the argument, it was that a change of the probate duty might in itself be quite right, but it

    1021
    ought to be accompanied by a corresponding change in the succession duties. He thought a proposal made in that direction some years ago had been withdrawn by the Government which made it, although in a Parliament under their own guidance, because it was found impossible to proceed with such an alteration. Whether it was intended to bring it forward again, or whether it was one of the "judicious re-adjustments" of existing taxation they were told to expect as the work of the next Liberal Government, he could not say; but this he knew—that the scheme had been recently under consideration, and it had not been found possible to recommend it with any success to Parliament. It would, therefore, be unwise and altogether futile to wait to see how they could deal with that question before dealing with probate. Indeed, there was an obvious difference between the charge in the one case and the other. Probate duty was on personal property; it could be levied and paid with only the effect of diminishing, to a certain extent, the corpus of the property; but to levy the succession duty on land was a more complicated transaction, because the land ordinarily could not be sold, and was subject to several charges to which personal property was not subject. He would say but a word or two about the financial effect of these proposals. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) told the House the other day that they would add £1,500,000 to the Revenue. He would be curious to know how the hon. Member made that calculation, and if it were correct, he would be exceedingly pleased at it, but he could not bring himself to expect it. He had made a very fair estimate himself—£700,000—and he did that with reference to certain peculiarities of the future. The manner in which the calculations were made was that the averages of 1877–8 and 1878–9 were taken as an estimate. If, next year, the amount was in the same proportion, there would be an increased income of considerably more than £700,000—in fact, it would come to about £900,000; but then they had to consider, in the first place, that they were dealing with a class of taxable material which was very uncertain. There might be only a small number of large estates, and when dealing with large estates there might be, and there had been, great disappointment as to
    1022
    what they were expected to yield. It should also be borne in mind that, the announcement of the new scale having been made, it was uncertain as to the number of wills that might be proved in the financial year. He therefore thought it better that he should make a very cautious statement, and £700,000 appeared to be a fair calculation—it might be £100,000 more; it did not materially affect the question. He could not help remembering the great disappointment which occurred in the productiveness of the succession duty in 1853, when it was first imposed, and he was anxious to avoid a similar disappointment by making his calculations moderate. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would avail himself of this opportunity of making some remarks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Financial Statement. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had created £20,000,000 of assets in the nature of the reduction, of Debt—it was not material whether the amount was £18,000,000 or £20,000,000. Under the régime of the present Government there had been a great number of novelties introduced, among other things in the manner of reckoning the National Debt. The old-fashioned way was for the Government to charge themselves with whatever liability they incurred, but they now credited themselves with assets that they created; those assets, of course, being open to a great deal of question, the obligation undertaken by the State to the creditors being of the highest order, while it was a matter of a great deal of question whether the counter obligations on the part of the creditors were likely to prove of equal value. He admitted at once that there were some important considerations which tended to recommend the introduction of that new system, one of them being the large augmentation of the amount that was asked. They had become lenders to so great an extent, and it was certainly quite right that the assets should be kept in public view; but whether it was quite right that they should be reckoned as they had been by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a different question. He would give an

    1023
    instance. They had borrowed £4,000,000 to purchase Suez Canal shares, and that was in the nature of a loan to the Khedive of Egypt. The immediate security was the Khedive's estate—the £4,000,000 rested on his liability; but the credit of the Khedive was not equal to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; consequently, the two things did not correspond, and, therefore, it was doubtful policy to place the two in the same scale, or to say that the £4,000,000 of assets in the hands of the Khedive went against the loan, and the country stood in the same way as before the transaction. Not only was this a novel principle, but it was not quite consistently carried through. The Chancellor of the Exchequer received everything under the head of Miscellaneous Revenue—assets of that kind he put down as Revenue, and he spent them as Revenue. He would give an illustration. In the time of the Crimean War, it was his (Mr. Gladstone's) duty to borrow £2,000,000 and lend it to the Sardinian Government. That stood against him; but he was not allowed to credit himself with the assets created in the form of obligations of the Sardinian Government, although in respect of that loan there had been regularly paid every year not only interest at 3 per cent, but 1 per cent by which the capital was extinguished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, absorbed what he put into Revenue, and claimed to be allowed to reckon assets when he created them. They should not be allowed to class as Revenue, and to spend as Revenue, assets of the country which they had destroyed. The old and vulgar method was to estimate the Surplus by the annual balance-sheet of the country. Now, he admitted that it was so far right, in stating the condition of the National Debt, to point out the reduction that had been effected in the value of Terminable Annuities, and through the medium of the payments on their account; but it was when they came to see the difference between the two methods of paying off Debt in this country that the comparison was most apparent. The system by Terminable Annuities was what was called automatic. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not help paying the debts, for he was as far bound to them as he was to pay the salaries of the Civil servants; and,
    1024
    therefore, it was somewhat surprising to find a claim made by the Government to take credit for their involuntary action in doing what the law required when payment was to be made by Terminable Annuities. The manes of defunct Chancellors of the Exchequer, if they were conscious of the debates, would wonder that this ingenious method of reckoning had never occurred to them. He was old enough to recollect the time—although none of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were—when the public judgment and inclination of the country passed over from one political Party to the other on financial grounds, because in the time of the Melbourne Government, when Mr. Spring Rice (Lord Monteagle) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baring was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there were several deficiencies of the Revenue nearly as great as that which signalized the reign of the present Government. But those Chancellors of the Exchequer had not the wit to fall back on the Terminable Annuities, or they might have shown that every year of the existence of the Melbourne Government they had been paying off the National Debt. But they had not that ingenuity which had at length been extracted from the secrets of finance, and proclaimed to the country as proof of the diligence and economy of the Government in dealing with the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to what he (Mr. Gladstone) had stated in Marylebone on Friday night. He was ready to repeat what he had stated. He would certainly repeat it elsewhere. Particularly as the present Government were supposed to be eminently the farmers' friends, it would be his duty—and he hoped to succeed in the attempt—to make the matter tolerably clear to the country. He would say no more about the National Debt; and he came, in the next place, to the probate duties. With respect to the plan of his right hon. Friend in regard to those duties, anything, of course, which he might say in that House would be simply in the way of protest and manifesto. It was not in his power to check the career of the Government. He and his Friends were entirely at their mercy. They might pass whatever measure they pleased, unless the majority were prepared to resist it; and

    1025
    as to the chance of any such resistance, those who had watched the progress of affairs for the last six years were quite as competent as he was to form a judgment. He had not the slightest intention, therefore, to try to stop the progress of the Bill or to alter its provisions; but he must confess that when so important a measure, imposing a tax of £750,000, was introduced without a word of explanation from the Minister of Finance, he had not the smallest notion of what its effect would be, and it was only on Friday last that he had been enabled to make himself acquainted with its provisions. He was not prepared to deny that the probate duties required to be altered, or that some of the elements of the proposed alterations were not good. It was, however, in his opinion, an alteration which the House ought not to be asked to sanction at the present time. He entered his protest against it under the circumstances in which it was proposed. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at last given some explanation of the reasons upon which the Bill was founded; but the broad and fundamental objection to passing such a Bill was that it was impossible it could have due consideration under the present circumstances. It was evident, from his right hon. Friend's speech, that it had been very partially considered by himself. He made that no matter of blame, because his duties in the House had been so severe and so assiduously performed, that he was not surprised if he had found it difficult to descend into all the minute particulars of a subject like this. The right hon. Gentleman had stated two reasons why it was necessary to alter the probate duties, the one being that they were so unjust as regarded intestate estates, the other because they bore hardly on very small estates. But the injustice in cases of intestacy might have been removed by striking out the column of intestate estates; while it would not have been at all difficult to obtain even a greater Revenue, without altering the general amount of the scale of those duties, and it would have been perfectly possible to approximate with indefinite nearness to a uniform scale. His right hon. Friend said it was impossible to have the requisite number of stamps, but such an answer was, on the face of
    1026
    it, futile, and one which ought not to proceed from the mouth of a Finance Minister. It must be one which had been supplied, and it was quite evident that with stamps for £1,000, £500, and £100, the account could be kept as indicated by the smallness of the stamps. There was another point also, with respect to which his reading was totally different from that of his right hon. Friend, who had treated testacy and intestacy as if they were of something like equal importance, while he, in the second place, took credit for relieving all testate estates of upwards of £2,000, and all intestate estates of upwards of £18,000. Now, he found that between £1,000 and £1,500 the old testate duty was £30, and the new duty was to be £31. Going lower, he found that between £500 and £600 the present testate duty was £11, while the new was to be £13. If, therefore, he had heard his right hon. Friend aright, his own description of his measure was perfectly inaccurate, for he did not give uniform relief up to £500, and at £500 he aggravated the testate duty. His right hon. Friend, he might add, had not mentioned at all a consideration which had a most important bearing on the reform of the probate duties. The subject was one which was not new to the minds of Chancellors of the Exchequer. He himself had often and often to consider those duties; but he could not have found a Parliament so destitute of reforming spirit as to assent to such a measure as that before the House. His right hon. Friend had not presented to the House that which was the most salient feature in their system of probate duties—that a person taking out probate or letters of administration was compelled to pay duty on the assets of the estate without deducting the debts. If, for instance, there were £10,000 of assets and £9,000 of debts, he had to pay duty on the £10,000. His right hon. Friend said he had to pay it out of the estate, but he was not legally entitled to touch the estate until he had paid the duty; and he must pay it subject to whatever hope he might have that, after two or three or four years, during which he remained out of his money, he might go before the Board of Inland Revenue and prove the debt, and then obtain the return of the duty which he had paid, without interest, even though he might have been obliged to borrow the money to pay it. If

    1027
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in communication with Mr. J. Wood, Mr. Stephenson, or Mr. Herries on the subject, he would have found that the3rall felt that, in attempting to reform the probate duties, it was necessary to abolish that monstrous system of the payment of duty upon debts. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reform of the probate duty with regard to small estates; but he not only maintained the system in full vigour, but he was going to augment the whole amount of the duty so paid on people's debts, and he had got a Parliament which was likely to agree to the act. Parliament would in that, as in other things, distinguish itself from any of the 11 he (Mr. Gladstone) had had the honour of a seat in. He had not the least expectation that anything he could say would have any influence on the judgment of the House. He was, however, making those remarks, as he had said before, merely by way of protest and manifesto, and the whole responsibility of passing the measure must rest on the House. These duties, in their way, were relatively good as a means of raising money; and if levied at all, they ought to be levied by considerable rates; for this reason, that the main charge upon them was the legal or professional charge, which remained the same, whether the rate was high or low. His hon. Friend had taunted him with wishing to increase the succession duty. When it occurred to him that if they had endeavoured to augment the succession duty, they would not have been able to carry it, he did what his right hon. Friend had done with his Water Bill, only he did not dissolve Parliament on it. The whole subject of these duties was one fairly admitting of consideration; but he could only describe as barbarous the proceeding of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in compelling people to pay aggravated duties upon that which did not belong to them. Now, one word, in passing, about intestacies. He was of opinion, certainly, that the present irregular scale of duties upon intestacies was excessive; but he hesitated to adopt in its breadth and simplicity what seemed to be the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that the rate on intestacies ought to be exactly the same as probates taken out under will. To that proposition he demurred. It seemed to him that a moderate and reasonable sum—they could call it if they
    1028
    pleased a fine—was a notion which had always been embodied in their laws; and he could not for the life of him see why it should be struck out. His right hon. Friend gave no reason. He could give no reason, except that intestacies were usually of very small estates; but he should deal with that by making the rate very small, and not, as his right hon. Friend was going to do, by raising the rate on estates of £500. Now, what he had said out-of-doors, and what he now said in-doors, was that it was a most serious matter, in this hasty way, without a word of explanation, in the dying days of Parliament, when the matter could not be deliberately entertained, to add £750,000 to the duty levied upon personalty, when the duty upon personalty was already three or four times as great as on realty. [Opposition cheers.] That did not draw a single cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite. What they were thinking about was the rates. But houses as well as land paid rates. Let them take the case of the farmer and his landlord. The value of the farmer's stock would usually be a quarter of the value of the landlord's interest in the farm. The farmer died and the landlord died, and were both succeeded by their sons. What was the result? The farmer paid a great deal more duty upon his stock than the landlord had to pay upon the farm, which was four times the value of the stock. Now, that was what the farmers ought to understand, and what, to the best of his power, he would endeavour to make them understand during the next few weeks. So far from redressing the inequality between the landlord and the farmer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the friend of the farmer, came down and proposed to add heavily to that inequality. Did not the farmer's stock bear the chief incidence of the rates? And yet he was to be made the victim of a fresh burden, while the inequality as between him and the landlord remained unredressed. These were serious matters for the digestion of the House; and they might depend upon it, they would be heard of within the next few weeks, as they ought to be. If hon. Members opposite were well advised, they would, even now, force the Government to abstain from that most unwise act. The Members of the Opposition had no choice; but their tongues were not yet tied, and they

    1029
    would be used to expose the truth to the world. There was one more point which he must notice. It was felt—he did not say it was unnaturally felt—that there was something to be said, much to be said, as to the manner in which personalty and realty respectively were burdened in respect to rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to aggravate the rates upon all personalty, except the personalty of estates of a few hundred pounds. Now, his contention was, that whatever inequality prevailed between personalty and realty as regarded the payment of rates was almost entirely confined to the possessors of very large personal estates. Incases of large estates the duties were comparatively insignificant, and they could easily show great masses of personalty which had been unduly favoured under the probate scale, and which were exempt in a great degree and were not represented in the payment of rates; but when they came down to small estates, estates of from £10,000 or even £20,000, the estates of farmers and traders and people of moderate means, the case was different. He would not deny that they did pay rates; but what he did say was, that those were the estates of people who paid rates in a very peculiar degree. The farmers of England had had to bear the whole brunt of the increase of rates in the counties, and in towns the traders had to bear the whole burden of increased rates. It was all these shopkeepers in towns—the men of moderate means constituting the middle classes of the country—whose case they were going to aggravate by this species of legislation. If the scale was to be reformed at all, why, he would ask, not reform it effectually? No doubt it was to be made better at the upper end, and also, he would not say at the lower, but at the very lowest part of the lower end. But did the right hon. Gentleman augment the duties on estates of £500 or not?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is rather inconvenient for me to undergo a catechetical examination at the present moment. There is no doubt that the new scale, in one respect, does increase the rate. At present the scale from £300 to £450 is £8, and from £450 to £600, £11. Instead of that, it is proposed that from £300 to £600 there should be three grades. From £300 to £400 pays £6, £7, and
    1030
    £8 respectively; from £400 to £500 pays £9, instead of £11; and from £500 to £600, £13 instead of £11.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Well, catechetical or not, it was easy to answer the question by a plain "yes" or "no." Upon estates exceeding £500 there was to be, it appeared, an increase. But while they were making a new scale, why not make it with some care? For what reason was an estate of £1,000 or £2,000 personalty to pay £3 2s., while an estate of £10,000 paid £2 15 s., and an estate of £350,000 only £2 13 s. 6d? He did not believe there was any answer to that question. It was a proposal which ought never to have been made without a most careful explanation of all its details: the explanation given utterly failed to convey an idea of its details. On the majority of the House rested the whole responsibility in this matter. If his right hon. Friend had not thought fit to compliment him by an allusion to what he said the other night elsewhere, he would not have detained the House so long. He had now made a clean breast of the matter, and he thought he had shown there were solid objections to all hasty proceedings in this matter, and to passing such a measure as the present one without a great deal of careful consideration. He thought he had laid before the House solid and good reasons to that effect; but he confessed he was not sanguine enough to believe that they had a chance of producing the smallest effect.
    MR. GREGORYthought, that if a man did not choose to make a will, it was not unreasonable to make some difference in the rate of duty which had to be be paid by his representatives. As regarded the general question that had been raised of the exemption of real estate from probate duty, it must be remembered that landed property was subject to many stamp duties and taxes from which personalty was exempt, and, moreover, it bore the largest amount of the burden of the rates. The Resolution he proposed last year was to the effect that there were inequalities in the scale of probate duties, and that, so to speak, the steps in the ladder were too large. He thought it would have been better to levy a duty of 2½ per cent all round instead of the differential rate now proposed. He quite concurred, however, in the

    1031
    proposal with reference to the deduction of debts. He ventured to lay these considerations before the House, and hoped that in another Parliament the whole question might be re-opened.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY,as one of those who had requested the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago to initiate a reform in this matter, wished to say that this Bill appeared to him altogether inadequate to the requirements of the case, and he could not see what reasonable excuse there was for not making land pay the same succession duty as personal property. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been much misled as to the changes he proposed to make by the new adjustment. According to the statement which he had before him, the duty, instead of beginning at a small amount and increasing as it went on to large estates, was very much the reverse in its operation. No doubt, with estates of £500 and under, there was a certain amount of saving; but on £500 and upwards the charge advanced extremely irregularly. Large estates, there could be no question, ought to pay a larger percentage than small ones, and he thought it would have been better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had excepted altogether estates under £200. He found from a Return made to that House two years ago that the sum levied on estates under £300 was only £8,350 altogether; so that the sacrifice of Revenue by exempting estates under £200 would not be very great, whilst the gain to the legatees would be a great boon, inasmuch as the legal expenses involved in the payment of these duties were generally as much as the duties themselves. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had called attention to the great hardship of the charge being imposed upon the gross value of the estates, without allowing any reduction for the debts that might have to be paid out of them. He could not see why there should be any difficulty in carrying out the suggestion which had been made to allow the debts to be paid before any part of the sum was distributed to the legatees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's excuse for not having a fixed duty did not recommend itself to his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) mind. It would be quite easy to make the probate duty payable in the form
    1032
    of stamps, and on a fixed amount throughout, instead of by the anomalous system which, it appeared, was still to be continued. He did not think hon. Members realized what anomalies existed in the Schedule proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Taking an estate of £400,000, the probate charge was put at £1,250. Now, an estate of £499,500 would not, according to this scale, pay any more, although if the duty was levied at the same percentage, it would pay £2,800 more. That was surely so great an anomaly that some attempt should be made to remedy it. The present Bill did make some improvements on the present system; but it appeared to him that the changes proposed were altogether so inconsiderable as compared with what they ought to be, or might be, if the system was to be dealt with at all, that he thought the House should refuse to accept this measure at the hands of the Government, and leave the new House of Commons to see if it had not sufficient reforming force to carry forward the scheme sketched by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had taunted the Government, as the farmer's friends, with injustice to the farmer in their dealings with him and his landlord, and had said that the landlord paid no probate duty on succeeding to land, while the farmer had to pay probate on his stock, implements, and all on his farm. The answer, however, on that point was that no farmer ever took out probate on stock &c.—a fact that rendered the anomaly very trifling. With regard to the anomalies of the Bill, he admitted that they existed, but it was to be remembered that no kind of taxation was wholly without them. On the whole, however he had no objection to the Bill, and believed it advisable to tax succession rather than income. He only hoped that the change would be more profitable than the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected it to be. He approved the prudent course followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not adding to the Income Tax or laying on new Customs or Excise taxes, the effect of which would be to retard the improvement in trade, now on the increase. The right hon. Gentleman had also acted

    1033
    wisely in dealing with the Sinking Fund. Do what you would, you could not get anything more out of a Sinking Fund than you put into it. If they could afford to pay off Debt, let them do so; but there was no use in borrowing with one hand to pay off Debt with the other.
    MR. CHILDERSrecommended to the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the remark of the hon. and learned Baronet as to the evasion of the payment of the probate duty. Perhaps the hon. and learned Baronet was speaking from knowledge of the acts of some of his constituents.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, his remark had no such application, nor did he speak with reference to particular cases.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, it struck him as an inconvenience, though, perhaps, now it was unavoidable, that they were obliged to discuss the Budget and the details of the probate duty at the same time. In respect to the new scale of probate duty, he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been misinstructed to a much larger extent than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had pointed out, if he thought relief was given under the new duties up to the limit of £2,000. So far from this, it was undeniable that the testate duties would be increased in the case of every estate exceeding £500, with the single exception of an estate between £800 and £1,000, where they would remain as now. Again, it would be admitted by all who knew anything of the incidence of the probate duty that it was very capable of being corrected; but this Bill did not correct it fully or satisfactorily. He thought the argument of his right hon. Friend unanswerable, that if they were dealing with the probate duties as a whole they should allow the debts to be deducted before probate was paid, and that also was the view of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He had no doubt that the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue had pointed out this great blot in the system; but, as it would affect the Revenue of the fiscal year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not afford to do without the money, he omitted the necessary reform. He would give one or two figures in corroboration of some of the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. If a landowner died possessed of real estate of the value of £100,000, the maximum amount his son or sons were likely to
    1034
    have to pay in respect of succession duty was £600—in all probability it would be only £450. But if 10 farmers possessed of £10,000 a-piece were to die, and their estates were to come to their sons, they would have to pay £100 each, or £1,000 in all, for succession duty; and in respect of probate duty—under the scale hitherto in force—they would have to pay £2,000. That was £3,000, as compared with £450. The additional probate duty under the Bill would be £750; so that while £100,000 real property paid at the maximum £600, and might only pay £450, £100,000 personal property would pay under the Bill £3,750. Now, was it reasonable, when the incidence of death duties on personal as compared with real property was already the subject of so much complaint, to add to the grievance at such a time and to such a serious extent? It did not follow, however, because this proposed scale was open to objection, that there could not be a fair and proper re-adjustment of the present probate duties. He came now to the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the Budget was one of extreme simplicity; and so, no doubt, it was. It was a simple matter enough to abandon all former promises to add six years to the three over which the deficit since 1878 was to be spread; to give up, practically, the Sinking Fund; and to force a new tax through Parliament after the announcement of a Dissolution made opposition futile. But with what a retrospect was the finance of the present Parliament now to be regarded? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he took over the finances in 1874, held a clear surplus of £5,500,000 or £6,000,000 a-year. Out of this he gave away £2,000,000 to the owners of lands and houses, and remitted between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 of taxes. But what followed? A succession of sanguine Budgets, over-estimating Revenue and under-estimating expenditure; heavy deficits, increased taxation, and a final deficiency of £8,000,000. He would prove this in a few words. In three out of six Budgets he had overestimated the receipts from Customs, in five out of six those from Excise, and in three out of six those from Stamps. On the other hand, in each of the six Budgets he had under-estimated the expenditure; in almost every year irrespectively of the Votes of Credit. Between 1876 and 1880, £7,000,000 a-year was

