said: Sir, I have to move that the Bill be read a Third Time this day three months, and as this Bill has been resisted by some, on peculiar grounds, I am desirous to state clearly and candidly the exact reasons which influence me in giving to it a decided but a constitutional opposition. It is presented for our adoption in this way—"Here is a State," it is said, "with which it is important we should have diplomatic intercourse; that such intercourse has been carried on in an underhand manner hitherto; it should be open and avowed. The law which regulates it has been doubtful, and should be made clear, in conformity with usage and reason." And then it is stated that this is opposed by stale and bigoted prejudices, which are at variance with the spirit of the times in which we live. In the first place, I answer, no case has been stated requiring any legislation to facilitate our intervention in the affairs of Italy. I have the high authority of the noble Lord the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that, in reference to such a purpose, this measure would be not merely useless, but objectionable; and after what has taken place in this House, I cannot for a moment doubt that it is not for the sake of Italy this Bill is now forced upon us by the mere power of Government. It is abundantly evident that the real object is to facilitate a policy which proposes to make use of an influence which may seriously affect the character of the constitution, the lawful supremacy of the Sovereign, and the allegiance of the people. On this principle, I have throughout consistently opposed this Bill. I abstained from any interference in Committee, except so far as I supported by my vote the Amendments of the hon. Member for Lambeth, regarding them merely as tests of the real motives of the Minister; and on mature consideration of the statements made, the statements suppressed, and the votes which have been given, I am bound to say, in the language of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, "We are legislating under false pretences." So far, then, as the affairs of Italy or the character of England required legislation, I think I have disposed of the case of the promoters of this Bill; and I would say this—that however unconstitutional such a measure would be if the real purpose were expressly avowed upon the face of the Bill—however plainly it would thon violate those great principles which are coeval with the constitution—solemnised by the Reformation—and sealed by the Act of Settlement; tenfold, truly, is the objection increased, when, under pretence of open legislation, the purpose is concealed under language which is to be exceeded, and which may afford more convenient shelter for a Papal diplomacy, such as never has been attempted with impunity by any former Government in this country. To put a true value upon this Bill at the present period, it is necessary shortly to refer to its history. It grew out of the mission of the Lord Privy Seal. He was accredited to all the Italian States, except the Papal; it was supposed that he could not be accredited there by reason of the law of this country—to remove such an obstacle was the object this Bill first avowed. Let me here observe, that whatever impediments obstruct the desired intercourse, they originate with Rome, and not with England. The claim of the Pope to ecclesiastical supremacy conflicts with the common law of this country, of which the supremacy of our Monarch is a part: it conflicts with the Reformed religion, which regards this claim as a usurpation of Divine sovereignty; and in both respects it conflicts with the foundation of the Throne as it is fixed by the Act of Settlement. Before the Reformation it was allowable to negotiate with the Pope, but merely as a temporal prince. The limitation shows the rule of the constitution. The practical difficulty of separating the spiritual and temporal authority seems even then to have been felt; it is solved rather by casuistry than by common sense; it is increased of course by the Reformation, and since the Revolution; and so long as this claim is persevered in by the Pope, it is not possible for us, consistently with the very essence of our constitution, to avoid the difficulty which is peculiar to the question of Papal diplomacy. No doubt it was not unlawful to negotiate with the Pope, when he simply treated with us as a temporal prince; and before and since the Reformation the occasional intercourse seems to have been conducted on that principle. I entirely deny the assumption that it was underhand or unlawful, so long as it was confined in the manner which I have stated. It did not go beyond the particular emergency, nor did it violate the law; the manner of it showed a real deference to the principles of our constitution and the feelings of the people. But it is now proposed by this Bill to set up a standing system of diplomacy with the Court of Rome; it has no reference to any proper purpose, nor anything which shall forbid negotiation, unless where the Pope consents simply to appear as a temporal ruler. The principle of the law, as it exists, provides for that. The language of the present Bill disturbs and confuses that principle, and although it may not really increase the power of the Government in reference to diplomatic intercourse, it certainly affords greater facility for infringing the law, which never has been doubted—which forbids any recognition of the Papal authority beyond the limits of its Italian territory. What doubts is this Bill intended to remove? Is it as to intercourse with the Pope as a temporal ruler? That intercourse is not what is really sought; and what are called doubts, even in that case, are merely the difficulties which spring from the feelings of the people. Is it intercourse with the Pope, as claiming Divine sovereignty over the world, to ask his aid in governing the subjects of our Monarch's dominions? When and by whom has it been doubted that such intercourse is unlawful? Where is our oath against that supremacy, and why are we pledged to swear it? Because we affirm thereby the fundamental principle of the constitution; and, in the language of Sir M. Hale, by that recognition we unrivet Papal usurpation. The Roman Catholic swears that the Pope has no temporal power directly or indirectly in this realm; and though, on the principle of toleration, he is not compelled to deny the spiritual headship of the Pope over his Church, it is an influence which the constitution cannot further recognise; just as it must tolerate the Repealer or the Chartist, but could not stoop to share the sovereignty with the peculiar principles of either. I do not advert to any reasons that are not strictly constitutional: there are considerations of religious feeling, as powerful as they are pro- found—as sensitive as they are strong; but I am conscious that it would not be consistent with the fair exercise of my privilege, nor with a high sense of duty, to wound even the prejudice of any, when I contend here for a duo respect to the feelings of a large body of the people. In reference to Ireland, it is impossible to regard this measure without deep anxiety and apprehension. The noble Lord, who is about to visit my native country (Lord J. Russell)—the noble Lord may, perhaps, be reminded that the first conspirators against its liberties and its early Christian faith were England's Monarch and the Pope of Rome. He may trace the course of events until Sir John Davis tolls us, "that when the Irish had once resolved to obey the King, they made no scruple to renounce the Pope;" and he may yet conclude that it is consistent with the great principles of the English constitution, neither to allow united sovereignty nor divided allegiance. These are the grounds on which I have hitherto opposed the Bill, and on which I still continue to give it my opposition. Seeing that the purpose for which it was intended was not avowed, I think it better to meet the enemy in the first place, and declare that such a course is inconsistent with British legislation, and will, if not effectually stopped, prove detrimental to the best interests of the country.

said, he should not have ventured to address the House immediately after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, had he not known that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) was prepared to supply any deficiency in his reply to the legal arguments which had just been addressed to the House. He did not wish to say anything offensive to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; but it did appear to him that he had quibbled considerably upon the word "constitution." He believed that the English constitution did not in any way admit or recognise the Interference of the Papal authority with the ecclesiastical authority of this realm. But the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman would go to this, that every time the Roman Catholic hierarchy of this country manifested any submission to the Papal authority, they did something that was illegal and unconstitutional; nay, his arguments went so far as to justify and to render it logically necessary that all the violence and atrocities that had ever been inflicted upon the Roman Catholics of this country should be put into requisition again. He maintained that an Englishman was permitted, by the laws and constitution of this country, to submit his judgment in religious matters to whatever authority he chose. Protestants might regard that authority as false; they might condemn his submission as slavish; but still the right to do so unrestrictedly was undoubtedly his. And if the right was not impugned, why should the Protestant Members of that House say that it was an infringement of the fundamental laws and constitution of this country for the millions of Roman Catholics in this country to acknowledge the Pope as their supreme ecclesiastical authority? He could not recognise the law as laid down by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He maintained that the Roman Catholics of this country had, by this country's laws and constitution, as much right to enjoy their religious opinions as he had to enjoy his Protestant opinions. If public order was broken, the offenders would be punished, not for holding any particular religious opinions, but because they had disturbed the public peace. Even in the gloomiest times—shameful times, indeed, for Protestantism to look back to—when the Roman Catholic religion was persecuted in this country, the Roman Catholic was punished, not for holding such and such opinions, but because such and such opinions were regarded as likely to lead to the disturbance of the public peace. The Government had found it necessary to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; but it had been doubted whether such intercourse, in the present state of the law, would be legal. No less eminent a legal authority than Lord Lyndhurst, when he filled the office of Attorney General, declared to Mr. Canning, who was desirous of establishing such relations, that the law as it stood would not sanction any intercourse with Rome. He had heard that Lord Lyndhurst had since retracted that opinion; but it would not be decorous on the part of Her Majesty's Government on so important a question as this, to act without distinct legal sanction, and therefore it was that this Rill had been introduced. He believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) would find that there were many persons in this country who were opposed to all intercourse with Rome, political as well as reli- gious. Their opposition was inspired by fanaticism, and nothing else. He hardly thought it necessary to protest against the fanatic spirit by which the progress of this Bill was impeded at a time when his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Palmerston) had undertaken a great work of pacification—and he believed that England loved peace as much as she abhorred war—when he had taken the course of a great and virtuous Minister, it did appear to him (Mr. Milnes) that it was most unreasonable for any one in that House to say that he should be impeded in the accomplishment of that great work, because one of the means of accomplishing it—diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome—was distasteful to a certain portion of the people of this country. Was it to be said that his noble Friend might, for the purposes of peace, prevent the Austrian army from invading Piedmont, but he must not be allowed to prevent it entering the Roman States; that he might check the approach of the French to Vienna, but that he must not resist them at Ancona; that whilst his negotiations may take place in Northern and Southern Italy, there is an interval, a large portion of the middle of that great country, which English diplomacy is bound absolutely to ignore, and with which it is illegal to enter into diplomatic relations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that this measure might lead to an intercourse with the Pope in his spiritual capacity; but Her Majesty's Government had consented to a modifiation of the Bill, so as in that respect to meet the objections of its opponents in the House of Lords. He (Mr. Milnes), under such circumstances, could not consent to this system of continued opposition to the Bill. He denounced it as unjust to the feelings of the great majority of the Protestants throughout the country, whose feelings, he hoped it would be distinctly understood, were not represented by those who put themselves forward in that House as the great supporters of Protestant principles. He thought such restrictive laws as the present Bill was intended to remove, were averse to the true principles of Protestantism, which was friendly to perfect toleration, and needed not such support. He thought an additional reason for the passing of this Bill was to be found in the present state of Ireland. The policy of this country there had been forced into a different channel from that which it formerly traversed. The Roman Catholics were dealt with on terms of equality, and their prelates treated by the Government with all the respect due to their dignified position. An Act of Parliament recounted the names of the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops, and the whole current of our policy and legislation of late years was utterly opposed to that interpretation of the principles of our constitution which hon. Gentlemen opposite would fain put upon it. He thought that if the Papal authority and the genuine power of the Roman Catholic religion were brought to bear upon Ireland, neither this country nor that would be the sufferer by it. It was impossible for them, looking out as they were for some hold on the unstable and excitable people of that country, trying experiments here and there to control and regulate them—to disregard altogether the Church of the majority of the people—it was impossible for them longer to say that the State could take no cognisance of the existence of that Church. It was said, that the Irish Catholic Church would be tampered with at Rome through our Ambassador; but that could be more efficiently done at present through unavowed agents. In a word, the Bill was demanded by the special circumstances of the time; and he trusted one of its effects would be the settlement of Italy—the suppression of war, and the restoration of tranquillity to that country. Peace was the dearest wish of every Englishman; and although the attempts of our Government to bring about peace might be frustrated, yet it would be a gratification to every man of right feeling to know that the British Government had left nothing untried to stop the effusion of blood and restore order.

