Sir, in rising to move the Adjournment of the House, I will first address myself to the immediate question of the day to which the House is to be adjourned, and then proceed to the business which is to be brought forward after Easter. The day to which I had proposed that the House should adjourn was Monday, the 24th instant; but I have found, with regard to various important subjects that I propose to fix for that day, that there has been a very general unwillingness on the part of Members who wish to take part in the discussion of those measures—whether it be the Oxford University Bill, the Railways Bill, just mentioned, or any other measure of importance—to have that business in which they take an interest fixed for the first day after the recess. I have likewise, with some satisfaction, to say that we have not at present, as frequently happens, any estimates to bring forward immediately after the recess. I find also that Her Majesty has been pleased to fix Wednesday, the 26th, for a day of fasting and humiliation, when the Members of this House will probably wish to be in the neighbourhood of their homes; therefore, there will only be two days, the Monday and Tuesday, upon which unimportant business would probably be brought forward, and I think that it will not be desirable that Members should be brought from their homes for that object on those days. I propose, therefore, to alter the Motion by naming Thursday, the 27th, instead of Monday, the 24th of April, as the day to which the adjournment shall run. I will now proceed to the question which was asked me by an hon. Gentleman yesterday, namely, with respect to my intention as to bringing forward the second reading of the Reform Bill on the 27th instant, and which measure was introduced by me as the organ of the Government at the commencement of the Session. I fear it is necessary to make a statement of some length before I go on to state the course that I mean to pursue. The House is aware that Lord Aberdeen, on the formation of his Government, declared to those who accepted office under him, and also declared in Parliament, that a measure of Parliamentary reform would be one of the measures which would constitute the basis on which the Government would be formed. The Members of the Government who accepted office at that time, of course, accepted their offices with that understanding, and consented to that proposal. I mention this, Sir, partly because I think it is stated in an invidious manner that my personal honour is alone concerned in the carrying on of this measure. I consider, Sir, that my personal honour was engaged when the question was, whether I would consent to serve under the Crown as a Member of Lord Aberdeen's Administration? If Lord Aberdeen had said that it was not his intention to propose or adopt any measure of Parliamentary reform, and I had consented to be a Member of that Administration, I might fairly have been questioned by this House, and my personal honour might have been called in question; but from the moment that Lord Aberdeen made that declaration, and his Colleagues accepted office on the faith of that declaration, the question of personal honour regarded not me alone, but regarded all the Members of that Administration. Sir, Lord Aberdeen and his Colleagues stated at the time that they did not think that, with the pressure of the immediate business before them, with the finances unsettled, with the India Bill requiring immediate attention, and the other important measures before them, it was possible to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform during the last Session; and I think there was no question of serious importance raised as to the propriety of that determination. But during the recess the Cabinet applied themselves most sedulously and deliberately to the consideration of this important measure, and a measure was framed which I had the honour of introducing to this House on the 13th of February last. Sir, I see no reason to consider that that measure was inadequate to the occasion, that it was based on wrong principles, that it was carried to too great an extent, or that its provisions were not adapted to reform and to conserve, which I have always considered ought to be the object kept in view in any measures of this kind. Sir, at the time Her Majesty declared in Her Speech from the Throne that such a measure would be proposed, and at the time when I brought forward the measure in this House, there was great probability of a war with Russia, although no rupture had actually taken place, and it was still possible that the negotiations might have been terminated by a pacific arrangement. Unfortunately that was not the case; but while those negotiations were still pending I proposed an adjournment of the second reading of this Bill to the period now in question, namely, the 27th of April. I did so upon the ground that very important questions were then before the House relating either immediately to the preparation of forces for supporting the war, or to the supply of means for the payment of those forces. I stated then, as I had stated on a previous occasion, that I did not consider that, abstractedly, a state of war was a sufficient ground for not proposing a measure of Parliamentary reform. I stated that there might be circumstances, such as those which occurred at the commencement of the war in 1803, which might so occupy the attention of every man that it would be impossible to propose any measure of that nature; but I added that I did not think the general fact that this nation was engaged in a war with Russia should be a sufficient reason for not passing during that war such a measure of internal reform and improvement as I have proposed. Sir, I see no reason to retract that opinion; nor do I think that any person will differ from that statement, or consider it impossible or inexpedient during a state of war to bring forward measures of internal improvement and reform, including such a measure as the one I have referred to. I stated likewise, that I thought that during a period of war it was necessary to impose great burdens upon the country, and that if there were classes who were fitted to have the elective franchises, and had them not, and were entitled to them, but did not enjoy them, at the same time that they had to bear those burdens, it was far from being an unfitting time to admit them to those franchises. Sir, from neither of those opinions do I see any occasion to recede. But, Sir, when war was declared, it was to be considered by the Government whether or not, at this particular time, we should proceed with the second reading of the Reform Bill. Now, it is not to be disguised that a Reform Bill of any extensive nature attacks many interests, wounds many prejudices, and loses many friends; and it cannot be denied also, that if the stream of reform is sluggish, those weeds of self-interest and prejudice embarrass and completely choke it up. Now, Sir, we have had to look at the prospect of our being able to carry the Reform Bill in the present state of public opinion both in this House and in the country. Now, I think it will be generally owned that, while there has been an indisposition on the part of Members of this House, as far as I can collect their opinions, on whatever side of the House they sit, to undertake the consideration of this question, there has been in the country not a disapprobation of the measure that we proposed, but an indif- ference as to its being immediately urged forward. I collect this, first, from the absorbing interest which it is evident all the people of this country take in the war that has now begun—an interest which is quickened by their feelings in favour of the Power that is attacked, and against the aggressor in this war. I collect it, secondly, from the absence of manifestations in favour of reform by petitions presented to this House. I think there has not been more than eleven petitions of the kind presented to this House, and of these not more than four are in favour of the measure before the House. Now, Sir, as I have said, I do not think this is to be attributed to disapprobation of the measure of the Government. As far as I can learn, by applying and asking in various quarters, the judgment passed upon that measure is not one of disapprobation. It has been considered that it extends very largely, but not unduly, the franchise of the people; and it has been considered, that with regard to any penalties of disfranchisement it may contain, whether that disfranchisement is carried too far or not far enough, or whatever may be the measure of it, it has at least been applied fairly, without any reference to party interests or feelings whatever, and that, therefore, the Government measure is at least worthy of commendation in that respect. But whether or not its particular provisions are, on the whole, well combined, or whether every one of its clauses may be approved of, upon that I think neither this House nor the country is at present able to give an opinion, from that want of attention to its details which I have already mentioned, and from the absorbing interest in the war to which I have alluded. Sir, I have considered all these things—the Government have considered them—and the Government of which I am a Member have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise, whether as regards the general interests of the country, or whether as regards the interests and the feelings of those who look for reform in our Parliamentary institutions, to press the second reading of this Bill in this Session. Sir, I feel, and every one must feel, the great force of the observation made on a previous occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), that it is exceedingly inconvenient to have a Bill before the House of Commons containing, as this Bill contains, provisions for the disfran- chisement of several seats in this House, seats for which hon. Members are voting at present, and no decision to be come to on the part of the House as to whether that Bill was approved of or disapproved of—whether it should or should not be carried into effect. I am not at all disposed to diminish the weight of this objection to any further postponement of the measure in question. I think it a matter to be regretted that Her Majesty having twice advised in Her Speech from the Throne—and I am one of those who advised Her, I admit—to propose to Parliament the consideration of measures for the amendment of the representation of the people, in neither instance has that proposal been taken seriously into consideration. For I own, Sir, I cannot accept the excuse which has been made for the course which I admit also that I am ready to adopt on the occasion, that the Government having introduced a measure on the subject and laid it on the table of the House, that their part in the matter has been accomplished. On the contrary, Sir, I cannot but think that, having introduced this measure to Parliament, the Government were also bound, under ordinary circumstances, to do all that lay in their power to carry it into effect by passing it into a law. I should be sorry, speaking for myself, to evade any pledge which I may have made on the subject, on that or any similar grounds of extenuation. But, Sir, great as the evils and inconveniencies are of the course in question, I think that to adopt any other course would be attended with evils still greater, as well as with practical difficulties of an almost insurmountable character. We could hardly propose the second reading of this Bill, for instance, without declaring at the same time our intention, if we should be defeated on it, of resigning office, or of at once proceeding to an immediate dissolution of Parliament. The House will, I am sure, admit that either of these courses, which form the only alternatives, is attended with great danger as well as great practical difficulty. Well, Sir, but then, on the other hand, it might seem to follow from this dilemma—and in ordinary circumstances it would follow—that a Government proposing a measure—a measure which they declare to be of essential importance to the happiness and welfare of the country—a measure which affects the representation of the people of this country in Parliament—a measure in which great issues are in- volved—and then coming down to the House to admit that they do not feel obliged to go through with it in the present Session, is not free from the imputation of blame. But, Sir, here again a great duty intervenes in the consideration of the question. The Ministers of the Crown, it is in the recollection of every hon. Member, have but very lately brought down to both Houses of Parliament a Message from the Crown, asking the support of Parliament for the Crown in the arduous and possibly the protracted struggle of which we are in the commencement. I say, Sir, it would not be compatible with our duty to the Crown and to the country on this occasion, except in a case of the utmost necessity, to shrink from the posts we occupy, and to decline the responsibility which belongs to the prosecution of that war in which we have advised Her Majesty to embark. But then, in my defence, as regards the Reform Bill, and the position of the Government in reference to it, I may be asked—and I am quite ready to answer the question—how stands the question of reform itself as regards the Government? Sir, the first thing I shall say on that point is, that the Government of Lord Aberdeen on accepting office adopted the pledge which they gave on the subject of reform in all sincerity; that they are ready to abide by it, and that they hold themselves as much bound by the principles of reform in the representation of the people now as they did on the very first day on which they entered office. With regard to any more specific pledge I can only say that the Cabinet when it adopted the reform measure now before the House, saw no reason then, and see no reason now, to change the opinion which they entertain with regard to the principles and with regard to the general scope and object of that measure. I will say, moreover, that they consider themselves, in fact and in substance, as much in approval of the measure at this moment as when it was first brought in. They can only say, further, that when an opportunity presents itself they will be quite willing to embrace that opportunity, and to bring forward again a Bill for improving the representation of the people in Parliament; that is to say, when Parliament can afford time properly to attend to the subject; and that they will be ready when they bring forward that measure to bring it forward with the weight of Government, and to carry it, if possible, to a satisfactory conclusion. Of course I do not mean that the observations which have been made upon the measure will not meet with due attention, or that modifications in some of the details may not be considered before it shall be reintroduced. We think we should ill represent the people of this country at large if we did not pay due deference to public feeling in the matter on these points. But the principle of the measure we are ready to abide by; and the Government in that respect remains the same as it was at first constituted—that is to say, a Government based upon the reform of the representation of the people of this country in Parliament. Sir, these conclusions are new and unprecedented, because the circumstances which have led to them are new. A Government entering on a war of the magnitude of that with which we are menaced, proposing a measure so large as this, is a circumstance that has not occurred in the constitutional history of this country, and we are bound, therefore, to consider our own sense of duty in the course which we see fit to pursue in the matter. Now, Sir, may I be permitted to say a few words, after stating the position of the Government, on my own position as the organ of the Government in the matter. Sir, the course which I have pursued exposes me, I am well aware, to all those weapons of taunt and sarcasm which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) knows so well how to wield. They are the fair weapons of opposition at all times, and I have been long used to them, and I should not complain of them if they were wielded by even more than the skill and dexterity with which they are used by that right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, it is a different thing with respect to those hon. Members supporting the present Government, who are attached honestly and earnestly to reform. With respect to them, I must say, that when the statement I have made is held to be open to suspicion, such suspicion can hardly be entertained without weakening and destroying my utility and my position as the organ of the Government in this House. If I have—[The noble Lord appeared now to be affected by deep emotion, and paused. Mean while he was loudly and repeatedly cheered from both sides of the House.]—If I have done anything in the cause of reform, I trust that I have deserved some degree of confidence, but, at all events, I feel that, if I do not possess that confidence, I shall be of no use to the Crown or to the country, and I can no longer hold the position I now occupy. These, Sir, are times of no ordinary importance, and questions arise of the utmost difficulty. I shall endeavour to arrive at those conclusions which will be for the best interests of the Crown and of the country, and I trust that I may meet with support. I have now, Sir, only to move that the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday, the 27th of April.

said, he felt that the House were under the deepest obligations to the noble Lord for having extricated them from a position of no little difficulty—and, after what the noble Lord had just said with regard to the unwillingness of the House and the apathy of the country on the subject of Parliamentary reform, he thought, the noble Lord himself must be convinced that the course which he had thought it his duty to adopt was not only a sound course, but one entirely in accordance with the voice of the nation. The noble Lord had intimated his intention of introducing at some future period a Bill of a similar character to that which he had now abandoned, but he had most wisely abstained from fixing any particular period for its introduction. In critical times like these, who would be bold enough to say what would be the position of the country at the close of the present year? All they knew was, that at that moment they stood on the very threshold of great events. They were on the eve of a great European struggle, of which no living man could foretell the issue. They had sent forth as gallant a fleet and as noble an army as ever quitted the shores of this country; and though they might say, as the noble Lord did on a former occasion, "God defend the right," still it would be an act of nothing less than the wildest presumption for any man to predict that one brief campaign would be sufficient to annihilate the colossal power with which this country was now at war. Whenever a fitting opportunity should arise for discussing a subject of such gravity and importance, the great majority of that House would, he doubted not, be prepared to entertain and discuss in a liberal spirit a sound and comprehensive measure of Parliamentary reform. The present House of Commons had shown itself more desirous than any which had preceded it of reforming the abuses of the representative system. If he wanted a proof of the existence of a reforming spirit amongst them, he need only refer to the manner in which the House received the Bill introduced by the noble Lord for the suppression of bribery and corruption. That Bill was hailed by both sides of the House as being well calculated to put down that system, which, as they must all feel, not only tainted the reputation of those who were personally concerned, but tended to lower and degrade the character of that House in the estimation of the people. In the few words which so much moved the sympathy of the House, the noble Lord referred to his own pledges, and to the manner in which his personal honour was concerned in this Reform Bill. He (Sir E. Dering) felt assured that the House and the country would do ample justice to the motives which induced the noble Lord gallantly to redeem his pledge by introducing this measure into Parliament; and he was equally sure that that House and the country would no less appreciate the moral courage which the noble Lord displayed in withdrawing the Bill spontaneously when circumstances entirely beyond his own control had rendered it undesirable to proceed with it. The difficulties which attended the further progress of the Bill were altogether insuperable; they involved, as the noble Lord said, either the dissolution of Parliament or the dissolution of the existing Government; and at such a crisis as that at which they had now arrived, when it was of such vital importance to secure unanimity in their Councils, to conciliate the energies of Parliament, and to strengthen the hands of the Government, he felt convinced that he was expressing the opinion of the great majority both in that House and in the country, when he said the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing altogether a measure either the adoption or the rejection of which would have entailed consequences most injurious to the present and the future welfare of the country.