    1035
    proposed to be raised by additional taxes; and from this they were now told that no relief could be expected until 1886. And so with regard to the Debt. Even taking credit for the capital value on paper of the Annuities, it had increased; and on the basis of the actual capitals of the Funded and Unfunded Debts, the only criterion dreamt of in former days, the increase was about £13,000,000. And as to the Sinking Fund, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had succeeded in obtaining approval from some Gentlemen on this side of the House, where was it? It had to a very limited extent taken effect for two years; during the three next it virtually ceased to operate, as the deficit on each year exceeded its balance; and for the remainder of its term of 10 years to 1886—after which, on the falling in of the Terminable Annuities, it would have to be entirely reviewed—it was practically abandoned. These were plain facts, which he left for the consideration of the House and the country.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was not surprised at the attempt which had been made on this occasion to make electioneering Addresses founded on the statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the House should remember the circumstances in which they had been called upon to deal with the probate duties. It would be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) some time ago proposed to alter the sucession duty, and no one could forget the debate which took place, and the points which had been raised on that occasion with reference to the different duties charged on testate and on intestate estates, and again with respect to the disproportion between those charged on large properties and those charged upon small ones. The question had also been brought under discussion last year. The present Bill, however, did not propose to deal with the whole question of the succession duties on real property, but only with the duties on personal property. It ought not, he thought, to be forgotten that so far as personalty was concerned, it was not subject to the same amount of taxation as real property. All those local charges which fell upon real property added so much to the burdens which it had to bear, that it could not be justly said to be so unfair
    1036
    as had been suggested to raise the scale of duties on personalty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), had dwelt on the way in which the farmers of the country would be affected under the Bill, as compared with the landlords; but the comparison was not a fair one, and there were, he might add, practical difficulties in the way of the adoption of such a percentage scale of duties as had been advocated. There would be such an enormous quantity of stamps required throughout the country as would render it impossible to carry out such a plan, and in those cases in which the amount of large properties had to be immediately declared there would be great difficulty in arriving at the exact amount. With, regard to the question of debts, why did not the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) deal with that question in 1871, when he dealt with the probate duty? No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman experienced the same difficulties with which the present Government had to contend, and which seemed insuperable. As to the whole scheme of the Budget, although there were, no doubt, some hon. Gentlemen who would prefer to see taxation increased by the Government, the majority of the House would, he thought, be of opinion that, after a long period of depression, the moment at which trade was showing signs of revival was not exactly the time in which to impose fresh taxes on commodities, or to make an addition to the Income Tax. It had been made a complaint against the Government that they had added largely to the taxation of the country; but it was wrong to say that the addition of 3d. to the Income Tax was entirely due to their action. The fact was that the real addition which they had made to it was not more than 2d. But, on the other hand, how great had been the relief to local taxation effected by the Government! What wars and difficulties had they not to contend with, and that, too, during a period when the Revenue, instead of increasing by bounds and leaps, had been suffering under a depression of trade and commerce which was almost without parallel in modern times! When those circumstances were borne in mind, and when it was recollected that the taxation per head at present was below the point which it had reached when the Government succeeded to Office, the amount of Debt which had

    1037
    to be met could scarcely with justice be spoken of, particularly as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet it as constituting an enormous charge on the public. The scheme of his right hon. Friend, was, lie thought, the best way of raising the sum required, and he looked with confidence to the approval by the country of the Budget as a statesmanlike mode of dealing with the finances of the country in the present position of affairs.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he did not think the Secretary to the Treasury had done much to remove the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). His argument really amounted to this—if the farmer were the landlord and the landlord the farmer, their respective positions would be reversed. Both he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the large burdens which land had to bear compared with personalty. But the principal complaint made was that they disturbed the existing apportionment of charges, because, while increasing the charge upon personalty, they in no way added to the burden upon real property, and that complaint remained entirely unaffected by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had said. The scale again was heaviest in its incidence between £600 and £4,000, and he failed to see the justice of that. Why should they not have a minutely-graduated scale? It would work much more fairly than the one proposed, with its great leaps here and there. As regarded the question of testate and intestate estates, he thought the latter might fairly be called upon to pay more than the former. It was advisable that people in all cases should make wills. If they left the distribution of their property to the law, he thought the law was fairly entitled to inflict upon them something in the nature of a fine. Speaking about the increase of the country's liabilities under the present Government, the Secretary to the Treasury forgot that since 1876—a period during which the taxation of the country had increased by £7,000,000 a-year—there had been no relief to local rates, except some £300,000 or £400,000 a-year under the Prisons Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have reduced the
    1038
    NationalDebtby£18,000,000. But, while taking off £18,000,000 with one hand, he put on an equal amount with the other. But, said he, the added millions were repayable Debt, and, therefore, ought not to count as Debt at all. Well, all he (Mr. Dodson) could say was, that if that principle was to obtain in private life, there would be much less private embarrassment in financial matters than there was. The security which the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained for his investments was, it was to be hoped, good; but the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to say that such investments were not Debt as regarded himself and his creditors. Let them take the case of the Suez Canal, the shares in which were acquired for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman would hardly say that the security he had in these Suez Canal shares was equal to the security which he offered to the creditors, while for the interest they depended entirely on the solvency of the Khedive. The difficulties of their position were, in fact, rather increased since the acquisition of those shares, for, instead of having in Egypt that ascendency which the Prime Minister said was so desirable everywhere for England, they were the joint protector of Egypt with one nation, and, perhaps, with several other nations. He pointed out, when the light hon. Gentleman first projected the new Sinking Fund, that notwithstanding all the arguments advanced in its favour, it had the weakness inherent in all Sinking Funds, however much their conditions might be varied. Such a fund was a standing temptation to every Minister in need to put his hand upon it. A Sinking Fund of a large amount, which could be depended upon for a long series of years, would be an excellent thing for the reduction of Debt, and would strengthen the credit of the country. On the other hand, a Sinking Fund of a small amount, which was liable to be seized upon at the first moment when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was in straits, was a fund which, instead of tending to strengthen the credit of the country, was really calculated to impair it. This Sinking Fund was a virtuous resolution to provide every year a surplus of an uncertain amount for the reduction of Debt; but since the establishment of the Fund, five years ago, the Debt had increased by £1,000,000. Consequently, the Sinking Fund had only paid off a portion of the

    1039
    Debt by means of borrowed money. He pointed out, at the time when this Fund was proposed, that the only way of permanently paying off Debt was by means of Terminable Annuities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then sneered at such Annuities, and spoke of his Sinking Fund as something which was highly superior to them. Now, by a most strange Nemesis, it had come to pass that the right hon. Gentleman not only determined to sacrifice the greater part of his Sinking Fund to his financial necessities; but the mode in which he proposed to sacrifice it was by creating Terminable Annuities. Reverting to the subject of the new probate duty, he might remark that very great discrepancies existed as to the amount of money it might be expected to yield. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of £700,000 a-year, but other persons had put the amount as high as £1,500,000 a-year. Perhaps some Member of the Government would state whether any increase of the duty was expected in future years.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had made a great mistake by constantly arguing on the present conduct of the finances in regard to deficits and surpluses, as if no step had ever been taken by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who fixed on £28,000,000 to be provided, under all circumstances, as the charge for the Public Debt. This was an excessively unfair way of comparing the present management of their finances with that which preceded it, and of making a contrast between the present deficit and the past surplus. That surplus was obtained by a very crude and coarse expedient—namely, by under-estimating the Revenue and over-rating the expenditure. His right hon. Friend had spoken of the Terminable Annuity system, and he believed that by that plan there would be a much greater diminution of Debt than by any other. He was quite ready to accept the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as, according to that computation, the Debt had been reduced by £18,000,000 within the last six years, he could not justly describe the finances of the country as being in an unsatisfactory position. Passing next to the Probate Bill that was before the House, he re-
    1040
    garded it as unfortunate, because it proposed to destroy the present distinction between testate and intestate property. He could not see why that should be done, and thought it cruel that those who had been careful with their property should be punished in order that the estate of the careless might be relieved. Yet such, he believed, would be the effect of the Bill, by throwing them both into the same Schedule. He objected also to the very large steps by which the duty was now regulated. They were told of administrative difficulties in the way of an ad valorem charge, but he saw none of those difficulties, and did not believe in them. Our whole fiscal system was very unscientific and unjust; and he trusted the Government would not press the Bill forward in its present form, but would find some means of leaving so important a subject open for further consideration by another Parliament.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked, that in May, 1878, there was an important debate on the probate, legacy, and succession duties, and several hon. Gentlemen expressed a strong opinion with regard to the injustice and inequality of the incidence of these duties, particularly in respect to the unequal tax raised from personal profits in relation to the much smaller rates levied on real properties under the succession scale. He expected that something would be done to remedy that unfair state of things; but now they had only a partial attempt to do so, and only in respect to one of the three duties—namely, the probate; and the changes proposed were far from satisfactory, even in respect thereto.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURresumed. He thought the change which had been made in abolishing the distinction between testate and intestate property was a right course, and, in doing so, it practically lowered the scale of duties in the case of small estates, and was not only unobjectionable, but, as affecting the poorer classes especially, most just and proper, because in such estates the property was left without a will; and as the new scale was less than the old intestate scales, the incidence of taxation was lowered. The one scale was consequently framed on a much

    1041
    more simple plan than the double scale of the old one. But there was one great defect still left, that of levying the probate duty on the gross value, leaving to the parties interested to recover the tax charged on the debts, a costly action to the poor estates, because the lawyers' fees often amounted to the full sum sought to be recovered. This evil was not felt by the large, only by the small estates. The question of the succession duties, he hoped, would be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Session; for he should have no objection to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place next Session, provided he dealt with these unjust taxes. There was no earthly reason why both probate and legacy duties should not be combined, and the same rate of duty paid, all objectionable features in the scale being also removed.
    MR. WADDYobserved, that the debate, by some means or other, turned from being simply a discussion on the probate question into a kind of Budget debate. For his own part, he did not mean to deal with the probate question as such, but with the general financial question, which appeared to him to be of far more importance. The position in which the House was now placed was that, while they were considering the Budget of 1881, it was impossible to forget that they were called on to review more or less the general financial policy of the Government during the time it remained in power. The initial difficulty they had to contend with, was that with regard to this year, at all events, in consequence of the precipitancy or haste in which Parliament was dissolved, comparatively in consequence of that, they had not the accounts made up to to the 31st of March, the end of the financial year, before them. Therefore, the materials on which any calculations were to be based, were, to some extent, vague and uncertain. "When they were called on to come to a conclusion there was this difficulty—that the Estimates were by no means in accordance with the actual facts. Documents had recently been constantly published, and one had been published either on Saturday last or that morning, giving an estimate of the charges on the Consolidated Fund for the year. By this document a comparison was enabled to be made between what was called the Estimate for the year and the actual results.
    1042
    Of course, the Estimate made in the first instance was not the real Estimate for the year, but only one of an approximate character. He found that the Estimates of the Government, if not looked into a little more closely, were likely to deceive. For instance, he found that the Estimate for 1879–80 was stated as being £85,999,871, and, no I doubt whatever, when the Supplementary Estimates were taken into consideration, those figures would probably be correct. But what was the fact? That I which was stated to be the Estimate for 1879–80—namely, in round numbers, £86,000,000, was given to the House a; year ago, not as £86,000,000, but as £81,000,000. That was not only true with regard to last year, but with regard to the year before. He would take one or two years, and show the House what the facts really were. The Estimate in 1878, by which, of course, he meant the financial year ending in that year, was £79,500,000, but the total actually spent was £82,500,000. Next year the Estimate was £81,000,000, but the expenditure was £85,000,000. What it would turn out this year, it was impossible to say. When they got the total, he feared it would bear a very close resemblance to former Estimates. Well, the question they had to consider very much was, what had been the net result the financial policy of the Government during the time it had been in power. Something had been said that night by the Secretary to the Treasury on that point, and the subject had been alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and by other Members of the Government, at meetings held in the country. Certain reasons—he might call them excuses—were given for the increased expenditure of the Government. Some of those reasons might have had good force, but others of them he was surprised to find proceeding from the Treasury Bench. The Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) told them that the increasing expenditure was to be accounted for by relief to local taxation, the expenses of the war which had occurred, and the difficulties of the Revenue, which had not come in as formerly by leaps and bounds. And that hon. Gentleman would apply the curious remark that, after all, what they had to consider was, what was the taxation per head of the United Kingdom? But one thing

    1043
    which the hon. Gentleman sometimes pleaded as an excuse was not pleaded by him that night, and that was—the additional expenses in consequence of the increase of education in the country. Now, the amount spent on education, and on the relief of local taxation, was not drawn out and given in anything like connected form in the pages. It was not a fair way to calculate these, to take, as had been done persistently, the last year of the last Government and then put against it the last year of this Government. They knew perfectly well that the increase in these various charges during the last year of the present Government was out of proportion to the sums spent in the earlier years of their Office. The fair way was to consider what had been the expenditure under these two heads during the five years in which the late Government had been in Office, and the five years in which this Government had been in Office; but it was impossible to carry out the comparison, because they had not got the account before them. Nevertheless, they knew the Estimate fairly tolerably for the purpose of comparison. In making this comparison, he had to confine himself to those things actually printed. In the reference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to him (Mr. Waddy), two or three weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman fell into the mistake of supposing that he had forgotten to take into account "the extraordinary expenditure," as it was called, of the present Government. He could assure him he was not going to leave that out of his calculation. If anybody would take the trouble to find out what was the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary expenditure of this Government and of their Predecessors during the whole period of Office down to the time when the accounts were submitted to the House, they would find that the result was what he would shortly state. It was difficult, he knew, to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure. No doubt, it might be said, and with some show of justice, by the Ministry—"When there has been anything unusual, you ought not to make us account for that, as though it had been a part of the regular outflow of our expenditure." The only way, therefore, as far as any person could make a comparison, who desired
    1044
    to be fair and conscientious in the matter, was to take all those items which, in the opinion of the Government themselves had been considered of sufficient importance, and of so extraordinary an expenditure as to be dignified under a separate head. The only rule which could be applied, and the rule which was fair to both sides, was the rule to which he had referred. If that were done, the I result would be thus—That if the ordinary expenditure of the Government so calculated, and putting out of question the Suez Canal and everything in their Vote of Credit by way of confidence, and not to be spent, and all accounts of that kind, the result would be that, coupling the ordinary expenditure of this Government with the last, the present Government had actually spent £38,750,000 more than their Predecessors. Now, he would endeavour to see what deductions he could make out of that; and he believed, if those deductions were fairly made, the case would stand thus—Take the question of local charges transferred to Imperial Revenue, prisons, police, and lunatics; and take, on the other hand, the extra expenses for education. Take the Education Vote, and add together, and the difference would be, that this Government had spent, during their tenure of Office, £5,290,000 in round numbers more than the last Government did. Then, with regard to the local charges, they would amount to more than £4,820,000; consequently, there was a total of £10,112,000. But it had been said—"You must take into account that we have met re-payable loans; we have been advancing money to local bodies, and that will involve further expenditure." That was perfectly true. Those loans did not come into the account at all, for in the balance sheet the principal was not included, although the interest was included. But if all the deductions claimed by the Government were admitted, they would amount only to £11,500,000, which, if deducted from the £38,750,000, left, practically, £27,250,000 of extra expenditure. for that amount of money, which had nothing to do with the National Debt, and which did not include the Vote of Credit for the Maltese troops, or the Zulu War, not one single penny was on account of the "extraordinary expenditure" he had mentioned. If that were so, what was the excuse for the £27,250,000 of extra

    1045
    expenditure in which the country had been involved, and which amounted to nearly £5,500,000 per annum ever since the present Government came into power? But it was sometimes said that there had been war expenditure which had not come out as a separate item, and more money had been spent on the Army and Navy than was anticipated. The Government were entitled to take credit for that in their calculations; but the excuse cut both ways. Another excuse was, that we should consider the difficulties of the Government in regard to the Revenue. The deficiency of Revenue, not coming in by bounds and leaps, had nothing to do with the question, for the House were talking, not about Revenue, but expenditure. Then came the amazingly foolish excuse, "But you should consider what has been the taxation per head." But the taxation of the country was not a test of expenditure or extravagance. He protested against the cry—"Oh, see what a much better Government this is for the country, for we have actually taxed you less than the last one did."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. WADDY,continuing, said, the argument as to the amount of taxation per head was about as fallacious as anything could be. The question for consideration was, what amount of money had been paid. The other night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the nominal amount of the Floating Debt by referring to the loans for public works which had been carried out more extensively by the present Government than the last; and by the courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury, he held in his hand an account of the amounts so spent, which account he should propose to be printed for the use of the House. There was no account for 1879–80, because it was not yet made up; but the sums borrowed by the Government during the preceding five years amounted to £12,460,000; but of that they had repaid to them £4,781,000, exclusive of interest. That made their real outlay under this head £7,678,904. But what was the amount of the total increase of the Floating Debt in the same five years to which he referred?
    1046
    The Floating Debt had increased to £21,390,000. Therefore, allowing the deductions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought should be made, there was still an increase to the Floating Debt of £13,711,596. The Government could not point to any reduction of the National Debt that was originated by them apart from their Sinking Fund, which they had now slaughtered. The present Government had increased the Floating Debt by £13,711,000; the late Government decreased it by £4,415,000; there being thus a difference of about £18,000,000 on the whole, after the deductions had been made which were claimed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had asserted that the surpluses of the late Government were made by wild Estimates, and by their asking for too much. This statement was inaccurate. The late Government steadily diminished the Income Tax, but the present Government had steadily increased it; and the result of five years' Administration showed that, whereas the late Government decreased taxation by £12,500,000, the present Government had increased it by £1,250,000, without taking into account the diminution of taxation which was consequent on the surplus left to them when they came into Office. Then, again, it had been said that there was a large diminution in the National Debt in the years 1876 and 1879; but the fact was, that there was an increase in the former year of £521,000, and in 1879 of £297,000. In five years the late Government decreased the National Debt by £26,000,000; but the present Government, after giving them credit for everything, had decreased it only to the extent of £1,000,000. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government were entitled to an additional decrease of £7,750,000; but still the result was only £9,000,000, as against £26,000,000. Matters would be worse still if other figures were taken into account; but, unfortunately, the House could not obtain the figures, and they would be unable to get them during the life of the present Government. They were told the other night that the expense of the Zulu War was £5,100,000; but it should be remembered that the accounts of the Abyssinian War were