denied, if there were secret intrigues carrying on at Rome by Ministers, to govern Ireland through the Irish Church, that that could justify the Bill before the House. But when Ministers had a recognised agent at Rome, such as this Bill went to appoint, the independence of the Irish Church would be most materially affected; for then the Irish prelates and clergy could hold no intercourse with the Holy See, unless through the medium of that agent, as such communication would still be interdicted by the third section of this Bill. Parliament had refused to pass the Catholic Relief Bill, which would have thrown open that intercourse to all; and now it proposed to restrict all communication with the centre of Catholic unity to the Protestant Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, the hon. Member for Pontefract was wrong in calling this a measure of religious toleration. The hon. Member was also wrong in stating that the ecclesiastical intercourse of England with Rome was first prohibited in consequence of the Papal bull for deposing Queen Elizabeth; as it was the fact that such intercourse was made illegal by the Act of Supremacy, which was passed antecedently, and which led to the issue of the bull in question. It was also a mistake to conclude from the fact of no resident Minister having been sent from this country to Rome, that the present law was opposed to it. The truth was, that before jealousies arose between the two Courts, diplomatic intercourse was not conducted as it is now. There were no resident Ministers of this country at any foreign Courts until within a very recent period; and the mode in which the intercourse with Rome was now carried on by this country, was strictly in accordance with the old practice. Whenever anything was wanted, a special Envoy went; sometimes it was Garter King at Arms; sometimes (as lately happened) a Lord Privy Seal. There was then no wasteful and mischievous expenditure on what was now called diplomatic establishments. And so far as Rome was concerned, the wise economy of our forefathers was not yet departed from. He, for one, wished that they might continue long to adhere to it in that instance, and to apply it to all. The Bill before the House was still open to all the objections he had formerly stated, nay, it was more open to them than ever; and therefore he should vote against it, even if he divided against all the House. It was offensive in its nature to the Court of Rome, and a stigma cast on the Papal prerogative by this country. It was more. It was a measure framed for the subjugation of the independent Church of Ireland to the arbitrary will of a corrupt Administration, and for giving into the hand of the Minister another potent engine for disturbing peace and destroying freedom all over the world. For these reasons he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.

had been an attentive listener to the debate, and watched with anxiety the progress of the Bill through every stage. He had maintained an entire silence up to this time, not from any indifference to the Bill, but because there seemed to be quite speakers enough without him—and because he thought he would best testify his regard for the precept of making short speeches by the example of making no speech at all. However, having now reached the last stage of the Bill, he would trespass for a short time on the attention of the House. He was the more anxious to do so, as he wished to explain why he had supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson). He had supported that Amendment, not because he thought it necessary to protect the subjects of the British Crown from any lurking danger in the Bill, but because he thought it would be a just concession to the feelings of a large number of the population of this country, and because it would remove every shadow of objection, and every scruple which the most sensitive could entertain upon the provisions of this Bill. It was quite immaterial to him whether this Bill was enacting or declaratory—whether the doubts which it was intended to remove were well founded or not—there was an ambiguity at all events which raised obstacles to that sort of communication with the Pope which he for one thought desirable. When he found the Bill finally adopted without a division in the House of Lords, of which the Prelates of England were the distinguished ornaments—when he found it sanctioned by the practical wisdom of the Duke of Wellington—when it removed ambiguities, was approved by such authorities, and amended by such wisdom, he did not consider it would be wise or fitting to reject it. The fact was, that a European Sovereign was placed in such a position as to render intercourse between him and this country desirable. If it were right to carry on that intercourse secretly, it was right to do it openly. Diplomatic relations were, after all, but an extension of social relations. There really was nothing dark or mysterious in the Bill, the language of which was plain and simple enough. It was somewhat surprising, notwithstanding, to see some hon. Gentlemen express such fears and forebodings of its influence. One hon. Gentleman was afraid it would make the Protestants Papists; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Youghal was afraid it would make all the Papists Protestants. [Mr. ANSTEY: I said nothing of the kind.] The hon. Gentleman had not, perhaps, said so in express words, but that was the object of a portion of his argument against the measure. He was old enough to remember that when Dissenters were admitted into a participation of civil rights with their fellow-subjects, some old Dissenters thought such a privilege would be injurious to their religious belief by the free intercourse which it would occasion. He desired to see diplomatic relations produce that very unity which he once heard thus described by a Dissenting minister—not the unity of opinion in the bond of ignorance, not the unity of profession in the bond of hypocrisy, but the unity of spirit in the bond of peace. They saw the Roman Catholic Church in this country under an aspect which no one deplored more than he did—he deplored the secession of many distinguished Englishmen to the Church of Rome; but he could not help this, and thought the position of that Church in this country, invested as she was with all the graces of adversity, more calculated to attract than repel high-spirited minds. On the other side of the Channel they saw the Catholic priesthood so circumstanced that no fair judgment could be formed of their character or motives. No one could doubt that they were placed in a situation of great difficulty—that they filled a post of the greatest responsibility, and needed the utmost forbearance. Adversity in this country brought forth the many excellent qualities of those excellent men who, he believed, for the most part adorned the Catholic faith. But then let them turn to countries in which that religion was triumphant; let them look at it in pride and power, as it was enthroned in Milan, or connected with the glories of art in Florence, or surrounded with the wonders of Christian and Pagan genius in Rome; and, although an Englishman might be impressed with a feeling of admiration or astonishment, he believed his convictions of the truth of his own faith would be strengthened, his gratitude would be the more devout, and his attachment the more sincere to that Church whose doctrines were plain and simple—which observed a happy medium between the baldness of Dissent, and the pomp and ceremony of Catholicism. Upon what principle could we refuse that sort of intercourse with the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church which we accorded to the Sultan and the Emperor of China? How did it come to pass that, whilst the Protestant countries of Holland and Prussia, and even Russia itself, entered into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, we alone stood out a solitary exception to the great Christian family—the only nation which would keep up this most un-Christian stumbling-block. He thought the step was a right step, and he would therefore take it. Some expressed fears that the step would lead to mischief; but every great change might be opposed on the same ground—the art of printing might have been opposed because it led to the dissemination of infidelity and disloyalty. He would not attempt to discern mischief in the dim distance of vision; it was enough for him to see that there was nothing wrong in the measure itself—that it was meant to remedy a great anomaly, to make that certain which was before doubtful, to render that open and honourable which was before dark and underhand. He would, therefore, give his humble but unhesitating support to the Bill, believing, as he did in his conscience, that there was really no danger to be apprehended from it—that they were removing an impediment, a phantasm of law or of reality, which prevented a free and honest communion of mind; and that, in fine, we were promoting peace and good fellowship between the inhabitants of Christian States.

thought the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman more poetical than argumentative, and could not agree in his sentiments. It was a difficult and a complicated question. From the best attention he had given to the subject, he could not get over the difficulties, and, therefore, he would be constrained to oppose it.

would be exceedingly succinct and brief in his statements, and would confine himself to the diplomatic part of the question. By the 103rd Article of the Congress of Vienna, the rights of the Holy See were defined and secured. England was a party to that treaty. The name of Clancarty—orthodox to this House—was attached to that treaty. It was laid before this House, and there was not a single remonstrance to the ratification of the treaty by which England became a consenting party to the securing of the rights of the See of Rome. Was it not, then, preposterous that England should secure to the Pope the enjoyment of a portion of his ecclesiastical dominions, and yet that she should deny diplomatic intercourse with the Power of which she was the virtual protector? He would pass then from 1815 to 1832. At the accession of Gregory XVI., reforms were demanded by the Roman people. They were refused by the Pope—the natural consequences ensued—revolt broke out in the legations. Austria seized Bologna, France occupied Ancona, and Europe was on the verge of a general war. What then happened? The Four Powers—Russia, Prussia, France, and Austria—concurred in a remarkable application to England. What was it? That England should send an ambassador to Rome, that so, with the general concurrence of the Five Powers, a final and satisfactory settlement of the disputes between the Pope and his subjects might be made. England had not the power to send an ambassador, but she sent an envoy. Sir Hamilton Seymour proceeded from Paris to Rome. He had now before him the correspondence which took place between Sir Hamilton Seymour and Prince Metternich. The conferences lasted for fourteen months with a view to make the best possible arrangement of the Papal States. The conference terminated in failure; but it was remarkable that Sir Hamilton Seymour addressed a despatch—dictated, he presumed, by his noble Friend beside him (Viscount Palmerston)—in which he foretold all that had since happened, and foresaw that from Rome the disturbances in Italy would sooner or later burst forth. If, then, in 1832 there was a strong reason to send a representative to Rome, surely, in 1848, when the Pope called for our intervention, and at a moment when Italy was giving birth to the most portentous events, it was most preposterous that we should not have a Minister accredited to Rome—it was most preposterous that we should not put an end to a surreptitious intercourse, which was a practical falsehold and a political absurdity.

said, the debate completely justified the grounds of opposition which he stated when the Bill was first introduced—namely, that it was intended by means of this Bill to use the Pope as an instrument to govern the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, in dependence upon the English Ministry. The discussion had brought out two conclusions—one, that all the legal men in the House concurred in opinion that there was nothing in the state of the law to prevent merely secular intercourse with Rome; and the other, that there was some secret religious purpose concealed under this Bill, which Ministers did not dare to avow, and which would be in complete contravention of the present law. He had no hesitation, there- fore, in declaring that the Bill was brought in under false pretences, and as such ought to be opposed.

said, the Bill, as it stood, did not meet with his approbation; but he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite could object to the measure when they made no objection to ambassadors from the Sultan, the Great Mogul, or Shah of Persia. If he had any influence with the Pope, which he had not, he would recommend him to appoint, as his ambassador, the hon. Member for Youghal. With regard to the Bill itself, he hailed it as a proof that bigotry was declining, and he was sure the people of Ireland entertained no apprehensions on the subject.