said, in that House there were two classes, who looked upon the Bill before them with very different views. One class would resist all reform; the other, of which he was a member, was anxious to carry various reforms for the improvement of the representation. As a Radical Reformer he had supported the noble Lord in many of his schemes for upwards of thirty years, and he could well understand the noble Lord feeling sensitive with regard to a suspicion that he had been a party to anything like a pretence. He, for one, had not the least doubt of the noble Lord's sincerity, though he was one of those who had been anxious to press the Bill to a second reading, on the ground that the country expected the measure to be carried. He could not admit that there was any want of feeling and sympathy on the part of the country. Had any attempt been made to get up petitions against the Bill, he was convinced a very different spirit would have been manifested from that which had been supposed to exist. But, although he did not admit that there was any want of sympathy, the question which he had put to himself when he heard what had been stated by the noble Lord, and he saw what was going on around him was this—how could he best secure that reform which he deemed essential for the interest of the country? As a practical man he asked himself whether the measure was likely to be forwarded by being pressed, and under the new circumstances which had arisen since it was introduced. If the Government were defeated on this Bill and remained in office, there would be an end of all character in public men. He could not conceal from himself that if the measure were pressed, the Government might be driven either to dissolve Parliament or to resign; and in the present state of affairs it would be madness to contemplate either of those events calmly. He had had, perhaps, as wild views on the subject of reform as any one, matured, no doubt, by long practice; but he should be unworthy of the confidence of his constituents if he could contemplate without alarm a dissolution of Parliament at the present time, with the Army in the field and the fleet at sea, and when such an event might stop negotiations. On the other hand, if the Government were forced to resign, he could not satisfy himself that there was any class of individuals who might be called to office on the resignation of the present Ministry who could do so much justice to the country as the present advisers of the Crown. It was true that the Government was a Government of compromise; it was no less true, that the Reform Bill which had been introduced was a conservative measure. He would ask some of those hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who in 1831 and 1832 were as loud against reform as now, whether they did not look back with satisfaction to the measure which then passed, and whether what had happened in Europe and in this country since that time, was not sufficient to induce them not to be adverse to those measures of reform which a due regard for the safety and preservation of the Constitution rendered necessary? But when he looked at the position in which the country was at the present time, he felt bound to say, although with the greatest reluctance—a reluctance which could not be exceeded on the part of any hon. Member—that the Government had no other alternative than to pursue the course which had been taken that night by the noble Lord. In saying that he must, however, repeat that he had the greatest confidence in the noble Lord, and in the declaration he had made, that he would, as soon as circumstances permitted, bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform which would meet the wishes of the country, remove those blemishes which existed—and they were not a few—and strengthen the Constitution by widening the basis on which it stood. By following this course the noble Lord would spread that contentment and satisfaction which were essential to the well-being of this, as of every other country. There was another portion of the noble Lord's speech which was satisfactory to Reformers. He had not stated that the measure would be pressed in all its points—as it stood at present—at some future period, but that upon what had passed Amendments would be grounded. Perhaps the future measure would be more extensive. However that might be, he (Mr. Hume) felt it his duty upon this occasion, as one who had been a Reformer as long as anybody in that House, to look to practical measures and to say that he believed the prudent course which the Government had taken to be the best one; and he hoped, after the declaration and the evidence of feeling which had been shown on the part of the noble Lord—and which was much to his honour—that his hon. Friends near him would give that credit to the noble Lord which he did.

said, he was not present on a previous occasion when the noble Lord announced the postponement of the Reform Bill. If he had been present he should have remarked on certain things then said, which now he was not allowed, to refer to; but he thought the concluding observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) reflected somewhat upon an hon. Friend (Sir J. Shelley) behind him. The hon. Member for Westminster had on that occasion, with what was then a proper feeling, ex- pressed an opinion that if this Bill were withdrawn or postponed merely because hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House so wished, and without any pressure of circumstances which made it impossible for the Government to proceed with it, then there would be danger that Reformers might think that the measure was introduced without any intention to carry it, and the character of the Government would consequently be damaged. That was a reasonable thing to say, and he was surprised to see that it led to so much warmth, and, he might say, acerbity of feeling. Had he been present on the occasion to which he referred, he should have commented on what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn), who took the liberty—["Order, order!"] He was only going to tell the House what he should have said had he then been present. Had he been present he should have objected to any person expressing the opinion that he (Mr. Bright) had criticised the present Reform Bill merely because it interfered unpleasantly with the position he held in respect to Manchester. He was not afraid of having another person in Ids bed of down, as the hon. and learned Member was pleased to call it, but he should be glad to have three or four more, in proportion to the wealth and importance of the city. Had he been present on the former occasion, he should not have objected to the postponement of the Reform Bill, and he did not rise now to oppose the abandonment of the measure, because everybody felt that, with the exception of two nights in the week, when the Government had business before the House, there seemed to be nothing to do, because everybody thought it was quite impossible to do anything; they might talk and gossip and go away at an early hour, but they all felt as if the prorogation would be the most comfortable thing that could be done for them. Such being the case, the noble Lord was not required to accomplish an impossibility. The noble Lord had been a political Samson in his day, and had done many things to make his name remembered with honour as a Reformer; but he was not expected to effect an absolute impossibility. He (Mr. Bright) had never for a single moment doubted that the honest object of the noble Lord was to improve the representation of the people in that House. Remembering the measure which the noble Lord introduced in 1852, which proposed to give the franchise to 5l. ratepayers in boroughs, and also the measure which the noble Lord introduced in the present year, extending the franchise to 10l. occupiers in counties—no one, bearing in mind that those two measures proceeded from a Minister who, for about thirty years, had been specially connected with this question of reform, could feel otherwise than convinced that the noble Lord was just as honestly of opinion that a wide extension of the franchise was not only safe but desirable, as he (Mr. Bright), or any other person not holding official position, might be supposed to be. It would require a great amount of malevolence, and also a large amount of stupidity, to say that, as far as regards the extension of the franchise, the noble Lord was not honestly anxious that a great number of the population should be placed upon the electoral roll, and made to feel that, though their position was not elevated or their circumstances wealthy, they were still citizens of this country, and, being so, had a right to take part in elections for Members of Parliament. But there was one point, and it was with respect to it that he principally rose to say a word—namely, that it must be borne in mind that the present Reform Bill proposed to touch not less, he thought, than ninety-three seats in that House. The Irish Bill, he presumed, would also affect a certain number of other seats, and it was not likely, as the House would feel, and as the noble Lord knew, that a measure of absolute disfranchisement to a considerable extent, and intended to touch also a great many seats (it might be with doubtful results as to leaving a Member on the one or the other side), would be received with alacrity by the House, unless there existed such a feeling out of doors as would act like steam upon a locomotive, and force the house to do something which it would not otherwise do. That was precisely the point on which they found themselves fixed. The noble Lord and his Colleagues had advocated the policy which had landed the country in the present war, and, though he (Mr. Bright) could blame them for that, he did not know that the majority of the House could, because, as far as could be recollected from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), of his leader in another place, and of other Members of Parliament, there appeared to be a disposition on the part of the majority—it might be a large majority—to support the Government in the measures taken with respect to the war. Under these circumstances, the House had no right to reproach the Government for any course they might now think fit to pursue, whether with regard to the postponement, withdrawal, or total abandonment of the present Bill. Another circumstance constituted a great difficulty in the way of proceeding with the Bill, and that was indifference out of doors—a feeling which the hon. Member for Montrose would fain persuade himself did not exist. He (Mr. Bright) was the only Member in that House professing to be in favour of reform who had out of doors criticised adversely the present Reform Bill; and, as the noble Lord hoped that he, with Colleagues, more favourable perhaps to reform than some of those now associated with him, might hereafter propose a Reform Bill with success, he (Mr. Bright) would take this opportunity of stating how it happened that indifference was the feeling chiefly exhibited by the public in respect to the present measure. Before the measure was brought forward the organs of the Government wrote frequently on the subject. The Times wrote against any extension of the borough franchise, and the Edinburgh Review suggested that no reform whatever was necessary at all. The Morning Chronicle published letters, from which some portion of the present Bill, showing no tendency in favour of popular representation, was said to be taken. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), with remarkable alacrity, jumped out of the Cabinet, and in ten (lays afterwards jumped in again, upon this question of Parliamentary reform. He did not know what concessions the noble Lord demanded in order to resume his seat in the Cabinet, but, in all probability, some concessions were made, and, perhaps, to them were due some parts of the present Bill which had involved the Government in a difficulty in respect to obtaining the sanction of public opinion in favour of the Bill. However, the Bill was launched, and he (Mr. Bright) came down to the House, hoping, after the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) speech, to be able to say something in favour of the proposition, but he was not able to do so, for, to use the words of a very judicious gentleman, a supporter of the noble Lord, and formerly a Member of that House, it was a conundrum and mystification, and the people of this country did not like conundrums and mystifications. The hon. Member for Montrose took a different view of the measure, speaking of it as an instalment and a step in the right direction, and advising people to take what they could get. Now, if the noble Lord had simply limited the Bill to the enfranchisement clauses with respect to the county and borough franchises, and to the provision repealing the ratepaying clauses of the existing Act, in all probability the House might have pressed the measure notwithstanding the state of foreign policy. The other clauses, extinguishing sixty-two seats and re-distributing the Members to other constituencies, might then have been left over to some other Session, when there would be a better opportunity of entertaining and discussing them. He had been in hopes that the noble Lord would have done so, and then he should have concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose in thinking that some great advantage would have been gained, and that the Session would not have been utterly fruitless with regard to this question. But he wanted to tell the noble Lord—and he never spoke with a less hostile feeling towards him than at the present moment—for, after his speech, it was impossible for any man, on whatever side of the House he sat, to indulge in recrimination against him—he wanted, he repeated, to say that the noble Lord seemed to have forgotten how it was that he carried his Reform Bill in 1832. That measure was carried only by the cordial and heartfelt response from all the towns in the United Kingdom; but, in the present Bill he was unable to discover what should induce the towns of England to support it. He had been charged with indulging in the crotchets of the Manchester school when judging the present measure, as if he would consent to no Bill but what he himself drew. Now, it might be a warning to any Minister charged with a future Reform Bill, if he showed in one or two instances how the Bill failed in obtaining the sympathy of the town population. He admitted that the Bill increased the right of voting, but it gave the vote without the power, and the man who could shout outside the polling-booth was in as good a position as the man voting inside of it, unless the vote carried with it a free and honest share of power in the election of a Member of Parliament. The noble Lord in his Bill was not illiberal, certainly, with respect to the county franchise, and had shown a fair disposition—carried out, however, in a complicated manner—to give the vote to the inhabitants of towns; but there was one fatal defect in his Bill. The noble Lord took sixty-two seats, and only gave fourteen to boroughs, eight of them being given to the minorities in the boroughs, and, consequently, the great towns of England were not likely to be enthusiastic in favour of a measure which gave Members to counties already over-represented, and overlooked the claims of the great borough constituencies. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) smiled at this statement,' but, ever since 1832, all the great measures which had been passed had been carried to a large extent by the honest sympathy and votes of the representatives of great towns, and in any Reform Bill it would be impossible to overlook the claims of those towns. Another point to which he wished to refer was, that, while the metropolitan boroughs, with a population of 2,000,000, had only eighteen Members, eight agricultural counties, with a similar population, had ninety Members. That was not a satisfactory state of things, and he advised the noble Lord, whenever he touched the representation again, to take six metropolitan boroughs, averaging for each a population of 320,000, and to divide them into twelve boroughs, with a population of 160,000 for each. The noble Lord would then find that he would have a constituency in each borough of 9,000 or 10,000 electors, the metropolis would be better represented, and if there were conservative, wealthy, and timid classes, not now able to be represented in the present overwhelming constituencies, they would at least have a better chance in smaller. He would not go into the consideration of the details of the present Bill, because he did not wish to find needless fault with it or to keep the House from the consideration of other business. He would only say that it was his opinion that the time would come soon when the people, who were now just as decided in their feeling for reform as ever, would demand that it should be accomplished. If the present war should be of a protracted character, then a protracted war brought with it heavy taxation, suffering trade, and increasing discontent, and the very people who had clamoured for the war would turn round in a very short time, and assume, however untruly, that if they had been better represented in all probability there would have been no war. He would, therefore, advise the House to be prepared to improve the representation at some future period, and he would ask the noble Lord not, because circumstances prevented him in the present Session from carrying out his cherished idea, to give up the idea entirely; but, in whatever measure he might hereafter propose, let him show the people of this country that he had confidence in them, and that he was willing to make to them generous and great concessions. Let the noble Lord show the people that he felt confident that admitting them to the enjoyment of the franchise and political power would only increase their respect for the Government of the country and their obedience to the laws. He did not blame the noble Lord for the course he had taken on the present occasion, and he only hoped the noble Lord would not be discouraged from again coming to the consideration of the subject at an early and happier time, and producing an honest, simple, and well-defined Bill, so clearly good that the people everywhere should acknowledge it to be good. If such a Bill should be proposed, the noble Lord would not have to complain of the indifference of the country, but would be able to carry his measure to a successful issue.