    1047
    not yet closed. Therefore, it was only reasonable to suppose that during the next two or three years accounts would come in which would raise the expense of the Zulu War to a very serious amount. Then, again, did anyone know what the expense of the Afghan War would be? Was it to be £10,000,000 or £20,000,000? If so, he did not believe there was a Member of Her Majesty's Government who thought the people of India could or would bear it; and this he knew, that it would be an unjust and iniquitous thing to seek to impose it on them. On all these grounds, and because the financial course of the Government had led to deficits instead of surpluses, to the great increase, instead of the great diminution of Debt, he charged them with extravagance in the face of the country.
    MR. CHADWICKsaid, he would not follow the last speaker in charging Her Majesty's Government at random with extravagance. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, many years ago, to put aside a sum of £800,000 a-year for the reduction of the National Debt, he regarded the proposal as a wise and proper one, and he hoped that whoever held that high office would set it before him to make provision for a permanent, settled, annual reduction of Debt. He was auditor of several companies having a capital of £50,000,000, and if the managers of those institutions did not allow for depreciation in bad times he should not certify their accounts as correct. He looked on the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the auditor of the nation. After 12 years' Parliamentary experience, and having looked over the Budgets of the last 25 years, he was bound to say that no Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), had ever placed before the House and the country clearer and more complete statements as to their financial affairs and position than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had. Therefore, it was the policy of the Government, and not with the exposition of its financial results, that he quarrelled. He hoped the Government would take warning by the great expenditure of the last four years, and that, if they continued to hold Office, they would come back with "peace, retrenchment, and reform" upon their lips. With respect to
    1048
    the probate duties, the scale of differential duties proposed constituted a perfect labyrinth of figures. He would venture to make a practical suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which, if adopted, would reduce the scale to five lines, and would have the further advantages of securing an increased Revenue. He would suggest a charge of 1 per cent on any amount of personalty not exceeding £500, 1½ per cent, on the next scale up to £1,500, 2 per cent up to £10,000, 2½ per cent up to £20,000, and 3 per cent on all sums above that amount. These scales would be felt to be unjust to no one, and would be readily understood by every one. For his part, however, he believed that the probate duty should be incorporated with the legacy duty, and be paid by the person who received a gift from a deceased party. Who was there so capable of bearing the taxation as such a person? For he received property for which he had never worked, or money which he had never earned. He would support the Bill, because it was a step in the right direction—a step in the way of simplifying that which was at present extremely complicated.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was aware that he had no right to address the House again, although he might take advantage of one of the following Orders to say a few words in reply. It would, however, be more convenient if, by the favour of the House, he were allowed to say what he thought was necessary to lay before them. He would not enter in detail into a great deal of the discussion they had listened to, and partly for this reason, that many of those who had taken a leading part in it, after firing their shot, had left the House. He must remark, however, in regard to one charge which the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who was now absent, had made against him, that, so far from having introduced a new practice in estimating the reduction of the Debt by the action of the Terminable Annuities, he was only following a practice of which the right hon. Gentleman himself set a notable example in 1865, when he arrived at exactly the same amount of reduction thus effected as himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) upon the present occasion. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Waddy) said—" You

    1049
    have no right to claim any credit for these Terminable Annuities; the credit belongs to your Predecessors." Well, that was perfectly true; to a great extent Terminable Annuities were commenced by their Predecessors; but the present Government provided some also. Besides, it must be borne in mind that that was nothing in itself, unless they provided something to meet the charge. All he could say was, that they had endeavoured to provide means for carrying on the operation. The right Iron. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) laughed at the fate of the new Sinking Fund. He did not altogether admit the justice of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chester, and he was anxious that the House should not misunderstand what had really been done. He did not propose to extinguish the Fund. Not at all; he proposed to make use of a portion of it for a particular purpose for a certain number of years. He quite admitted that that was so far in derogation of what was done in 1875; but, at that time, he did not expect that any new Debt would be added on which this Fund was to operate. He entirely demurred to the idea that he had departed from his original intention, which was to set apart a fixed sum to pay interest and relieve a portion of the principal of the Debt. Besides the reduction which had been made since 1875, they had provided a Fund which, he was thankful to be able to say, could be made of use at a critical moment like the present. The whole thing turned upon this—Was it justifiable to add £6,000,000 to the capital of the Debt? Under the old system that would have been added at once to the Debt, and it would have been thought a proper arrangement. He had endeavoured, as far as he could, to treat it by renewing Exchequer Bonds, and by paying them off—or hoping to pay them off—as surpluses arose. He had been twitted with maintaining this inconvenient arrangement, by which the deficiencies were dangled before the country, and the Government felt there was some force in that, more because so much was made of it, than because it was inconvenient to anyone. The Government, however, felt that it would be better some arrangement should be made for the Debt, and the arrangement had been made by which it took precedence
    1050
    of all other obligations. They would be bound to provide in five years for the sum of £28,800,000, which would extinguish the Debt of £6,000,000, and perform such other services as it was possible for it to perform. He did not for a moment extinguish the new Sinking Fund by this arrangement. Supposing there was the surplus which they hoped for, that surplus would, in the first place, be applied to the payment of Annuities, and the Sinking Fund might be as large or larger than in former years. The Sinking Fund would go on all the while. It was only fixed at a higher sum in consideration of the Debt to be redeemed by it being increased by these £6,000,000. He, again, entirely disputed the idea that he put an end to the arrangement made at the creation of the new Sinking Fund. He admitted it was put to a use somewhat beyond that which was contemplated when the Fund was created. He was satisfied the arrangement was one of the most reasonable that could be submitted, unless they increased taxation. That was the alternative, and he did not think they would be at all justified, in the present state of affairs, in increasing taxation. They were only just beginning to recover from a period of depression and suffering in trade, and they could hardly say that they were sure the country had recovered from corresponding depression in agriculture. At such a moment as that it was not desirable that they should increase the burdens of the country. They were told to recollect what Sir Robert Peel did in 1842. Sir Robert Peel put on the Income Tax; but, on the other hand, he took off a great number of duties, relieving what were called the springs of industry. But the country was blessed with a good harvest when those springs took place; and if they were to attempt now to increase the Revenue by putting on heavier burdens, they would accomplish, not what Sir Robert Peel accomplished, but something else. Now, with regard to expenditure, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Waddy) took great pains in giving them an ingenious calculation; but he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not be affronted when he said that this calculation reminded him very much of the equally extraordinary calculations made with reference to the Liverpool election—calculations which showed

    1051
    that if the figures were properly analyzed, the side which had not won the seat was the side which had really gained. It was hopeless to follow step by step calculations of that kind. That there had been an increase of expenditure under the present Government was a matter which nobody would deny. That there had been a failure of the Revenue was a fact which, alas! he was unable to dispute. There was no doubt, for some reason or other, which he need not now inquire into, the sources of Revenue had not been so fertile as in former years, and that, with the increase of expenditure, had naturally led to an unfortunate result, and to a greater amount of deficits than in former years. All that was perfectly clear; but what had been the cause? That was the great question—had the increased expenditure been incurred for purposes worth incurring it for or not? The hon. and learned Member excluded all the expenditure that related to extraordinary services—war services, and matters of that class; and the hon. and learned Member had certainly treated a good deal as ordinary expenditure which was in reality extraordinary expenditure. No doubt, the Government had incurred extraordinary expenditure for purposes which they believed the country would approve, and those purposes could not have been attained at smaller cost. It was very unfair to take such an item as Education, and to compare five years of the expenditure of this Government with five years of their Predecessors'. The measure which involved the addition was the measure of their Predecessors, and they were, therefore, responsible for a system the very success of which must lead to increased expenditure. It was admittedly a good object, and it was worth while that the expenditure should be incurred; but having claimed the credit of the measure, they had no right to turn round and complain of the increasing expenditure, which was the effect of their policy, to which the present Government was obliged to give effect. The unfairness of the comparison made was still further evident when it was remembered that the measure was passed in the second year of the last Parliament, and only came into operation in the third, and was gradually developed; while in the five years of this Government, the measure had been in
    1052
    fully-developed operation. There were many other things that ought to be explained in the same way. By far the greater part of the increase in local loans arose from measures taken by their Predecessors. They instituted these loans for education and for sanitary purposes, and these loans had gradually assumed almost gigantic proportions. It was rather hard that the Government should be charged with extravagance under these circumstances. There were other sources of expenditure the increase of which was inevitable. For instance, it was necessary to raise the pay of the soldier; with increasing wages it was impossible to obtain the men they formerly did. "Were not the Government compelled to make that addition to their expenditure? These were only specimens of the charges that had been thrown upon them, and which must have been thrown on any Government. It was altogether unfair to draw the sort of comparison which had been instituted. The principles of the Bill had not been injured by the discussion. He quite admitted that there was a good deal to be said against large jumps on a scale of this kind. On the other hand, it was difficult to do that which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) wished them to do—to have a percentage scale. The arguments as to the great advantage of collecting Revenue by stamps were arguments it was impossible to ignore, and that involved the difficulty of keeping large stocks of all sorts and sizes in many parts of the country. Still, the matter was one which might very well be kept under consideration, and, if it should be found possible to get over the difficulties about the stamps, there would be no objection in principle to the adoption of the system advocated. That matter had been carefully considered by gentlemen of experience, without prejudice, and the conclusion at which they arrived was embodied in the Bill. He did not say it was impossible to make an improvement; but he did not at present see any reason why they should not adopt this scale. He did not at all commit himself in the answer he gave with reference to testate and intestate estates; he distinctly said he did not wish to pledge himself until he had given the matter further consideration, and it showed that hon. Gentlemen were

    1053
    hard pressed when they tortured such an innocent answer into an argument against him. He was surprised at the arguments coming from the Colleagues of the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), who, when he brought forward his scale, made a great point of doing away with the difference between testate and intestate estates; but, of course, hon. Gentlemen were not bound to be consistent in Opposition. He could not admit that there was any reason in what was called the obligation of persons to make a will, to give those who made one an exemption from the duty that was charged upon them if they did not make a will. The amount of the additions on small estates had been very much overrated. Taking the whole scale, the additions were infinitesimal up to £2,000. Intestacies generally occurred with small estates, and in these there was a very considerable reduction. There was a great reduction on the intestacies and upon the small estates. It was just the persons with small estates who did not like to incur the expense and trouble of making wills. By far the larger number of the wills that were relieved were those of very small amount. The discussion had been to him very satisfactory. He had almost expected a terrible, pelting storm, when the whole finance of the Government was brought under review: but it was a satisfaction and relief to find that the proposals of the Government had been made the subject of ordinary criticism, and that the thunderbolts launched by gentlemen of great authority in distant parts of the country were reduced to very diminutive proportions in the House, where answers might have been given. Looking at the finances of the Government as a whole, he believed the country would not say they were liable to the charges that had been brought against them. It would undoubtedly be said that they had fallen upon evil times in regard to the Revenue they had received and the elasticity of the sources of Revenue. Undoubtedly, they had had cast upon them the necessity of making provision for a large expenditure, some of it of an entirely exceptional character, and much of it of a character which was perfectly inevitable. They had endeavoured to meet that expenditure fairly, and to meet it by casting the smallest possible burden upon the people of the country. They had
    1054
    been fortunate enough to succeed in carrying on their years of administration in such a way as to leave the country not poorer at the end than at the beginning, not more heavily taxed at the end than at the beginning, and with an amount of Debt not more, but less, than at the beginning, and had accomplished, as they believed, services which would be of material and permanent value to the country.
    MR. ANDERSONbelieved that there were several very serious objections from a legal point of view to the Bill, and in particular to the 2nd and 3rd clauses. If, as he had been told, the legal Profession regarded the measure as unworkable, as it certainly seemed to be in the case of persons dying abroad, their doubts deserved every possible consideration. He himself had a great dislike to some of the main provisions of the Bill, and most of all to the method of raising money by means of stamps. It seemed to him absolutely unfair that while the stamp for sums varying between £l,0C0 and £1,600 should be £31, no less than £44 should be payable as soon as the £1,500 limit was exceeded. In like manner an equally unjust increase was imposed at every step. At some future time he hoped it might be possible to give up that system, and to raise the necessary money by a proportionate percentage. "With regard to the Sinking Fund, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to defend his policy by saying that he had not extinguished, but reduced the Fund. Now, he recollected the year 1875, in which that Fund was instituted, and in the debate on that occasion he had told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Fund so constituted would not last, but would be used by the first Finance Minister who found himself in a difficulty; but he had certainly not foreseen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself, like Saturn, have to devour his own offspring. He had thought failure evident and unavoidable from the first; but he did not think it was equally clear that the Fund would some day be made up again. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had been reduced to great straits, of which he would only give one instance—the fact, namely, that in 1876, power had been taken to raise certain taxes, which, however, had never been raised till the year 1880, when, by virtue of a

    1055
    Treasury Minute, a Customs duty of 3d. per pound had been put on transparent soap. By such and similar means, by postponing taxation, and by Terminable Annuities, to which, however, he had no objection in a general way, the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in slightly raising the Revenue. He fully understood the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman had been placed, and the shifts to which he had had recourse, and he found in them an explanation of the fact that the cost of the Afghan War had not been mentioned in the Budget. The state of the case was abundantly clear—the Government, knowing that the time was most inopportune for the imposition of new taxes, had been compelled to argue that India could, by herself, pay the whole expense of the war, although many Members of the Cabinet had, on one occasion or another, expressed the opinion that the war was an Imperial one.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it unfortunate that the question of the alteration of the probate duties should have been merged in a general discussion on the Budget. In dealing with the proposed change, the House had before it a topic of such great importance that it might very well have devoted an evening exclusively to its consideration. With regard to the change introduced by this Bill, there were two questions to be considered—first, the readjustment of the rate; and, secondly, the increase of taxation. He entirely approved the re-adjustment of the rate. It was a great improvement, and would go far to remedy a great inequality which had been allowed too long to exist. The first part of the proposal of Government gave him the greatest satisfaction. It would give very considerable relief, in the case of small estates under £500. It was wrong to tax the prudence and the small savings of the poorer classes. Entire relief was to be given where the property was under £100, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to extend the exemption to £200. The re-adjustment of the rate did not necessarily involve the increase of taxation; but if taxation must be increased, it was just to tax property. The question, however, arose whether one species of property alone should be taxed. The fact was, that while the tax upon real property amounted to 1 per cent of the
    1056
    annual income, or 2½d. in the pound, the amount falling upon personal property under the Bill would be 3½ per cent, or from 9d. to 9½d. in the pound. It was said that, on the other hand, rates fell upon real rather than personal property. The rates upon houses were very heavy; but the real answer to the objection was that the rates falling upon landed property were but a substitute, and a small one, for the feudal burdens which fell formerly upon land. Of late years, too, under the administration of the present Government, land had been considerably relieved from rates. It appeared to him that financial reasons had great weight with Her Majesty's Advisers in inducing them to dissolve Parliament in so sudden a manner. In the Budget there was no provision whatever for the expenses which must necessarily be incurred in South Africa in the coming year. They had occupied the Transvaal against the will of the inhabitants, and must keep troops there. They were about to try the effect of a new Administration in Zulu-land, and there also troops must be kept. Griqualand and Secocoeni's country, with the whole great region behind it, would be additional sources of expense. Then, there was Afghanistan, there was the great and glorious Treaty they had made with Turkey; and it was not unlikely they would have to guarantee the independence of Persia. No provision had been made for meeting the expenses under these heads, and he could not but think that a future Administration would have to pay a heavy supplementary Bill for the spirited foreign policy of Her Majesty's present Government.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night proved himself to be an optimist, and that some of the right hon. Gentleman's Estimates were such as the country ought not to believe or rely upon. If the right hon. Gentleman was unprepared to answer the charges brought by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Waddy), it must be clear that the discussion that night was a mere delusion and farce. He did not suppose that there ever had been such a misuse of Majesty, as when the Queen was asked to open Parliament at the commencement of this Session. He thought it was very wrong that the Session should have been opened with such parade, and that the Queen should herself have opened a

    1057
    Parliament with such pomp which was so soon to be dissolved. The country had been assured that this was to be a real working Parliament, that obstruction was overcome, and that Parliament was going to buckle to and get through a great mass of work. But they had just had an incomplete Budget. The fact was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid to go to the country with a complete Budget. As to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, it had brought us nothing but expense. The Government had placed the House, the country, and itself in a ridiculous position. The country would see through the hollow pretensions of the Government. Instead of substance, they had offered nothing but a miserable sham. When they asked whether what they had achieved was not worth the money that had been expended on it, the answer from that side of the House was, "No;" and that, he believed, would prove to be also the answer of the majority of the country. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to comment upon Lord Beaconsfield's letter to the Duke of Marlborough, when——
    MR. SPEAKERobserved, that the hon. Member was wandering beyond the legitimate limits of discussion on the Question before the House.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would refer to the Army Estimates. In 1878–9 the Estimates had been £15,595,800; but the Expenditure, excluding the South African War and the Afghan War, was £17,653,000, showing a deficit of more than £2,000,000. In 1879–80 the Estimate was £15,645,700, and they had not yet ascertained the Expenditure up to the end of March. But, from the analogy of the preceding years, they might expect a great increase. And the expenses of the South African War might have been £1,000,000 or£1,500,000 less, if the Government had withdrawn the General who was in command. They had very little to gratify them as the results of this large expenditure, which had put the Budget into so complicated a state.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to change the incidence of taxation in a manner which would prove most detrimental to large classes in the country. While professing to be solicitous for the welfare of the agricultural classes, the right hon. Gentleman was taxing the savings of the farmers. In his (Mr.
    1058
    Ramsay's) opinion, the probate duty on personal property should not be increased without a corresponding increase of duty in the case of real property.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, it was impossible, owing to the time when the Budget had been introduced—namely, after the announcement of an intended Dissolution of Parliament—to have the proposals of the Government discussed in a full House. The Probate Bill ought to have been brought forward at a time when its provisions could be carefully considered; but now it was placed on the Table in the last days of the Parliament, when the Government were in a position to force it through the House. He regarded the Bill as a mere makeshift and attempt to raise a sum of money on no principle whatever. Probate duty, in his opinion, ought to be altogether abolished, and an equal duty placed upon all estates of testate and intestate persons. There was no real reason for the wide distinction which now existed between real and personal property; and any change in the law should be in the direction of equalizing the succession, legacy, and probate duties. This Bill aggravated the inequality, and imposed an additional burden upon those least able to bear it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to say a few words by way of protest against the principles of the Bill. It appeared to him that it would aggravate the already great difference between the way of treating real and personal property on the death of the owner. Before dealing with the special point which he wished to bring under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would observe that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had greatly under-estimated the amount of increased Revenue which the proposed change would produce. Instead of £750,000, supposing the amount of property assessed to be the same as during the last two years, the increase of duty wouldbe£l,000,000. The last year for which they had any definite information was 1876, and in that year the amount assessed for probate was £131,000,000, and the duty paid was £2,280,000, which was about 1¾ per cent. The present Bill was apparently framed on the basis of charging, as far as possible, an uniform duty of 2½per cent, with some little deduction in the case of estates under £500, which

    1059
    did not materially affect the calculation; 2£ per cent upon £131,000,000 would produce as nearly as possible £950,000 in addition to what was actually paid in 1876. Therefore, there was every prospect that in future years the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive an extra £900,000 or £1,000,000 in respect of this tax. If the amount fell in one year it might rise in another, and this was not to be a temporary but a permanent tax; and, therefore, they might look forward to a constantly increasing amount of receipt. What he wished especially to point out was the injustice of this tax upon one class of property—namely, leasehold houses. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly have appreciated the importance of the tax upon that class of property, and could hardly have considered how very large a proportion of the property of the country was invested in houses. In the assessment to Income Tax, the value of the houses in this country was considerably more than the value of the land. The houses were valued at £90,000,000 a-year, and the landed property at £60,000,000 a year; so that the houses were valued at half as much again as the land. He wanted to point out the difference in the treatment of leasehold houses as compared with freehold houses. What the actual proportion of value of each class of houses was he could not accurately state; but his impression was that about half the total value of the houses in this country was represented by leasehold houses, and, looking at the enormous amount of leasehold property in London and other parts of the country, he thought that was a reasonable estimate. Now, leasehold house property paid both succession and probate duty; but freehold house property only paid succession duty. A case came under his own notice recently, in administering an estate, which was not a bad example of the effect of this difference. There were two houses, one leasehold and the other freehold, and each was valued at about £5,000. On the leasehold house there were payable £70 probate and £50 legacy duty, or £120 altogether. The freehold house paid only a succession duty of £27. There was a difference, therefore, of between £120 and £27 in the two cases. This Bill would aggravate the matter considerably, because it would increase
    1060
    the probate duty to £90, and the total would be £140 in the case of the leasehold house, and £27 in respect of the freehold house of the same value. That appeared to him to be a very grave inequality in the treatment of the two classes of property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as a reason for the different treatment of land that the land paid local taxes; but leasehold houses paid local taxes just as much as land, and, in fact, considerably more, because local taxes were higher in towns than in the country. That was certainly the case in the borough he represented, where the rates amounted to something like 8s. in the pound, and he did not think there was any rural parish where they reached anything like that amount. But he though the might, at any rate, take this as a general rule—that leasehold houses paid as much local rates, if not more, than land. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] He saw that the Secretary to the Treasury shook his head; but that was his experience. At all events, there was this argument—that they did pay local rates; and, therefore, if land was to be exempted on that ground, houses ought also to be exempted. He would venture to quote another case which recently occurred. A very large owner of house property in London died not many weeks ago, and his rental was stated by the papers to be no less than £120,000 a-year. Nearly the whole of that property was freehold ground rents, which might be valued at 30 years' purchase, or no less than £3,600,000. It was left to three ladies, all of whom were over 70 years old; and the House would, perhaps, be surprised to hear how small the succession duty on that enormous property would be. Of course, the amount of duty depended very much upon the age of the parties, and he had taken them at 70 years in his calculation. He found the duty would be no more than £8,040. Moreover, payment was spread over four years, and discount was allowed at 4 per cent, so that the amount would be reduced to £7,200. If the property had been leasehold, under the present law there would have been payable £54,000 probate and £36,000 legacy duty, or a total of £90,000; and under the Bill now before the House the probate would be £90,000 and the total payment £126,000, as compared with £7,200 which was now payable on the