deprecated the idea that seemed to pervade the mind of the hon. Member for Pomfret, that zeal for a religious principle was of the same nature with bigotry. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought the history of this country was a proof to the contrary. But the hon. Member did not seem to understand the nature of a religious principle, or he treated different religions as alike—a view, he was sorry to say, which was very apt to infect those who had travelled much. With regard to the Bill itself, he hoped his hon. Friends would not divide; they had already divided often enough; and he had risen only to warn Her Majesty's Government that, though by rejecting the Amendments of the hon. Member for Lambeth, they may seem to have a loophole for carrying out their covert views, still they would be acting against the letter of the Bill, and against the intentions of the House of Lords, if they were to use this measure as a means of entering into spiritual relations with the Roman See. Allusion had been made to the conduct of Russia. That country alone, of all the Powers of Europe, had been able to resist the authority of the Pope. Far from being a Conservative Power, as the hon. Member for Pomfret had asserted, the Pope had of late years proved a disturbing influence in Europe. It was the Pope who first acknowledged the new French Republic, and went to war with Austria. But the right hon. the Master of the Mint said, we had once before interfered in the affairs of the Pope. He did not object to that; but what he did object to was, that we should reciprocate that intervention, and allow the Pope to interfere with us.

rose to state the reasons why the Roman Catholics of Ireland opposed the Bill, namely, first, because it was brought forward at a time when the Pope was in political difficulties, and, therefore, was thought to be ready to accede to any measure of this nature; and, secondly, because two of the clauses contained an absolute insult to the Head of their Church.

called the attention of the House to the case of assistant surgeons in the Navy, who were required by the Admiralty regulations to be very highly educated, but who were compelled to pass their whole period of service as assistant surgeons in the-midshipmen's berth, and mess with the naval cadets. They, therefore, had no opportunities of prosecuting the study of their profession. The assistant surgeon in the Navy ought to be treated in the same manner as the assistant surgeon in the Army; but their relative positions were as different as could be conceived. He ought to be allowed to mess in the ward room with the lieutenants. The consequence of the treatment received by this class of gentlemen was that it was difficult to obtain competent candidates for the office. A cabin was appropriated to the admiral's butler, but none to the assistant surgeon. Cabins had been found also for the first engineer, and for the gentleman who was formerly called "schoolmaster," but who was now dignified with the title of naval instructor. He expected that the assistant surgeons would obtain justice from the present Board of Admiralty.

denied that the assistant surgeons in the Navy were unfairly treated. The subject had been fully considered by former Boards of the Admiralty, and by a Commission appointed for the purpose, and they had decided that there were practical difficulties in the way of permitting assistant surgeons to moss in the ward room. A cabin was, on the recommendation of the Commission, appropriated, in some instances, as a place for study; but, instead of being devoted to that purpose, it was used by the assistant surgeons as a withdrawing room, where they used to drink more wine than was allowed to be drunk at the mess. With regard to the difficulty of obtaining candidates, he could only state that since the report of the Commission in 1840 no less than 261 assistant surgeons had entered the Navy. This was a matter which had better be left to the direction of those who had the practical management of the affairs of the Navy, and when they found that assistant surgeons were not to be procured it would be time enough for the Admiralty to inquire into the reason of it.

I rise to move—

"That the petition of the Speaker and Members of the House of Assembly of Tobago, [presented 7th August] be printed."

There is now before the House a measure for granting a loan to the West India Islands and the Mauritius, for the purpose of promoting immigration and other purposes. I had the honour to present a petition from the Speaker and Assembly of Tobago, in which they complain of partial and oppressive policy on the part of Earl Grey in refusing them any share in any loan that may be granted for the purposes of immigration. I think, therefore, I am not out of place in insisting upon my privilege of bringing forward this question before entering upon the Orders of the Day, one of which is that the House go into Committee to consider the West India Colonies and Mauritius Loan Bill. The colony of Tobago is a small and weak colony; but the petitioners express their hope that, inasmuch as they are totally unrepresented in the British House of Commons, the House will be more disposed to treat them with leniency and liberality. They complained that Earl Grey announced in the despatch which he forwarded in answer to their memorial—both which answer and memorial were appended to the petition, but which you, Sir, decided could not be presented to the House in that form—that he could not consent, on two grounds, to give them a share of the loan. One ground on which the refusal rests, is the allegation that the island of Tobago had not previously contributed to the immigration of free labourers, and that, consequently, the parties have not the same title, in his (Earl Grey's) opinion, to relief as the colonies of Trinidad and British Guiana. But, Sir, these petitioners complain further of Earl Grey, that the principal ground alleged by him for the refusal of any assistance to Tobago is, that they have refused the supplies, an act to which their poverty and not their will, impelled them. The colony of Tobago contains about 13,000 inhabitants, and the expenditure of the island is 11,000l.; and the petitioners, in stating this, add that the value of the produce of the island, in the years 1831, 1832, and, 1833, averaged 183,000l., and that it is now reduced to much less than one-half of that sum, whilst the amount of the taxes and of the expenditure is the same. But as regards free immigration, they say that, though they have not expended any money in the importation of free labourers into the island, they have suffered very much by the competition which has seduced labourers from the smaller to the larger islands. In this way, they say, they have been seriously injured. But Earl Grey sets forth another reason why Tobago should not receive a share of those free labourers that are to be transported from the British West Indies at the expense of the Imperial Government; and it is suggested that those islands should receive those immigrants which offer the highest wages to them. But the colonists of Tobago set forth in their petition that there are other considerations of higher value in their estimation than the mere question of higher or lower wages. They state the great number of places of public worship, and of schools in connection with the Established Church, they have in proportion to the number of the inhabitants of the island, and the high state of social improvement exhibited among the negroes on their plantations; and they further allege that whilst, in 1843, the return of houses of freeholders and of renters of plantations was 712, the number has increased, in 1847, to 1,445; so that the renters and freeholders of houses attached to sugar estates have nearly doubled in the short period of four years—a circumstance affording the greatest proof that could be offered of the high state of the social institutions of Tobago, and giving the planters and proprietors in that island the strongest claim to any assistance in the shape of labour that could be afforded them. They have, too, another claim to equal justice, in this respect, with other colonics, and a claim which I must say I think very hard to answer, namely, that, if it be true that, in proportion to the extent of their lands cultivated, there is a larger population in Tobago than in British Guiana and Trinidad, and that, when slave compensation was given, it was given in proportion to the population of the islands, then the Tobago proprietors were paid at a lower rate than that of British Guiana and Trinidad; and, in common justice, they have now a claim to this extent, that if you are now, in your generosity, going to give to the British possessions in the West Indies the benefit of an importation of labourers, they, the planters of Tobago, should have their just share of that benefit. And, though I cannot speak particularly of the island of Tobago itself, yet I could show this House that the smaller West India islands generally suffer equally with the larger ones by the reduction of the price of their produce. It is an easy matter to get up in Parliament and say, that these smaller islands require no assistance: I think, however, that I have given proof of the way in which these lesser islands suffer by the general reduction of the value of the produce of the West Indies, in the diminished importations of the goods they have been able to make in the last six months of the year 1846, as compared with the first six months of the same year. But there is still another claim which I think Tobago has to the attention of this House. It will be in the recollection of this House and of the country, that Tobago has been made the subject of observation by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the effect that this was the island that ought to be cited as a proof of the great prosperity of the British West Indies under the present law, and also as a proof that free labour was cheaper than slave labour. A despatch was written by Major Greene, in the early part of the year 1846, and has been quoted in the course of the present Session as a proof of the great prosperity of the British West Indies, in which it was stated, that whereas it cost 8l. sterling to prepare and open an acre of plantation in Tobago by slave labour, the same was now done with free labour at so little cost as 1l. 19s. 10d. Now, it was stated in the same despatch that Tobago was an island peculiarly favoured, inasmuch as it was out of the reach of hurricanes, and generally free from those risks and hazards to which other islands were liable—indeed, that it was not only without the boundary line of hurricanes, but seldom affected by earthquakes; whilst the rains also were more plentiful there than elsewhere. The despatch also stated that its forests were, unlike those of other colonies, more abounding in singing birds, of beautiful plumage, and more exempt from the monkey tribe. But it did so happen that Tobago was but lately ravaged by one of the most violent hurricanes that ever devastated a country; and this House, in its generosity, has voted a sum of 50,000l. in consequence of that terrific calamity, under which two-thirds of the buildings were razed to the ground, together with a large proportion of the plantations of the island; and Major Greene had to take shelter with his family in a cellar, and from that cellar to write the account of that dire disaster, from the like of which it had been said this island was wholly exempt. I have, then, Sir, thought it only just that, when there is a measure before the House for granting relief to the colonies, attention should be called to the claims of these petitioners, and that there should be some expression of feeling on the part of the British Parliament, in order that the Secretary of State may know that, if he is disposed to visit on this ruined colony his wrath, for that it is not in a condition to furnish the supplies, this House, at all events, will not be indifferent to any such proceeding; and in calling attention to this petition, I would beg to ask, if it is intended that the Secretary of State is to have despotic power to distribute as he thinks fit a loan of half a million granted by the Commons of England; and to be at liberty to visit his wrath on every colony which, either from the ruin your measures have brought upon it, or from scourges inflicted by Providence, should be unable or unwilling to grant supplies to maintain the great expenditure to which these British colonies are exposed on a footing on which such expenditure might have been tolerable when the produce, revenues, and profits of these islands were double what they are now; but which is altogether intolerable now that you have reduced by your legislation the value of their produce below the cost of production. I take leave to ask you whether, if Tobago, small and weak of itself, is to be subject to this ban of the Secretary of State, you propose that Trinidad and British Guiana, which also threaten to stop the supplies, are to be placed on the same footing with Tobago? If so, for what purpose are we voting this grant of 500,000l.? Is it to be swallowed up by some servile colony that never showed any independence, or exercised the right of a free and independent people to stop the supplies when they think they have suffered intolerable grievances? Sir, I know that this petition has been printed already, though smothered up in the Appendix to the Votes; but, as I was requested to bring it more fully under the notice of Parliament, by moving that it be printed as I have proposed, I have thought it my duty to make these few remarks; and I have now only to add that, as I feel I shall have answered the purpose of the Assembly of Tobago by having thus called attention to their petition, I shall not now persevere with the Motion with which I commenced, and which I will now, with the permission of the House, beg to withdraw.