said, he did not rise to follow the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) in a discussion on the Reform Bill, which. was not now before the House, but, having for many years acted with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he could not deny himself the gratification on the present occasion of stating that, in his opinion, the course taken by the noble Lord was dictated by the soundest policy, and would give him an additional claim to the confidence and respect of those who had for many years looked on him as their guide on political questions. He believed that the noble Lord had acted with his wonted integrity and courage, and he was sure that a fatal blow would have been given to the hopes of those who desired to see progressive and well-considered improvements introduced in the representative system, if the noble Lord, at a most inopportune period, and against the feeling of the country, had, from any false shame, or any mistaken desire to support a supposed consistency, taken a step which would have seriously injured the cause of Parliamentary reform. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that he did not believe that there was indifference or apathy on the question of Parliamentary reform in the country. He (Mr. Labou- chere) could only say that, as far as he was able to judge, the country, absorbed by the magnitude of the contest in which it was about to engage, would have viewed with the utmost distaste the Parliament wasting its time, as it would have been, in discussing this question on the present occasion. He happened, the other day, to fall in with a friend who came from Scotland, and who was well able to judge of the political feeling there. He asked that gentleman what they said in Scotland about the Reform Bill; and his reply was, that they said nothing at all about it. He thought that, in the present state of public feeling, it would have been madness in the Government to have attempted to proceed with this measure. The House and the country expected something very different from the Government, for we were now in a most critical state, we were at the beginning of a war of which no man could see the termination. Never had any Government received greater support than the present Government had received to enable them to carry on the war. The House had refused them nothing, but had voted large fleets and armies—money, confidence, everything they had asked for. We had a right to expect from them, in return, united counsels—we had a right to expect that their undistracted attention would be devoted to the one great object, and these things were perfectly inconsistent with their embarking in the discussion of a measure which would naturally rouse all the passions of the House and the country, and would give rise to those differences of opinion which must always exist on subjects of this description. He would not detain the House any longer, but he had been desirous of expressing his satisfaction with the course that the Government had pursued, which was not only the best, but which was the only course that they could have pursued. They had no choice on the subject, and he believed that no one in that House, who was attached to the principles of reform and was a supporter of improvements in the Constitution, would have heard without the greatest consternation an announcement on the part of the Government that they intended to bring this question forward under the present circumstances of the country. He trusted that. the question would be brought forward at a more fitting period, but he believed that to have proceeded with the measure at present would have been fatal to all rational reform, and would have led the country into the most serious difficulties.

said, he trusted that the House would allow him to offer a few observations upon the subject of the noble Lord's statement. Two months since he had put a question to the noble Lord similar to the one which had been put by his hon. Friend (Sir E. Dering). He then regretted the view which the noble Lord took of the subject, but he had put his question, not with any intentional hostility to the noble Lord, but because he felt that it would be inexpedient to discuss the subject in Parliament at the present moment; and he thought that the noble Lord would be no party to bringing before the House a question of this nature if he did not intend to carry it through, and lie was certain also that the result of his so doing must be either the disruption of the Cabinet or else the dissolution of Parliament. It was admitted that either of these eventualities would be injurious to the country, and he had felt certain that a consideration of the public interest would at length induce the noble Lord to take the course which he had now taken, a course which was most honourable to him, as he had sacrificed his own personal feelings to what he believed to be the public good. It was his (Viscount Jocelyn's) conviction that the public mind was now only occupied with one great subject, namely, the conduct of the war. We were about to engage in a war of which we could not tell what might be the result, and which the public desired should be carried on with energy and vigour; and that result could only be obtained by unity in our counsels, and by forbearance being shown not merely by the opponents of the Government, but also by the Government itself, towards the various prejudices and opinions entertained by Members of that House. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had but acted fairly, when he thanked the opponents of the Government for their support in the passing of the measures necessary for carrying on the war. It was not now necessary to discuss whether the Reform Bill was a good or a bad Bill. He had always doubted whether a Reform Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's present advisers would be likely to meet with that sympathy and support which would be necessary in order to carry it through the House. He thought that no measure of legislative reform could be carried out unless it was backed by a large portion of the people of the country and proposed by a strong and united Government. He could not forget how his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then on the Opposition side of the House, when he was taunted with having changed his opinions, challenged any man to prove that he was not justified in the course he had taken; neither could he forget how the right hon. Secretary at War had attacked his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the party to which he belonged, for having changed their opinions with regard to the fiscal policy of the country; and he would not believe that his right hon. Friends, of whose honour no one had a higher opinion than himself, would, before twelve months had passed away, lay themselves open to charges similar to those which they had brought against the Government which preceded them. A short time subsequent to the speech of his right hon. Friend, a Member of the Cabinet had taken an opportunity of declaring publicly that his opinions were unchanged, that he had always been a Radical, and that he still remained one. He had not believed, therefore, that any measure of reform would be proposed by the Government, which would be likely to gain any degree of support, nor did he think that he was wrong in that conclusion. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had not proved himself a very strong supporter of the Bill, and he did not think a voice had been raised in any part of the House in favour of it. A measure of reform was not likely to be carried by men, unless their views upon the question of principle were the same. He would say no more with regard to the Reform Bill, but he would merely remark, with reference to the noble Lord, that, during the time he had sat in that House, now nearly twelve years, he had always regarded the noble Lord, although he had generally been opposed to him, with the highest respect for his honour, integrity, and courage, and he thought to-night the noble Lord had proved that the time had come when it was the duty of statesmen to sacrifice their own personal feelings, however painful that sacrifice might be, in order to do what they believed best for the public good.

said, that while entirely concurring in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), he was unwilling to allow the discussion to terminate without also expressing his approval of the postponement of the Reform Bill, which, he feared, if pushed forward at the present time, must have led to a disruption of the Cabinet or a dissolution of Parliament. Whatever might be his opinion of the abstract policy of the measure, he thought that every consideration of prudence and expediency demanded that it should be postponed for the present Session. He was not one of those who would tamper with the question of reform. He agreed with many of the principles contained in the Government Bill, and on a fitting occasion should be ready to give it his favourable consideration, but at present he felt that its proper discussion was quite out of the question. He had not hitherto expressed any opinion as to the policy of the war, nor was he any very warm partisan of that policy; but as it had been commenced, it was necessary that it should be carried on with energy and vigour, and he should give his most cordial support to the Government in its prosecution.

I think, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a sound conclusion in that which they have communicated to the House to-night, and that the country is to be congratulated upon it. I am not, therefore, disposed to indulge in those sarcasms which the noble Lord anticipated on this occasion; and if the conduct of the Government with respect to other measures which I may also feel it to be my duty to oppose be influenced by the same feelings and regulated by the same policy, I can promise the noble Lord that he will experience from me an opposition as mitigated as on the present occasion. But, although I shall never shrink from exercising my best efforts to vindicate the opinions of my friends, and to resist any measures which we think obnoxious to the public welfare, if such measures are brought forward by the noble Lord, I can assure the noble Lord I am little disposed to-night, after the address he has made, to view with any spirit of acerbity the course he has adopted. Although it has been my fate to be always seated opposite to the noble Lord, I can say, most sincerely, there is no one in this House has a more heartfelt respect for the noble Lord than I have. I think his character and career are precious possessions of the House of Commons, and I am sure that the Members of the House of Commons will always cherish them. Wherever the noble Lord sits, I am sure he will be accompanied by the respect of every Member of this House; and I think the manner in which to-night he has made what was evidently a painful communication is in every way worthy of the noble Lord's character. But, Sir, although I am satisfied with the course which Her Majesty's Ministers have proposed to take with respect to this Bill for Parliamentary Reform, and although the feelings which I have endeavoured imperfectly to express with regard to the noble Lord are most sincere, I still feel it my duty to express my conviction that all that the noble Lord has said to-night has not really met the real difficulty of his position. All the influences which he has placed before us to-night, and which have induced him to take a course so opposite to that which he originally contemplated, have been in operation during the whole of the Session; and, therefore, I am obliged to ask the noble Lord how it was that, yielding now to these influences, the noble Lord and his Colleagues felt themselves justified in bringing forward this Bill for Parliamentary Reform at the commencement of the Session? The noble Lord has stated, to-night, a variety of causes which have induced him to adopt this final course. Did they not exist when Parliament met? Did they not exist on the 13th of February, when the noble Lord in detail, in spite of every warning, notwithstanding every remonstrance, determined to place that measure before Parliament and the country? Why, on the very first night we assembled the noble Lord was met from this side of the House by appeals to him not to pursue the course he then contemplated. He was told that the state of war that then virtually existed was one that rendered the period most inopportune for the discussion of a proposal for organic changes in the Constitution of the country. The noble Lord would not listen to the appeals then made to him. The noble Lord, with great ingenuity, maintained by instances and by arguments that a period of war was particularly qualified and adapted for the discussion of such business as this; that, the public mind being distracted from the measure of Parliamentary reform, it was possible to devise a measure, without being so much influenced by popular feeling and popular passion as in ordinary circumstances they might be. The noble Lord attempted to lay down the principle, that the fact of being in a state of war was in favour of this change. The noble Lord afterwards showed us that war with Russia was a condition of things peculiarly fa- vourable to the prosecution of a measure of this kind. The noble Lord has, to-night, observed that there is some force in the remark that there is inconvenience in laying a measure upon the table, and not proceeding with it, which brands, I may say, almost a sixth of the Members of the House of Commons. In a country like this, where so much depends upon prescription, the noble Lord must feel that at any time for a Minister of the Crown to bring forward a measure that shakes the influence of prescription is a hazardous enterprise. It is certainly one that should not be risked, unless that Minister has every prospect of succeeding with his measure, and of substituting for the power or influence which he is going to destroy or to abrogate that new power or influence which, in his opinion, will more beneficially operate upon the Government of the country? Now, what is Parliamentary reform? We are in the habit of so familiarly using that phrase that we are almost too apt to forget its exact meaning. After all, a measure for the reconstruction of Parliament is a measure to affect and to change the principal depositary of power in the State. A measure of Parliamentary reform is a measure which virtually says to a large class of the people, "You do not possess political power—you ought to possess political power—and this is a measure to give you political power." On the other hand, it says to another class, "You possess political power—you ought not to possess political power—and we are going to take that political power you hold from you." These are grave measures. A measure of that kind, if introduced merely by an independent Member, may be looked on as a measure brought forward for discussion in a debating society, though the ability of the individual who introduced it, his knowledge of the subject, his depth of reasoning, and eloquence of language, may produce, in the long run, an amount of public opinion that may support and give influence to his views; but when a measure of Parliamentary reform is brought forward by a Minister of the great reputation of the noble Lord, and when a man is told that he does not possess political power, and ought to possess it, and the measure of the Government would give it to him, from that moment that man feels himself as a person aggrieved, as one deprived of his rights, so that you are absolutely producing a disaffected class by the proposition of the Government. On the other hand, every man whose franchise is threatened by such a measure, every corporation, every individual who is told that the Government are about to deprive him of power that he and those who preceded him have long exercised, though the Government do not proceed with the measure, will look upon the Government as their enemy—as persons who, when they have the power, would deprive them of their rights and franchises which they so much value. Therefore, it is clear that when a Minister makes a proposition of this nature, and does not proceed with it, he is creating disaffection amongst some classes and dislike amongst others. He is, in fact, weakening the constituted authorities of the country, and enfeebling the established institutions of the land. That, I think, is a most unwise course, and it only proves that no Minister should embark in an undertaking of such a nature as a Parliamentary reform without the necessity for the change being clear, and his ability to accomplish his purpose being evident and palpable. Now we are told that we are going to war, and that it is necessary that the sympathy of all classes should surround the Government and the Executive. We are told that we are going to war, and you are encouraging and developing the sympathies of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects by telling some that they deserve to possess rights which you will not give them, and by telling others that they exercise rights which you mean to take from them. Why, Sir, the noble Lord has in the course of this Session expressed his opinion that a state of war, and especially a state of war with Russia, was no sufficient reason for relinquishing the measure that has been recently under our consideration, or rather proposed to us. The noble Lord is not the only Member of the Cabinet who has expressed this opinion. The First Minister in another place, and even very recently, expressed his opinion that there was nothing in the state of our external relations which would induce the Government not to proceed with this measure—a measure which he believed had been received with the utmost favour throughout the country. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seems to complain of the apathy with which his measure was received by the country. But we have always been told by the noble Lord and his Colleagues that we should legislate on this question when there is no excitement and no passion; that the proper time for introducing these changes and making these amendments in our representative system is the moment when the people are tranquil, and the public mind is not inflamed, or unduly attracted to the subject, so that the contemplation of statesmen may be calm and undisturbed. And, therefore, it is a new argument introduced into this debate that the apathy of the public mind is a reason for not proceeding with this measure. Well, but there is another reason which has been urged by the noble Lord, and which, I confess, astonished me. I understood him to complain of the opposition which this measure had received in the House of Commons. Now, what I complain of is, that no opportunity has ever been given us for discussing this measure.

I said the House had shown indisposition to consider this measure.