    1061
    property as freehold. It should also be remembered that in this case the property did not pay local rates at all, because, by the custom of all these leasehold properties in London, the taxes were paid by the tenants, and not by the ground landlords. Here, then, they had the grossest inequality that could possibly exist, and which clearly could not be allowed to continue. Looking at the matter from the landowner's point of view, he should have thought it would be most dangerous to increase that inequality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might, perhaps, think he knew better what were the interests of the landowners; but he now proposed to increase that inequality by at least 40 per cent. On what possible ground could the distinction be justified? He had shown that the one class of property had to pay eight or ten times as much as the other. He would put one other case. Let them suppose a property of £1,000 a-year invested in land, the value of which he took to be £120,000, and let them suppose that it came into the possession of a person aged 40. The total amount of succession duty payable by the new owner would be only £540. But if that £120,000 were invested in leasehold house property or in Consols, under this Bill it would pay, in the shape of probate duty, £3,750, and legacy duty £1,420, making a total of £5,170 as compared with £540, or almost ten times as much in the one case as in the other. Many other objections had already been offered to the measure which he need not repeat; but this special inequality between the treatment of freehold and leasehold houses he earnestly commended to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would give some reason and explanation on the subject.
    MR. W. HOLMScalled attention to the very great falling-off in the Customs and Excise during the past year, amounting to between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. Looking at the Customs and Excise as the best barometer of the condition of the great mass of the people, that decrease seemed to indicate a great depression, from which they could not reasonably expect the country speedily to recover. In certain manufactures great progress was being made, and there were indications of returning prosperity; but it must be a somewhat
    1062
    slow process. The duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to keep down his Expenditure as much as possible; but he found that, whilst in 1878–9 the Exchequer issues amounted to £84,200,000, in the ensuing year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to expend the enormous sum of £86,000,000. The amount of £1,400,000, which was required to meet the new charge for paying off the £6,000,000 of deficit was proposed to be raised in two ways, both of which were extremely objectionable. The new scale of probate duties was, to some extent, an improvement so far as regarded proportionate charge in large estates; but it should have been accompanied by an increase of the succession duties, as all the proposed increase of taxation was upon personal estate. He understood, from an actuarial calculation, that the succession duty on real estate was only about a third of the probate duty on personal estate; so that whilst the probate upon £10,000 of personal estate would be £240, the succession duty upon real estate of that value would be only £80. And, under the new arrangement, the difference would be increased from three to one to four to one. He protested against this distinction, and could not understand why real property should pay less duty than money, or bank shares, or manufactured goods. Property of all kinds should be placed in the same position. There were some peculiarities in the scale of probate duties. For instance, if £10,000 paid £240, one would imagine that £30,000 would pay £720, but it would only pay £690; and there were other like inconsistencies. He objected also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer appropriating the new Sinking Fund. When it was established the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that it would be to the interest of future Chancellors of the Exchequer to keep it for the purpose for which it was intended; and it was surprising to find that right hon. Gentleman, who was usually cautious and prudent, now seizing that very Fund. Having done so, he could scarcely expect that it would be left untouched by future Chancellors of the Exchequer. He thought it was right to state these objections; and it was to be hoped the inequality of the treatment of real and personal estate would not be allowed to drop.
    MR. O'DONNELLhad not intended to take part in the debate; but, as he understood there was hardly any other important Business before the House, except, perhaps, the Government Bill for the promotion of corrupt practices in borough elections, he would contribute his small share to the discussion of the Budget. Inequality was a very mild word for the different treatment of leasehold and freehold and real and personal property; but as the electoral contest was likely to bring hard words he would content himself with that term for the present. There was no justification for the system of heavily taxing wealth that was earned and lightly taxing wealth that was naturally inherited; and he questioned whether it was to the advantage of the landlords themselves that scandalous inequalities of that kind should be perpetuated and aggravated. He was afraid, however, the maxim of the landlords would be to keep all they had and get all they could; but that would hardly entitle them to be dignified by the title of pillars of the Constitution. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was scandalous and notoriously unjust, and was perpetrated under such peculiar circumstances, just on the eve of a General Election, that the attention of the country would be called to it, and all the more, because the Government had prevented the attention of the House from being properly directed to it. The little move of the Government on behalf of their friends the landlords would result in the present arrangement between the landed and other interests of the country being carefully scrutinized, and in a re-adjustment upon a very different principle to the want of principle which the Government proposal displayed. The Budget was characterized by an enormous deficit, and no honest attempt had been made to pay the War Debt out of current Expenditure and taxation. If India had not been grossly burdened, and if Ireland had not been grossly overtaxed, the results presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been still worse. Glancing over a book, entitled Twenty Years of Financial Policy, written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he found in it a passage which he thought fully explained why the war expenses incurred by the present Government were not to be paid out of taxation. At page 247
    1064
    he found an extract from a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), who, in 1854, laid down this proposition—
    "The expenses of war are a moral check imposed on those who are slaves to a desire for conquest. Among many nations this excitement about war is an important element. Notwithstanding the miseries which it entails, it is invested with charms in the eyes of the community which tend to blind men to its evils. They have, therefore, the disagreeable necessity of defraying from year to year the expenditure which it entails. This is a salutary and wholesome check making them feel what they are about. It is by these means that they may he led to consider a war policy carefully; and it may be, perhaps, that they will keep their eyes well fixed upon the necessity of the war in which they are about to enter, and will entertain a full determination to look carefully for the first prospect of concluding an honourable peace."
    That quotation contains an explicit explanation why the Government, having entered upon wars that were not necessary ones, and which were in no way to be justified, preferred to take that measure of meeting them which is as near as possible calculated to address itself to rational intelligent beings. He need not then go into the details of the discussion with reference to two of the points; but there could be no question that India had been treated with the grossest unfairness, and that whatever might be the decision of this country, unless he was very much mistaken, that course of injustice to India would result in a new crop of evils which would carry with it a larger expenditure than that to which he had already referred. So close on the discussion of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) on the over taxation of Ireland, it was unnecessary to refer to the third point at the present stage of voting the Budget. Ireland was over-taxed; and if she had been taxed in due proportion there would be an additional item towards swelling the deficit in which the general mal-administration of the finances had placed the Budget Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he should only make a few remarks. He should ask permission of the House, before the Question was put from the Chair, to detain them for a moment. He thought he should be perfectly in Order in making reference to the cost entailed upon them by the Afghan and South African Wars. He had an idea that the country would

    1065
    not be willing to approve this Budget, and to ratify the expenditure of the millions of money which had been squandered on African and Asiatic Wars. The country, too, would be taxed considerably to defray the expenses of the unnecessary prosecution of a most unjust war in South Africa; and he thought that, before the expiration of the coming 12 months, the rich as well as the poor would feel the strain of paying the aggregate of millions of money expended in the redemption of military honour, or rather, he was sorry to have to say it, what would be more properly characterized as an unholy thirst for vengeance. It was his lot to rise in that House at the earliest moment when the House was voting the money for the Zulu War, and place on record his protest against it. He was told then that the money should be voted quietly, and he was asked to say nothing whatever with reference to the purposes of the war, as the proper time of taking objection to the expenditure would be when the country was required to pay the money or the House to vote it. He wished that night, in one or two sentences, to perform a like duty, which for a long time he had owed to his own conscience, which he had, in fact, owed ever since the occasion he had just referred to, by protesting against the first step in that House in connection with the taxation for that war; and as that was the last opportunity that he should have of doing so, he would ask the recollection of the country to a series of questions which had been put by so humble a Member of that House as himself, from time to time, last summer, with a view to relieving the expenditure and terminating the effusion of blood. He had asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies on one of those occasions, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make peace with the Zulu King? He should be in the recollection of that House when he stated in how cool a manner, and how evasively and delusively he was answered. Again and again he strove to press upon Members of the Government to let the country know whether they really intended to give that Zulu King the chance of acceding to reasonable terms, which, no doubt, it was the right of this country to demand, more especially because the
    1066
    Government were engaged in prosecuting a war which was unjust; and they knew from the papers that they themselves did not believe that the course they had pursued was necessary or just in carrying sword and flame into that country. The position the Cabinet maintained upon that occasion was delusive and intended to deceive the country. When Sir Garnet Wolseley was being sent out they were told that he was to be a messenger of peace; and he asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the third time, whether the Government would state to the House what were the proposals of peace which that General was charged to take with him, in order that they might have an opportunity of saying whether they considered them satisfactory? What was the answer to that request of his? That answer was successful for the moment; but he did not envy the emotion of that Minister of the Crown when he reflected upon it, and when he came to ask himself whether it was worthy in candour, straightforwardness, and truthfulness, and whether it was characteristic of the responsibility necessarily attaching to a Minister of the Crown? The answer he received was that, for certain reasons, the question must not be replied to. The Zulu King might, forsooth, have had a special wire. He might, forsooth, get a telegraphic hint beforehand what the terms were to be, and, therefore, to give an answer might be prejudicial to the magnificent results which were to be expected strategically, politically, and diplomatically in that quarter, and would probably destroy the settlement that might otherwise be arrived at. There were sitting at that time Gentlemen, on the other side of the House, who had stood to their guns and followed their Leaders like men; but even those Party men would have their moments of reflection—and Conservative Gentlemen had consciences as quick to the sense of honour as other hon. Members—and he would put it to them whether the answers that were then given, in reply to his questions, were true? From that hour to the time when that war had been prosecuted to its conclusion, he had charged the Government with a waste of money and a waste of blood. That was his reason for speaking then on the Motion before the House. In imposing these taxes the country were

    1067
    paying the penalty on account of carrying out that unholy war. On one occasion, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies had even gone so far as to let fall an expression which was received with murmurs from the Conservative Benches. That expression had been then quickly withdrawn. He would not say that the phrase then used by the right hon. Baronet expressed his sentiments correctly. He did not, then or now, think that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies was personally accountable for those proceedings, because the Government were aware that they had been precipitated into that course of conduct by the action of Sir Bartle Frere against, as he believed, their own sentiments and convictions; and he believed that the right hon. Baronet, as well as some other Members of the Government, personally condemned the precipitancy of that conduct, and would most gladly have avoided it altogether. But the war was continued, taxation was heaped upon Africa and us, in order to wipe out the disgrace which was supposed to have befallen the arms of this country at Isandlana. The Zulu nation was a Pagan nation, and we were Christians; and that was the true Christian spirit of warfare we were to show the Zulu people and King that we practised general morality and did to others as we would be done by. He would say that night, and remind the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) that, in every instance, he was not deterred by those evasive answers, but returned again and again to that subject in the House, thereby following out his conviction. The Government had determined not to make peace, but to crush, exterminate, and wipe out that Zulu nation. It made no matter whether the elephant tusks were or were not sent into the British camp. It was of no avail that we had an able Christian Prelate who would willingly have been the ambassador of peace—who would gladly have borne the Gospels in one hand and the olive branch of peace in the other. He referred to Dr. Colenso, who had again and again testified to the fact that, at any stage of the war, it was perfectly practicable to avert any further expenditure or shedding of blood by simply
    1068
    being just to this Pagan race. Her Majesty's Government were determined to carry out their dark purpose. They had long before determined to accept no terms whatever of peace, and to give the King no chance. His doom and ruin wore already settled in Downing Street, London, and there was nothing before him but exile. But a day would come when the passions of that hour would have subsided, and there yet would come a time when the English people would read the story of the war with the Zulu nation and of the capture of their King, and blush for the statesmen who had accomplished it. Wherever they went, in whatever quarter of the globe they looked, civilization was pushing its frontiers, and everywhere they saw White races in close proximity to savage ones. In the United States of America they saw them face to face with the Bed Indian, and in Zululand and Afghanistan a similar state of things between our own countrymen and the Natives of those parts; and he would merely ask the question what justification there was for any outlay in that direction? He did not deny but that he had opposed the Resolutions that night for the same reasons that he opposed the justice, policy, wisdom, and necessity, as it was called, of that outlay in the very earliest stages of that struggle. But all was over now. They had seen traced for them by journalists the ruin of the Zulu nation; but it might turn out—as in the case of the annexation of the Transvaal, which that House had approved and had withstood any opposition with such intolerance—that the fracture of Zululand into five or six chieftainries would not effect its purpose, but, on the other hand, that there would be a continual expenditure upon future Budgets, and charges for future generations to de fray. In those matters, the conduct pursued by the Government was not credit able to this country. The Zulu King had been chased and hunted down——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member seems to me to be speaking on the question of the Zulu War; and, no doubt, that has some bearing on the matter before the House. At the same time, I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he appears to be rather trying the patience of the House.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, which was,

    1069
    no doubt, perfectly correct. A speaker was not always aware when he was travelling from the subject under discussion. But he desired now simply to conclude by saying that, so far as the discussion was concerned, he did not feel inclined to proceed any further with the argument; but that being the last stage in that Parliament when he should have the opportunity of discussing it, he had thought it his duty to protest against the imposition of taxes to defray expenses that had been incurred in war that was revolting to his heart and conscience.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the spirit, if not the letter, of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seemed to be utterly irrelevant to the Question before the House; and there was not a sentence of that speech which appeared to him to affect the discussion of that evening. But if anyone would examine the promises which had been made by him and other Members of the Government as to the course that had been pursued, from the time of the commencement of the Zulu War to its end, he would see that those promises were that every means should be taken to obtain a secure peace as soon as it could safely be done, and that they had been adequately and honourably fulfilled. He would further say, with reference to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, that lie thought it very culpable that anyone should come down to the House and make charges against him or anyone else of want of truth, straightforwardness, and of giving evasive answers to Questions, without Notice first being given, in order that a full and particular reply might be made to any charges of the kind. If the hon. and learned Member really believed the charges which he had made, either against the Government or himself (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the proper way to bring such a matter forward was in the shape of a Motion, when he would have been prepared to meet him, and to give satisfactory proof to the House and the country that the charges which had been brought against him were entirely without foundation.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had not the remotest idea that he had made personal charges against the right hon. Baronet, and he thought a reference to what he had said would show that to
    1070
    be so; and, further, he had no idea that the right hon. Baronet was not in his place when he had commenced his speech. He intended to bring no actual charge against the right hon. Baronet.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Why did you say so, then?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MELDONsaid, that he had a few observations to address to the House. He would move, as an Amendment to the Motion proposed from the Chair—
  "That it is inexpedient to proceed with any legislation at this period except such as is absolutely necessary for the government of the country."
  He said he took this course unwillingly, on account of the policy of exasperation which had been carried on by the present Parliament. Most of the Irish Members were now amongst their constituencies, and there were not more than half-a-dozen remaining in London. Some short time since it had been arranged that no Business should be transacted except what was absolutely necessary; and, in fulfilment of the pledge, the Government had withdrawn most important and pressing legislation that had been before the House, yet, notwithstanding, they had persisted in keeping before the House many measures which it was by no means necessary to pass, and which were highly interesting to Irish Members. He was referring, amongst others, to the Local Courts of Ireland (Bankruptcy) Bill, which, he was sorry to see, was being pressed on at that late stage in the proceedings, and which was opposed by nearly all his Irish Colleagues.
  MR. SPEAKER: The terms of the Amendment before the House have no reference to the Business before the House.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he would bow to the decision of the Chair. He would raise the question at a later stage of the Bill—the Local Courts of Ireland (Bankruptcy) Bill.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would ease the minds of himself and his Colleagues by yielding to the wish generally expressed by Irish Members not to proceed at this late stage in the Session with any unnecessary legislation referring to Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, it would be impossible, with due regard to the convenience of hon. Members, to attempt to carry the Bill through its remaining stages; and, therefore, he proposed to move that the Order be discharged. It was the intention of the Government to re-introduce it at the earliest possible period in the new Parliament.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must point out that the House was discussing the second reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.

  [BILL 107.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee upon the said Bill be deferred till To-morrow."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. MONKappealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the Bill this Session. The present Act would not expire until December 31st; and, therefore, no legislation was necessary at this period. The right hon. Gentleman was aware of the number of Notices of opposition and Amendments which appeared on the Paper, and which pointed to the conclusion that such a measure ought not to be considered when there were not 100 Members of the
  1072
  House left in town. After the statement of the other night, that no Bills would be proceeded with which were not absolutely necessary, this might well be postponed; and he would again remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the few Liberal Members who remained were strongly opposed to the measure. He was sure they would offer no factious opposition if the Government were entirely determined to proceed with the Bill; hut, as one who had never offered any factious opposition to the Government, he put it to them whether the present was a time when an important Amendment of the law should be proceeded with?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould only remind the hon. Gentleman that when he announced the intention to dissolve he mentioned this Bill as one that it would be desirable to proceed with. He understood that it was the wish of a large number of Members that before the Dissolution the questions involved in the Bill should be settled one way or other. He hoped the House would be able to give the measure their attention.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONdid not intend to discuss the question now, but must take the opportunity of expressing a very earnest hope that the Government would, before to-morrow's Sitting, take into consideration the appeal which had been made to them by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), and consider whether it was desirable, at this stage of the House, to press on the further consideration of this Bill. No doubt it was desirable that the point should have been settled before a General Election, and it could have been settled by the entire House; but the Government must be aware that there was a very wide difference of opinion on the subject, and it was hardly fitting—in fact, it was hardly decent—that a question of this importance should be settled in the state to which the House was now reduced.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the ground of complaint now was that the Bill could not be properly discussed. The number of Members now in London was not nearly equal to the number of those who took an interest in the Bill, and it would be only fair to withdraw it for the present. It should be re-introduced when it could be fully considered, because

  1073
  there was a strong feeling that instead of repealing the provision against payments for conveyance of voters in boroughs the provisions should be strengthened.
  MR. ANDERSONwas quite aware that the Government could, if they chose, force the Bill through the House; but it would be unfair to do so. The Bill was only printed on Wednesday, the second reading was taken on Thursday, and the country knew nothing about it, although it was a most important Bill, affecting every borough throughout the country. The country had had no opportunity of saying a word about it; and it was a most uncalled-for thing, at this period, to introduce such a Bill. He appealed to the Government to follow, in this matter, the example of the Attorney General for Ireland just now. He had withdrawn an important Bill on the appeal of Irish Members, because so many were absent, and Government should withdraw this Bill also, as the Scotch Members, who were strongly interested in the Bill, were nearly all away; but those who remained were much opposed to it, and, whilst they knew they could not resist the mechanical majority of the Government, he appealed to the Leader of the House not to use it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL AND THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report:—
Special Report brought up, and read, as followeth:—
Mr. Attorney General reported from the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill and the Bankruptcy Act (1869) Amendment Bill; That they had agreed to the following Special Report:—
Although your Committee are of opinion that, in several respects, the Bills submitted to them require Amendments, they are unable, on account of the approaching Dissolution of the present Parliament, to proceed further with the consideration of the Bills. They have
1074
therefore agreed to report the Bills to the House without Amendment.
Bills reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 123.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 123.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SINKING FUND ACT (1875).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend "The Sinking Fund Act, 1875," and to increase the annual charge on the Consolidated Fund for five years by eight hundred thousand pounds.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to raise a sum, not exceeding Six Million Pounds, by the creation of Terminable Annuities.

  2. Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to raise any sum, not exceeding Sixty Thousand Pounds, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds, Exchequer Bills, or Treasury Bills.

  3. Resolved, That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par, at the expiration of any period, not exceeding three years, from the date of such Bonds.

  4. Resolved, That the interest of all such Exchequer Bonds shall be paid half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof.

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Bills of Sale Act, 1878."
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK, Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. MEREWETHER, Mr. MORLEY, and Mr. BARRAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm a scheme under "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," and "The Metropolitan Commons Amendment Act, 1869," relating to Staines Commons, ordered to he brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 112.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS—First Reading—Rammingen's Naturalization*.
Second Reading—Katz Naturalization *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) (34).
Committee—Report—East India Loan (East Indian Railway Debentures) * (36); India Stock (Powers of Attorney) * (37); Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual,) *.
Third Reading—Beer Dealers Retail Licenses * (27); Road Debts on Entailed Estates (Scotland) * (29), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) [43 Vict. c. 5]; Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act (1875) Amendment [43 Vict. c. 2]; Indian Salaries and Allowances [43 Vict. c. 3]; Relief of Distress (Ireland) [43 Vict. c. 4].

ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—THE VOLUNTEER REVIEW ON EASTER MONDAY—STATEMENT.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, it might be desirable for him to make a statement about the Volunteer Review. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that there had been some doubts as to the legality of holding the Review during the elections. Several communications had since been received, stating that very great inconvenience would ensue if this view were held to, and the Law Officers of the Crown were consequently appealed to for their opinion. There was no doubt that the Act of 1847 prohibited soldiers from parading during the time of an election; and there also was no doubt that if Regular troops were with the Volunteers at the Review they would come under the Act which he had mentioned. But it was held that if no Regular troops were to parade with the Volunteers, the latter would not come under the operation of the Act. It had been represented to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, that the Volunteers had entered into contracts which they would be unable to perform if a Review were not held, and that general inconvenience would be occasioned. It had therefore been decided that a Review should be held, and that the Volunteer Regulations, which alone stood in the way, should be suspended for that purpose. It would not be necessary to bring any Bill into Parliament on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEcould not help thinking it was to be regretted that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this subject had not been arrived at sooner, because very great disappointment and inconvenience had been occasioned by the delay. Precisely a similar inconvenience arose, he thought, last year in regard to the position of the Army Reserve. He believed the War Office had been advised that the Army Reserve could not legally volunteer in the event of an emergency. Subsequently however, it was found that that step—which would have avoided immense trouble, and particularly the necessity for indiscriminate drafting from other regiments—might have been taken without any departure from the law.

HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 34.)
(The Earl of Haddington.)
HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 34.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, before the noble Earl moved the second reading of the Bill, he wished to point out the objectionable manner in which it had been taken. They had now arrived at a late period of the Session, when the attendance of noble Lords was very much limited, and therefore he hoped the noble Earl would not proceed with the measure. The Bill was one which entirely altered the whole relation between landlord and tenant in Scotland from one end of the country to the other; and he thought that without proper Notice it was not expedient to proceed with such a measure at a time when a great number of noble Lords who were connected with Scotland were not present, and were not likely to be in attendance before the Dissolution. The House sat most unexpectedly on Saturday, and up to then no Notice whatever had been given that it was intended to move the second reading of the Bill that day, so that, practically, a great number of noble Lords had had no Notice of the Bill. He, therefore, appealed to the noble Earl not to proceed with the second reading.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONmost sincerely hoped that the noble Earl would proceed with the Bill, which was one which very much affected all classes in Scotland. It affected the landlords, and it affected the tenant farmers. It was not now for the first time brought under the consideration of Parliament. It had been discussed during several Sessions of Parliament, and several Bills had been brought forward attempting to deal with the subject. He thought there were only two clauses in the Bill. He believed there was more unanimity of feeling in support of the Bill among all the Members of Parliament connected with Scotland than there had been with regard to any other measure for many Sessions past. The Bill had been very much looked for by the people of Scotland, and he should be very sorry if his noble Friend behind
  958
  him should agree to the proposal of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. He believed the Bill would require some Amendments; but those Amendments could be very easily put into the Bill in Committee.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read, a second time, said, it applied only to agricultural and not to urban populations. It reserved the rights of all existing landlords, and the time fixed for it to come into operation would be Martinmas, 1881. By the 2nd clause the landlord, when six months' rent was due, could take the tenant before the Sheriff, and obtain security for the payment of the rent; and if 12 months' rent was due, he could proceed before the Sheriff to have the tenant removed; but he could not have him removed without having given 14 days' notice of his intention. It had been proposed that the 2nd clause should be amended; but the Amendment would not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, as it applied entirely to procedure. He had briefly stated what were the objects of the Bill; and he hoped their Lordships would give it a second reading without a division, and let it pass to the other House. The subject was one in which he believed the landlords of Scotland to be unanimous; and it was also a Bill in which the tenant farmers in the South of Scotland felt very strongly.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEwas bound to say that it was quite clear the opinion of the great majority of the tenant farmers was in favour of the object of the Bill. Every county of Scotland, without distinction of Party, had returned Members who were prepared to abolish the Law of Hypothec. He gave his hearty support to the second reading. It was quite clear, that although the landlord had no right to be placed in a better position, he ought not to be placed in a worse one than other creditors. He should so far be placed in the same position as other creditors, that he would have a summary and quick process in his hand against the tenant. He did not know whether the arrangement proposed in the Bill quite met the ease; but that was a matter which he would look for being dealt with rather in Com-

  959
  mittee than on the second reading. In the meantime, he concluded by giving the Bill his cordial support.
  LORD BLANTYREsaid, that England had, for some time past, imitated the laws of Scotland—as in their County Courts copied from the Scotch Sheriff Courts—and England would do well to imitate the Scotch Law of Hypothec; at least, it seemed a much milder law than that of "distress" The right of hypothec gave the landlord a security over the crop of each year for the rent of that year, and over the cattle and stocking on the farm for the current year's rent; but crop of 1801, for instance, could not be hypothecated for rent of 1800, because the creditor would, in such case, have no means of redress, and the interest of the landlord would be extended further than the principle on which hypothec was founded would support it. A reasonable security, such as hypothec afforded, was favourable to the improvement of agriculture, and its abolition would be injurious. Leases for 19 years would no longer be the rule—a manure merchant could drop a bad customer; but the engagements of a 19 years' lease were not so easily put aside, so would not be entered into. Tenants would not have sufficient time allowed them to pay their rents out of produce. The desire for the abolition of hypothec was by no means general; on property he (Lord Blantyre) had in the West of Scotland, his tenants desired to maintain it. He thought that, in the interests of tenants generally in Scotland, the abolition of hypothec would prove a mistake, and, therefore, he objected to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsupported the second reading of the Bill. He understood the noble Earl who moved it (the Earl of Haddington) to say that the Bill was regarded with general approval, both amongst the landlords and tenants in the South of Scotland. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) could tell them that it was not regarded in the North of Scotland with less approval than in the South. He was sorry he could not agree with the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Blantyre) regarding the doubtful character of the benefit they were about to confer upon the tenant farmers. It had been often remarked that the Law of Hypothec had done great things in the way of en-
  960
  couraging that class which their Lord-ships were desirous should be encouraged—namely, the small tenant farmers of Scotland; but it was also to be remembered that the law had encouraged many small farmers to undertake farming with insufficient capital. Recent experience had shown abundantly that when this was the case, it caused much difficulty, loss, and damage to the farmers, as well as to the landlords. He was one of those who looked forward with perfect confidence and satisfaction to the passing of this Bill. He knew it was regarded with great approval in the county with which he was more particularly connected.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he would do nothing in opposition to the Bill; but he entirely agreed with the remark of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees about bringing it in at the very last moment. It was only this morning that he heard of it. A matter of such importance to the Kingdom of Scotland ought not to be dealt with so hurriedly.
  LORD DENMANentirely disagreed with the Chairman of Committees, and held it was the duty of those who had brought the Bill forward to press it. It was a very important Bill. He had seen a great many tenants in Scotland, and he had found them most anxious to have the present law abolished. He was sorry to see that a very short time was allowed to the tenant in which to pay his rent. Nothing could be more injurious to the tenant than to compel him to sell his stock or grain in a hurried manner. He hoped if the Bill were passed, the landlords would not enforce too severely this power which was coupled with the abolition of hypothec.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that in the part of Scotland in which he was interested a great many of the leases were drawn up in anticipation of the Law of Hypothec being done away with, and a condition of these leases was that the rent should be paid in advance. He was sure this would fall extremely harshly on small tenants, and would put them in a most difficult position. He thought it most undesirable that their Lordships should sanction this Bill. As to the unanimity said to exist in favour of the measure, he had not discovered it. It had excited but little interest, and what interest it had

  961
  excited was due to the approaching Dissolution.
  THE EARL OF STAIRsaid, the measure had been loudly called for in Scotland for many years; and he was in favour of passing it, though it was never pushed through the House with unseemly haste. He congratulated noble Lords opposite on having at last seen the error of their ways by passing a measure they had for years opposed; and he trusted that when the Law of Distress came to be considered, as it must be sooner or later, they would be found equally ready to support its repeal.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, the subject must now be thoroughly understood by every Member of the House. He congratulated the Government on the prospect of this matter being soon settled, and heartily agreed with the suggestion that the Bill should be now read a second time, and that it would be possible satisfactorily to amend it in Committee.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he was sorry the noble Earl who had taken charge of this Bill did not accede to his request that further time should be allowed for consideration. He thought there was hardly any noble Lord who imagined until he received to-day's Minutes that this proposal would be made. He thought that was not a proper mode in which to bring on a Bill of such importance. A number of noble Lords connected with Scotland had expressed themselves favourable to this Bill; but the approaching Election had, no doubt, something to do with this. The English Peers present should ask themselves whether they were prepared, on so short a notice, to accept so important an alteration of the law relating to landlord and tenant as that proposed to be made in Scotland on the present occasion? The Law of Distress had been alluded to, and there was no doubt the abolition of the Law of Hypothec in Scotland might be urged in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress in England and Ireland. He expressed, however, no opinion upon the Law of Distress. This question of hypothec was not a question that should be treated in a hurried manner, without allowing full opportunity for consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was disposed to disagree with his noble
  962
  Friend that there was anything in this Bill which required longer time for consideration on the part of their Lordships. The question of the abolition of the Law of Hypothec was one regarding which people might hold diverse views; but whether they wished to abolish it or retain it, the Bill was so simple in its elements that anyone acquainted with the Law of Hypothec would know what it was. The subject of hypothec had been so often debated that he was rather surprised the noble Earl should say it was a new one. There had hardly been a Session for many years in which this matter had not been brought before one of the Houses of Parliament, and very frequently a Bill on the subject had passed at least one of the Houses. During the present Session, at least, a Bill had passed the other House of Parliament, and noble Lords must be perfectly aware of the fact. This was not a Bill introduced into the other House by the Government; but it had their support when introduced, and he thought it was a fact of much weight that the other House had shown itself so much in favour of this Bill. It would be a pity if the circumstances of this Session were to cause them to throw away the progress which was made with the measure. He, therefore, thought there was no ground for what his noble Friend had said—namely, that there was not sufficient time to consider the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas not sure that the subject was so absolutely simple as to require no thought at all; but the fact that not only the other House of Parliament, but a Royal Commission, had reported in favour of the Bill, should weigh with those of their Lordships who were disposed to oppose the second reading.
  On Question, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ROYAL SCHOOL OF MINES.

  MOTION FOR, A PAPER.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET THE DUKE OF SOMERSET moved for—
  "Copy of Correspondence relating to the transfer to South Kensington of the Metallurgical Department which has been conducted in Jermyn Street since the year 1851."
  The noble Duke pointed out that many competent persons entertained the greatest objections to the removal of the Geological Museum and Mining School from Jermyn Street. It would be a great misfortune if they destroyed a Museum which had done good work. He entered into some details, and said that when Parliament re-assembled he should propose the appointment of a Committee on this subject.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,in reply, said, he was not prepared to follow the noble Duke into all the details which he had laid before the House; and he thought the noble Duke would have consulted the convenience of their Lordships if he had deferred his speech until the Correspondence was before them. It was not fair to the Department over which he presided to have insinuations made at a time when he could not have an opportunity of replying, as he certainly should reply at the proper time. When that time came, he should be able to defend the action taken by the Department under his direction, as the Museum had been removed in pursuance of the recommendation of the Royal Commission; and he should be much surprised if the judgment formed by the House was not identical with that which he had formed. He need hardly say he had no objection to the production of the Correspondence. The noble Duke spoke of a handsome offer made on this subject, which application, it seemed, had received a curt reply. He should very much like to see the reply.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had not got the answer. The Papers to which he had referred were printed most of them in the year 1871.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had supposed the noble Duke had seen the reply, or he would not have criticized it. He should like to know the terms in which the application was made.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had not got it.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: No; because I doubt whether that application ever was made.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Royal Commission was presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, and among its members were Professor Huxley, Professor Henry Smith, Pro-
  964
  fessor Stokes, Dr. Sharpey, Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth, and Sir John Lubbock. The Commission found that the following Institutions were under the same roof in Jermyn Street:—The School of Mines, the Geological Survey, the Mining Record Office, and the Museum of Practical Geology. The arrangement was unsatisfactory in many ways. There were no adequate laboratories and no sufficient accommodation. Besides this, no Chair of Mathematics was attached to the School of Mines. The number of officers of the Survey had quintupled within the past 20 years, and the accommodation had not been increased. Persons, papers, and collections were all badly lodged. Under these circumstances, the Commission recommended that the Jermyn Street building be given up to the Museum and to the officers of the Survey; the School of Chemistry, which was in a separate building in Oxford Street, and the School of Mines being transferred to South Kensington, where there was ample space and where new buildings were in progress. These Institutions were not, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) suggested, to be mingled in scientific chaos with the Schools of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. What was proposed by the Commission was that the preliminary courses of mechanical drawing, mathematics, and physical science should be common to both; but the different sections of the School of Science which the Commission desired thus to establish at South Kensington were not to be in any sense confused together. He was anxious to make it clear that the conclusion of the Royal Commission had been arrived at after full deliberation, and not precipitately, or in ignorance of the facts.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he understood there was no objection to the production of the Papers.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there was no objection to produce whatever Correspondence there was.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copy of correspondence relating to the transfer to South Kensington of the Metallurgical Department which has been conducted in Jermyn Street since the year 1851: Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Duke of Somerset.)

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT.

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to call the attention of the House to the letter of the Prime Minister to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, dated 8th March 1880; and to inquire of the Prime Minister, Whether he does not consider the monster meetings, which have taken and still continue to take place through many parts of Ireland for the avowed object of inciting tenants not to pay their just debts, but by force or fraud to despoil the landlords of their property, destructive to law and order, and therefore tending to weaken "the strength of the Nation;" and, if so, is it not the duty of an English Minister to take such measures as may be necessary to stay such proceedings? Also, to move for Returns showing what parts of Ireland are proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act; and also to inquire whether the Peace Preservation Act does not expire on 1st of June, and, if so, whether it is prudent to defer renewing it to a time so short after the assembly of the next Parliament? The noble Lord said, that this was the fourth year in which he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the unfortunate state of Ireland. He should not weary their Lordships with details of crime, but should refer to the replies given in 1878 by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and in 1879 by the Lord President. In 1878 he specially dwelt on the murder of Lord Leitrim and the two men with him. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack expressed his sympathy in the universal horror felt at that hideous crime, and stated that special measures had been taken to detect its perpetrators. Those measures entirely failed. No one had even been brought to trial for that crime. The noble and learned Earl then referred to several murders and other outrages "as a state of things that caused very great' anxiety and pain to the Government;" and then, further, he said—
  "These are not merely isolated acts, having their origin in purely local circumstances; hut they are more or less connected with a larger organization—an organization having the double effect of leading to the commission of these crimes, and bringing to bear in the district where they are committed a system of terrorism
  966
  and alarm which prevents any evidence being given against the authors of the crimes."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxix. 1209.]
  And, further on, he continued—
  "I believe that in the particular locality to which reference has been made the state of things is serious, and it certainly is a subject of very great anxiety to the Government. I am prepared to say on the part of the Government that, watching narrowly what is occurring, and deeply convinced that it is their duty to provide for the protection of life when in danger, whenever they are satisfied it is their duty to apply to Parliament for further powers on the subject, they will be prepared to do so."—[Ibid.]
  He would ask the attention of the House to this acknowledgment of dangerous, systematic, and increasing crime and its consequences, and of the apprehension of the Government that it would feel called on to demand greater powers than they possessed for its suppression. Last Session he again brought the matter before their Lordships' House, and the Lord President concluded his reply thus—
  "Her Majesty's Government are determined that this illegal combination shall be grappled with at the outset in order to prevent it from spreading. They are determined to use every means that the law gives them to cope with the evil. They believe that the existing powers they have are sufficient, and that they will prove ample for the purpose. But should it unhappily turn out that the powers they possess are not sufficient, they will then lose no time in considering whether it is necessary to ask for further powers to enable them to do that which they certainly intend to do—namely, to restore order and maintain peace in these districts."—[3 Hansard, ccxlvii. 1698.]
  With these admissions before the House, it was unnecessary for him even to recall the details of serious crime undetected and, consequently, unpunished. Yet Her Majesty's Government had not applied for extra powers. He would, however, refer to a statement as to the present state of Ireland made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, than whom there could be no better authority. The Chief Secretary said—
  "By the Land Act of 1870 a considerable portion of the property was transferred, without compensation, from one class and given to another. The effect of transfer and confiscation has been this—it has whetted the appetites of those who have received the instalment, and they are now calling for the rest."…
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—

  967
  "And now we find hands of armed men wandering over Ireland in the dark hours of the night, threatening, and not only threatening, hut, I regret to say, perpetrating outrages on those persons who are guilty of the heinous offence of complying with their honourable obligation of paying rent. We are informed that the land is for the people, the people, I presume, being the murderers and assassins."
  He thought their Lordships and Her Majesty's Government would hardly require any further evidence than those acknowledgments by different Members of Her Majesty's Government (in 1878–79–80) of the deplorable and dangerous state of Ireland. "Was he not, therefore, justified in saying that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government had signally failed even to diminish crime, and in saying that they ought to have asked Parliament to give them stronger powers. In connection with the subject, he would ask their Lordships' attention to the following extract from the Charge of Baron Fitzgerald delivered at the Mayo Assizes, in which that learned Judge said:—
  "The number of distinct cases in which bills were likely to be presented to them were 31. Those, together with five bills that had been found on a previous occasion, would constitute the criminal business of the Assizes. There was amongst those one case of homicide; hut, as his Lordship understood, the hill would be presented to them in the form of manslaughter. As they were well aware, their inquiry would he as to whether the death of the deceased was caused by the criminal act of the accused, and he need not remind them that every act in which life was lost was primâ facie criminal, and it rested with the accused, if possible, to rebut this primâ facie presumption. He regretted to say that both the calendar and the usual police return of the more considerable of the offences committed in the county since the last Assizes showed an existence of a state of things calculated to excite a feeling of very deep uneasiness. Both the documents to which he referred showed the prevalence in their county of what was commonly called agrarian crime in nearly all its forms. There seemed to be sufficient evidence of an extensive combination for the purpose of forcibly interfering to prevent the payment of rent by tenants to their landlords. This combination had manifested its existence in various ways—partly by the posting of threatening notices throughout the county prohibiting the payment of rent or demanding such reduction as those persons judge themselves entitled to, by threats of violence to those who demand the payment of rent, and to those whom it was apprehended are willing to pay it, and in some instances by actual violence to those who had discharged their legal obligation by the payment of their rent. The feeling had further displayed itself by threats against the ministers of the law, whose duty it was to serve civil bill processes for the enforcement of this obligation, by
  968
  the use of violence to those who had discharged that duty, and in many instances by the attempt to resist the actual discharge of that duty by the violence of riotous mobs in the face of an armed force of Constabulary assembled to protect the ministers of the law. This last phase of agrarian crime was specially dangerous, for it was plain that on such occasions a trivial circumstance might at any moment lead to a scene of blood, shed, which no man in the community could contemplate with calmness. It was manifest that this condition of things, unless vigorously suppressed, will proceed to something very lamentable indeed. There could be no doubt that the country was passing through a season of great difficulty and hardship. The pressure was felt by every class in the community. The distress had weighed very heavily indeed upon the tenant farmers, and still more heavily on those who were entirely dependent upon their labour for their support. But there was no sign of any general indifference on the part of the landlords to the special obligations to their tenantry which this hard season of distress imposed. Efforts had been made in every direction to mitigate this distress. The Government had provided further facilities for employment. Charitable contributions had been received from all parts of the United Kingdom, especially from England, from the Colonies, and even from foreign countries, for the relief of their suffering poor. There were, however, in this country, as there are everywhere, persons by whom any general distress in the country is regarded as an occasion for endeavouring to weaken and defeat the law. Those men were actuated either by the hope of personal aggrandisement or by the craving after notoriety. They existed in every country; but the peculiarity in this unfortunate country appeared to be the facility with which the people were moved by inflammatory addresses to acts of lawless violence—the readiness with which they became the dupes of reckless and designing men. He wished that the voice of a very old man might be heard amongst them to warn those poor deluded people of the ruin they would incur by obedience to those dangerous counsels. He was sure the Grand Jury would use all their influence for the maintenance of the law and the preservation of the people from crime. He was there to-day to assist them, as far as possible, in the discharge of their duty. It was the duty of the Grand Jury, and it would be the duty of the Petty Juries, to repress, so far as the present condition of the law enabled them, those acts of lawless violence in their districts. He knew they would do their duty, and he hoped the result would be the suppression of those lawless and dangerous combinations, for which no man of sense could foresee anything but disastrous failure, whose results to the unfortunate dupes no man of humanity would contemplate without feelings of pain."
  He would now make a few comments on the Manifesto of the noble Earl the Prime Minister of the 8th instant. The noble Earl said—
  "The arts of agitators, which represented that England, instead of being the generous and sympathizing friend, was indifferent to the