said, that this was a Bill to create a loan of 2,000,000l., and, in this time of peace, to add permanently to the debt of this country 60,000l. or 70,000l. a year, as well as to borrow money by an extravagant and expensive mode. He intended to take the sense of the House against the principle involved in it of borrowing money at all in time of peace. It would perhaps be recollected that early in the present Session of Parliament, on the 25th of February, he had urged the Government to reduce the expenditure within the revenue—the deficiency in the revenue being then about 2,900,000l., and called the attention of the House to the necessity of limiting the expenditure to the actual income of the year; or, if they could not do that, to the propriety of providing, by taxation, to meet the excess that had to be supplied. On that occasion, however, the numbers, when the division was taken, were 157 for continuing the heavy expenditure, against 59 for his proposition. Foiled in that, on the 13th of March he held that it was absolutely necessary, whilst they were continuing the income-tax, that that tax should be limited to one year, and that, in the mean time, the Government should examine all their estimates, and endeavour to reduce the expenditure within the amount the tax would warrant. The House, however, differed from him, and 363 Members voted against his Motion, showing, he must confess, a most unequivocal determination to continuo the tax, and to oppose the inquiry that was so much required. Again, on the 20th of March, he proposed to reduce the number of men to be voted for the Navy from 43,000 to 36,000, intending, at the proper time, also to propose to reduce the number to be voted for the Army, as well as to propose a general reduction of the whole of the expenditure of the country. The Ministry had again a majority of 347, whilst only 38 Members voted with himself. On the 24th March, again, an hon. Member submitted to the House the propriety of limiting the public expenditure to a considerable extent, by withdrawing the squadron from the coast of Africa, which was not only utterly useless, but was producing incalculable horrors for the unhappy race in whose behalf it was placed there. That Motion, which was for an Address to the Crown on the subject, was resisted by 216 votes, and supported only by 80. He had always objected even to the principle of taxation at a time when their expenditure was capable of reduction; and when the first vote for the Army was proposed, and the number of men to be voted was 113,000, he proposed to limit the number to 100,000; but, on a division, the large number was supported by 293 Members, 39 only supporting the proposed reduction. So far as he was concerned, then, he had held by the principle, and had acted upon it, that no debt should ever be incurred in time of peace, except on some extraordinary occasion, such, for instance, as the late famine in Ireland, which constituted an exception to the general rule. But now Ministers came, with a deficit of nearly 3,000,000l. in reality, and proposed a loan. He looked with great alarm to the fact of the country thus going on, in a time of peace, adding to its permanent debt, particularly when commerce was not flourishing, and when the great increase in poor-rates and decrease of profits were considered. To proceed in this way would lead, in the end, to inevitable disaster. It had been admitted that taxation had been carried to the utmost limit the country could bear. With these facts before them, therefore, was it not important to consider whether the Government ought not to have reduced the general expenditure? A great increase had taken place since 1826. He complained, not only of the great amount of debt that had been incurred, but also of the management of their finances having been against principle. Borrowing was not a provision—it was the act of spendthrifts. Looking at the state of the crops in this country, but more particularly in Ireland, as well as at the general state of trade, he did not think next year's prospect flattering; and the time had arrived when that House must grapple with the great difficulty that presented itself. The scale of the public establishments was beyond what was either necessary or prudent. When he looked at the expense of the African squadron, at the extent of their naval and military establishments—nearly double what they were twenty-five years ago—he must enter his protest against the proceedings of that House. By a paper he held in his hand, he found that the gross amount of the expenditure of the country was ten millions more than it was in 1836. The House ought to be ashamed of itself. He had looked over the items, and he did not find the slightest difficulty in discovering where the reduction might be made, and which—had the House done its duty—would have been made. If the House had supported his Motion respecting the Army and Navy, there would have been no necessity for an increased income-tax or the present Bill, for the reduction would have been large enough to have met the two millions of deficiency, to provide for which they were now called upon to borrow. Large reductions ought also to be made elsewhere. For our forty-four colonies, the charge for military was 2,556,000l.; the civil charges, 541,000l.; and the Navy required by the colonies, excluding the original cost of the vessels, 74,000l.: making a total of 3,171,000l. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government acted on his own principles, as he stated them in his letter to Lord Sydenham, no less a saving at once than 570,000l. could be effected. If the colonies were allowed to exercise the power of governing themselves, and allowed to apply to the expenses of the colonies the Government land, from which not one farthing had ever been obtained by the Government, but the whole had been jobbed away in a most disgraceful manner, he would venture to say that not one farthing for civil expenses would be required, instead of adding, as now, to the charge on the debt year by year. He had heard it hinted by many that the faster these additions to the debt were made, the better, as it would only hasten a dispute with the fundholder. He, however, warned the House that if ever they broke faith with the public creditor the sun of England would be for ever set—her power would for ever cease. He was anxious to reduce the debt; and did they now possess the money which had been paid since the last war for loans they might get rid of the Excise altogether, and give a manifest and coveted facility to commerce, and add infinitely to the enjoyments of social life. As had been well said by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) the time was not far distant when this must he looked to; and if those who now had the government of the country did not take that view, their places would soon be taken by those who would make the experiment. While storms were raging around us, it was necessary to put our own house in order. For the purpose of recording his opinion against borrowing in a time of peace, and against the thriftless manner in which the Government had proceeded, and, above all, against the extravagant establishments which this year they had determined to keep up, he moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

seconded the Motion, and complained that the Government not only proposed a loan, but had brought out their budget at an unusually late period. It was the latest budget that ever he had heard of. The Government had led the House and the country to believe that they should be able to do without additional taxes, or the adoption of any extraordinary measures, and having done so, the House had felt comparatively easy on the subject. But the Government seemed to have been waiting until so few Members were left in the House that it could carry whatever it liked. The system of funding was like a man who had spent more than his income, making up the deficiency by borrowing; and, in a nation as in an individual, such a system must load to ruin. It was the resource of all bad Governments when other means failed of making both ends meet. When he first came into the House, he found the Whig Government in the last stage of existence, trying to patch up its own want of management by a measure which never had and never would succeed. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), in trying to meet the diminution of the revenue, talked—as all Chancellors of the Exchequer talked—a great deal of nonsense about the elasticity of the country, and proposed new taxes. These measures failed, and the great physician was called in and the fees paid. Never had he seen the great physician in such a state of anxiety as he was for many months; and the first thing he resorted to was a property-tax, which he carried, although opposed by the Whig Government, and every man of the Liberal party except himself. They all abused him for supporting the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel); but he did so because the proposition taxed the rich instead of the poor. Well, when it came to be proposed again, the Whigs to a man all voted for the tax. They thought, no doubt, that they would soon be coming into office again, and that it would be a nice penny to have the handling of. The right hon. Baronet boasted of the state of things which followed, and particularly of the increased trade in India. He told the right hon. Baronet at the time that his boastings were premature, for that, as it was a mere consignment trade, its briskness could not last, and that it would, moreover, ruin all parties who were engaged in it. That prediction, he regretted to say, was true, as hon. Members well knew. Then the prevalence of railway speculation followed, by which the state of the country, no doubt, was for a time improved. The prices of food rose above their natural level; and those of manufactures rose above the prices of foreign manufactures. That, of course, checked exportation, and a considerable balance against us was the consequence, taking, as all balances did, a large amount of the precious metals to supply the difference. That brought on the pressure which threw the right hon. Baronet out of office. They had now the Whig Government in power again. He would not say a word as to how they got there—and how they were kept there—but they had placed the country in much the same position as that in which it was when he first entered the House. The revenue had fallen below the expenditure, and was still falling off. Trade was stagnant, the population were badly employed and badly paid, and were in a state of discontent almost approaching insurrection. No men could govern this country with comfort to themselves or its inhabitants, unless honest, industrious people were enabled to get a living. If honest, sober, industrious men could not find employment, the fault was with the Government. Many attempts had been made, but except for short periods, when they had departed from the system, all Governments had failed and broken down; whether it had been that of the right hon. Baronet, who had had a measure of success, or whether it had been that of the Whigs, who had gone on, peddle, peddle, peddle, and done nothing at all. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had talked of the national faith—and he had no objection to keep up the national faith—but it was a national humbug if it were all on one side. If it were kept for the benefit of one class at the expense of all the others, it was a sheer robbery of every other interest. He knew if he said anything about the currency it would be called "Brummagem;" but in the long run the Brummagem doctrine would prove the soundest and the best. What could be more disgraceful than the present state of affairs? So great was the want of confidence throughout Europe in our merchants and bankers, that it was impossible to get a bill cashed. He knew a party who had been travelling in Italy last year, and the most unexceptionable bankers' bills were not negotiable. Was not that disgraceful to this country; and was it not a state of things which afforded a significant comment on the Act of 1844? He never knew things in a good state in this country when six men could be got together to talk politics. No man, however evil his designs, or cunning his inducements, could obtain a meeting on any subject when trade was good. He had in his day assisted in agitations, and he knew how it could be done and how it could not he done. If the Government wished to draw the teeth of the people, let them make the people prosperous. No people in the world were easier governed, provided they received a just remuneration for their labour; but if the Government could not go on without loaning and funding, they would find the government of the country a most difficult task.