But I cannot understand how the noble Lord arrives at the fact that there exists an indisposition on the part of the House of Commons to entertain this measure. The noble Lord in the first place advised the Sovereign to notify, in the Speech from the Throne, that the measure of Parliamentary reform would be brought forward. This, of course, is the most solemn mode of introducing the subject to the consideration of Parliament. I do not suppose that on the first night of the Session, when Her Majesty's Gracious Speech was under consideration, that any one could complain that the manner in which that announcement was received was discouraging to the Minister. An appeal was made to him not to bring forward the measure on the ground of the exigent state of the country; but to this the Minister would not listen. On the contrary, he brings forward this measure, lays it on the table, and says, "I deprecate discussion now, but on this day fortnight, or some other convenient day, you will discuss the measure which in detail I have now introduced to the notice of the House and of the country." Now I think that it is very inconvenient that any Minister should bring forward a measure of such vast importance, upon a subject of such general interest—that he should have the opportunity of introducing it, with all the advantages which not only his abilities but his station give him, and that it should never be subjected to the slightest discussion. The principles on which it is founded may be most fallacious, and I think the principles on which this measure is founded are most fallacious; but still no opportunity has been given to the House to express an opinion upon it, because when the exposition of the measure takes place, a future day is fixed by the Government for the discussion of its merits; and then that opportunity thus promised is never given. Well, then, I wish to know whether this opposition, or rather this indisposition, which the noble Lord finds to his Reform Bill, is an indisposition on his own benches. I will not say on the Treasury Bench, because we now have it on the highest authority, that the Government is a Government of sincere Reformers—but I suppose that it is not impertinent to imagine that the indisposition may be on the benches behind the noble Lord. At any rate I venture to say on the part of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, that there has been no opposition on these benches. An hon. Gentleman, who is a general supporter of the Government, has spoken of the opposition to this measure as if it had proceeded from us. And no doubt it is not at all impossible that you would have received an uncompromising opposition from the benches opposite to you. But you never gave us an opportunity for discussing the measure, and therefore I beg the country to remember that the indisposition to Parliamentary reform in the present House of Commons, so far as we have any evidence of it, is confined entirely to the noble Lord's own side of the House. But I beg the House to remark that the noble Lord has not met the difficulty of his case, that all the reasons that he has given for relinquishing his measure to-night were reasons that existed in equal force at the meeting of Parliament, and on the 13th of February when he introduced this Bill. I deny that any Member of the Cabinet can advance the present state of the country as a reason for not proceeding with this measure. The noble Lord has very properly vindicated himself from the absurd position in which it is the interest of some parties to place him as being the only Parliamentary Reformer in the Cabinet, and as if it was entirely to vindicate his own personal honour that this measure had been introduced. The noble Lord has very properly recalled the attention of the House to the fact that the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen was founded on the promise of a large measure of Parliamentary reform. Nor was it merely in deference to the noble Lord that the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen was founded on the principle of Parliamentary reform. A very distinguished Member of the Cabinet made a large measure of Parliamentary reform a condition of his joining Lord Aberdeen; and Lord Aberdeen, in his speech when he made an exposition of the principles upon which his Government was founded, unequivocally pledged himself to a large measure of Parliamentary reform. Now, I want to know what were the circumstances under which the Government of Lord Aberdeen made that pledge? What were the circumstances under which the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty made the concession of a large measure of Parliamentary reform a condition of his adhesion to the Government of Lord Aberdeen. Were they circumstances of less peril than the present? Were they less serious? Was the conjuncture less menacing than at present? Why, we really seem to have forgotten the circumstances under which Lord Aberdeen acceded to power. Why, after an interval of between thirty and forty years, what had the House of Commons just done? They had armed the people; they had absolutely called out the Militia; and were arming and training and disciplining 100,000 men. A few months before Lord Aberdeen entered office, the late Government had considerably increased the Naval Estimates; but no sooner had the First Lord of the Admiralty come into office than he doubled those Estimates, Nor had the present Government been four months in office before they formed a project—which they subsequently executed—of having a military camp at Chobham. It was well known that the Government then believed that not merely war but invasion was imminent. Now, Sir, no one will pretend that a war with France is not a much more awful affair than a war with Russia; and yet with a war with France in their opinion impending, they formed their Government on the principle of a large measure of Parliamentary reform. And did the adoption of that statement not serve them? Could they have formed their Cabinet unless that had formed the principle upon which that Cabinet was established? Could they have carried on their Government for six months unless that had been the principle upon which the Government of Lord Aberdeen had been established? Could they have possessed, not merely the great administrative abilities of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but the profound statesmanlike attributes even of the First Commissioner of Works? Could he have given to the Government the fruits of those studies which Bentham had inspired and Grote had guided? How did they carry on the Administration? Why, only a very few months afterwards we had the financial measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward, which, according to the noble Lord's statement to-night, was the excuse for not proceeding with Parliamentary reform in the first year that the Government held office. A tax extremely odious in the mode in which it is levied was introduced to this House, it being known that there was an absolute majority against the imposition of that tax, and that the most powerful assailants of this tax—the income tax—were to be found on the benches where the supporters of the present Government mostly congregate. Did not these Gentlemen say that they disapproved of the unmodified income tax, and only voted for it in consequence of this promise of a large measure of Parliamentary reform. And, therefore, I say that Parliamentary reform was the principle upon which the Government was founded, and without it the present Cabinet would never have existed, and that without it the administration of affairs could not have been carried on. I say also at the same time, that the pledge to give a large measure of Parliamentary reform was made at a time when the state of public affairs, as far as our external relations were concerned, was nut less menacing, nay, r think much more perilous and threatening than it is at the present time. Myself opposed to the measure of the noble Lord, I am glad that the Government has relinquished it. But what is the moral that I think we should draw from all these circumstances? I think we should at least come to this conclusion—in my opinion, a salutary one—though no one can question the honour and the sincerity of the noble Lord who has been identified with this great question and this great cause—who will go down in history as connected with it—though no one, I say, can doubt his sincerity, and though I do not for a moment care to question the sincerity of others—still I must say, that there does appear to me, and I think there will appear to the country, that there has been too much levity, for party purposes, in dealing with questions of organic change in the Constitution of this country. Well, now, I think, if we can, under the present circumstances, when there is no party feeling on this question, and when all parties and sections of this House seem pretty well agreed to assist the Government out of the predicament—I think, I say, that if we can arrive at that conclusion, every man, wherever he sits, will consider probably longer than he might have done two or three years ago before he makes pledges on a subject of this importance. Because we should find that if a Minister persisted—which the noble Lord has wisely and magnanimously resolved not to do—in consequence of a pledge of this kind, in carrying measures not required by the necessities of the country, a great public evil might occur. And if, on the other hand, after having pledged his sagacity as a statesman for the necessity and expediency of such a measure, he finds it necessary to relinquish it, then, although great public mischief may not occur, there is at least this disadvantage—that the confidence of the country in the men they look up to must be necessarily lessened and diminished. Nor does it seem to me that a time of war, which we are told may be very serious and protracted, is a time when, I do not say this want of confidence, but this diminished confidence, in our principal statesmen should be incurred. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not proceed in the course of which he has given an indication tonight—of postponing for a short but indefinite time his plans of Parliamentary reform. I think it would be much better for the noble Lord—who has made two attempts, which, He says, have not been sanctioned by the country, and which he feels are not required by the country—to allow this question altogether to drop, and not to embarrass himself by another pledge. Yet, what has the noble Lord done to-night? After all this somewhat bitter experience, he has absolutely embarrassed himself and all his Colleagues by promising to take as early an opportunity as possible to introduce this measure again. [Cheers.] I think that that cheer is most unwise, and that those who cheer will be probably the loudest in opposing the measure when it is brought forward. I confess, Sir, I do not understand this getting rid of reform by instalments. You who are always asking for measures of reform, and taking them by instalments, should hardly sanction this new system, by which Reformers are to get rid of their pledges by instalments. It would have been better for the noble Lord to say, "I have made a considerable attempt. The Cabinet have stood by me. This measure is the result of our united deliberations. But the country does not require it, the times are perilous, and, although I think that a time of war is no good cause why a measure of Parliamentary reform should not be carried if it were required, still it is not now absolutely necessary, it would involve a great struggle, and, therefore, for the present I will say farewell to Parliamentary reform." Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have then had just as good a chance of getting Parliamentary reform when the time arrived as they have now by retaining the vain pledges of a Minister. Surely, the experience of the last two years must have taught you that you are not one whit the nearer a measure of Parliamentary reform because you have the pledges of statesmen that they will give it to you. Here you have statesmen who have pledged themselves, and who were most sincerely anxious to fulfil their pledges, but you did not obtain your object. You never can obtain a change such as you desire until the great preponderance of public opinion demands it. Well, then, why embarrass the Government with a constant pledge of this kind? The noble Lord will pardon me for saying that it would have been more statesmanlike if, after all he has done, and, I will say, after all he has suffered, he had asked the House tonight to place confidence in his sincerity, and to show, by the manner in which they received his words to-night, that they thought his honour was intact; and had then told them that it was much better not to embarrass the Government any longer with pledges on this subject, but that they might be confident that when the time was ripe, the measures that were demanded by necessity would be brought forward by any Ministry who happened then to be in possession of power. I do hope that the noble Lord will at least draw this lesson from the past—not to embarrass himself with pledges, which he knows riot when he can fulfil, merely for party purposes, and to animate followers who must now feel that, after all, measures of this great national importance depend upon something more solid than the word of any individual, however sincere or however gifted.

said, he could not let the discussion close without expressing the gratification that he felt at the unanimity of feeling which prevailed amongst all parties in the House towards the noble Lord, with whom he had been so long connected by political ties, and also with respect to the course which the Government had announced their intention to adopt with respect to this measure. He was especially gratified in hearing from Gentlemen who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and who desired—as he himself did—to obtain a sound measure of Parliamentary reform, so many expressions of that confidence in the noble Lord which he had deserved by his long and consistent political career, identified as it was with so many great improvements in the institutions of the country. He had also listened with pleasure to the generous testimony to his noble Friend's sincerity which had been borne by the leader of the large party opposed to him. The right hon. Gentleman had indeed expressed his dissent from the course which my noble Friend took in—as he not very correctly said—pledging himself and the Government anew to a measure of Parliamentary reform. He (Sir G. Grey) did not understand his noble Friend to have given any new pledge on this subject. He only understood him to have vindicated—he believed, with complete success—the sincerity of the pledge which the Government originally gave, and to have stated that, although their duty compelled them in deference to existing ircumstances—unforeseen when that pledge was given—to agree to a postponement of this measure, still, when those opposing circumstances no longer existed, it was their desire and intention again to lay on the table the Bill for the reform of the representation of the people. This was no new pledge. It was only saying that the Government did not avail themselves of these temporary circumstances to retract the pledge which they had given in the face of the country, and in consequence of which they had obtained the confidence of a large portion of the Liberal constituency of the country. His noble Friend had not only taken a course which was consistent with his personal honour—for no one could doubt that—but he had shown that he had been actuated by the highest sense of duty, and regard to the interests of the country. Differing as he did from the opinions of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) with respect to the necessity and justice of the war which had been commenced, he cordially concurred with him in the wish he had expressed, that that struggle might he brought to a speedy and honourable termination, and that the House of Commons might thus be left free to resume the consideration of those important subjects—the amendment of the representation of the people amongst others—the discussion of which was a much more satisfactory employment of the time of Parliament than the consideration of the means of making those necessary preparations for the struggle in which we had embarked. The hon. Member for Manchester had truly remarked that during the present Session no disposition had been shown by private Members to take advantage of those nights set apart for Motions, in order to occupy the time of the House on subjects not of pressing importance. He trusted, therefore, that when the House met after Easter, the Government would press forward, with all the speed that was consistent with due deliberation, measures of real practical importance. He was sure that the House were disposed to give their earnest attention to them; and he hoped that if clue diligence were used they might not be detained there so late in the year as had been the case during the last few Sessions, and that the latter part of the Session might not exhibit so much hurried and hasty legislation as had too often occurred.

Sir, I will not detain the House at any length, but I wish to make an observation personal to myself, in consequence of what fell from the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Jocelyn). While acknowledging the generous terms in which the right hon Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has paid his tribute to the character of a political opponent, I must say that he has in some respects misrepresented, unintentionally, doubtless, the words of my noble Friend when he first spoke on the introduction of this measure at the commencement of the Session. I do not think that my noble Friend ever stated that he considered, as an abstract proposition, that a state of war was the most suitable for the consideration of a measure of Parliamentary reform. What he did state was, that the existence of a state of war was not necessarily a bar to the introduction of measures of internal reform. It is not the case, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the circum- stances in which we are now placed have undergone no change since the time of my noble Friend's Motion. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said when he stated that the Government of Lord Aberdeen was pledged to Parliamentary reform since its acceptance of office. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show that that pledge in favour of reform was given at a time when the circumstances of the country were not only as unfavourable, but, in fact, more dangerous than they are at the present time. In order to support this proposition, he brought before us a vision of the preparations for war then made; he talked of impending invasion from France, and of the camp at Chobham; and asked how it was possible that a Government which, in a state of things so critical and dangerous, could give such a pledge, could see any reason for not persevering with this Bill when we have only a distant empire to grapple with. But if he agrees with my noble Friend in thinking that it is perfectly right to postpone the measure, I am perfectly at a loss to know on what grounds he concurs with him in that opinion, since he expressed his entire dissent from every reason which my noble Friend gave for the course we have adopted. My noble Friend has certainly said that a moment of tranquillity was the best time for discussing a measure which might tend to produce excitement of feeling amongst the people. And then, says the right hon. Gentleman, what can be greater than the public tranquillity with respect to this subject. But, Sir, tranquillity is one thing; apathy is another. The mind of the nation is at present absorbed in one predominant and intense interest. It is not large enough to take in two great excitements at one and the same moment. It is fixed—as none of the younger Members of this House can recollect it—upon the struggle which has now commenced. Look at the addresses which have been presented to hon. Members who are now leading the army in the East. Their constituents are naturally jealous of their presence in the House of Commons, and yet the statement that they are going to retire from the discharge of their Parliamentary duties, in order to join the forces in Turkey, is received with an enthusiasm greater than would have been displayed had they promised to pay, or had actually paid, the most sedulous attention to their Parliamentary duties. The whole heart, mind, and intellect of the country is at present divided between the Baltic and the Black Sea; and it is hopeless to expect that while that is the case the country can give such attention to the subject as is necessary to pass such a measure as my noble Friend contemplates. I must say, Sir, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, that he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that, in joining Lord Aberdeen's Government, I had any compromise of opinion to make on the subject of Parliamentary reform. I only recollect having expressed any opinion of my own on that subject upon one occasion. When it was debated in 1848 or 1849, I followed the noble Lord the Member for London, and offered my tribute to the soundness of the views which he expressed, and in which I stated my acquiescence. I have never feared Parliamentary reform; I have seen the growing intelligence and power of the working classes. I have long seen the true conservation that exists in extending to them that Parliamentary power which they are capable of exercising. I wish to see the basis of our representative system enlarged. I wish to see those who are without, and who may be enemies, taken into the citadel and converted into defenders. My opinions in favour of Parliamentary reform, so far from being weakened, are strengthened. I gave my cordial assent to the propositions of the noble Lord, and I hope that the time may yet come when he may carry that measure, or some other equally effective, and may finish that great work of Parliamentary reform with which his name, his honour, and his fame will be indissolubly connected.