  969
  dangers and sufferings of Ireland, have been defeated by the measures, at once liberal and prudent, which Parliament has almost unanimously sanctioned."
  He did not think that those measures were liberal or prudent. They were amply liberal in one sense—they placed fresh and heavy burdens on the already impoverished districts; liberal in the sense of giving away liberally the money of others; but, assuredly, they had not defeated the arts of the agitators. He would refer to one of the resolutions adopted at a monster meeting at a village called Ballindine, to the effect that from the contemptuous manner in which Irish demands were treated in the House of Commons, nothing short of self-government would secure to Ireland peace and prosperity. This was moved by the Rev. J. Killen, a Roman Catholic priest, and the Rev. Canon Burke was chairman. How, then, had the action of Government defeated agitators? The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council asserted last year that the Roman Catholic clergy were hostile to the Fenian and land conspiracy. They were so, in so far as Fenianism was antagonistic to priestcraft; but their platform for long had been the infallibility of priestly rule, hostility to the British connection, and that the land belonged to the people. How that theory acted was well exemplified in the life of a priest as lately given in The Pall Mall Gazette. Their pay and their power would cease if they went back from their own teaching. The noble Earl the Prime Minister in his Manifesto referred to what had been done for Ireland by the passing of measures relating to Intermediate and University Education, and he evidently expected great effects from them. He (Lord Oranmore and Browne) did not believe it would gain one Roman Catholic vote to the Conservative Government. It was to be feared this was not the right way of dealing with Ireland. If the Government determined to endow the Roman Catholic Church the endowment should have been given, not to support these Institutions, but to support the parochial clergy, who would then have been more interested in the preservation of peace and order, and less dependent on the people. The next paragraph contained the appeal of the Prime Minister to the electors of Great Britain. It spoke of a danger scarcely less dis-
  970
  astrous than pestilence and famine—the attempt to sever the Union with Great Britain. Her Majesty's Ministers had complained of his exaggerating the unfortunate state of Ireland; but surely this appeal disclosed a danger as grave, as widespread, as could be conceived, and one that was sapping the very foundations of the Empire—graver, when we recognized the fact that none but the conspirators themselves had such sources of information as the Prime Minister. His opponents might say, "this is only an Election squib;" but that would be a gross injustice. It was the deliberate appeal of a great statesman to his fellow-countrymen, in an hour of national danger, to come to his assistance to preserve the integrity of the Empire. It was an appeal that would be responded to by all law-abiding classes in the Kingdom. His opponents showed that they knew this by the angry tone of their replies. The nominal head of the Home Rulers (Mr. Shaw), the Leader of the Liberal Party in the other House, and the late Premier, all united in the endeavour to slur over the danger of what was no longer Home Rule, but Nationality; and they said—"Change the Land Laws." They confiscated part of the landlord's property when last they were in power, and if they returned they would take the remainder. The only hope the Opposition had of coming into power was by gaining the support of the Nationalists. With the majority the Government had in both Houses, it was unfortunate they had not asked for the necessary power to check the extension of crime and to restore peace and order. Nothing more deplorable than the pro-sent state of things could be conceived. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said at Kendal—
  "On an occasion like this, I think you may very fairly expect me to say in what way I think Her Majesty's Government and the Conservative Party can contribute to the permanent settlement of Irish difficulties. The first thing is to say completely and openly what we will not do. Let it be clearly understood that under no circumstances have we the slightest intention of tampering in any shape or form with proprietary rights. (Cheers.) What Ireland requires is freedom and rest from agitation."
  He hoped he had expressed himself moderately. He wished the Prime Minister to express the determination of the Government to put down this conspiracy in language which would have

  971
  the weight and force that everything had which came from him.
  Moved, "That there he laid before this House, Returns showing what parts of Ireland are proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: The noble Lord, I agree, addressed us in a moderate tone, but, at the same time, rather obscurely; and, though I listened to him with interest and attention, I do not understand what is the main object of his remarks. The noble Earl has frequently referred in his observations to the Question which he has placed on the Paper, and which he did me the honour to address to me. That Question is—
  "To inquire whether the Peace Preservation Act does not expire on 1st of June, and, if so, whether it is prudent to defer renewing it to a time so short after the assembly of the next Parliament?"
  I believe there is no doubt that the Peace Preservation Act does expire on the 1st of June next; and it is by no means imprudent to assume that the next Parliament will do its duty to the country, and that it will repeat that Act, or, if necessary, support it with stronger measures, if they are required by the circumstances of the time. That is my answer to the noble Lord, and that is the only Question which really the noble Lord has addressed to me.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: "Will the noble Earl kindly refer to the first part of the Question?—
  "To inquire of the Prime Minister whether he does not consider the monster meetings, which have taken and still continue to take place through many parts of Ireland for the avowed object of inciting tenants not to pay their just debts, but by force or fraud to despoil the landlords of their property, destructive to law and order, and therefore tending to weaken 'the strength of the nation;' and, if so, is it not the duty of an English Minister to take such measures as may be necessary to stay such proceedings?"
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My answer to that is, that I think these measures have been taken. I think the existing law is quite sufficiently strong to cope with the evils to which the noble Lord has referred. As I understand him, the Question has reference only to what he calls "monster meetings," the object of which
  972
  is to prevent the payment of rent. Now, I hold that the Peace Preservation Act and the existing law together are adapted to entirely meet that evil; and, if it were necessary, of course the Ministry, however composed, would take those steps which are necessary to protect life and property and preserve the public peace. So far as I can judge, we may indulge the hope that the excitement to which the noble Lord refers—these monster meetings to prevent the payment of rent—are rather subsiding than on the increase. If this be the case—and that is certainly the impression of the Government from the information which reaches them—I should certainly think it unnecessary and a very indiscreet thing to come down to Parliament and to ask it to increase the powers of repression under such circumstances. The chief part of the noble Lord's speech appeared to be a vindication of the step I have taken in addressing a letter to a noble Duke, who is a Member of this House; and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary for me to enter into any vindication of my motives or mode of expression. I leave my defence with confidence to the noble Lord, who has on this occasion entered into a minute criticism and vindication of that letter in a manner so gratifying to my feelings that I hope he will allow me to tender him my cordial thanks.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: Your Lordships seem to think that it was not my intention to laud the Manifesto of the noble Earl, or that it is a great liberty for so humble a Member of your Lordships' House to laud so great a man. It is my intention to take that liberty; but the noble Earl seems so satisfied with the disorderly state of Ireland that I now have some difficulty in understanding how he stated it to be in so dangerous a state. He says he listened to my statement; but, in his reply, he ignores the description given by the Chief Secretary, and also the Charge of Baron Fitzgerald on the present state of Ireland. More deplorable features of crime and demoralization I cannot conceive. They evidence, what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack stated a few years back when Leader of the Opposition, that the state of Ireland is not only "sad, but shameful."
  Motion agreed to.

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL,in rising to call attention to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Eastern Question since the autumn of 1874; and to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Copy of the letter from the late Ameer of Afghanistan to the Sultan, dated 19th January 1878,"
  said: The House will readily suppose that I should not be inclined to go on at such an hour with such a Motion unless the days of this Parliament were numbered. When I postponed it, on the ground that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State was absent, the Government had not announced a step of so much political and military skill as that of withdrawing from a Brighton field-day under the cover of a General Election—a cover which, to the amazement of the House, we hear to-day is utterly inadequate. The noble Marquess, it is known to me, will not return before the Dissolution, and I have no option as to going on without him. For two reasons, such a course is unobjectionable, although, perhaps, it is unusual. I shall advert mainly to transactions with which the noble Marquess was not connected by his present Office. His vindication of the Government on foreign policy is in our hands already. It was given at Manchester with much elaboration; no doubt, with much effect. It appeared in the morning journals of October 18th. It was not unworthy of himself, and little could be added to it. But there is something far more grave to be encountered. It is thrown out by various supporters of the Government that we are not entitled to look back on the transactions which have all flowed from the autumn of 1874, with a view to ascertain their merit or demerit. Why not? You cannot criticize a Government upon the future; you cannot on the pending; it is only on the past they are assailable; Is this not the time? It is the very time. If last Session the attempt had happened, the Government might have replied that until the Russian occupation was disposed of any general discussion of the kind was calculated to impede their labours to abridge it. My Lords, a great drama closed together
  974
  with the Russian occupation, and now admits of being reflected on. But the electors must review the foreign policy of the last five years in order to arrive at a judicial verdict on the conduct of the Government. Can it be said that the very question to be in a few weeks determined by the people is inappropriate and obsolete in Parliament already? Such language among friends of the Government would seem at first to be the paradox of terror and the sophistry of conscience. But the noble Earl the Prime Minister renounces it. With the impatience of a practised gladiator, he has complained from time to time that accusation was too fragmentary; that no Member of the Opposition would bring his policy under a general review; and even that no adverse Resolution was submitted to your Lordships. Now, as to an adverse Resolution, it seemed a doubtful thing whether an Opposition in an avowed minority should offer them. It was only done here on foreign policy in 1850 and 1864 by a Party whose majority was certain. But the Motion I propose is for a document which must be utterly obnoxious to the Government; which stigmatizes in the gravest terms their conduct on the Eastern Question; which brings before you the late Ameer in an attitude of protest verging upon scorn as regards the mode in which their infidelity to Treaties had estranged him from Great Britain. It might, therefore, well suggest resistance to the Government. At least, it ought not to be adopted till it is first shown that their policy upon the whole of these transactions is far, indeed, from irreproachable.
  The only title I can urge to the indulgence of the House is that I began to follow the vicissitudes of the present Eastern Question two Sessions before they occupied the general attention, and continued to pursue them during one, at least, when others hardly did so. The first proposition I am anxious to uphold is that the Government were responsible, in a great degree, for the War between Russia and the Porte, which began in April, 1877. If I do not thoroughly establish it, it will only be because the desire to economize the patience of the House forces me to hurry over and mix up the facts, which, more distinctly traced and separately handled, would be sure to warrant the conclusion I have pointed to. Now, the union of Austria,

  975
  Germany, and Russia, in a sense hostile to the Ottoman Empire, has been attested by the noble Earl, at that time Secretary of State, who often sits on the Cross Benches. It may fairly be contended that a vigilant diplomacy would have succeeded in averting it. When, however, it appeared in the Identic Note of the three Powers announcing their intention to negotiate Commercial Treaties with the Vassal Principalities against the wishes of the Sultan, dated October 20, 1874, it was possible, at least, to check or counterbalance it. It might have been counterbalanced by some display among the Western Powers. It might have been checked by a particular and strong appeal to Austria, which Great Britain—if only from the Treaty of April 15, 1856—had every title to resort to. Nothing was attempted. Instead of being detached from the new and ill-omened alliance, Austria was induced to take the lead in negotiating with the Vassal Principalities; to leave Russia and Germany Behind her in paving the way for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The Herzegovinian insurrection, which rapidly succeeded, seemed, therefore, if not to be occasioned by her wishes, at least to start under her auspices. The discontented elements within the territory of the Sultan were thus enabled, in some degree, to look on Austria as a standard-bearer. Nor can it be disputed that during the autumn of 1875, by means of General Rodich, the Viceroy of Dalmatia, considerable aid was given indirectly to the Herzegovinian movement. In the spring of 1876 a great opportunity of influencing Germany to restore the peace of European Turkey was abandoned. The Berlin Memorandum, the Servian War, and other troubles followed. At the Conference of December in Constantinople, which, perhaps, it was desirable to enter by acceding to the scheme of General Ignatieff, we lost all grasp over the Sublime Porte, as regards the decisions it might ultimately come to, and gave Russia a considerable pretext for hostilities. When I condemn the scheme of General Ignatieff, I remind the House that the Ottoman despatch of January 25, 1877, which canvassed it exhaustively, which has long been in our hands, which I have brought down with me this evening, had no reply from either Russia or Great Britain. In this
  976
  manner war became very difficult to guard against. The unsuccessful Conference for a time threw the British Embassy into abeyance, and withdrew it altogether, so that the Sultan was left alone to contend with any diplomatic propositions Russia might address to him. His liability to error, of course, was very much increased. But during the months of February and March, 1877, it was not too late to bring the restraining voice of Berlin to bear in some degree upon the counsels of St. Petersburg. It was not too late to declare in this, or in the other House of Parliament, such general adherence to the Treaties of 1856 as might have led the Czar to pause before resolving to forget them. It was not too late to take advantage of the new latitude established in the Articles of 1871, and send the British Fleet into the Dardanelles before war commenced, to exercise a guiding and admonitory influence on both the possible belligerents. It was not too late to despatch a special Mission to St. Petersburg—far more required than that which had just left Constantinople—to uphold the Czar himself, who, as it is now revealed, was struggling against the warlike counsels which enveloped him. If it be true—as most probably the Government will urge—that within Great Britain many forces lured him to invasion, the class of measures I have pointed to was far more binding, far more indispensable than otherwise it would have been. As all such precautions were omitted, and some of them repelled, it cannot be denied that the Government had great responsibility for the decision to cross the Pruth which ultimately followed, which led to the disquietude of Europe, and brought this country face to face with the alternative of either hazard or dishonour. Some noble Lords, perhaps, are scattered in the House who look with more indulgence on the decision of the Czar from certain grounds with which it is endeavoured to associate it. The answer to them—which I can only glance at—is that the Russian movement on Constantinople began before the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, before Ottoman dominion was established, before Russia could affect to represent the Cross, or to encroach upon the Crescent, when she directed Armies towards the Bosphorus. Whatever view these noble Lords may entertain,

  977
  the avowed object of the Government was to avert the war to the last moment. They did not share in any such interpretation. They recognized its danger and they proclaimed its illegality.
  The period which now begins is far less intricate and tedious than that which I have passed over. However fraught with tragical events, it need not occupy the House for many minutes. The policy of the Government is summed up in the despatch of May 1, the despatch of May 6, the Proclamation of neutrality, and the inaction which succeeded them. The latter is the point which requires attention at this moment. If it was open to the Government to despatch the Fleet to Constantinople before war began, it was still more admissible when the rupture was precipitated. Among the practical advantages of such a measure would have been to restore the power of the British Embassy injuriously paralyzed, and thus to rescue the Sublime Porte from many errors and corruptions which weighed upon it in the struggle; to lay the ground for mediation, possibly to close the war before Plevna had been taken. It was the course which Lord Palmerston insisted on, in nearly the same circumstances, in 1853, when no Treaties called for its adoption. At the time in question, it was the course which Treaties made imperatively binding. In point of fact, it was a cheap and prudent method of adhering to them, although not wholly unaccompanied by risk, and, therefore, not entirely destitute of merit. It was no departure from neutrality; and, therefore, the Proclamation—undignified, uncalled for, as it may justly be considered—did nothing to preclude it. When the Fleet did advance, in the midst of circumstances which I am approaching, the Proclamation of neutrality continued. It was no more a bar in May than the succeeding January, although in either month it was an error. The Session and the autumn passed away. Remonstrances arose. Constantinople was endangered. Popular opinion was excited. In the beginning of 1878, debates were frequent in the Legislature. On the 26th of January, the Fleet ascended to the Dardanelles, with the concurrence of the Sultan. It was withdrawn by a telegram. In the opinion of those who watched these critical events upon the spot, its withdrawal
  978
  led the Russian Armies to San Stefano, and paralyzed the efforts by which they might have been arrested. On February 9 the Fleet advanced a second time, on this occasion in defiance of the Porte, whoso confidence in British sympathy and British support had been inevitably lessened. If the Fleet withdrew to bring the hostile Army to their gates, there was little reason to assume that it came back under the sway of irreproachable benevolence. In this manner the House is led to see that the Treaty of San Stefano, which followed, is the immediate offspring of the Government, although, no doubt, they did their utmost to reduce it.
  On the 28th of March the Secretary of State announced his resignation. A new era was anticipated. On the 1st of April such hopes became more sanguine from a much admired despatch, which it was judicious to issue on that day, which ought to have appeared before 2 in the afternoon, or whatever hour is supposed to check the period of licensed jocularity; so little did it ultimately sway the action of the Government. We are now in the season of preparatory measures for the Congress. I censure none of them, and do not even think with those who, on grounds of scrupulous legality, objected to the despatch of Indian troops to Malta. It seems a cumbrous and fantastic method of Imperial defence. But such cumbrous and fantastic methods are imposed upon a State, which keeps 300,000 men locked up at home, for an heroic struggle with an obsolete invader. The Convention with the Sultan appears difficult to reconcile with loyalty to European Powers, and tends to inconveniences which I may afterwards allude to. But the concession to Russia before a Congress was approached deserves more serious reflection, however little we may view the noble Marquess the Secretary of State as being exclusively its author. We may dismiss altogether the scandal with which the name of Mr. Marvin was associated. We may forget the mode in which, as a noble Earl now absent from his place remarked to us the true intention of Great Britain flashed on an astonished Europe from the depths of the police court. We may excuse the contradictory instructions to Lord Odo Russell as a departure from routine, or rather a relapse to virtue, "a longing lingering look behind," in those who painfully

  979
  renounced it. But the fact, to be as far as possible divested of its incidents and measured by itself, is collusion with the Power which the rest of Europe had determined on restraining. In 1856 there was no mysterious concurrence between Russia and Great Britain. There was none with France in 1815. There is nothing of the kind on record, as far as I know, in the Congresses of history. The course pursued in 1877 of abnegating Treaties, no doubt, was fertile of embarrassment. But still the situation did not call for this irregular concession. In spite of her successes Russia was endangered. The Roumanian Army was opposed to her. The Ottoman retreat, through the exertion of General Baker, had been successfully and brilliantly conducted. The Black Sea, by public law, was open to our cruisers. National opinion had risen to a flood against the Russian progress in Great Britain. These circumstances did much to favour our diplomacy. They did much to favour the more legitimate proceeding of uniting the Powers which arrayed themselves against the Treaty of San Stefano in such a protest as was calculated to extort the limitation they were anxious for. However, in June the Plenipotentiaries arrived at Berlin. The Government can only claim a general acquittal of the past, if the Treaty of Berlin deserves all the eulogies which they—much more than their own friends—for many months have prodigally lavished on it.
  As regards the Treaty of Berlin, there is an unfortunate impression—unfortunate for those who have to touch upon it—that the subject is exhausted. Men forget that every important Treaty has taken years before it was elucidated. The Treaty of Utrecht continued to engage dispute during the lifetime of Lord Boling broke. The Treaties of 1815 were being perpetually canvassed in the days of Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. As to those of 1856, during the last few years we have been constantly debating on them. Only the other day the whole House was thrown into perplexity as to whether one of them is valid. My conviction is that, so far from being exhausted, the Treaty of Berlin has never yet been placed in its true light before the Legislature or the country. In deference, however, to the feeling which exists—whether or not it is well founded—I pass over and
  980
  blot out a whole series of objections habitually present to me. Not a word shall this House hear from me of Batoum, Bessarabia, Greece, or even, in this connection, of the Ottoman Assemblies. I hurry on to these two propositions, hoping to maintain them. The Treaty of Berlin has much impaired the prospect of upholding Ottoman authority upon the Bosphorus. At the same time, the materials of replacing it by some untried and well-imagined combination have been dissipated and abandoned.
  If the Treaties of 1856 were no restraint on Russian movement to Constantinople the Treaty of Berlin has no pretension to contain it. The pretexts of aggression which arose in 1877 are not exceptional and fugitive, but may recur at any moment. But foreign interference to defend the Sultan is no more to be depended on in the future than in the late emergency it was attainable. His power to defend himself is manifestly weakened, as he is no longer sheltered by the Danube, by the fortresses, or even by the Balkans, as he used to be. It is calculated that, in military force, he loses over 50,000 men, in Revenue about £5,000,000 sterling, by the territorial arrangements which have happened. Not long ago the Prince of Servia made war upon him, instigated from a distance. At any future time the Prince of Bulgaria may have the same encouragement to act in the same manner. He has a motive which the former Vassals were exempt from. He will always be impelled—not, perhaps, by his own mind, but by the circles which surround him—to aspire to equality with the position granted recently to those who rule in Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania. A much larger population might now be moved upon Constantinople than was formerly available. It is true—as the noble Marquess the Secretary of State is never tired of impressing upon us—that Austria is at Novi Bazar. But she is not under any obligation to advance beyond it. She is not bound by a Convention. She is not subsidized by this country or by Europe to defend Constantinople. The diplomatists in this House will hardly reprimand me for observing that the more they know, the more they meditate on Austria, the more they see her policy to be incalcu-

  981
  lable. But if anything could be predicted with regard to her from study of the past it is unvarying reluctance to go to war with Russia, even for objects she appreciates, even for objects she considers as her own. In this way a situation has arisen which forces on reluctant thinkers, on reluctant politicians, the question how far Ottoman authority may be replaced upon the Bosphorus, with a view to guard the limitation against Russia which the Crimean War was meant to save and to immortalize.
  Now, my Lords, the point to be submitted has nothing difficult about it. It may require knowledge of the Eastern Question to arrive at the conclusion; but it requires little to form a judgment of its accuracy. Whatever novel system is devised must absorb the population both of Servia and Roumania, or else be utterly unequal to the object of creating it. Whether Greece is to adopt Constantinople instead of Athens as a centre, whether Bulgaria is to recover something like its former nationality, whether you look to a regenerated Austria or a developed Hungary for the solution of the difficulty, it must agglomerate both Servia and Roumania, or else be wholly insufficient as a barrier against the numbers and against the power to be resisted. The existence of the two as independent States—if it endures—is fatal to the purpose we are contemplating.
  No sort of ground existed for producing it. Had it been desirable for Europe, in 1856 it would have happened. But it was not desirable for Europe, and, therefore, sedulously guarded against. Had it been necessary for the races which vassal Princes used to govern, to be under reigning Princes, we should long ago have heard of it. The Servian Mission of 1863 would have impressed it carefully upon us. The project of an independent Servia and Roumania was never mooted till the Congress of Berlin. It was opposed to the whole line the Government itself upheld a few years back in 1875. To multiply small States incapable of self-defence is utterly opposed to the direction of the world and to the tenor of its history. If we wanted new States the Austrian Empire could furnish them. If we wanted new States there is a Poland to reflect upon. To guard against aggression those which now exist is found to be too difficult a labour.
  982
  In our quarter of the globe at least—it may be different in America—a new State is a new element of bloodshed and confusion. Such is the general idea which ought to limit their creation. But here a special object of commanding magnitude and paramount importance should have wholly interdicted it. By this gigantic error new discord is insured. When that discord overthrows the crumbling residue of Ottoman supremacy, the possibility which did exist, of otherwise withstanding Russian arms, is nearly evanescent. On the whole—however deeply we admire the industry of the negotiators—the Treaty of Berlin is fatal to the Porte itself, and obstructive in a high degree to all the efforts for replacing it, which must have taxed even at the very best the genius and sagacity of Europe.
  It is now essential to remark a moment on the Paper which I move for, and which has certainly attained to some publicity already. It first appeared in the spring of 1878, and was reprinted in the European Press when Afghan troubles began to occupy us in the autumn. The Mémorial Diplomatique guaranteed its authenticity, which has not, however, been disputed. What it tends to bring out is the link between the Eastern policy I have adverted to, and the appearance of a Russian Mission at Cabul. Whatever opinion may be formed as to the necessity of the Afghan War, the appearance of a Russian Mission at Cabul, in defiance of the Heidelberg Convention, so much blended with the fame of the late Lord Clarendon, was a reproach and a calamity. In that letter the Ameer explained that the unchecked advance of Russia on Constantinople had estranged him from Great Britain. In about six months he gave effect to his conclusion.
  Let no one think that I am going into the Afghan Question. Not long ago the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) in some degree exhausted it. Without concurring in all he uttered, with so much force and so much volubility, had he divided, I should have given an unhesitating vote in favour of his Motion. The only mode of thinking I am anxious to encounter is a most inaccurate and yet a most prevailing one in general society. It is that the Afghan War is a set-off to the deficiencies—in some degree avowed—on what by long