would be the last person to complain of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Montrose with respect to the reduction of expenditure; but whether the reductions proposed by the hon. Gentleman were practicable, consistently with a due regard to the permanent interests of the country, was an entirely different question. If on former occasions he had been obliged to the hon. Gentleman, he was certainly obliged to him to-night for having given the best vindication that could be offered of the course of conduct which Her Majesty's Government had pursued. The hon. Gentleman had stated the various divisions which took place in that House on the different propositions he had made with the view of reducing the establishments of the country; and he very fairly stated, not so much imputing blame to the Government as imputing blame to the House, that an overwhelming majority of that House, when such reductions were proposed, con- curred with the Government in thinking that, with a due regard to the safety of the country, it was impossible to reduce the establishments of the country. Such being the conclusion to which the House had arrived in the early part of the Session, he did not think any person would say anything had occurred since to persuade the House or the Government that their decision was wrong. No one could say, looking to the interests of the country and to the safety of the loyal subjects of Her Majesty, it was possible to dispense with that force which the Government had proposed and the House had voted. He would not at this time enter on the subject of the African squadron; but the report of the Committee on that subject was now before the House. After the hon. Member for Montrose demonstrated to the House that it had throughout supported the Government in maintaining the establishments of the country on the footing which the Government thought necessary, the hon. Member adverted to the subject of taxation. There were only three modes by which it was possible to equalise expenditure and income: first, by increased taxation; secondly, by reduction of establishments, which the House did not think expedient; and, thirdly, by having recourse to some such means as that now before the House, by which, in some way or other, money should be borrowed for the purpose of defraying unforeseen expenses. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be of opinion that the acme of taxation had been reached; and in that view he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not need to seek any further justification for the course he had pursued. He did not say he agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose; but if the hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to impose additional taxation, he did not see that he could have adopted any other course than that which, very unwillingly, he had been compelled to adopt. To defray a temporary expenditure, over which no control could be exercised by the Government, such as that of the Caffre war, he thought, if it could not be met out of the income of the country, the second best course was to cover such temporary expenditure in the manner he proposed. He did not think it expedient to have a permanent tax for a temporary expenditure. He could not agree in the opinion that there was any reason for despondency or alarm. What the Government had to keep in view, as of pri- mary importance, was that the expenditure of the country should be reduced as far as possible without endangering the safety and interests of the country. If the Government had reduced the estimates 800,000l. below the amount announced in the early part of the Session, they had been obliged to give up many things which, under other circumstances, it would have been more advantageous to retain; they had been obliged to spread over a number of years the execution of works which, in the long run, it would have been better economy to complete at once. With the possibility of reduced expenditure in future years on the completion of these works, he thought they would not have been justified in proposing increased taxation if they had not tried first whether they could not, by reducing their expenditure, bring it within their income. The hon. Member for Montrose spoke of the increased charge for the national debt; but a paper for which the hon. Member for Liverpool had moved showed that there had been a reduction on that head in seven years to the amount of 1,000,000l. The hon. Member for Birmingham stated, that when he first entered that House he found the finances in a somewhat similar state. But when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth applied a remedy by imposing an income-tax, a temporary exigency was provided for by a loan. It was utterly impossible to make reductions in taxation, unless the revenue were supplied by other means. With respect to the depression under which the country had since suffered, the change of circumstances was not owing to the conduct of the present or the former Government. It arose from a great failure of food in this and the sister country; and it was felt necessary to export the precious metals largely to purchase food. Those were circumstances over which the Government had no control. The consequence of the altered state of matters had been a great want of employment, and the pressure of distress accompanied by some discontent. The hon. Member for Birmingham said, that there never would be perfect tranquillity in the country till every person was fully employed; and while he deprecated ridicule of the Birmingham school, he seemed to maintain that it was not by developing industry, not by taxing the rich, not by establishing free trade, that so happy a result was to be attained. All these had been tried in succession; the hon. Member said they had certainly failed, and that something else must be done, which something else seemed to resolve itself into the adoption of the principles of the Birmingham school. He had listened with attention to his hon. Friend; but he confessed he could make nothing-more of his speech than what he had just stated. He would not, however, pursue the subject further, knowing very well that if he did so it might lead to an interminable discussion.

complained of the present measure being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, and of adding to the debt in a time of profound peace. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer come down to the House and frankly stated that he had cut down the expenditure to the lowest possible sum, and that there was still a deficiency, the people would have at once submitted to increased taxation rather than to an increase of the debt. He begged to enter his protest, therefore, against the principle of the measure, and to express his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought it forward at the eleventh hour, when there was no opportunity of making any alteration in it.

, considering the peculiar circumstances of the country, thought the measure perfectly justifiable.

, as one of the very few survivors of the large host who had resisted the reductions proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose in the earlier period of his life, begged to say that he looked back upon the course which he then took with unmitigated satisfaction. Sir H. Taylor, who was secretary to the Commander-in-Chief at the time, told him that, in consequence of yielding to the hon. Member for Montrose, the 50th and 92nd regiments were sent out from this country at an improper season of the year—they arrived at their destination in one of our colonies at an improper season—they were exposed to a peculiarly unhealthy season, and in the course of a year and a half these two regiments thereby lost 600 men, and between 20 and 30 officers. So much for the hon. Member's proposal with reference to the Army. With regard to the hon. Member's proposal to withdraw the African squadron, he begged to say that the unqualified withdrawal of that squadron—looking to all the circumstances that had taken place on the subject of the slave trade—would be the most ignominious course of conduct this country could pursue.

said, that if the hon. Member for Montrose should press his Motion to a division, he would divide with him, because he held that in a time of peace it was the duty of the House to resist the system of borrowing money, and thereby adding to the debt. If, however, the Chancellor must raise the required 2,000,000l. by borrowing, he ought at once to state the precise form in which he was determined to raise it, because the effect of allowing himself the option of one of two ways was to lead to doubt and hesitation with regard to both classes of stock.

thought that there had been a great deal of wandering from the real question before the House. That question, he believed to be, whether the two millions were to be borrowed or not. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained the reasons which had induced the Government to change their minds on the subject. The right hon. Baronet had originally asked the House to agree to the continuance of the existing income-tax for three years more, on the understanding that it would be sufficient to enable them to meet the wants of the country, or, as the right hon. Gentleman had termed it, to tide on, for that period. The question to be considered was, had there been any change since to account for that engagement being abandoned? and on that question he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not afforded the House more precise information. When the right hon. Baronet had made that promise, the anticipated deficiency was throe millions; and since then the estimates had been reduced 700,000l., or 800,000l., and the deficiency was now reduced to two millions, and yet they were now told that they should resort to a loan, of which they had heard nothing on the former occasion. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I stated all the reasons on Friday night.] No person objected more strongly than he did to loans during a time of peace. He thought the practice highly dangerous and mischievous, and that it had the same tendency in public affairs as in private life, of leading to a reckless, needless, and profuse expenditure. But still he confessed that when the right hon. 'Baronet spoke in the spring of the year of meddling with the balances in the Exchequer, in order to tide over the deficiency of the present year, he regarded it as being in effect tan- tamount to a loan. And when he recollected the proceedings that had since taken place in Ireland, and the bad prospects which they had before them with regard to the harvest, he could not but feel that it was better for the Government at once to take the step which they now proposed, than to go on in the from hand-to-mouth system which the right hon. Gentleman had originally proposed. As far as he could judge, there was nothing in the position of the country which enabled him to see that the Government were acting unwisely in the course which they had now taken.

said, that if the question simply involved the recording of au opinion, he would have no hesitation in voting with the hon. Member for Montrose; but, unfortunately, the duty of the House of Commons did not consist in merely recording opinions, but in carrying on the business of the country. He had therefore to consider what would be the effect of carrying this Motion against the Government. Notwithstanding what he had said the other night, he was perfectly certain that no economical reforms could be safely carried out, except by the Government themselves. The thing which the country had yet to understand was the amount of the evil, for people generally had as little idea of the immense amount of 800,000,000l., as they had of the distance of the sun from the earth. He could not forget that there was no instance of a great revolution occurring except from pecuniary pressure. It was well known that the first French Revolution was owing to the extravagance of Louis XIV. A similar cause produced the revolution the other day; and in Rome and Austria it was the same thing. Remembering, however, the threats which were held out against this country on the part of France—remembering the events which had subsequently occurred, both there and elsewhere—he admitted that it would not have been wise in the Government to have attempted a reduction in our armament this year. He begged to notice one observation of a mischievous character, which had been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham—he believed without his intending it—namely, that any Government, no matter whether republican or monarchical, could insure food and clothing to the people. Such a thing was utterly impossible. Believing that it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country to embarrass the Government by carrying the present Motion against them, he would oppose it, although he agreed in its principle.

said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had distinctly stated at the commencement of the Session that the House would have either to grant the increased property-tax which he had asked for, or to reduce the establishments. With that alternative before them the House refused to grant the tax, and yet the noble Lord left the establishments as they were. As he could not concur in the necessity of the expenditure, he should be prepared to vote in favour of the Amendment.

said, that the present deficiency was the necessary result of the policy of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who had given up eight millions of Customs duties, and imposed an income-tax in their place, yielding some five-and-a-half millions. The question which he had to ask himself was, would he refuse the supply, because a vicious legislation had left no means of raising it; and he must say that he was not prepared to do so. He was not prepared to leave the people of Ireland to starve, or to reduce the establishments at a time when Europe was in such a a state of inquietude as she was now in; but this he was prepared to say, that their deficiency was their own act.