said, he was desirous to say a few words, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, who had just resumed his seat. The right hon. Gentleman had accused his (Sir J. Pakington's) right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) of having unintentionally misrepresented what fell from the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell). He thought, however, that his right hon. Friend had really rather confirmed than confuted what fell from the noble Lord on the subject upon a former occasion. The noble Lord said, that as the people would be called upon to bear additional taxation to defray the expenses of the war, this was, above all others, the time when they should have confidence in their representatives; and therefore the time when it was right and fitting to intro- duce a measure of Parliamentary reform. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) had also referred to the observations which fell from the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) with respect to the comparative danger of a war with France and one with Russia, and as to the menacing state of affairs that existed when Lord Aberdeen took office. But he appeared to have forgotten that the alarm which then existed was very much caused by a speech which the right hon. President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) delivered at Halifax, and in which he not only spoke of the fears of a French invasion which were entertained by the Government, but actually stated the manner in which it was to be effected—by throwing detachments of about 10,000 men each upon our shores from time to time. He felt it would be presumptuous in him to attempt to add anything to the eloquent language in which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had expressed his own feelings and those of all parties in the House towards the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell); but he could not refrain from saying that he (Sir J. Pakington) for one had neither the right nor the inclination to say anything against the personal honour of the noble Lord, nor did he believe that there was any man on either side of the House who entertained such a wish. But even if any one had for a moment been disposed to do so, his inclination must have been entirely removed by the speech which the noble Lord had delivered that night. Nevertheless, in justice to his own views, and to the views of those with whom he acted, he must say that honourable to himself as was the speech of the noble Lord, there was nothing in it which could affect or impair the opinion which he (Sir J. Pakington) entertained on this subject, or extricate the Government from the dilemma in which they were placed. If the circumstances of the time were such as to make it objectionable to proceed with the Reform Bill, it was clear that the Bill ought not to have been introduced. On two occasions previous to the 13th of February last the noble Lord had advised the Crown to recommend them to consider a measure of reform, and on both occasions the consideration of the measure was checked. The Government was responsible for having advised the Crown at the commencement of the present Session to recommend a measure of reform, when circumstances precluded the possibility of such a measure being in- troduced. At the time the measure was announced the allies had entered the Dardanelles, and our fleet was in the Black Sea. He maintained, therefore, that under the circumstances the noble Lord ought not to have recommended to Parliament the adoption of his measure for a reform of Parliament. He believed that the inference which the country would draw from the vacillation of the Government on this question, would be that the real cause of the vacillation was a division in the councils of the Crown, and that it was from divided councils that we had been involved in war and in difficulties on this important question. He thought it would be fortunate for the country if these divided councils did not, under the present perilous and momentous circumstances, involve the country in still greater difficulties and dangers.

said, in reply to a remark of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), he would admit that the people of Scotland were occupied with other questions than Parliamentary reform. He had not received from his constituents a single letter or petition on the subject of reform. He did not think that the Government were indifferent on the question of reform, but that they considered the postponement of the measure more advisable than the throwing of the country into a state of excitement from a general election. He thought the noble Lord the Member for London deserved the gratitude of the people for the magnanimous way in which he had acted.

I do not rise, Sir, to enter into the discussion of any of the arguments that have been used, but merely to express to the House my grateful sense of the manner in which the statement 1 have made has been received.

said, he would now move that during the remainder of the Session Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion upon Thursdays. He wished to take that opportunity of stating that if that Motion was acceded to, he should propose this evening that the Oxford University Bill be committed pro formâ, in order to its being recommitted on Thursday, the 27th instant, and that on the 1st of May his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would move that the House go into Committee on the Railway Bill. A question had been asked of his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, with respect to the Settlement and Removal Bill, which was fixed for the 28th of April. He was in hopes that his right hon. Friend would have been present in the House to-night, but as he was not, he (Lord J. Russell) would therefore say that it was not proposed to go on with that Bill in the course of the present Session. The Government proposed, however, that his right hon. Friend should move for a Select Committee to consider the law and practice with regard to the removal of Irish paupers from England and Scotland, and of Scotch and English paupers from Ireland.

said, he should move that the Motion should be amended by inserting the words "on alternate Thursdays" in lieu of "on Thursdays." The practice of taking Government orders on alternate Thursdays had been tried with good effect three years ago.

said, he must explain that he did not mean to propose that Government Orders should have precedence on any Thursday—all he proposed was, that Orders generally should have precedence on Thursdays. He thought it would be an improvement also that Bills whose committal has been commenced, but not concluded, on a Wednesday, should stand over for Thursday.

said, he must oppose the Motion, because, as both the Reform Bill and the Settlement and Removal of the Poor Bill had been withdrawn, there was no prospect of any such pressure on the Government as would render it necessary that independent Members should relinquish their privileges. The Government ought, at all events, to be content with every alternate Thursday. The privileges of private Members should not be wantonly abridged, for nothing was more probable than that they might have to invite the House to consider the policy of the Government during the progress of the war.

, said, he would remind the House that the Miscellaneous Estimates yet re-remained to be laid upon the table. The consideration of those Estimates would occupy a great deal of time, and during the discussion which must take place upon them the utmost possible facility would exist for putting any questions which hon. Members might desire to put to the Government, or of making any Motion with reference to the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, which it might be deemed advisable to make. He would add, also, that the Miscellaneous Estimates during the present year would be upon a much larger scale than usual, inasmuch as the Government were, for the first time, about to submit to the consideration of the House Estimates with regard to the expenses attendant upon the collection of the revenue, and the usual facility of putting questions to Ministers, to which he had alluded, would, of course, be proportionally increased.

said, he would suggest that the public business would be materially advanced if hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would consent to mitigate the extent of their speeches.

said, he did not altogether approve of the Motion of the noble Lord. He should have no objection that precedence should be given to Government Orders of the Day, but he was by no means desirous that that course should be taken with reference to Orders of the Day relating to business of which independent Members had the charge.

said, he had no objection to the Motion, but he thought the Government ought, immediately after Easter, to bring in all Bills they intend to press this Session.

said, he must coin plain that Members did not confine them-solve to Motions on Tuesday and Thursdays, but brought on long discussions on going into Committee of Supply, which he thought unfair. He was of opinion that there should be some change in that respect.

said, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the inconvenience of the arrangement which fixed the further proceeding with the Oxford University Bill for Thursday, the 27th, and the following and the Railway Bill on the Monday following. Three or four important private Bills had been postponed until the Railway Bill was passed, and if it was delayed, those Bills would be left so late in the Session as to stand no chance of passing. He thought the Railway Bill should come on first.

said, that the Railway Bill was fixed for the day in question at the express wish of those interested in the Bill, and he did not believe that there would be any unnecessary delay by that course.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London what course he proposed to take with respect to the Bill which had been introduced affecting those constituencies in whose case a Report had been made by recent Commissions, and who were not at present represented in that House? He also was anxious to learn from the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department if it was his intention to call upon the House to legislate, in the course of the present Session, upon the subject of the general police of the country?

It is the intention of the Government to proceed to legislate on the subject of a general police throughout the country.

in reply to the question of the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes), would state that, in his opinion, it was extremely desirable that they should proceed during the present Session with the Bill to which that question referred.

said, he would advert to the great interest which the people of Scotland took in the Scottish Education Bill, and the disappointment they would feel if anything occurred to prevent its being proceeded with in the course of the present Session.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London in reference to a statement that had appeared in the public press, of certain demands having been made by the Turkish Government on the Government of Greece. He wished to ask whether the English Ambassador had been any party to those demands on the Government of Greece, and whether those demands included the request that the Greek newspapers should be suppressed that gave any opinions adverse to the Government of Turkey?

said he could not answer the question so satisfactorily as he could wish at that moment. The demands that were made by the Turkish Minister upon the Greek Government were made by order of the Turkish Government, and without any concert with Her Majesty's Ministers; but after those demands had been made, at the time when they were under consideration, the representatives of the four Powers of England, France, Austria, and Prussia met, and they came to a resolution, which they submitted to the Greek Government, that the Greek Goverment ought to give an answer to those demands, which in themselves were reasonable. The explanation which our Minister at Athens gave with respect to the article about the press, was to the effect that what the Turkish Minister asked was, that the Greek Government would not in their own newspapers have articles inserted exciting rebellion amongst the Turks in the Turkish provinces, and that this demand was founded on the generally notorious fact that the Greek Government were in the habit of so acting.

said, he would move to substitute the name of Mr. T. Duncombe for that of Mr. Cheetham. He did so without meaning any disrespect to the Gentleman whose name he wished to omit; but he was anxious to have the services of a Gentleman of the experience and sympathy for the working classes like the hon. Member for Finsbury. As the Committee was constituted, it would not give satisfaction to the parties interested.

said, he quite agreed that the object of the investigation was to give satisfaction to the parties interested; but he thought it might be carried out by the Committee as at present proposed. It had been carefully selected, and was composed of eight Members in favour of the Bill and seven who were against it. He did not undervalue the services of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he thought the list a fair one, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

said, he was sorry that any Committee had been appointed on the subject, and he hoped the Government would make up their minds to resist the principle of these Bills, against which they had stated their opinions. He thought Government ought to have used its influence to prevent the loss of time which would arise by the appointment of this Committee, which would be productive of no good.

said, that he had looked over the list, and if this name was struck off there would be no Member on the Committee connected with South Lancashire, and considering the large amount of wages paid in South Lancashire, he thought that a Member connected with it ought to be on the Committee. In saying this he did not wish to say a word against the hon. Member for Finsbury.

withdrew his Motion.

said, he begged to ask in what position the inquiry relative to the hosiery trade would be. Last year the same measure was brought forward, and a considerable majority voted against it; but this year, to his astonishment, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) consented to an inquiry on the subject before a Select Committee. What was to become of the inquiry, if they had witnesses also, relating to the hosiery trade? The great objection to this inquiry was, that it disturbed the minds of men engaged in this business, employers as well as employed. The whole of the Session would be occupied with the inquiry, and perhaps the Session would close before the inquiry was brought to a conclusion.

said, he did not apprehend that the two inquiries would extend to any great length. They would probably begin with one of them, and then go on with the other. It was not likely, in his opinion, to occupy a great length of time. Undoubtedly his opinion was that the hosiery workmen were under a great misapprehension. But, at the same time, when they found a great number of people suffering under considerable privations, and labouring under impressions that the system under which they were employed was unjust, and operated to their injury, he thought it right that there should be a Committee of Inquiry before whom they could state their opinions, and explain their supposed grievances; and it was, therefore, out of deference to their feelings that he consented to the appointment of the Committee.

having laid on the table a paper relating to the income and expenditure of the country for the year, said: Mr. Speaker, I have to move that this paper, containing an account of time income and expenditure of the country for the year, do lie upon the table; and it was my intention to have made a statement in some detail with reference to the subjects that are included in the notice that appears in my name in the paper to-night, which is as follows:—

"To make a statement respecting the Revenue for the year now closed, the condition of the Public Balances, and the condition of the Unfunded Debt."