  983
  familiar use among diplomatists is termed the Eastern Question. On the ground of the Afghan War it is attempted to weave crowns, and even more than crowns, for the First Minister by the very persons who were on the verge of tumult because, in 1877, complete inaction against Russia was persisted in. But it was not an Afghan war such persons were demanding. Now, oven if we think the Russian Mission to Cabul could only be disposed of by the conflict it elicited; even if we grant the theory of the scientific Frontier; even if we forget the reckless Embassy together with its miserable consequences; even if the war should end in new security to India, it can do nothing to atone for losses nor to recover influence in Europe. The same remark applies exactly to the campaign in Africa, even if, judged alone, it would admit of being defended. So as regards Cyprus. Even if you hold its doubtful and contingent tenure to be useful as a means of guarding Egypt—the only praise it can extort—so far from being an expiation of inconstancy to Treaties and the Porte, it rather tends to aggravate and to enhance it. These subsequent transactions are the asylum of the Government; and now they ought to be dislodged from it. It is like a second picture placed obtrusively in front of that which we desire to judge, on purpose to conceal it. It is like the effort to redeem a play which has not terminated fortunately by an irrelevant explosion of artillery and fireworks. If anyone engages to stand upon a rope and falls, he cannot claim approval because, instead of going back to his task, he executes a series of highly interesting dances. This complicated after-piece may, and does, impose upon Great Britain for the moment. But we must look elsewhere for the criterion of its advantage. Does it impose upon the Continent of Europe? Does it secure augmented influence at Paris, at Vienna, Berlin, or St. Petersburg? Does it give us any better locus standi to prevent a rupture between Germany and France whenever such a rupture is impending? Would these auxiliary transactions inspire Sweden, Portugal, or Belgium, who look to Great Britain as a defending Power, with any greater confidence than they would otherwise indulge? To recover influence in Europe, when something has de-
  984
  stroyed it, at least a momentary firmness in regard to European Powers is essential. But none has been displayed. When Russia stepped over the Heidelburg Convention our diplomatic intercourse continued with her; while the Ameer, who had not violated any Treaty, who acted under the control of overruling force, was destined to absorb the whole of our resentment.
  Whatever weakness or deficiency or error are connected with the period of 1877 are, therefore, unatoned for and uncancelled. No doubt, some pretexts have been offered to extenuate them, as it is seen that they will not admit of open vindication. It is not unusual to throw the whole responsibility on the former Secretary of State (the Earl of Derby). The noble Earl the Prime Minister, however, can never possibly resort to such a shelter. He can never be inclined to dispute—even if others do so—that each decision upon foreign policy involves the sanction of the person by whom the Cabinet is guided. It has been often said that the Opposition paralyzed the Government. The Opposition were always a minority in both Houses of Parliament. How could they dictate to the Government? Besides, the Opposition were divided on the Eastern Question. A Government, at least, is quite as much at liberty to follow the group which it approves, as that from which it differs. Again, in their preparatory measures, after the resignation of Lord Derby, the Government were not controlled by any section of the Opposition which discountenanced them. Why, therefore, could they not resist the section—if there was one—which frowned upon the measure of advancing the British Fleet into the Dardanelles at the beginning of the war instead of at the end of it? They would reply, perhaps, that national opinion had undergone a transformation. It is true, my Lords, that national opinion had matured itself. But it is untrue that in April, 1877, national opinion would have checked a step so moderate and limited, as well as so imperative in faith and requisite in policy, as that to which I have alluded. The complete inaction of the Government was at once the theme of systematic protest among the most important journals of the country. It called into existence, during the autumn, a number of irregular societies, resolved to put an end to

  985
  it. It brought on besides, and independently, a formidable movement in the open air which could not be resisted. You cannot urge that national opinion had demanded the course which, in a few months, it overwhelmed and reprimanded by its violence. You cannot satisfy the House that it was a dangerous outrage upon public sentiment to advance the Fleet in May, June, or July, if you like, even November; when, in the succeeding January, to advance it was the only course by which tumult could be quelled, by which mobs could be dispersed, by which security and peace could be restored to the Metropolis.
  One further question only can present itself which there is any duty to reply to. It maybe demanded—granting there was error in 1877, which subsequent transactions are incompetent to expiate, and current pretexts to defend-—has it resulted in any actual inconvenience? In Europe the inconvenience is manifest. The triumph of aggression, the collapse of Treaties, always render ware more probable than otherwise it would be. How was peace secured for 40 years in 1815? By the repression of the Power which, in that age, was the disturbing one. The converse will present itself. But I hold the scene of actual inconvenience to be much more Constantinople. Our position at Constantinople is most disastrous and anomalous at present. By the new Convention we are forced to aim at Ottoman reforms in Asia Minor. It is only as a defending Power, it has been repeatedly established, we have any title to exact them. But in 1877 we proved that we are not a defending Power. In 1877 we proved that engagements to offer even the slightest form of material assistance to the Sultan are illusory. The new Convention has no greater promise of validity than that which did belong to the old Treaties. The Sublime Porte inevitably reason in this manner—"We are not subsidized in order to reform; we are not coerced in order to reform; and by reform we get at no security whatever for ulterior protection. Why, then, should we carry it beyond our own idea of justice and expediency?" But, my Lords, they have another answer even more conclusive to any exhortation the Ambassador thinks proper to address to them. They may reply, that they organized political Assemblies; that Sir Henry Layard himself
  986
  attested their reality and efficacy in his despatches to the Foreign Office; that they sat before the war began; that they were sitting when it finished; that the first measure of the Russian Armies at San Stefano required their dispersion; that the Congress of Berlin might, by a single Article, have easily revived them; that it failed to do so; that the European Powers collectively interred the reforming agency which Russia had individually disposed of. "If you want reforms in Asia Minor," they naturally say, "you had better re-establish our Assemblies. We do not wish to prove their superfluity, or vindicate the conduct which destroyed them." By such language the Ambassador is silenced; and yet he must persist, to some extent, in measures which provoke it. It ought here to be remarked that in a number of debates it was repeatedly insisted on that if the Treaties of 1856 were wholly overlooked the power to interfere and improve in Ottoman dominion would afterwards escape us altogether. If the position at Constantinople is certainly embarrassing, and possibly humiliating, it is not unwarned or unenlightened that the Government have entered it.
  The present is not one of the occasions when anyone at all conversant with the subject ought to insist on an Eastern danger which he realizes; or urge the country to the path of duty from the slumber of indifference; or recommend a course of action to a Government whose hesitation and disunion have been too openly revealed to us. During the last five years, however, such occasions have been frequent. They are alone sufficient to condemn the policy which leads to them. In this House Ministers are rich in Parliamentary and even oratorical ability. Great as it may be, it will not enable them to disprove a large share of responsibility for the unhappy war of 1877. They will never show that in May, June, or July of that year the British Fleet might not have been despatched into the Bosphorus to the incalculable benefit of Europe. They will not be able either to repudiate the parentage of the usurping Treaty, which they afterwards contended with, as I hold, unsuccessfully. The transactions are voluminous and intricate. They are beyond the range, perhaps, of industry to grasp, or utterance to mention them. But yet their history may be given in a

  987
  sentence. It is the record of wisdom faintly and imperfectly adhered to, of duty openly and systematically violated, of reparation eagerly but ineffectually grasped at. By submitting it, in outline, to this House to-night—although with many chasms and various deficiencies—I shall have, at least, attempted to perform a timely service to the Opposition and the country. The noble Lord then moved for the letter of the Ameer to the Sultan, dated January 19, 1878.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Copy of the letter from the late Ameer of Afghanistan to the Sultan, dated 19th January 1878."—(The Lord Campbell.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, that when his noble and lamented Relative was about to retire he particularly disliked the tune of "The Camp bells are coming;" and it having been said by the noble Lord, doubly a Peer, that he would have voted with the noble Head of his Clan as to Afghanistan, the noble Pair would have assailed the Government from opposite sides—for, while the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) attacked the Government because they would not extirpate the Turks, the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) attacked them with equal vigour because they would not preserve them. He (Lord Denman) thought that each of those noble Lords should recollect the words of Horace—
  "Est brevitate opus ut currat sententia, neu se Impediat verbis lassas
  Onerantibus aures."
  He congratulated those noble Lords who, unlike himself, had heard the whole of the noble Lord's speech.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It is impossible, my Lords, not to feel that, from his point of view, the noble Lord who brought forward the subject has a strong case against the Government. During the last few years he has not, in my opinion, been sufficiently alive to the evils of misgovernment by the Turkish Empire, or to the claims of its Christian subjects upon our sympathies; and he has not seen as clearly as I fancy I do the advantages of acting in concert with Europe, and the disadvantages of isolated action on our part in this Eastern Question. But he concentrated his view upon the necessity of checking Russia in different parts of the world, and of supporting, with a view to our interests,
  988
  the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire. He, therefore, with perfect consistency, applauded all the declarations and promises made by Her Majesty's Government in agreement with his own principles, and with equal consistency he now deplores how completely the performance of the Government has failed to keep pace with their professions. When the noble Lord's Notice first stood on the Minutes it was not my intention to take part in the debate, and the noble Lord was aware of the fact. But I will now ask leave to say a few words on the question which he has raised, and on other matters incidental to that question. One of the circumstances to which I wish to allude is that the present Parliament, already unduly prolonged, is now about to be suddenly closed. A Cabinet Minister, a few days before the opening of Parliament, had announced to us, as an agreeable surprise, that this, the last Session of the present Parliament, was to be a Session of real work. Her Majesty's Government in the Queen's Gracious Speech announced certain measures, and promised others of equal importance. In the House of Commons Her Majesty's Government obtained the concurrence of the Opposition and the ready assent of the House to certain Resolutions which they thought it desirable to adopt in order to facilitate the legislative Business in the other House. Excepting for the disturbance raised by a Bill the object of which is excellent, but which, for want of common care as to its provisions, is universally condemned and may be fatal to the reform so much required, there is hardly a ripple on the stream of Parliamentary work. In the midst of this calm the stormy petrels appeared. The noble Earl, in a few words and with no reasons, announced, the Dissolution of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a similar announcement in "another place;" but some reasons were given, but still reasons which appeared to me not in the slightest degree to justify the Dissolution of Parliament, or at least which would not have equally justified it last autumn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was in order to pass the Irish Relief Bills; but if the Dissolution had come in the autumn Parliament would have met at the usual time, and the Irish Bills would have been

  989
  passed as soon as they have been now. There is no possible reason why, if it is right to dissolve Parliament now, it was not right to do so at a time which would not have interfered with the annual Parliamentary Business of the country. But, my Lords, be this as it may, so far from crying over spilt milk, I am rejoiced at the announcement that the present unsatisfactory state of things is drawing to an end, and that an appeal is to be made to the sense—I hope the good sense—of the people of this country. My Lords, on the next day, last Tuesday, there appeared a letter from the First Lord of the Treasury to the Viceroy of Ireland. I will not describe that letter, as it has been described this evening in the land debate, as an electioneering squib; but its form is a little unusual. I do not, however, complain of that. One hook is nearly as good as another upon which to hang a declaration of principles. My complaint is of another kind. It relates to the absence from that declaration of any principles of a tangible character. Literary critics have fallen foul of the language and the grammar; but I have no pretence to be a literary critic. My only object, if I write or speak, is to convey my meaning as clearly as I can to others. I am not convinced by the united authority of Prince Talleyrand, Dr. South, and Cardinal de Retz, that language was given to man to conceal his thoughts. And if I find that a singularly brilliant writer, a great master of English, puts together words which are understood neither by friends or opponents, I conclude that it is not that he cannot, but that he does not, wish to explain his meaning. A first-rate judge, speaking of this Manifesto, said—
  "You must not look at this design as if it were a picture intended to be hung on the eye line. It is a bit of stage painting, intended to be looked at from an immense distance and to produce a general effect, utterly irrespective of correct drawing or accurate details."
  Now, my Lords, what is the general effect intended? It appears to me that it is something of this sort—that the Government mean for the future to soar above the details of home reforms and social progress; that, with regard to Ireland, they not only desire to excite a firm desire to keep united the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but that they think
  990
  it convenient for election purposes to excite the popular feeling against that country, and to convey an impression that the Oppositon are indifferent to the union of the two Islands; that the same difference of opinion exists between themselves and ourselves as to our relations with India and with the Colonies, and that as to the influence of England in Europe, this is the exclusive monopoly of the present Government, which has been used in the past, and which will be used in the future, with a splendid success perfectly unattainable by any other Party in the State. As this is the first opportunity of touching upon the remarkable Manifesto of the noble Earl, it is tempting to touch upon the home policy—or rather, the no-home-policy—of Her Majesty's Government. It is especially tempting to say something upon the attempt, and the utter failure, to fix upon the Opposition any desire for the separation of Ireland from Great Britain. But I will refrain.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE: Hear, hear!
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am glad to hear that cheer from the noble Earl; and I repeat, that I resist the temptation to speak on those subjects.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I thought the Motion related to the Eastern Question?
  EARL GRANVILLE: To that I am coming. Now, my Lords, with regard to foreign affairs, the first thing that strikes one is the singular declaration that Her Majesty's Government have maintained peace. Where have they maintained peace? In Europe? No. In Africa? No. In Asia? No. They have not maintained it even in South America; but with that they have had little to do. In Europe there has been a war, a war which, as was believed by us at the time, might have been prevented by a policy of united pressure by the whole of Europe to compel the carrying out of the Treaty promises—a war which the Prime Minister once told us could have been prevented if his strong Government had done that which they did not do. But that a long and bloody war took place, and that at an enormous cost of human life and suffering, is a matter of fact, which seems perfectly inconsistent with the repeated boast that Her Majesty's Government secured the peace

  991
  of Europe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is much more cautious in his address. He says that, although we could not prevent war, we stopped its extension to other countries. But I want to know who were the other countries who wanted to fight and were prevented by Her Majety's Government from doing so? That is a point on which I am ignorant. It is quite true we did not go to war ourselves. I am very glad, indeed, we did not. We avoided that war by conceding nearly every position which the Government, unfortunately, announced, two years ago, would be injurious if abandoned. The noble Earl, in his letter to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, talks not only of the influence, but of the ascendancy, of this country over the Councils of Europe. Where is this ascendancy shown? At Constantinople? With the Slavs? With the Greeks? Is it over France and Egypt? Is it in Vienna and Berlin? When Lord Salisbury announced at Manchester, with exceeding glory, the tidings of an understanding between Austria and Germany, he informed the astonished Manchester people at the, same time that he had no information of what that understanding was. This appears to me very like the ascendancy of the Premier. Though there has been ascendancy, the noble Earl says it is now arrested. It would be interesting to know whether it has only been arrested during the last month, week, or ten days, or much earlier, and what is the nature of its influence? Influence is a good thing, and ascendancy is a better, if really exercised to defend ourselves from injury, and to promote peace, justice, and liberty among others. But can anything be less statesmanlike, less judicious, more certain to destroy our just influence, than to make these idle and public boasts of ascendancy? The noble Earl's ability, his courage, his experience, must give him great influence in his Cabinet. Would it increase his influence to boast in public of his ascendancy over those of whom he is the admitted Chief? Does he, then, think that to flaunt his boast in the face of the rival countries of Europe, jealous of their own position, and, unfortunately, submitting to the burdens of millions of men to maintain it, is a plan to strengthen the influence of England in the slightest degree? I cannot conceive
  992
  such a thought being not considered either offensive or ridiculous by some of those great military Powers, unless they looked upon it as being a matter of merely insular concern, arguing that, as long as England consented to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them, they would not mind such election periods as those in this letter. But still more serious questions remain. The noble Earl, in his letter, most distinctly intimates that we are in the most critical period of foreign affairs, and he further says that it is only by the Government of England—with him and his Colleagues in the management of affairs—that that critical state of affairs can be dealt with. And it is at this critical time that he slightly diminishes not only the Army, but the Navy Estimates. But the extraordinary thing is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely ignorant of this critical state of things. In his address he tells us that we are nearly at the end of our European troubles, and proposes to devote himself to questions of a homely character. It is a serious matter that Parliament and the country should be kept so much out of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government as to foreign affairs; but it really becomes a most grave question if the leading Members of the Cabinet are equally deprived of that information. Pessimism in politics is not good. Optimism, within certain limits, is of great advantage. It encourages self-confidence, and the confidence of others. It is a quality the possession of which I do not deny to the present Government. They take, as is natural to high-spirited men, a very favourable view of all that they do, and are not reticent in communicating that opinion to others. It is a most singular circumstance that the South African War, which the Government claimed the merit of endeavouring to prevent, they now speak of as having led to the most happy results. In India we had a North-West Frontier, which the great majority of Anglo-Indian civilians and soldiers thought excellent. It had the great advantage of the mountainous Kingdom of Afghanistan, consolidated under Dost Mahomed and Shere Ali, as a buffer between ourselves and Russia, and with this advantage—that Afghanistan was not conterminous with Russia, or even with India, being separated by tracts of country occupied by inde-

  993
  pendent Tribes, easily kept in order by a few Native regiments. All this has been changed. Her Majesty's Government are delighted to have got the gates of India, being, I suppose, those narrow passages mentioned in the Gundamuck Treaty. But we do not know whether any further gates are required for Cabul, Herat, the Hindoo Koosh, and other places. All we know is, that in one of the gates already possessed the key is rusting in the keyhole; we have had 7,000 or 8,000 troops shut up there during the whole of last autumn. Lord Lawrence, Lord Northbrook, and others, equally entitled to speak with authority on this subject, have pointed out that the whole difficulty of our position in Afghanistan was, that while nothing was easier than to get there, it was quite another thing to get out. But, moreover, I find an extract of the Viceroy in Council, dated July 7th, last year. He there said—
  "We had serious cause to appprehend that, if we temporarily occupied Cabul, we might, by thus precipitating the downfall of Shere All, irretrievably shake to pieces all the independent materials of government in Afghanistan, bequeathing to Shere Ali's successor no stable basis of authority, and placing ourselves in a position from which we could not afterwards retire without surrendering to anarchy and civil conflict a State which it was our object to strengthen and consolidate in the manner most conducive to peaceable and friendly relations."
  This is the state in which we find ourselves now. And yet all the language of the Ministers is rose-coloured on the subject. Some promise immediate tranquillity and prosperity to Afghanistan; and the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) actually worked himself up to tell us the other day that it was a question whether Afghanistan broken up was not better than the "strong and independent" Afghanistan which the Government, like all their Predecessors, considered essential to our interests. With regard to Turkey, the noble Earl has been the greatest optimist of all. I have not heard any opinion from him of late; but he was the last to declare his unchanged belief in the independence and vitality of the Turkish Empire. I have admired the cheery tone with which, at annual civic feasts, he has announced the eternal character of his Administration. But a change has at last arisen. In his letter to the Viceroy, he acknowledges that even his Cabinet is human, and
  994
  may finally be disposed of by the process of popular election. I am not going to make any rash prophecies as to the result of the coming Election. All I can say is that I have not the slightest doubt the result of that Election will be disadvantageous to Her Majesty's Government. But, supposing they return with the same majority, or even a diminished majority, I feel it is a serious consideration how perfectly uncontrolled they will be in directing the foreign affairs of this country. I believe them to be honourable men, striving, according to their views, to act for the advantage of the country. But I dissent from their views. I dissent from their way of dealing with our foreign policy, and complain of their not achieving the results which they profess to have achieved. But what I more especially complain of is, that they do not let the country take a share in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which I believe is the right and claim of every free country at the present day. If, on the contrary, we are successful at the Election, I can only feel that whatever Government may be in power, that Government will be most anxious to maintain the unity of this Empire, to support the dignity and honour of the Crown, and to protect this country from injury and insult from whatever quarter it may come.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: There is very great difficulty in following the speeches of the noble Lord who introduced this Motion. His style of rhetoric is very peculiar. It is framed upon a series of assumptions and, as we all willingly acknowledge, his acquaintance with the countries of which he speaks; and he has made himself, much to his honour and credit, master of the diplomatic details of the last few years; this combination gives a plausibility to his assumptions, for which there is really not the slightest foundation. His arguments are sound enough, if the assumptions could only be proved. The arguments and deductions of the noble Lord are always illustrated by a certain degree of local colouring, which of course, recommends them to the consideration of the House, who feel that they are addressed by an individual who, with personal experience, combines study of the subject, and that they are listening to a noble Lord eminently qualified to address them on such topics.