was at a loss to understand the meaning of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; he had reiterated the opinion he had just stated at least a dozen times in his own hearing. Now, he wanted to put a plain question to the hon. Member. The hon. Member had said that the revenue had fallen in consequence of the adoption of free-trade measures. Now he (Mr. Cobden) would ask him whether the gross revenue for the last twenty years had ever been so great as it had been this year? [Mr. NEWDEGATE: The revenue is larger, but the necessities of the country are greater.] He wanted to fix the hon. Gentleman to this one point; because if he could by coming to an understanding on it, succeed in putting an end to the reiteration of which they had been the victims during the present dreary Session, he should think he had done a great service to the House when they mot again. It was now admitted that the gross revenue was larger in the present year than it had been for the last twenty years. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: The hon. Member misrepresents me. I ad- mitted no such thing. The revenue for 1845 was larger than the revenue of the present year.] He had read every item in the return which had been furnished with reference to the revenue since 1823, and he believed that that return would bear him out in his statement with hardly the exception of one year. The question was whether they were spending too much money. Almost everybody admitted that there was enough paid. Did the hon. Member think he was advocating the interests of his constituents in Warwickshire when he complained that there was too little revenue paid? When the taxes on coffee, sugar, and other articles of that kind were reduced, did the hon. Member think that his constituents regarded that as an evil? And did he mean to prescribe as a remedy for the distress of the country that they should put on more taxes? He (Mr. Cobden) was perfectly at a loss to understand the drift of his argument. The complaint was that taxation was too great, and the expenditure excessive—upon which the hon. Member came forward and said—"You have taken too many taxes off." He (Mr. Cobden) maintained, on the contrary, that there were too many taxes still, and that they must take off more. He was equally at a loss to understand the speech of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). When he heard the beginning of that hon. Member's speech, he concluded that he would vote against the proposition, and in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member certainly spoke in favour of the Amendment; his arguments were all that way; but he wound up by declaring that he would vote for the loan. Now, he had to complain that the hon. Gentleman had himself contributed to render the loan necessary, because when he advocated economy, the hon. Member taunted him with taking a pounds, shillings, and pence view of the question. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had also taunted him in the same way. Now, if those hon. Gentlemen, the leaders of the country party, would assist those who represented largo constituencies in reducing the expenditure, there would be no necessity for loans. Until the freeholders and farmers who sent the county Members to that House took the matter into their hands, and insisted that their representatives should help the representatives of large constituencies in reducing the expenditure, the Government would go on borrowing money and increase- ing the taxation. He justified his opposition to the proposed loan on the ground of the vote he gave to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose on the 25th of February last, that it was expedient to reduce the expenditure of the country in order to render an increase of taxation unnecessary. But he admitted that it was not only perfectly consistent but quite right for the hon. Member for Oxfordshire and his Friends, who opposed that Motion, to vote now for raising the money somehow. It was most discreditable on the part of those hon. Members who, after having voted for the expenditure of more money than the Government had at its disposal, had gone to the moors, or to the Continent, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a House of some 40 or 50 Members to get 2,000,000l. how he could; and, if no other means were left, to borrow it. He objected to the system of borrowing, more than he did to the imposition of a tax. If you depended on a tax, the difficulty of raising money by that means might check expenditure; but if you calculated on borrowing, you might go on expending money for ever; for there would be no end to the system, nor to your extravagance. But he did not blame the Government either for the deficiency, or for asking leave to borrow in order to make it up. They were quite justified by the great majorities which had sanctioned their expenditure; and the House was alone responsible. At the same time he considered that no Government ought to permit themselves to be placed in the position in which the present Government now stood. They ought to say—"If we cannot defray the expenditure of the country by moans of taxation, we will not consent to hold office." That was the language held by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who declared that he would not remain Minister unless Parliament permitted him to make the revenue equal to the expenditure; and the declaration tended greatly to strengthen his Administration, by inspiring confidence, and leading the country to believe that in those words they possessed a guarantee that there would be a limit at length put to their large expenditure, and a termination to the system of borrowing. But now they had departed from that principle; and, unless it were looked upon by the House as a most imminent and vital question to stop this system of borrowing, he saw no reason why they should not go headlong into that state into which the hon. Member for Surrey had described France and Austria to have been thrown by their financial embarrassments. Those countries were almost gone to ruin; and no doubt England would share the like fate, unless the people or Parliament should at once put an end to the system. It was not merely taxation for imperial purposes which was pressing upon the country; there was the local taxation to be considered; these, together, amounted to not much short of 70,000,000l. sterling. He defied them to continue raising that amount of money. They could not go on with their poor-rates, their county-rates, and their borough-rates, to say nothing of rates raised for religious purposes, in addition to their imperial taxation; which, including the expense of collection, amounted to not less than 70,000,000l. this year. It was a monstrous sum; and it was impossible for them to go on collecting it. He was surprised at the illogical conclusion of the hon. Member for Surrey's speech, for he had given all the benefit of his argument to the Amendment, though he could not give it his vote. The hon. Gentleman had said that it was not possible, at the beginning of the Session, to reduce our armaments, owing to the then state of Europe. But the hon. Gentleman should have borne in mind that those armaments were all settled before any disturbances on the Continent. That should always be borne in mind. It was proposed to add to our expenditure by fortifying our coasts, and raising a militia long before the French revolution was ever thought of. But when, after the revolution, it was argued that the expenditure was too large, then it was urged that by reason of that revolution it was impossible to reduce our armaments. Still, as if it were to show that he and his Friends were right both before and after that period, and that the Government were wrong, what had been done? The militia had been abandoned, and the estimates for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, had been reduced by a sum of between 700,000l. and 800,000l.—a sum, however, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said was not to be a saving to the country, but to be expended some years hence. But the very fact of withdrawing it this year proved that his and his Friends' argument was right when they said that there was no great danger of the country being invaded. If there were any danger, surely this was the time for raising the militia, and keeping up the military and naval force of the country. But, no—he would assert that the cry which was raised before the meeting of Parliament about the danger of an invasion by a foreign enemy was a wicked cry—it was a delusion practised upon the country—a monstrous delusion got up by professional men with a view to frighten the country, and compel them to submit to increased taxation. He would now address one word to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Surrey, that it was a most dangerous doctrine to advance, that it was the duty of Government, under all circumstances, to find employment for all who were able to work, and of good character. [Mr. MUNTZ: No, no!] He was glad such a doctrine was disavowed. He believed there might be circumstances in which the most prudent Government could not insure food or employment for the population. Take, for instance, the Swiss cantons. Nobody would deny that there a cheap Government existed, and yet a large proportion of the population was obliged to emigrate to find food and employment. The same was the case with regard to the New England States of North America. There the Government was a frugal Government, and the people were well educated and of good character; yet many of them were obliged to emigrate to find employment and subsistence in the interior of the country. The same necessity might possibly exist in regard to the people of this country, without the Government being necessarily responsible; but his belief was, that if the country, with its immense accumulation of capital, were properly governed, and there were not an undue amount of taxation, abstracting from the earnings of industry, every able-bodied man of good character and willing to work might be employed. He should vote against this loan and against every penny that was proposed to be raised by borrowing in any shape whatever.

explained. He did not think it was the duty of the Government to find work for the people; what he said was, that if Government understood the real principle of governing, every industrious man would naturally have employment.

said, the cost of maintaining an army in Ireland was ordinarily 1,000,000l. a year. This year it would amount to 1,500,000l. or 1,600,000l. Now, if Ireland were made contented by having justice done to her, one-half of this expense might be saved. Again, if means were given to Ireland to acquire riches, she would consume taxed articles in a greater proportion than she did now. At present she only paid 3,000,000l. to the revenue on consumable articles; make her rich, and she would pay 9,000,000l.; thus a revenue of 6,000,000l. might be created without imposing a single tax on the country. He believed there was only one measure by which this could be done—a measure which would make the people stay at home and spend their money in that country.

would not have risen to take part in the discussion had it not been for the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding. He (Mr. Spooner) denied that the revenue in the present year was equal to that of 1845, as in 1845 the revenue was 54,417,615l., while in the present year it was little more than 52,827,000l., showing a deficiency of 1,764,000l., or very nearly equal to the sum now required to be raised. He warned the Government how they depended upon the income-tax for next year, as he had the best possible means of knowing, the tax would not yield anything like the sum it had produced last year. He regretted to find that such a depression existed in the money market, for he feared that if money was required for war purposes, the Government could not raise 20,000,000l., notwithstanding that during the late war the Government raised the enormous sum of 130,000,000l. in one year. Although the late Lord Ashburton was an advocate of the Bill of 1819, the noble Lord confessed, in a conversation which he had had with him a few weeks before his death, that such was the financial position of the country, that it was his own opinion that—in the event of a war rendering it necessary that 20,000,000l. should be raised by way of loan—the Government of England would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to raise it. He disapproved of borrowing money during a time of peace; but as a certain liability was to be met, he would not refuse his consent to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able to raise the amount of taxation required, in order to balance the receipts and expenditure, if the present commercial and currency system were persisted in; and, therefore, in giving his assent to the proposition, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he in no way had altered his opinion on the subjects he had just referred to.

would vote for the proposition of the Government, because he believed that they had done all that was in their power to avoid the position in which they were placed. They, in the first instance, proposed a tax to meet the deficiency; and it was with regret that he saw them compelled to abandon it. The present peculiar position of affairs justified the course they were now taking. That was the ground upon which his vote would be given. He believed that the present state of Europe, and of the whole world, justified the Government in conceding and yielding to what he understood to have been the deliberately pronounced opinion of the House of Commons, that it was not expedient to increase taxation this year; if so, then there was no other way of making the expenditure and the revenue equal than by a very large reduction of the expenditure. But he was one of those who believed that the state of Europe and the world made it most inexpedient that England should reduce her expenditure more than she had hitherto done. He was not afraid either in that House or elsewhere to avow it to be his belief that even the reduction which had already taken place might not have been wholly prudent. At the same time, he would not lend himself to any party that would raise a cry of war to induce the Government to maintain largo establishments; and he had heard with the most sincere regret the expression of an opinion on the part of the hon. Member for the West Riding, that the necessity of being prepared for war had been propagated by professional men for merely personal and most unworthy objects. He believed that was a sentiment unworthy of those to whom it was attributed, and it was with astonishment that he heard such an imputation proceed from a Gentleman of such general knowledge as that hon. Member. He believed that there was, both out of the House and in it, but one general feeling—namely, that of gratitude to God for the peace and tranquillity which had prevailed in this country during the disturbances which had agitated the rest of Europe; and that they owed that tranquillity to the wise foresight which prevented them from being agitated by discussions necessarily attending great political changes, and to that preparation for resistance, if attacked, which was the greatest safeguard and the greatest surety of peace.

thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding was the last person, either in or out of the House, who should have charged his opponents or any other persons with having created wicked delusions. The hon. Gentleman had his crotchets. He might think that our expenditure might be reduced 17,000,000l. by one single slash of the knife, but he would find few persons to coincide with him in that opinion; and if it were possible now to diminish the defences of the country with security, he would take leave to say we were in very different circumstances from those in which we were placed at the end of the last and the commencement of the present year. At that time the empire of France was in all its power. Recommendations for the increase of its marine force, to enable France to bridge the Channel and burn the British fleets in the Thames, were suggested by the Prince de Joinville in 1844, and they were carefully carried out; and a great increase in the maritime power of France was created without any justification except some reservation in the minds of its rulers to use them against this country. But when the hon. Member said he would rather lay on a tax than borrow money, would he ask him why he had not kept his word? He had not last night, and he would not to-night, support a measure, not for imposing, but for repealing taxation. We had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night—and he was glad to hear that sentiment from him—that he was conscious that when the people were out of employment they become disaffected, and that the surest way to secure the attachment and affection of the Queen's subjects was to keep them in full employment; that even those in the higher class of life were apt to be less contented when they were in distressed circumstances. If that was the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how did he justify to himself all those measures which he supported, of which the necessary effect was to throw thousands of the Queen's subjects out of employment? He was one of those who would have refused to come to a vote to add to the property and income-tax; and he was one of those who voted with the hon. Member for Montrose to retain the property and income-tax at its present amount for a single year; but the House, although it was prepared to refuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer an increase or the income-tax, was never asked whether it would refuse to consent to taxes of customs or revenue. Had the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to the House and asked them to reimpose some of those taxes of customs which had been lately repealed, and to continue others that were soon to fall to the ground, he, for one, should have given the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer his hearty support. Now, it had been justly stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, that the taxes that had been reduced would have amounted to the value of all the deficiencies of which the noble Lord had now to complain. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire stated, in a tone of great assurance, that notwithstanding this reduction of customs duty, the net revenue of the country could never be so large as it was last year. With the papers before him, he was astonished at the boldness of the asseveration, and, for the moment, was inclined to believe it; but looking at the paper signed by Mr. Parker, and moved for by Mr. Cardwell, he found that in the year 1847 the net income was but 51,451,609l, when in the year before, 1846, before a great part of these customs duties was reduced, the income was 53,626,178l., being 2,174,569l. more than the revenue in the last year. So that we should now have an ample surplus instead of being in a deficiency, if it had not been for the alteration of customs that had taken place in the last two or three years. Then if we were in difficulties, let us look for money in the Exchequer; do not lot us look for loans, but let us look for the treasure where we lost it—let us look at the customs duty—let us do as the united States of America did—not for protection—he cared nothing for the matter, but for the purpose of income—put taxes upon all the produce of foreign industry. The Exchequer had fallen into the old ways of the Whigs—the chronic vice of the Whigs—always getting into a deficiency—always looking out for a casualty. It was the Kaffir war now; but there was always some casualty, and the Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer invariably concluded that that was the last casualty that was to befall us. Soon after the Whigs came into power in 1830, there was a casualty of 1,000,000l., which was paid in arrears of tithes in Ireland. Then came other casualties; there came the emancipation of the negroes, and twenty millions was an extraordinary expenditure, which was never to occur again. Then soon after followed an insurrection in Canada. That was also a casualty. Then followed the Chinese war, and the war in the East Indies, and the reverses of the British troops in Cabul; and so, from year to year, there was always some new casualty occurring; the year before last it was the famine in Ireland, and now it was the Caffre war. It was the very nature of a great empire, with possessions spread in every quarter of the world, that these casualties would be contantly occurring; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who calculated upon such extraordinary good fortune as that there was never to be another casualty—that there was never to be another famine—that there was never to be again disturbances on the Continent that were to chock trade, and by checking trade were diminishing the consumption of excisable articles—was sure to fall into the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Whig Government were in, of fast travelling on to a state of insolvency and bankruptcy. He was not one of those who agreed with the hen. Member for Limerick, that Ireland could be made to render six millions of additional income to this country without imposing any tax upon her; neither was he one who concurred with Her Majesty's Ministers, who thought that the way to get out of a difficulty was to give a little more free trade; to take off a few more taxes, to squander away the copper duties, to remit 23,000l. of corn duty, because some Member of the Government had expressed a loose opinion in the course of a debate in the House of Commons. He did not think that was the way to enrich the Exchequer, nor did he think that if they were to get into difficulties, and were to run into debt, that was a very constitutional way of doing it; but he thought this, that there were a great many taxes that might be imposed with very little burden upon the people of this country. He did not think the people of this country ever, as a body, asked that the timber duties should be taken off. He thought they would submit to a reimposition of the duties on foreign timber without any very great reluctance. He thought they did not like, and did not demand, that the duty should be taken off cotton and a great many other articles that made up the sum total of the two and a half millions which you had surrendered; and the two and a half millions which you were now in arrear. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come forward and said we gave up the corn duties; they produced us 772,000l. in the year 1846; we want revenue; continue the corn duties for the sake of the revenue for two or throe years more—he did not believe the country would have been against such a measure as that; and he thought so the more because, upon looking at the state of prices, and the effect the corn duties had had upon prices on the one hand, and upon the revenue on the other, he could make it perfectly clear to the meanest understanding—and he might say to the most perverse understanding—that the corn duties had not been paid by the consumer in this country. The average price of wheat in February was 51s. 4d. On the 1st March, the suspension of the Corn-Law Act expired, and the 7s. duty came into operation. According to the doctrine of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire and his school, the consumer ought immediately to have paid 7s. more for his wheat; but what was the state of the case? No perceptible difference arose in the price of wheat; the difference, such as it was, tended rather to a decline. In the month of March, from 51s. 4d., the price of wheat fell so that it averaged 50s. 6d. Duties came in, and in the month of April, notwithstanding 7s. was being paid in March, the price of wheat fell 3d. more upon the average of that month. Still, as the price fell, the duty rose. In the month of May, the average price of wheat was 48s. 11d., with a sliding-scale. As the price slipped down, the duty went up. The duty in May was, upon an average, about 9s. In June, still the price went down, and we had an average in June of 40s. in price, and of 10s. duty, by which, in the month of June alone, we were able to levy from the foreigner 56,000l. Had he not made it clear to the House, clear to the meanest and most perverse understanding, that, as far as these corn duties were concerned, they came out of the pocket of the foreigner, and they did not come out of the pocket of the English consumer? It was a revenue to the English Exchequer, at no cost whatever to the British consumer. He then said, with this example before us, do not let us have recourse to odious income taxes to fill the Exchequer; do not let us have recourse to this spendthrift mode of meeting present resources by entailing debts upon our posterity in the thirty-third year of peace; but let us look this question again manfully in the face, and let us not be misled by the delusions of those who told us that the repeal of the corn laws would at once make flour 1½d. a pound, and would fill England with prosperity; would cause England to exchange her manufactures for the corn of foreign countries; that it would leave no loom standing still; that it would leave to every operative superfluity, and he would no longer he required to have higher wages, because he was to have cheaper bread, and the superfluity of his wages was to be spared from the purchase of bread to be expended upon tea and sugar; that it was to increase to a boundless extent the export of the British manufacturer. Let us learn the answer from our diminished exports of five millions sterling, in the first six months of 1848, when free trade had come into full operation. Let us not place confidence in these deluders of the public mind; let us have a care how we listen to those who denounce their opponents, and think they are alone the only true prophets; let us beware of the gentleman who decries all those who differ from him, and who thinks himself the only orator, and who exclaims, as Jack Cade did at another time to Lord Say, just before he ordered his head to be cut off, "I am the besom that must sweep the Court clean of such filth as thou art."

, after all he had heard, did not come to the conclusion that it was unwise in the Government to propose to increase the income-tax to meet the expenditure of the country. It was the opinion of Lord Ashburton, and one which that noble Lord pertinaciously held, and which deserved some attention, that, instead of keeping the expenditure equal to the income, it would be more prudent to keep 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. as a sinking fund, and then the Government would be prepared for any such emergencies as might happen. Now, he thought that a better plan than this was to give the public the benefit of the reduction of taxes; and successive Governments, acting on this principle when they had a surplus, had reduced the taxes to a great extent. He had shown on a former occasion that within the last few years taxes to the amount of 10,000,000l. a year had been taken off from articles of necessity and general consumption. The reduction of taxation had thus been very great; but the consequence was, that if there were an extraordinary deficiency in the revenue, or an extraordinary expenditure, then immediately the expenditure exceeded the income, and the Government were obliged to consider to what sources they could turn to make up the deficiency. The Government had proposed an increased percentage on a tax already in existence; but the country did not concur with the views they took, and the Government did not persist in their measures. Even if they had carried their proposal in that House, it would have been so unpopular in the country that it was far better the Government should take the course which they had adopted, of at once giving up the hope of raising the money by that means. Under these circumstances, he did not think that any course which had been proposed was better than that taken by the Government. The hon. Members for Montrose and the West Riding thought the Government ought to have made very great reductions in their military and naval force. He did not feel justified in proposing any such reductions; and what had appeared in the public papers within the last few days had confirmed him in the propriety of the decision they had come to. It appeared that the Government of February in France had in contemplation an attempt to make a war in Belgium; and a war in Belgium must have led to serious complications in Europe. The Government, therefore, would not have been justifiable in proposing that very large reduction in their military and naval expenditure which the hon. Members for Montrose and the West Riding had recommended. He could not concur in the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) that it would be expedient to reimpose the taxes on timber and raw cotton. He was not now going to discuss the question of the policy or impolicy of such duties; but he would remind the noble Lord that, long before the days of Adam Smith, it was thought by Sir R. Walpole and others of that school, that the most wise course was to repeal duties upon the raw articles of manufacture; and it was a great boast of Sir R. Walpole that he had reduced such duties to a very large amount in one year. He was not willing to reimpose the duties upon timber and cotton; and as to the effect of the duty on corn, he did not want to dispute with the noble Lord as to the effect of a duty of 7s. or 8s. on the price of corn. But he very much rejoiced that we had not the sliding-scale which existed in 1845. He found that in nearly the whole of this year, there was no duty above 10s., and that corn merchants could bring in their corn without waiting until the price rose to 70s., which was a great advantage to the consumers, and a great security this year over the years 1841, 1842, and 1843, when the old duty was in existence. He would not enter further into the question, except to express his satisfaction that, by the wisdom of Parliament, they had the state of corn duties which now existed instead of those which existed previously, The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 66; Noes 15: Majority 51.

said, he had on a previous occasion presented a petition, signed by 41,000 depositors in various provident societies, representing a sum of 762,000l.; and he had now to present another petition, signed by 38,000 depositors in savings banks, representing a sum of 1,080,000l. against this Bill. They believed that its provisions would, when carried out, prove most dangerous to the interests of these institutions. And he must say, that they had not had the usual courtesy shown to them in reference to the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill, great as were their interests. They had not been favoured with such a notice as was invariably given even with respect to the commonest turnpike-road Bill. If the managers of some of the savings banks in Ireland had acted wrongfully, that was no reason why the management of English and Scotch savings banks should be interfered with. Although twenty-four witnesses were examined before the Committee with respect to the Irish savings banks, yet the Committee positively refused to hoar a single witness with regard to the English and Scotch savings banks. Was it fair, then, at so advanced a period of the Session, to press this obnoxious measure forward without having given the English and Scotch depositors any notice of the intended alterations? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would recollect, that when leave was asked to introduce this Bill, he asked him whether it was intended to make any alteration in the existing law with regard to the liability of trustees and managers; to which the right hon. Gentleman's answer was, that it was intended to render them liable only to the extent of 100l. each, unless they expressed their willingness to extend their liability. But when the Bill came before the House, he found in it no such provision. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the liability of trustees and managers was a most delicate and difficult one. These parties represented stock to the amount of nearly 30,000,000l., and the number of depositors was immense. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that their interests should not be lightly interfered with.

proposed to make an alteration in the first clause of the Bill; he proposed to strike out the whole of the words in the 7th line after the word "at," and the whole of the 8th, 9th, and 10th lines, as well as the words in the 11th line, as far as the word "Act." The effect of this alteration would he to place the trustees of savings banks in exactly the same position as that in which they were before the passing of the Act of 1844. He then proposed to insert such words as would limit the liability of a trustee to 100l.

said, the proposed amendments of his right hon. Friend entirely altered the nature of the opposition which he should offer to the first clause of the Bill. A trustee, by the proposed alteration, would only be liable for such losses, &c., as should happen through his wilful neglect or default. His right hon. Friend simply proposed to repeal the 7th and 8th Vic, cap. 83, sec. 6. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Exactly.] So that to that extent the trustees and managers of savings hanks in this country would be restored to the same condition as they were in before 1844. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: They will be exactly in their former condition in that respect.] The change of 1844 was made in the teeth of the expressed declarations and wishes of all parties interested in English and Scotch savings banks. But there was another great objection to the Bill, which, if not removed, would prove most fatal to the whole working of the Bill. He perceived that, by the third clause, auditors were to be appointed. Now, it was a very important matter to know how these auditors were to be paid. For his own part, he thought that the auditors were an excellent body of officers; but he was quite certain that, in consequence of the reduction of the rate of interest now payable on moneys in saving banks, he knew that small banks had no funds out of which they could be paid. With regard to the fifth clause, which was the most objectionable of all, it was quite impossible to ascertain in two days what were the feelings of the immense body of depositors who were scattered throughout the whole of this country, and many of them abroad. Many of them were servants. He felt persuaded that rather than run the risk which this Bill would entail upon the trustees, they would resign their trusteeship. He believed that the third clause could not be worked as it stood. He should really like to know what had occurred in the working of English and Scotch savings banks to induce the Go- vernment at this late period of the Session to interfere so objectionably with such large interests. He thought that the parties who were interested in this question had a right to complain of the manner in which the proceedings of these banks had been watched by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. An impression had gone abroad—and he believed it was perfectly true—that the savings bank money had been used for other purposes than those which related to the savings banks. He would not say whether or not the money had been used advantageously for national purposes; but, under the administration of those Commissioners, very great and serious losses had occurred. If any question was to arise as to any deficiency, they might feel assured that the trustees and managers in England and Scotland would not consider themselves responsible for any act done in relation to these trust moneys after they had passed out of their hands. He was glad to find that the right hen. Gentleman admitted that they ought not to be responsible after the money had got out of their hands; but still there was this obvious conclusion to be drawn, that the savings banks of this kingdom would have been in a much more flourishing condition in every respect had greater facilities been given by Parliament for their efficient management.