But the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has to-night moved for further information on a variety of points connected with these subjects, and I therefore think that, so far as the matter of argument is concerned, or matter with respect to which there may be a difference of opinion, I shall do well, as far as I am a party concerned, to postpone all observations, and to defer all topics of that nature. It is therefore, Sir, my intention to confine myself entirely to a statement of what may be called a statement upon matters of fact, and my reason for making that statement at the present period is, that in the first place I have not yet had an opportunity of presenting to the House a complete account of the income and expenditure for the past year; and in the second place, because it is exceedingly important at this moment of alarm and excitability, that the public should be put in possession of authentic information upon those points. It is therefore, Sir, my intention to give the House that information; but considering the nature of the discussion in which we have passed the principal portion of this evening, I shall endeavour to be very brief in the particulars which I have to lay before the House. Sir, there has been, as I have no doubt hon. Members must have observed on examining the accounts of the revenue of the country which were published on the 6th of April, a more favourable return of the revenue than I had given the House reason to expect on the 6th of March. There is an improvement in the revenue on the 6th of April, as compared with the estimate which I made on the 6th of March, of no less a sum than 749,000l. But it must not be supposed that so considerable a difference in the amount of the revenue is to be accounted for by any substantial change in the circumstances. I spoke to the House at a period of increasing uncertainty, attending the collection of the income tax in Ireland and the extended income tax in England, as to the precise period when the money would be brought into the Exchequer, on account mainly of the new circumstances which that department of the revenue had to encounter. However, Sir, that department has been enabled to abridge greatly the amount of arrears which I then thought it safe to estimate as likely to be carried over to the present year. There is no difference as to the ultimate receipt of the money—the difference is only as to the time and the manner in which it arrives at the Exchequer. But the difference between the receipt of the income tax as estimated on the 6th of March, and the actual amount received on the 5th of April, is 417,000l. Another portion of the difference to which I have referred occurs under the head of the Customs revenue. The Customs revenue has been subjected to an exceptional movement on account of the anticipated reduction in the tea duties. The effect of that reduction was necessarily to diminish to a great extent the entries of tea brought into the Custom-house for payment of duties during the past quarter. I therefore debited the past quarter with a great loss on that account. A portion of that loss, however, has been recovered, because parties were anxious for considerable deliveries of tea on the morning of the 6th, and, in order to ac- commodate them, a certain portion of the duties payable on the 6th were actually received on the 5th of April, and the amount was brought into the revenue of the quarter to which indeed it properly belonged, but which it would not otherwise have realised. These are the two main causes, and they are the only ones to which I shall refer to account for the excess of revenue on the 5th of April, as compared with that which I anticipated on the 6th of March. The House will perceive, on an examination of the balance-sheet, that it presents an excess of income over expenditure on the year ending 5th of April last, of no less a sum than 3,524,000l. The excess of income over expenditure for the last year—the year ending the 5th of April, 1853—was 2,460,000l. The estimate which I made with respect to the excess of income over expenditure on the 6th of March, 1854, was 2,854,000l., but that excess has been increased, in consequence of the receipt of money between that period and the 5th of April, but on which it would not then have been safe, and which I was not warranted in admitting into my calculations. This gives me an opportunity of observing that one among the many elements of uncertainty—though we are warranted in exercising confidence within certain limits—arises altogether from the present imperfect system of keeping the public accounts. if the balance-sheet of the present year had been framed in precise accordance with the balance-sheet of the last year—if the same sums had been paid out of the Exchequer for the purposes of supplying the Paymaster General's account for Supply service, the surplus of revenue over expenditure would have been less on the balance-sheet by full 500,000l., and therefore, in comparing the surplus of the present with the surplus of the past year, the House would do well to estimate the surplus at 3,000,000l. instead of 3,524,000l. It may be asked, why is this difference—why not give the sum in the same manner as it was given last year? Sir, the reason is this—that under the authority vested in the Treasury by this House, a certain amount of Exchequer bills, to the amount of 500,000l., was issued at the former period; and under a fiction of law—for I cannot call it less, it is, in fact, a series of fictions of law—according to the manipulation, if I may so call it, by which that operation is conducted, you have no choice to bring them back to the Exche- quer account, which would be the rational course of proceeding; they can only be issued to the Paymaster General, passing by the Exchequer altogether. It therefore happened that 500,000l. stood to the credit of the Paymaster General which would have been deducted from the Exchequer, if Exchequer bills had not been issued at the period. The House will, therefore, understand that, in comparing the surplus of the present with the surplus of the past year, 500,000l. ought to be deducted from the surplus of this year, and that the real surplus for the year may be fairly and safely stated at 3,000,000l. I think, Sir, the House will be of opinion that this is a satisfactory result, so far as they have yet seen, with respect to the indications it affords of the trade and industry of the country, and of the condition of the people, though there is necessarily a contraction, or, at any rate, a retardation in its increase, in consequence of political events, and of the obstacles to trade both in the Baltic and in the Black Sea. It is a more satisfactory result still, if it be borne in mind that the sums which I anticipated I should receive in the year from the increase of taxes have been much less than I anticipated. Last year you remitted taxes in round numbers to the amount of 2,600,000l.; you at the same time laid on taxes which ultimately, no doubt, will be productive to a large amount. But while 2,600,000l. have been given in relief of taxation, the additional taxes laid on last year had only brought into the Exchequer, on the 5th of April, the sum of about 700,000l. The remission of taxes has been in full operation, while the substituted taxes have only partially been brought into play; therefore, speaking in round numbers, while you have remitted 2,000,000l. of taxes more than you have laid on, you have a surplus of 3,000,000l. on a comparison of the income with the expenditure. That is all which I think it necessary to state with respect to the revenue for the past year. I now come to another question, with respect to which it is desirable that the House should possess full information—I mean the state of the public balances; and here I would sedulously avoid referring in the way of defence or of discussion to the mode in which the present state of the public balances was brought about—my only object is to provide the House with trustworthy, clear, and accurate information. On the 5th of April, 1853, the balance in the Exchequer was returned at 7,859,000l. On the 5th of April, 1854, the balance in the Exchequer was returned at 2,778,000l., thus showing a decrease in the balances of the Exchequer of 5,081,000l., or in round numbers something over 5,000,000l. Then it is right you should perceive, Sir, how this reduction in the balance has been brought about. The public funds have been applied this year over and above the ordinary methods of expenditure under the following heads and to the following extent:—8,048,000l. of the funded debt has been paid off; 716,000l. has been paid away in advances under the head which is commonly known as advances to public works, over and above the ordinary repayment of advances which is usually set down under that head, and this amount of 716,000l. does not indicate or belong to any extended scheme of public works, but it has arisen out of the Metropolitan Advances Act of last Session, being a mere transfer of the money, and having nothing to do with public works that have been performed. Besides this, the unfunded debt has been reduced between April, 1853, and April, 1854, by the sum of 1,718,000l.; so that the reduction of the debt and the payments we have made amount together to 10,482,000l. I have shown that out of this 10,482,000l. above 5,000,000l. represent the decrease in the balances of the Exchequer. But besides that, there is an amount of 1,274,000l. of new stock created by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of Exchequer bills which they had purchased and cancelled, and there was likewise the sum of 420,000l. altogether of new debt arising out of the issue of Exchequer bonds. Putting, therefore, together the diminution of the public balances with the new funded debt which has been vested, it amounts to the sum of 6,775,000l., against the sum of 10,482,000l. of which I have already spoken. The remainder, the sum of 3,707,000l., is chiefly to be accounted for—I do not say altogether accounted for—by the application of the surplus revenue to the balance in the Exchequer as it appears in the balance-sheet, where the exact sum so applied is stated at 2,778,000l. Now, it is desirable that I should make a statement to the House with reference to the manner in which that balance is brought up to the amount necessary to cover the charge on the quarter that has just gone by, and which must be liquidated during the present quarter. That amount of charge consists mainly of the interest on the permanent debt, and on the terminable annuities to which the sum in the Exchequer is to be applied. The fund now in hand, as will be seen by the account published on the 6th of April, amounts to 2,778,000l. In point of fact, according to that statement so published, the proportionate amount of deficiency bills required to meet the charges on the late quarter, and which fall to be liquidated during the present quarter, is 5,852,000l. And it is not unnatural that there should be some uneasiness in the public mind—deluded, I must say, and mystified as they are by the system in which the public accounts are kept—when they see such a formidable amount set forth as required, under the name of deficiency bills, as 5,852,000l. It is a very large, it is an enormous sum, when it is considered that it is all required at once, to make up a deficiency. Here, however, I must say that the amount of deficiency bills is not quite so large as is here stated, owing to a certain deduction to which it is liable; and the actual amount of deficiency bills brought to charge in April, 1854, would be more correctly stated at 5,472,000l. I must say, however, that does not make any very material difference. 5,472,000l. is a very large sum of money to have the ugly word "deficiency" attached to, and I do not wonder that Gentlemen who are not aware of what these figures really do mean should be astounded at the demands that seem thus to be made by the Government upon the Bank of England for its temporary accommodation. But I wish the House to understand what this accommodation really is, and if they will follow my statement they will find that this nominal amount bears no rational relation to the sum actually demanded. It is to be observed, Sir, in the first place, that in April, 1853, when the balances in the Exchequer were extremely large, there was an apparent amount of deficiency bills to the amount of 1,407,000l. But on every day of that quarter during which this charge was put against the public, there was a large amount of public money actually in the possession of the Bank of England. The amount of deficiency bills was then 1,407,000l.; it is now 5,852,000l., showing an excess for the present year of 4,445,000l. But of that sum of 1,407,000l. of deficiency bills last year, the greater part never was charged against the public, the sum of 300,000l. only being chargeable with interest. The House will naturally wish to know how it is that these figures and this statement of the deficiency bills, and of the accommodation received from the Bank of England, though put forth to the world with such apparent authority, do not really indicate anything like the state of our accounts with the Bank, and consequently do not tell the truth, but leave the public to draw a false inference. Sir, I think it is material to state these facts, because I find that even the best informed persons out of doors believe that the amount of the deficiency bills, as published on the 6th of April last, represents, or nearly so, the amount of accommodation given by the Bank of England to the Government, for the way in which this amount is calculated is this:—It is generally supposed that the whole charge which has accrued during the past quarter against the public—which the public is liable to pay, and which it will be called upon to pay out of the income of the present quarter—will be an effectual charge at the commencement of the quarter. Though it is demonstrably certain, experience in this case is a surer guide than even demonstration—that that charge will not or cannot become effectual at the beginning of the quarter, but that a large proportion of the money assured as necessary will remain in the Bank till the calls upon the public have been overtaken by the growing revenue of the new quarter. That, Sir, is the way in which the discrepancy arises; and I do not wonder when Gentlemen hear of the great amount of accommodation which the Government requires from the Bank of England during the currency of the present quarter, that their minds are led away with the notion that the sum of 4,000,000l., 5,000,000l., or 6,000,000l. is the amount actually required. Sir, the real amount is very different. I have thought it my duty to refer to this matter, not so much in a pecuniary point of view as in order to dispel what I conceive to be at this moment a very mischievous and injurious misapprehension—I have thought it my duty, having first taken advice, that it was legally competent for me so to do. I have thought it my duty to regulate the issue of the deficiency bills with some reference to the actual demands upon the Bank, that is to say, to apply them to the particular purposes of the public service on the selfsame principle on which every other payment of public money is applied—the principle of meeting each particular amount with a particular estimate. By the adoption of that course the total amount of deficiency bills actually chargeable to the public yesterday is diminished from the formidable statement as it stands in the papers before the House, namely 5,852,000l., to the more moderate statement of 2,808,000l. The sum of 2,808,000l. represents the amount of deficiency bills actually chargeable against the public yesterday. I am not able to state the actual amount to-day. It is not greater; I believe it is less. And, Sir, it must not be supposed that the deficiency bills have thus been reduced in amount by unduly starving the public accounts, or by running the risk that when persons came with their just claims upon the Treasury, they should receive for answer, "No effects;" because, when the business at the Bank terminated yesterday, there was in its possession money to the amount of 679,000l. Therefore the accommodation which the Government received from the Bank yesterday—and I take yesterday because I believe it represents the maximum charge brought against the Government for the quarter—the accommodation received from the Bank yesterday was 2,808,000l., which, deducting the sum of 679,000l., amounts to the sum of 2,129,000l. Sir, my opinion is this, though I do not mean to enter into any defence of that opinion, that if we were now at peace—if we had not a growing expenditure—if we did not run the risk of an expenditure which may possibly grow with greater rapidity and with greater uncertainty than in ordinary times—I do not at all think that this sum of 2,129,000l. would of itself be an extraordinary amount of accommodation which the Government had to receive from the Bank, when you look at the extent of the quarter's revenue, and the mode in which it has accumulated at the commencement of the quarter. But though I state that opinion with reference to ordinary circumstances, I do not state it with reference to the present circumstances, which are undoubtedly extraordinary. It must be obvious to every one that it is desirable to take security against chances which, at other times, it would not be necessary to calculate. I speak, therefore, of this 2,129,000l. as an amount to be progressively reduced, as I doubt not it will be without the smallest difficulty. What I wish to impress upon the House is, that the sum in question represents the actual amount of accommodation afforded to the public by the Bank, and that the sum of 5,842,000l., which appears in the quarterly account, really has reference to no actual transactions, either in the disbursement of money or in the amount required. [Mr. DISRAELI: You do not mention the sum required for the public service.] I beg your pardon; I thought I had done so. My object has been to show that the nominal amount of deficiency bills which appears in the quarterly statement represents the difference between the amount of requirements and the balance actually in the Exchequer on the 5th of April, and that the amount of accommodation from the Bank, which really is an accruing and approaching charge, is given in the same statement as if it were an actual charge. There is another point which I do not recollect to have ever been brought under the notice of this House; but I refer to it at this moment because it has been noticed out of doors; and I do not wonder at the sensitiveness of the public mind upon the subject. It has been supposed that these enormous and unusual demands made by the Government not only embarrass the Bank, but that they also go to reduce the amount of capital actually available for commercial purposes. If we were going on from year to year with the expenditure exceeding the income, which it was necessary to make up by deficiency bills, or even if it should be found necessary to issue deficiency bills in consequence of this House not having provided adequate funds to meet the public expenditure, I can understand that, pro tanto, the effect would be to withdraw from commerce some portion of those resources on which commercial men rely for carrying on their transactions; then, but under no other circumstances, I can understand that the country would be liable to suffer inconvenience. But there never was anything not only so erroneous, but so ludicrously erroneous, as the statement that, in the present instance, the demands of the Government have withdrawn from the general purposes of the London money market either that large sum for deficiency bills to which I first referred—that is, those fictitious bills, or this small sum for deficiency bills which is now active, or any sum whatever. The exact contrary is the case. The truth is, the large disbursements of the Government, the paying out into the money market from the balances, every farthing of which, when paid into the money market, is available for all the purposes of the money market, constitutes a customary operation. On the 10th of April we were deficient to the extent of 2,129,000l. This is an actual accommodation. But on the 5th of April 2,000,000l. were paid in the money market; consequently there is a difference of 129,000l. But those 2,000,000l. were not lost, they were not consumed by the excess of expenditure over income, for they were paid to the holders of stock. What did those people, the holders of stock, do with the amount? They did not tie the money up in napkins and put it away. I apprehend they passed it to their bankers, or other persons, and so it got into commerce again, or they purchased other stock with it. This was the course which this money took; and it was just as available for the purposes of the money market, when the holders paid for this stock, as it would be by remaining in the balances in the Bank of England. This, Sir, is the case with the present quarter. But I must look back to the last quarter; and what then took place? 6,000,000l. were paid in the same manner out of the Government funds in the Bank into the money market, and thus added to the loanable capital of the country. The whole amount thus added to the loanable capital of the country, by payments from the balances and by deficiency bills, was, in round numbers, about 8,000,000l.; while the whole amount taken on accommodation, and therefore withdrawn from the commerce of the country, was 2,129,000l. I therefore hope I may consider that the state of the facts—for this is not a matter to have recourse to argument upon—disposes of any notion that these operations of the Government in the liquidation of stock have withdrawn from commerce any portion of the funds which would, under ordinary circumstances, have been at its disposal. I shall entirely refrain on the present occasion from going into any such question with regard to the state of the balances as respects their bearing upon the operations of last year. I shall reserve these subjects, although there are points which it may be necessary to open at a future time—I say I shall reserve them altogether, and I shall confine myself to those matters which are simply matters of fact, and which do not constitute in any sense either an apology or a defence of any measures which have been undertaken by the Government. But there is another point to which I shall very shortly refer, because it touches upon a matter that is in some degree supposed to be a question of good faith. It has been an idea of some persons that there was a certain compact made in the year 1844—not written, but understood—between the Government and the Bank of England; and, of course, I am not at all intending to state that this idea is propagated or countenanced by the Bank of England—under which demands for deficiency bills were not to be made upon the Bank of England under the charter then granted. Now, Sir, of this unwritten compact no trace whatever is, to my knowledge, to be found; but there is to be found, not the trace of a written compact, but a written compact itself, very full and express in its terms, and it is that which I will state. The matter was fully discussed between my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) and the then Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England at that period; and the understanding, in express words, to which they arrived, was this—that if, on the one hand, there was a diminution of the public balances below what they then usually were, the Bank were to have a claim, in that respect, against the Government; but if, on the other hand, there was an increase in the public balances above what they had usually been, then the Government were to have a claim against the Bank for the share of profits arising from the custody of this deposit. Of course, if it were the other way, the Bank would have a claim upon the Government for interest. Upon a future day it will be my duty to go more at large into that subject, because there are matters of considerable importance connected with it; but I do not propose to do so at this present time. What I propose to do now is simply to refer to this compact; and I think I have shown that the presumption upon which my right hon. Friend Mr. Goulburn and the Government acted upon the one hand, and the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank upon the other, was this—that the public balances, and consequently the deficiency bills which are the correlatives of the public balances, were to remain in future time as they had been at that time. Then the question arises, what was the state of the public balances, and what was the demand for deficiency bills at that time—namely, at the time when this ar- rangement was made between my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) and the Bank? If I were to construe, as I might if I were pressed in argument, this to mean that the amount of deficiency bills was to be measured by what they had been for a year or a couple of years before the time of that compact between the Government and the Bank, I really should appear almost to prove too much; but what I propose to do is this: I propose to take the two quarters immediately preceding the arrangement between the Government and the Bank. I think that is fair. I take them as a measure of the usual state of the public balances, and of the usual demand for deficiency bills, because they present the largest balances and the smallest amount of deficiency bills of any for a long time. In the quarter ending January 5, 1844, the amount of deficiency bills issued—and I am not now dealing with the years of distress of 1842 and 1843—was 5,462,000l.; the amount issued in the quarter ending April 5, 1844, was 3,967,000l. Compare these amounts with those in 1854, which is supposed to be so remarkable a case. Well, Sir, then I find that in the quarter ending January 5, 1854, the amount of deficiency bills issued was 3,711,000l., and that the amount issued in the quarter ending April 5 was 5,472,000l. The average of the two quarters in 1854 is 4,591,000l.; in 1844 it was 4,714,000l. Certainly the two averages are very near to one another; but the amount of deficiency bills issuable at this moment, taking the average of the first two quarters, is but a trifle less than it was in 1844, when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn) entered, on the part of the Government, into this compact with the Bank. I pass on now to state a very few facts with regard to the unfunded debt. This is a question upon which it had been my intention to have treated more at length, because the differences between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and myself as to the reduction of interest upon Exchequer bills do not, I think, refer to the commendations or the censures on the Ministry or the Government for particular transactions. If they did that, I should regard them as of little consequence; but they refer to certain principles of administration, by which principles, I must confess, I intend, and am prepared, to abide. But I shall pass entirely by that discussion. My object at the present moment is merely to state the condition of the unfunded debt. The amount of Exchequer bills authorised to be issued in 1853 was 17,743,000l.; the purchase and liquidation of the Exchequer bills of the June issue reduced the amount by nearly 4,845,000l. That it will be admitted upon all hands would have realised to the public a very great advantage; but it has been almost wholly lost in consequence of the necessary reissue, first, to pay off the holders of non-assenting stock; and secondly, with the view of keeping up the public funds to meet the demands occasioned by increased expenditure for the purposes of war, and in anticipation of the taxes which have been granted this year. The amount of Exchequer bills has, therefore, increased from the minimum of last year 12,897,000l. to 16,025,000l., at which they stood at the end of last quarter. Besides, since the last quarter the Treasury have issued a certain portion of the Exchequer bills authorised by Parliament to be issued under the last Act; so that at the present moment the amount of Exchequer bills may be stated generally to be 16,600,000l. The total amount authorised by Parliament to be issued is 17,774,000l., so that we are at present short of the maximum which we have power to issue to the extent of 1,174,000l. I am bound to say that some portion of that amount may be issued from time to time as the exigencies of the public service may require; but I have no present reason to expect that I shall have any further demand to make upon Parliament for Exchequer bills during this present Session. I may also say I have no present reason to expect I shall have occasion to issue the whole amount authorised by the Act already passed. There are, however, a few words which I have yet to say, immediately relating to the subject of the unfunded debt, in regard to which I wish neither to give credit or discredit, or praise or censure, to any particular Government. It is a matter in which we have a common interest, and one in which the Legislature and the Executive can have no other interest than that which they take in a sedulous adherence to the general principles upon which the finance of the country is maintained, and upon which the most careful provision is made for meeting every demand upon the Exchequer. I think it is not unsatisfactory, I must confess, to look at the present state of the public credit. About a week or a fortnight ago there was something prevailed which could not be designated panic, perhaps not even alarm, but which certainly was apprehension. No people, I believe, in the world have so much self-command, or so much knowledge of their own public affairs, as the people of this country; but still we are all flesh and blood, and in times of trouble and disturbance men's imaginations are active, and they sometimes fail to take a calm view of their own position. Let us, however, look at the matter as it now stands, and I think the best way of estimating the condition of the public credit at this moment is to do two things—first, to compare the price of our public securities with what the price of the corresponding securities is in the most favourably situated foreign country; and, in the second place, to compare them with what they have been in this country itself in former times. I will, therefore, compare the state and course of public credit in this country at the present moment with what it was last year; and then I shall see how the relation between our public credit now and twelve months ago stands, when it is compared with the public credit of France now and twelve months ago. On the 1st of April, 1853, the French three per cents were at 79f. 25c.; on the 1st of April, 1854, they were at 62f. 60c. There was thus a falling off upon the French three per cents amounting to 16f. 65c. or nearly 21 per cent. Now I will take English Consols. On the 1st of April, 1853, they stood at 99⅞; and on the 1st of April, 1853, they stood at 86¼. There was thus a falling off of 13⅝, or about 14 per cent of decline in the value of these great securities in England as compared with the decline of 21 per cent in a country which is not a poor country, not an ill-organised country, but which, on the contrary, possesses the greatest money market in Europe, after England. Then I compare the present price of Consols with what it has been in former times; and now the House will recollect that we are in the midst of a European war, that we have a force of 60,000 men on foot, and that we have extra armaments for the purpose of that European war. I do not propose to go back—which might, perhaps, fairly be done; at any rate, I do not propose to refer to them—to years of war as a standard of comparison. Even as compared with years of peace, the present state of the public funds is not altogether devoid of materials for satisfaction and congratulation. Of course I do not mean to look at the funds, and public stocks, at the state at which they have been of late years. I look back for the last twenty years. There are six of these years, although they were six years of peace, in which the price of Consols has gone lower in the midst of peace than it has now gone in the midst of war. Two of those years are years which are least material to the comparison, for they are the years 1848 and 1847. The year 1848 was a year of peace for us, though a year of war fur the Continent; and 1847 was a year of famine. The closing price of Consols last night was 88¼. In the year 1848 Consols stood at 88¼; in 1847 they stood at 79⅝; but in the other four years, which were years of peace in the strictest sense, and not years of extraordinary distress, Consols went down lower than they were last night, when we were in the midst of a European war. In the year 1841 they went to 87½; in 1840 they went to 87; in 1836, which was a year of great prosperity upon the whole, Consols went to 86¾; and in the year 1834, which was a year of uniform prosperity, they went to 87¾. Therefore it appears that in times of peace and prosperity you have not been able to keep up the price, and you find it at a point equal to that at which it now stands, in the midst of great expenditure and of menacing prospects. There is only one other point of comparison which I will take, and that is the price of Exchequer bills. I propose here to institute the same comparisons with the corresponding documents in France called Bons du Trésor, as I did in the case of Consols. It is a very simple statement, and the House will at once comprehend it. On the 1st of April, 1853, Exchequer bills in England were at 1½ per cent, and on the 1st of April, 1854, they were at 3 per cent; that is to say, there was an increase of 100 per cent on the rate of interest. On the 1st of April, 1853, the French corresponding documents bore a rate of interest varying, according to the terms for which they had to run, from 1½ to 2 per cent, up to 3 per cent. The mean rate of these three rates was 2¼ per cent. On the 1st of April, 1854, these documents stood at from 4½ per cent to 5 and 5½ per cent. The mean of these rates is 5 per cent. Therefore, whilst you increase from 1½ per cent to 3 per cent, or at the rate of 100 per cent, the French increase from 2¼ to 5 per cent, or at the rate of 122 per cent. I have shown, therefore, taking the country which, upon the whole, is the one which can most fairly be referred to, not merely that the rates of interest payable in this country are lower than they are in France—and if that were all it would be very well—but that the rate of interest at this moment, compared with what it was twelve months ago, has undergone a smaller increase in this country than it has, taking corresponding periods, in France. This is the whole of the statement with which I think it necessary to preface the Motion I am making. I hope I have confined myself, and strictly confined myself, to matters of fact. I certainly might have had much more to say, but which I have gone by, upon some of the subjects on which I have touched, especially the question of the issue of deficiency bills and the understanding with the Bank. As to the arrangement with the Bank, I may have more to say at a future time. With regard to the question of the interest upon Exchequer bills, no doubt occasions may arise when we may again debate the very important question of the principles upon which that portion of the debt ought to be managed. For the present, I have shown to the House that the state of the revenue during the past year, all circumstances being taken into consideration, has been manifestly satisfactory; that the demand made by the Government upon the Bank for accommodations, although it has been a demand which it would be desirable to contract and reduce, yet is not a demand which need inspire any person with alarm or apprehension; and with regard to commerce, no contraction of its resources has taken effect in consequence of any operation of the Government under the law; that with regard to the unfunded debt, its extent is moderate, and likely so to continue; and with regard to public credit, that it is in a condition with regard to which we may feel satisfied and thankful, when we consider the difficult and menacing circumstances in which both this country and the whole of Europe is at present placed. Having said this much, Sir, I will only beg to move that the balance-sheet be laid upon the table.