  995
  The noble Lord says—"You had a great opportunity in 1876, and you lost it." What was the opportunity? The noble Lord never told us. Throughout his speech, which was not a short one, he dwelt upon the opportunity which was lost; but he never told us what the opportunity was. "Then," said the noble Lord, "after 1876 you had another opportunity." Here, I must say, he did condescend to give us some details for our guidance. "You ought," he said, "to have sent an Embassy to St. Petersburgh and not to Constantinople; everything would then have been settled to the satisfaction of Europe." But here, again, is an assumption of the noble Lord. I suppose that we who are responsible for the conduct of public affairs, or any Gentlemen in our situation, would not have carried them on without some communication with St. Petersburgh. The noble Lord assumes that during the two years that elapsed before the war commenced not the slightest communication had taken place between St. Petersburgh and the Court of St. James's. Then the noble Lord says—"I make a summary of these six years, and that summary is this—You have deprived Turkey of all present authority on the Bosphorus, and you have impaired her to an extent which must inevitably lead to her entirely losing her position there." Well, that is the opinion of the noble Lord; but it is not the general opinion. It is not the opinion of persons—of statesmen, I will say—in several countries upon that subject. They have differed upon points in the settlement of Europe, and compromises necessarily have been made, and arrangements have been agreed to, without which no ultimate consent or decision could have been arrived at; but, if there was one point on which all were agreed, it was that command should be given to Turkey over the Bosphorus, and arrangements should be made with reference to that position which would render it most probable—unless there was a total want of energy and power—that Constantinople would remain in the hands either of the Sultan or of some Power whose position there would not menace the independence of Europe. Now, I say, in answer to the noble Lord at once, that I entirely deny his summary; and if the consequence of his studies has only been that he should call upon the House to
  996
  listen to a speech of an hour and a quarter in order to vindicate what he calls the summary of his convictions and researches, then I say one weaker, less founded, less true, less trustworthy was never brought before the consideration of your Lordships' House. Then there is another peculiarity about the oratory of the noble Lord. The noble Lord will not be offended by my noticing it, since he is the founder of a school, although that school does not yet exist. The noble Lord has given us so many specimens of this kind of diplomatic rhetoric during this Session, that I think it is necessary that some justice should be done to its peculiarities and its beauties. The noble Lord goes on arguing—forgetting, and thinking the House will also forget—that there is one great distinction between the noble Lord and all on this side of the House, and, I believe, with a sole exception, with all noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord is a man of war. He says—"You should have done this, you lost a great opportunity; you should have done that;" but all the things we ought to have done would have been acts of war; and our duty, as an English Ministry, was to save the country from being involved in war, and, if possible, to prevent war in any part of Europe. The noble Lord, of course, disapproves of the manner in which we managed affairs, because the noble Lord and ourselves were driving at an end perfectly different and contrary to each other. The noble Lord, from beginning to end, has only one idea for the settlement of the Eastern Question. It is from the beginning war, and in the middle war, and in the end war. The object of Her Majesty's Ministers, as I doubt not it would have been the object of our rivals, if they had sat on these benches, was to save this country from war, and, if possible, other countries also. Well, this great speech this evening, which has led to so much instructive and unexpected oratory, is founded on a Motion which ought not to be forgotten. This speech is made because the noble Lord is in possession of a letter from Shere Ali to the Sultan, stirring up the Sultan to make war against England, and to enter into an alliance with that Power which, of all Powers, is the one he should most avoid allying himself to; it descants on the great advantages of his alliance with Russia. The noble

  997
  Lord's Motion is that, on the part of the Government, we should produce this letter. We have no official knowledge of it; we have it only in the form in which the noble Lord has it, through its having been printed in the newspapers. The letter in question is, without doubt, a forgery, and the noble Lord has made it the foundation of a great debate in your Lordships' House, which has elicited some important revelations from the noble Earl opposite with reference to the politics and position of his Party. He has made them on a letter which is apocryphal and spurious. Now, the history of this letter of Shere Ali, your Lordships may rely upon it, is something in this way—It appeared in a Turkish paper, and was communicated to that paper by a European. When it appeared in the Turkish newspaper, it was, of course, copied into other papers, and a considerable controversy was occasioned by it. A communication was, in consequence, made to the Turkish Government, and the authenticity of the letter was immediately denied. The Sultan himself personally declared that it was perfectly apocryphral; and, therefore, no copy came into our possession, nor did we hear anything further about it. I must say this—that the Russian newspapers—at least, some of them, though copying the letter, treated it in a spirit of very judicious criticism. The Golos of the 15th of July said—
  "This correspondence, which is undoubtedly false, has made a strong impression upon the Mahomedan population in India. It was reprinted in all the leading Indian newspapers, and gave rise to endless rumours in all the bazaars."
  I think if your Lordships were to read the letter—and probably you did read it some time ago—you would see immediately that it was written by a European. It is too epigrammatic for an Oriental; and the whole tone is evidently that of some experienced journalist, who used a small Turkish newspaper which no longer exists, published at Constantinople, and distinguished for its hostility to England. This letter, disclaimed by the Sultan, and by him personally denounced as utterly apocryphal, is the foundation for the debate of to-night. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has taken fair advantage of this discussion to make some amiable remarks on the state of public affairs; and the noble
  998
  Earl has taken the letter which I addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as his chief text. I think he ought to have assisted the noble Lord who produced the Oriental letter, and have made a speech which would have been more germane to the matter in hand. I do not collect from the noble Earl that his objections are of a very substantial or serious character. The first objection is, that we have advised Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. I can conceive some familiar friend complaining that we had advised Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament; but I am surprised that the noble Earl, the head of a powerful Party, who for the last six months have been denouncing Her Majesty's Government because they did not dissolve Parliament—and some of whom have used language of the strongest invective against us, and who have laboured to impress upon the nation that it was nothing but our fear of the indignation of our fellow-citizens that prevented us from doing so—I say I am surprised that the noble Earl should have found that fault with us. I will make great admissions to the noble Earl. I will admit that there is hardly a higher function to exercise, or a more responsible duty to fulfil, than to advise your Sovereign to dissolve Parliament in any circumstances, except when the absolute lapse of time renders it the duty of a Ministry to do so. I look upon it as an act which involves the highest responsibility on the part of the Ministry who advise it; and if I did not feel certain that the noble Earl opposite and many of his Friends, whose great station in the country and whose distinguished talents we all acknowledge and honour, were merely speaking in a spirit of mockery, I should be alarmed when I read, as I do read, that some of these distinguished persons have absolutely insinuated that Parliament has been dissolved because there was some Water Bill in the House of Commons. If I believed that the}' sincerely entertained that view, I should feel that there was great danger for the country. But, as I know they are men well experienced in public affairs, and have well weighed the responsibility of the Ministerial conduct in making such advice as the Dissolution of Parliament to the Sovereign, I pass that over, and I am quite convinced that the noble Earl will allow me to notice his remarks on the

  999
  broad ground upon which they ought to be noticed. To advise a Dissolution is an act which involves great responsibility; and we have considered it in all its bearings. Nothing but a sense of duty—of overwhelmingduty—induced us to take that step; and no other justification of our act, I should think, was necessary, especially as we are now appealing to our country. The noble Earl touched, I think, upon some domestic subjects which I ought to have noticed; but as the debate is on foreign affairs, I may, perhaps, be excused from referring to them.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I referred to Ireland.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I have already troubled your Lordships to-night with remarks upon Ireland, and I will not touch upon that subject again. I will rather come to that point in the noble Earl's speech in which he questioned my right to describe what my views were as to the position of this and other nations—as to the relations existing between this and other countries—and the degree of danger or security that might arise from them. He questioned my right, and I must assert that right in a manner which cannot be mistaken. I do not understand what the noble Earl means by perpetually impressing us with the necessity of publishing to the nation every single thing connected with our foreign affairs, as if we were to take every opportunity of shuffling off the responsibility which it is our duty as Ministers to encounter and to sincerely feel. My Lords, there is not an expression in the letter to which so much reference has been made which was not well weighed and sincerely felt. I believe the state of affairs is critical; and when I look at the condition of Europe; when I observe those mighty hosts in battle array; when I find increased armaments proposed, recommended, and agreed to with facility—if there were no other causes, these alone would make me impress upon my countrymen that this is not a time when vigilance can be neglected, and when resolution can be
  "Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."
  The noble Lord followed up those remarks. The noble Lord seemed to complain very much of my using the word "ascendency," and talked of my "boasting of the ascendency which Her Majesty's
  1000
  Government now possesses in Europe." I said nothing of the kind. I laid it down, as I do lay it down here sincerely, that England ought to possess an influence, not to say an ascendency, in the Councils of Europe. I laid that down; but I did not say that we possess an ascendency. I said that the principle I have just enunciated should form the basis of a policy which a wise Minister would pursue, and which he ought to endeavour to attain. There are causes why England does not possess that degree of influence and ascendency in the Councils of Europe which I should desire her to possess. These causes are the conduct, not of the noble Earl, who has always conducted himself as a statesman should; but the conduct of those deeply connected in public life with the noble Earl, who have held language which has impressed the Courts of Europe, and the nations of Europe, with the idea that there is a want of sympathy between the existing Government and their countrymen; and that if one of those trials should occur which demand the utmost development of national energy, and the utmost display of national spirit, the Government would appeal to their countrymen in vain. My Lords, there is a great difference between the word "ascendency" and the word "supremacy." The word ascendency is one which involves important moral attributes, and is not a word of offence, but one which will always be accepted in a liberal and generous spirit. I maintain that the policy of England should be directed at preserving her ascendency. I maintain that unless we take our place in the Councils of Europe in a becoming manner, the peace of the world will be endangered. I maintain that the best security for possessing general peace lies in increasing and upholding the influence of this country. Why, the two systems have been tried! The opposite system has been tried by the Ministry of which the noble Earl was one of the ablest Members, and what was the result? If we have had to encounter troubles, if we have had to meet great difficulties, if we have found affairs in Asia and in Europe complicated and confused, why, they were the consequence, I will say, of the policy of those who preceded us. That policy we have not followed. Our policy we have fairly put before the country, and its verdict will

  1001
  soon be given. If it is our fortune to remain upon these benches, the policy we ourselves have pursued will be pursued again; but if the noble Earl and his Friends are destined to occupy our positions, I promise the noble Earl that if the honour and the interest of England are ever concerned when he is Minister, his Government will be supported by the Tory Party.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had made an accusation against the late Government which he did not remember to have heard made before—namely, that they left the relations of this country with foreign Powers in such a condition that the difficulties and dangers surrounding the present Government were largely caused by their conduct. Unless his memory deceived him, he had heard the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) the Foreign Minister serving under the noble Earl opposite, declare that when he succeeded to power the opinions of this country had never been received with more respect. What, then, became of the extraordinary statement which the noble Earl had had the audacity to make? Could anyone who was not to be led away by magniloquent phrases believe that the state of Europe, when the present Government acceded to Office, could have been brought about by the conduct of the late Government? Why, it was notorious that the condition of Europe had been largely brought about by the great war between Germany and France, which upset all the previous relations of the Continent, and from which dated the disturbance which had continued up to the present time. Since the disturbance caused by that war, peace had always been more or less insecure. He quite agreed with the noble Earl in what he had said about the critical state of Europe. He agreed with him that ever since that disturbance there had been much more danger of war than before. The noble Earl's letter was as inconsistent with that statement of his own Foreign Secretary as the speech which he had just made was inconsistent with the letter. He said in that letter that the Government had, up till then, been able to secure the peace of Europe; and further on he said, that the peace of Europe rested upon the influence, not to say the ascendency, of this country in the Councils of Europe. The noble Earl now said
  1002
  that, owing to circumstances which were to be deplored, this country had not all the influence that it ought to have. Then, what became of the argument of the noble Earl that the peace of Europe rested on England having a dominant influence in the Councils of Europe? The noble Earl knew that England had not now, and had not for many years had, any such dominant influence in Europe; and it was not to our interest that this country should endeavour to obtain dominant influence in the Councils of Europe. He (the Earl of Kimberley) hoped this country would always have a just influence in Europe; but as regarded ascendency, he believed that to be a chimera; and if it was not a chimera, it could only be bought by an expenditure of blood and treasure which this country could not lightly undertake. What the Liberal Party asserted was, that Her Majesty's Government had not secured the results which they ought to have secured. They said the result of the action of Her Majesty's Government was to leave Turkey dismembered; that, far from insuring peace, they adopted a course which must lead to war; that if they had interfered at a timely moment, they might have averted war. It was always comparatively easy to excite the passions of a high-minded people such as the people of England by appealing to national honour and national interests; but he ventured to think that such a proceeding was scarcely worthy of statesmen who were responsible for the government of the country. It was a far nobler duty to moderate these passions, which were generally not the highest which actuated mankind.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that the noble Earl who had just sat down had included among his observations the remark that he was not aware whether he spoke the views of anyone else on his own side of the House. In saying that, he had expressed the difference which existed between a Liberal and a Conservative Government. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had not been exactly represented when he was credited with saying that our relations with foreign Powers were in the slightest degree wanting in the due respect which one nation owed to another; but when the time had come for the voice of England to speak in Europe, the present Government had found that

  1003
  we could not speak with due effect. The reason of this was that there existed on the Continent—and the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) knew very well that this had been alleged by some of the most prominent men on the Continent—a belief that England did not intend to take any real part in the affairs of Europe. When the Government had been called upon to give their adhesion to the Berlin Memorandum, the noble Earl (Earl Granville), with that English sense which he could not divest himself of, had felt with the Government that they were right in declining to accede to it. Then had come the great agitation conducted in this country by a man of the greatest possible ability, in which again the inference was held out to Europe that England was not at one, and that her foreign policy was not to be depended upon. The noble Earl had spoken about exciting the passions of Englishmen on the subject of their relations with foreign countries; there was, however, an opposite change—namely, to excite those passions in another direction, by an appeal to their humanity, and by an exaggeration of events which were most lamentable in themselves, but which received even an undue importance from that exaggeration. The noble Earl told their Lordships he did not like the electioneering remarks of his (Viscount Cranbrook's) noble Friend in that House. He (Viscount Cranbrook) ventured to say, with great respect to the noble Earl opposite who led the Liberal Party with so much effect, he could not conceive for what object he made the speech he made to-night, except as a Manifesto on the part of the Liberal Party. If the noble Raid had spoken on behalf of the whole of the Liberal Party, no doubt, his Manifesto would have been received as a valuable representative utterance; but he did not, as a matter of fact, speak for the whole Party. The Party was broken up into shreds, and its voice was disunited to a degree which must make it weak in the Councils of Europe. The Conservatives, on the other hand, had spoken with one voice, and unequivocally, and they had taken that position throughout, which they would continue to adopt if they were left upon those Benches. They spoke still with that unanimity with which the Conservative Party had throughout spoken on this question. Great objec-
  1004
  tion had been made to the word "ascendency." There was the ascendency of violence, and the ascendency of moral power. England had a power of her own. It might be that she had not the great armaments which existed on the Continent; but she could, as was well known, make her power felt in every direction. There was no State in Europe which, if England were really in earnest, would not value an alliance with her, and feel the importance of every word she spoke. He himself would certainly never have anticipated taking part in the discussion of that evening; but they had been invited to this electioneering contest, and, as he was now debarred from taking any part in it outside, he must thank the noble Earl for enabling him to say in that place that the Party he (Viscount Cranbrook) represented had the honour and interests of England at heart, and were prepared to maintain them in a way in which the noble Earl's Party could not, because it was divided against itself, and was therefore, one of those Parties that could not stand.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONventured to say that the sentiments which were expressed by his noble Friend at the conclusion of his speech were sentiments that were shared by the Liberal Party. The noble Viscount who had just sat down admitted that when Her Majesty's Government came into Office they were not acquainted with that great want of influence in the Councils of Europe from which England had suffered during the time they were in Office. He had the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) that at the time when the present Government entered on Office, our relations with all foreign countries were on a satisfactory and honourable footing. As to the occurrences in Bulgaria, it had always been the custom of Her Majesty's Government and their supporters in the country to assert that the strong feelings which those occurrences aroused in this country were the result of Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet; but the fact was that the Earl of Derby's despatch, denouncing those outrages in the strongest terms, was written before that pamphlet. There was no doubt that Her Majesty's Government was suffering from a want of influence in many parts of the Continent and in many foreign countries. He would instance Turkey. The po-

  1005
  licy of Her Majesty's Government had been a policy intended, in the main, to be friendly to Turkey. They had heard much of the integrity and independence of Turkey. Bat now the state of things was such—the influence of this country had fallen so low—that Ministers in that country, whose removal had been demanded, were not removed, but promoted and even decorated. Reforms had been promised in Asia Minor; but, after an interval of 21 months, they had not even been begun. The obligations undertaken by the Anglo-Turkish Convention had never been fulfilled. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, in a letter which had been much alluded to in the course of the evening, described the present state of Europe as being very critical. That phrase had been repeated that evening. From that their Lordships were desired to understand that unless power was again placed in the hands of Her Majesty's present Government, there would arise a general war in Europe, and that the peace of the world would be disturbed. It was, however, a curious fact, if the state of the world was so critical and dangerous, that Her Majesty's Government in the present year should have proposed no inconsiderable reduction in the Army and Navy Estimates. That course was certainly unjustifiable if taken in connection with the statements which had been made in their Lordships' House. Nothing could be more dangerous than a blustering policy unsupported by force. If Her Majesty's Government believed that the condition of the world was alarming, they were bound not to reduce armaments, but largely to increase them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he rose to reply to some remarks of the noble Marquess who had just sat down, and that he did not purpose to go into the question of Asiatic reforms. That question could only be discussed properly on a full and calm review of all the Papers bearing on it. The noble Marquess had stated that when Her Majesty's Government came into Office they found the relations of the country with foreign Powers satisfactory. It was not, however, till years afterwards that the time arrived when Her Majesty's Government found it necessary to make the voice of England heard. It was then that they found that, both by the traditions of the Government which had gone
  1006
  before and from the language which had been held from time to time by Members of that Government, the influence of this country was becoming weakened. The noble Marquess had said that the noble Earl the Prime Minister had stated that Her Majesty's Government were suffering from a want of influence on the Continent. But he wished to be allowed to state to their Lordships what was really the fact. What his noble Friend meant was perfectly plain and distinct; and it was this—that at the Dissolution of Parliament in this country, when those who were interested in politics were stating in their Addresses and speeches that the opinion of the country disapproved of the policy of the Government, that that was a course which tended to impair the influence of England. In that sense, and in that sense alone, his noble Friend had spoken of the arrest of the influence of this country on the affairs of Europe.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had stated that Her Majesty's present Government had found the influence of this country weakened abroad by the proceedings of their Predecessors. That was diametrically opposite to what had been stated by his Colleague, the former Foreign Secretary; who said, not merely in the formal manner usual in Queen's Speeches, that they found the relations of this country with Foreign Powers satisfactory, but that there never was a time at which the influence of this country stood higher. It seemed, however, that Her Majesty's present Government had in view some line of policy in which they found themselves thwarted, either by the effect of the previous policy, or of the active opposition, of their Predecessors. He should like to know exactly what that line of policy was. Was it simply war for Turkey against the liberties of her subject-races? Now, the one happy result of that miserable war was that the rights of those suffering races were established; and he, for one, rejoiced that what had taken place would prevent those races from being further down-trodden as they had been in former times. When the Bulgarian atrocities occurred, and a thrill of horror ran through the country, his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), who was then the Foreign Secretary, fully shared those sentiments. If, then, it were meant that Her Majesty's Go-

  1007
  vernment were less moved by those sentiments of humanity and compassion and had a policy opposed to the liberation of those subject-races, he, for one, rejoiced and counted it a most happy thing that they had not been able to carry out that course of policy.
  EARL GRANVILLEcalled attention to the fact that a few days after the present Government was formed, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in his place, mentioned that he heard various reports about the waning influence of England. He found that was not the case, for at no time was the advice of this country more sought for or more effectual than at that time.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, as the authenticity of the letter had been disputed, it was open to him to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  RAMMINGEN'S NATURALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to naturalize Alphons Freiherr Von Pawel Rammingen (in the Empire of Germany styled Baron de Pawel Rammingen) and to grant and confer on him all the rights, privileges, and capacities of a natural-born subject of Her Majesty the Queen—Was presented (on petition); read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.