concurred in the greater part of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and thought the measure had not been well digested, and could not at this late period of the Session, be well considered. The only complaint he had ever heard of the English savings banks was, the low rate of interest, arising from the expenses of audit. The Bill would cause panic and alarm, and he entreated the Government not to persevere with it.

desired to know the amount of tendency in this Bill to increase the security of the depositors in the savings banks. He supposed nothing was clearer than that if there were final defalcations, they must be made good out of the public purse. It would justify a jacquerie if they were not, and if after all the preaching to the industrious classes, exhorting them to confide their savings to the care of their aristocratic betters, it was found their money had been left to be run away with without resource. Things were better managed in France, where institutions of this kind had government security, as everybody believed to have been the case here. If the Government were wise, they would engage at an early period next Session, to bring in a Bill to give Government security to the savings banks.

Sir, as the Government seem determined to persevere, and to have no regard for the just remonstrances of the independent Members of this House, I am necessitated to act in a manner which will at all events mark my disapproval of their conduct, and of the provisions of this most crude and undigested measure. Sir, I move that this Bill be committed this day three months. The evidence upon which this most important Bill is founded is that of four or five witnesses—men connected with Ireland exclusively, with the exception of Mr. Tidd Pratt, who is the Registrar General of Savings Banks. Their evidence is not published—the Committee sat but nine days—and yet it is upon such a foundation as this that a Bill, affecting an immense number of the people of this country, and dealing with no less a sum than 26,000,000l, is brought before Parliament at the end of August. The report itself is the most extraordinary that ever was presented to Parliament. It is as remarkable for its brevity as for its vacuity—as brief as it is worthless. But then. Sir, this Bill is meant to apply to England. There was not a single Engligh witness examined, with the exception I have stated, nor is there a syllable about England in the report. The report is styled "The Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into Savings Banks in Ireland." All the evidence is kept back. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks the House of Commons to sanction this Bill. The report says—

"Your Committee has proceeded with the inquiry entrusted to them by the House; but owing to the late period of the Session they have found themselves unable to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion; and they are of opinion that it is advisable that a further inquiry should take place, either during the recess or in the next Session of Parliament, into the existing system of savings banks. They are of opinion, however, that it is expedient that a Bill should be introduced in the present Session of Parliament, regulating the liability of trustees of savings banks, and providing for the appointment of auditors of savings banks."

The Committee make no recommendation that the depositors should be subjected to any new regulations on the production of their books. But the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman brings in has the following provision:—

"And be it enacted, That the rules of every savings bank shall specify a number of days, not loss than two in every year, ending on the 20th of November, on which the book of each depositor shall be produced at the office of the said savings bank for the purpose of being inspected, examined, and verified with the books of the institution by the auditor; and in case the said book shall not be produced on the second of the days mentioned in any one year ending as aforesaid, the said account shall be closed, and all interest shall cease to accrue on the sums deposited from the last day on which the said book should have been so produced; provided, nevertheless, that the trustees or managers shall have the power to reopen the said account, but only to allow interest thereon from the time when the same shall have been reopened; and an extract of this provision shall be enrolled as one of the rules of every savings bank."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down with this little-considered and ill-prepared Bill, and which he has shown he does not understand himself. The clause I have just read allots two days in each year for the production of depositors' hooks, that they may be inspected and verified, and awards as a penalty for their non-production the cessation of interest and the closing of their accounts. I have no hesitation in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must he ignorant—perfectly ignorant—of the nature of this provision. In the parish in which I reside, Marylebone, there is a savings hank in which there are no less than 18,700 depositors. The actuary waited upon me in reference to this most absurd Bill, and said that if 18,700 depositors were seen hurrying to the hank in two days it would cause a run upon the hank. The investigation into the present system of savings banks was, as far as England is concerned, a perfect Star Chamber business. Both the secrecretary of the Marylebone savings bank, and the secretary of the Bishopsgate savings bank, in which there is no less than one million sterling deposited, applied to the Committee for leave to watch its proceedings, but that leave was refused. Is the Government really serious in forcing on a measure like this almost on the last day of August—a measure of great importance—a measure not sought for and not needed, at least in England, upon half-a-dozen lines of a report of a Committee who examined four or five witnesses. The First Minister of the Grown is not present—this Bill ought not to be discussed in his absence. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us on Friday night that he would bring in another measure next year, and which would effect a radical change in savings hanks. What is the use of bringing in a Bill which is to have a four months' application? But let us see the practical working of the Bill. One of these savings banks has 48,000 depositors. How are all the hooks of the depositors to be verified and inspected in two days? I have been informed that the ordinary staff of a savings bank cannot, even if doubled, inspect and verify more than 500 in a day: they get through 1,000 in two days. What is to be done with the remainder? But the right hon. Gentleman may say let the hanks increase their staff of clerks. Well, but that will occasion increased expense, and by consequence diminish the interest of the depositors. Is it wise to do so? When, in 1844, an additional expense was imposed upon those savings hanks of 11s. in the 100l. it caused a sensible falling-off in the depositors, who, seeing the interest lessened, invested their money in other modes, or kept it. It is all very well for the Government to say that they can carry this measure—they will he supported by their sleeping myrmidons who, aroused from sleep, and knowing nothing about the Bill, and hearing nothing of the discussion, instinctively find their way into the same lobby with the Government. Well, but then there will be another disadvantage entailed upon depositors in those banks by this meddling legislation—the fees will be increased. With the new "radical reform" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come new rules, which must be paid for. Surely a Government which has proposed so much and which has done so little, can refrain from doing harm, since they cannot do good, and will not press this most discreditable Bill through the House of Commons at the end of August, without necessity, and against the opinions of those best calculated to form a judgment on the subject. I move. Sir, that this Bill be committed this day three months.

understood that the argument of the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet against the Bill was founded upon the want of confidence which any change in the law would produce on the English depositors. Well, then, he could tell them that unless they produced some such Bill as the present, the want of confidence which at present existed with regard to the Irish savings banks would be continued, and the most injurious consequences would follow. He had no objections that it should not extend to England and Scotland, but he entreated the noble Lord not to refuse it to Ireland.

said, this was another instance of the difficulty of legislation in the present Parliament, for he had imagined that this Bill would excite no opposition, and yet here was the noble Lord charging them with legislating on this subject merely for the sake of extorting additional foes. [Lord G. BENTINCK imputed no sinister motives to the promoters of the Bill. He merely stated, as one of the inconveniences of this legislation, the undoubted fact that additional fees would be charged upon the alteration of the rules that this Bill would render necessary.] He was glad to find he had misunderstood the noble Lord. The sole object of the Bill was to insure a better management of the savings banks, for the benefit of the depositors; and with that view he proposed to make trustees liable to that extent which the hon. Baronet opposite himself proposed in 1844. At present there was no liability of trustees, and consequently no inducement to them to perform their duty. It had been proved that in one or two cases in Ireland they had neglected their duty; and in England, where the noble Lord said there was no complaint, it was a fact that one trustee had paid 7,000l, out of his own pocket to atone for his previous neglect. The hon. Member for Bradford (Colonel Thompson) had said that Government ought to make good the losses of the depositors; but he would ask whether it was fair that the Government should be answerable for the conduct of officers, secretary, treasurer, &c., whom they did not appoint, and over whom they had no control. They were at present under the appointment of the trustees; and the object of the Bill was by rendering these trustees liable for a moderate amount, to give them an inducement to attend to their duty, and yet not to frighten them into resigning their office altogether. Then with regard to the production of the books of the depositors. It had been correctly stated by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that the only possible check on the accounts of the savings banks were the books of the depositors. That was perfectly true; and the object of the Bill was to require depositors to produce their books once a year, that they might be compared with the accounts in the bank. He was perfectly aware there would be difficulties in this course; but he thought they might be overcome, and the alternative was that the bank accounts would go without check altogether. He therefore trusted that hon. Members would allow this Bill to go into Committee.

contended that the Government was alone responsible for the late period at which this measure had come under the consideration of the House, and urged that the depositors who had lost money by the failure of Irish savings banks were entitled to the favourable consideration of Parliament; because, whatever might be the effect of the law rigidly interpreted, 99 persons out of 100 who deposited their money in savings banks, believed that the Government was responsible for the deposits.

said, it appeared to him that the opposition to this Bill was founded upon the wish some Gentlemen entertained to vest in local authorities the power of appointing unworthy managers of savings banks, and then to come to Parliament and demand compensation for the losses sustained by depositors on account of their misconduct. It was true that the Government were answerable for the money placed in the savings banks which they received, but they were not answerable for the faults of managers. The savings banks in England were well managed; but the managers of Irish savings banks, instead of transmitting to Government the money which they received, put it into their own pockets. The managers of the Manchester savings bank, in which there were 20,000 depositors, caused the book of every depositor to be exhibited once a year as a precaution against fraud.

felt called upon to say that there was not the least ground for the hon. Member for Salford's assertion. It was too much the practice of hon. Members representing English constituencies to look only at the dark side of Irish character. There was scarcely any act, however discreditable, which was not at once imputed to the Irish. The instances of mismanagement which occurred in Ireland, he believed would, on inquiry, be found to have proceeded from local unskilfulness; and he did not conceive that either the present or any other Administration was to blame for the unfortunate events that had occurred.

opposed the Bill because it was calculated to do harm. It was proposed to repeal the 9th George IV., and the provisions it substituted would make trustees resign their trusts, and this would cause a run upon the banks. He recommended that the matter should be left over for further inquiry.

believed that a responsibility limited to the extent of 100l., however small, would be sufficient to secure the attention of the trustees to their duty; and he hoped that those who opposed the Bill would not lightly do what he believed would cause a most serious injury in Ireland.

said, no case had been made out for an interference which would only create alarm.

moved that the operation of the Bill be limited to Ireland, and that the words "Great Britain" be left out of the clause.