I quite agree, Sir, with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Motion for placing the balance-sheet upon the table is not a very convenient one for raising a financial discussion. Of course it is a great disadvantage to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer under such circumstances; for he, as the Finance Minister, has information which must be unknown to us until the paper is in our hands, and we can only obtain from him a statement of some leading facts to guide our judgment. I think, therefore, it is convenient, as a general rule, that the House should not be led into a financial controversy under such circumstances. It certainly was not my intention to have made any observation whatever on this occasion had it not been for the Motion put upon the paper by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I accept his version of that Motion, however; and, therefore, I shall entirely avoid any controversy upon the system of finance which he has explained. With regard to the returns for which I have moved, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not with reference to the present Motion. They are, I should say, a continuation of returns which I moved for in the early part of the year, in order that the House and myself might be in possession of authentic information when—if I thought I was justified in so doing—I should bring before the House the condition of our finances. They had not, therefore, the least reference to the present Motion. I shall confine the few observations I am about to make entirely to matters of fact; but there are one or two points in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which I do not think I ought to pass unnoticed. As regards a matter of fact, I beg to remind the House, in vindication of myself, that the right hon. Gentleman's own statement to-night has fully justified a statement I made in some observations which followed his financial statement on the 5th of March—first, as to the probable amount of the balances in the Exchequer at the end of the financial year; and secondly, as to the amount of deficiency bills which he would require for the quarter. On that occasion I said that, so far as I could form an estimate, it appeared to me that the balances in the Exchequer on the 5th of April could not exceed 3,000,000l. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said, "I have the misfortune to differ from the right hon. Gentleman; I think the balances will be 4,000,000l." I would beg to remind the House that my estimate was not an indiscreet one from which the right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune to differ. Although I was not prepared with the data which the right hon. Gentleman has at his command, yet the returns he has now placed upon the table show that the balances in the Exchequer are not more than 2,800,000l. This shows that my estimate was, of the two, the most correct, and that it did not deserve the sceptical reproof of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, what was my estimate of the amount of deficiency bills? I said that, so far as I could form an estimate, it appeared to me the right hon. Gentleman would require about 6,000,000l. of deficiency bills. The right hon. Gentleman questioned the accuracy of that statement, and said the deficiency bills for the quarter would, in his opinion, not be more than from 4,000,000l. to 4,500,000l. I said 6,000,000l., and it now appears that the actual amount is 5,852,000l. I think, therefore, that I was more correct than the right hon. Gentleman on this, the second point. Now, there is one other point upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch, but upon which I should like to have some information. I collected from the right hon. Gentleman, when he last spoke on these subjects, two or three weeks ago, that there were certain bills charged upon the Consolidated Fund, but I do not remember that he has made any reference to those bills on this occasion.

The bills to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are called "Consolidated Fund bills." They are bills met by the Bank, but they are not held by the Bank. They are met by public money, through the Commissioners of the National Debt, and not by accommodation from the Bank. The amount is 750,000l.

Very well. Having adverted to these two points—namely, the amount of the balances at the end of the financial year, and the amount of the deficiency bills which the right hon. Gentleman will require for this quarter—and reminded the House of my estimates upon them, I must beg to make but one observation upon what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject of deficiency bills. I confess that to me his statement was not satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the public requirements exceeded the resources in the Exchequer at the end of the financial year to the amount of 6,000,000l. sterling; "but," says the right hon. Gentleman, "I need not require the whole of that 6,000,000l. immediately from the Bank, for the revenue is coming in, and so I manage to get on." But the right hon. Gentleman can- not conceal from the House or from the country that he shows at that time a deficiency in his resources to the amount of 6,000,000l.; and though he may put off the evil day—though he may use the resources that are coming in, and which may be wanting for something else—still the state of the public treasury is, that he is minus the sum of 6,000,000l.; and that that sum is necessary, absolutely necessary, in order to carry on the public service, up to the completion of the financial year. The right hon. Gentleman treats very lightly, and ingeniously glosses over, this most important subject. I am certain myself that its importance will be continually felt, and that, as this year advances, there will be more than one occasion when we shall be obliged to call the attention of the House to it. I shall, however, follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman to-night, and not enter into any argument upon the subject of the deficiency bills. I will adhere to facts and statements, or, at least, to statements of opinion. But I must say that the views which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed upon this subject are not, in my opinion, the views which are entertained by men of business. I am going to read a very short extract, indeed, from the evidence given before the Committee upon Commercial Distress in 1848; and the House will not find this wearisome, because it is the evidence of an hon. Member of this House. It is, therefore, as interesting as a speech from that Gentleman. Much evidence that is quoted is that of persons you know nothing about—it goes in at one ear and comes out at the other; but when it is the evidence of a brother Member, and a Member of all authority upon the subject, it is rather entertaining, and very often, like other works, very instructive. Now, I shall not quote the evidence of any gentleman opposed to the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall quote, upon the subject of deficiency bills, one of his supporters, the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn). The hon. Member for Kendal was examined before the Lords' Committee in 1848; and the House, I trust, will let me read two or three questions, with his answers to them, on that occasion:—

"By the returns before the Committee it appears that in October, 1841, there was a demand for 4,800,000l.; in October, 1842, for 4,900,000l.; in October, 1843, for 3,700,000l.; in October, 1844, for 2,500,000l.; and in October, 1845, for 829,000l. Subsequently to that, the Exchequer balances becoming full, that demand ceased; but supposing that in October, 1847, there hail been a demand upon the Bank of England for advances for the public service to the extent of three or four millions, what would have been the consequence of such an advance in the then state of the reserve?"

His answer was:—

"Either the Government must have been refused, or the directors must have limited the commercial discounts in order to meet the demand of the Government, or they must have sold stock to draw in the notes, and advanced them again upon deficiency bills."

The examination went on:—

"It is unnecessary to pursue the consequences of refusing the demand of the Government, which would have been the refusal of the means of paying the dividends; but, passing to the second alternative, what do you conceive would have been the consequence of limiting the commercial accommodation, at that period, to that extent?—There would have been an enormous increase to the pressure. It would have been almost the ruin of the commercial world to have refused discounts then. If two millions had been the amount of the deficiency bills, I do not think the stock market would have borne the sale of two millions of securities at that time; at any rate, it would have occasioned almost equal pressure as the refusal of discounts, and a great depreciation in Government securities. That period of pressure was relieved by the issue of the letter of Lord John Russell and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

"Do you consider that the effect would have been the same with respect to commercial credit if the letter had been issued, not for the purpose of relieving commercial pressure, but in order to obtain an advance for Government purposes?—I think it would have been a dangerous experiment for the Government to have issued a letter for the purposes of Government; they would not have had much sympathy on the part of the public.

"Then, in the event of circumstances happening which, either by increasing the expenditure of the country, or by limiting the revenue of the country, would have the effect of reducing the balances in the Exchequer, is there not, as a consequence, an impending necessity of harrowing upon deficiency Bills to pay the dividends?—Certainly.

"Then, in the event of any circumstance reducing the banking reserve to the extent to which it was reduced in October last, do you see any mode of extrication from that difficulty at such a period?—Not any mode of relief from that difficulty upon an application made by Government to the Bank at any such period. I conceive Government might have been relieved by a loan."

Says the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "You had in 1844 and 1845 almost an equal amount of deficiency bills to that for which I am now calling on the Bank." But what was the state of the balances in the Exchequer in 1844 and 1845? Were they at 2,800,000l.? No, they were much more considerable than they are now. I want to show the House that here is an opinion which ought, I think, to influence them on the subject of the Government borrowing upon deficiency bills. The right hon. Gentleman himself does not advocate habitual borrowing upon deficiency bills. All these cases to which this evidence refers are cases of but occasional loans; but the right hon. Gentleman is now an habitual borrower upon deficiency bills, and at the same time he tells you, "If you ask me whether 4,000,000l. or 4,500,000l. is a sum that ought to be taken from the Bank quarter after quarter, I must unhesitatingly answer, no." Now, I want to know what prospect there is of any change in the position of the right hon. Gentleman? But the appeal of the hon. Member for Kendal was not the only one. I was myself a Member of the Committee on Commercial Distress in this House. We had before us a very great authority on this subject—one of the principal partners in the most eminent house of Baring and Co.—the most eminent house in England—I mean Mr. Bates. And what did Mr. Bates say at page 183 of his evidence? Why he attributed the panic of April, 1847, to the Bank being called upon to advance heavily on deficiency bills. Now, I want the House to consider this. Are we at this moment in circumstances which would allow us to suppose that emotions of panic may not occur again? What would produce panic but those terrible events that we are almost hourly expecting? The right hon. Gentleman says, already there has been, if not a state of panic, at least a state of great apprehension. If there is any military disaster, or if there should be treachery upon the part of those we consider our allies, if circumstances occurred to turn the course of exchange against us, you would have renewed and perhaps aggravated apprehensions. With the prospect of an European war, and, as we have been informed to-night by a great authority, with the prospect of a protracted war, do you think it advisable that the Government should be habitually doing that which Mr. Bates, the very highest authority upon the subject, tells you produced the panic of 1847—namely, the Government borrowing upon deficiency bills to the amount of 2,000,000l.? This is the point which I wish to impress upon the House—that I cannot assent to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as the balances in the Exchequer are concerned, and the mode by which they are replenished, namely, by habitual loans on deficiency bills. I cannot give my assent to his view that such a state of things is one upon which the country may be congratulated. I think if the right hon. Gentleman pursues that course, he will find himself ultimately in a state of great difficulty; and I would much sooner that, during the recess, he should devise some means by which he may put an end to the necessity of borrowing habitually on those deficiency bills; and then, when the next discussion takes place upon finance, which is to be of a more controversial nature than that of tonight, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a more satisfactory position, and would be able to inspire the country with more confidence than he certainly can do upon the present occasion.

said, that he had been much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought fit to introduce these papers with a long and elaborate explanation, which, so far as he could understand the object, was for the purpose of allaying any apprehension which might exist out of doors. The very notice that the right hon. Gentleman was about to make a statement had produced far more apprehension and excitement in the City of London than anything else had done before, and it was rumoured that there was to be a fresh issue of Exchequer bills, that the right hon. Gentleman was about to introduce a loan, or some fresh income tax. At first all kinds of rumours had been afloat as to what was about to be proposed, and it now seemed that all that was required was to compare the state of the English with the French funds, to show that the English funds were not lower, and the deficiency bills not higher now than they were in 1844—a time, by the way, immediately following the financial effort of the late Sir Robert Peel, by means of the income tax, to correct those evils which he (Mr. Baring) was afraid would very soon again arise in this country. In 1845 the deficiency bills were very little or nothing—that operation of the income tax obviated the evil which it was intended to obviate, and things went on straight and in order. If he had thought that there was any cause for the right hon. Gentleman to remove alarm, he should have been satisfied with the speech which he had made; for, coining from so high an authority, and delivered with the right hon. Gentleman's accustomed ability and talent, it was well calculated to remove any apprehension, if indeed any existed in the country. He confessed, however, that he saw no cause for apprehension with regard to the credit of the country. The public credit could only be damaged by mismanagement; and he trusted after all that had passed that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would in his future financial measures exhibit a little more caution than had perhaps been displayed by him hitherto. There was one point, however, upon which he had heard the right hon. Gentleman with great regret—it was where he had urged and laid down as the principle of his system of finance that he was not to provide by means of the incoming revenue for the engagements he had to meet, but to meet those engagements by subsequently accruing revenue and deficiency bills. He perfectly agreed that the Government had a very fair claim upon the assistance of the Bank of England, nay, more, he thought it was the duty of the Bank of England to assist to the utmost of its power whoever might be at the head of the financial affairs of the country, and that for this obvious reason, that not only was the Bank of England the agent of the Government, but it was only by the preservation of public credit that private credit could be maintained or assisted in this country. If there was the slightest hesitation in the maintenance of the public faith, or the performance of public engagements, of course the Government would have the first claim for any assistance that it might desire, and that assistance the Government would be perfectly right in taking. But there were occasions when such assistance could not be sought without injury—occasions such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had alluded, when the Bank might find itself placed in circumstances of difficulty to meet the wants of the Government. It was therefore objected to, not because in a time of prosperity there existed any danger either to the Bank, to public credit, or private aid, in relying upon deficiency bills; but it was because circumstances might arise, which no Minister could foresee, in which that assistance, if demanded of the Bank, might very much interfere, especially under the present banking system, with the necessary accommodation to the commercial community and the maintenance of private credit; it was this which constituted the real danger of relying upon the system of deficiency bills. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn), whose speech had been alluded to, when appearing to advocate the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, added very shrewdly, "The Bill of 1844 ought to be altered." He did not want to enter upon any discussion on that Bill; but this he would say, that if they were determined that that Act should be fairly tried, the Government of the country ought not to rely upon the Bank for aid, while at the same time it possessed only very small balances to meet great exigencies. very feared that the right hon. Gentleman was making this policy the keystone of his financial system; he would warn him, if such was the case, that there might be times when there might occur a check to incoming revenue; and he would then see that, whatever might be the in-convenience of providing beforehand the means of meeting engagements when due, and whatever might be the plausible theory that he could employ the balances of the Exchequer instead of leaving the Bank to employ them, that still great injury might arise in cases which had been referred to, from the adoption of such a system. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to treat lightly the amount of deficiency bills; he stated that it was not 5,000,000l., but only 2,500,000l., which the Bank was called upon to pay. But he forgot the liability there was in the Bank of England; that the Bank was still liable for that larger amount; and that the Bank, acting as it must do under certain restrictions when it had engaged liabilities, must be prepared to meet them whenever the time might arrive for their being called upon to do so. He was so completely at issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the policy which he was disposed to pursue, and so dangerous did that policy appear to him, that he could not avoid entering his protest against it as an act of policy, and stating that, in his view, it was one fraught with danger to the financial security of the country. Some allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the decline in the price of the French funds; but that depreciation was caused by the fact that at the time the French Government had strained to the utmost the Exchequer-bill system, and had brought it to such a point that they could no longer by its means meet their wants by borrowing either of the Bank of France or by having recourse to Bons du Trésor, and it was known therefore that the Government must have recourse to a loan in the market. That would be the danger to which the right hon. Gentleman would be exposed if he found that he could not get out his Exchequer bills so easily as he could have floated them if he had not reduced the rate of interest, and if the money formerly invested in them had not been locked up in other securities. He would find that he could not so easily borrow money from the Bank of England, and then he would find that he would be compelled to make a loan, probably at the least favourable moment. He did not wish it to be for a moment supposed, either by the House or the country, that the Government would not be able to borrow without the slightest danger to the borrower or lender, or the future prosperity of the country. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in his Budget speech had taken a narrow view of the question when he stated, a short time since, that the great debt of this country was an obstacle to borrowing money for the expenses of the war. Let them only prove the war to be a just and a necessary one, and every effort would be made which should be made to meet the necessities and demands of the war. It might be very well to say, so long as they could meet the expenses of the war by taxation within the year that it would be desirable to do so. But when the expenditure might be changed from 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. to 20,000,000l. a year, they must recognise the fact that not only could they not raise that sum from direct taxation, but that in point of fact it would be unjust to do so, not only to the present generation, but to future times. To attempt to raise so large a sum at once by direct taxation out of the narrow profit, narrow incomes, or capital of the country, would not be without its effect on posterity—it would drive capital out of the country, diminish and impoverish the resources of the nation, and the effect of these evils would be felt by posterity quite as much as by the present generation. His only anxiety was, that the right hon. Gentleman should well weigh the evils of the conflicting principles. With respect to keeping large balances, if the Government would employ them, as its agent, the Bank of England, did in temporary securities, the Government might do so profitably; but it was notorious that the Government could not do so, and the only safety for the right hon. Gentleman was to be provided beforehand with the means of meeting his engagements, and not to rely too much upon the aid of the Bank of England, or upon the continuance of times of prosperity.

said, as the House was about to separate for a considerable period, he had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman to the extent that great good would be done by disabusing the public mind on the subject of the amount of deficiency bills which would be required. He saw nothing in the existing state of things to call for anything like panic or serious apprehension. With respect to the general principle of whether it was desirable to draw upon the Bank of England even to the amount of 2,000,000l., he entirely agreed with the opinion of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), that the danger of such a course would be very considerable, and that, even in ordinary times of peace, any advantage to be derived from the small rate of interest, by keeping only a small balance at the Bank would be more than balanced by the danger to the public interests of the country in a time of commercial distress. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not correctly appreciated the effect upon the public market of the recent alteration in the state of the balances of the Exchequer. A sum of 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l. had been taken from the habitual balances of the Bank, and had been applied in paying off as much of the national debt of the country. If that money had not been buried in the ground, or locked up in another shape, it would have gone to increase the means available for private and commercial purposes. The effect of the alteration was to withdraw 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l. of money, previously available for commercial and short-date purposes, to the purchase of funds, investments in mortgages, and other securities of a long date. The effect of this was to force up the price of the funds; and, upon the other hand, when accommodation was required from the Bank to meet the deficiency, it augmented the scarcity felt towards the end of the last quarter. The only question which now remained was, what course was to be taken to replace the deficiency in the balances caused by the abortive operation of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the funded debt? He (Mr. Laing) went with the right hon. Gentleman in making that experiment, but he believed a mistake had been made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he clearly ascertained that the course of events had gone against him and the experiment was a failure, in not meeting the payment of the large amount by some pro- posal to convert into "stock," at a small bonus, the funds of the dissentient shareholders who might by this means have been induced to take stock instead of money. There was one golden rule in speculation, which was, that when a person speculated upon any particular event, and that event went against him, then the sooner he got out of the difficulty the better. He was anxious to see an amount of stock created to supply the place of the funds which had been applied under very different circumstances to reduce the debt, and to replenish the balances in the Exchequer. Even at the risk of a temporary loss, he thought it would be advisable speedily to create some new stock in order to place our finances upon a sound and healthy footing, and to prevent our having recourse to a loan at a time when it would be raised probably upon less favourable terms.

said, he thought it would be a great improvement in the finance system of the country if the quarter's returns of the whole of the United Kingdom, instead of those of Great Britain alone, were published. In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the surplus of the financial year just expired was 3,000,000l., he would observe that 1,500,000l. was to be deducted on account of the newly-created three per cent stock and Exchequer bonds. It would be idle, however, for him to enter largely into a discussion on a paper with the contents of which he was not familiar.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and, still more, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) had entirely misapprehended, and, consequently, had mis-stated to the House both the language he had used, and the principles and opinions he had expressed. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire said, "It won't do for you to be an habitual borrower upon the Bank;" and the hon. Member for Huntingdon declared that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) made the use of deficiency bills the keystone of his system of finance. Now, he had never used any such language, and had never done any such thing. What was the truth about his being an habitual borrower? Why, this was the very first quarter he had borrowed at all; and, under such circumstances, it was very hard to be charged with being an habitual borrower. He had been furnished by the Bank with a statement of the amount of deficiency bills issued and brought to charge during the last quarter, and the result of this statement was, that there were only eight days during the last quarter—during the previous quarters he believed there were not any at all—at which the Bank was in advance of the public balances, and upon those eight days the amount of accommodation varied from 29,000l. to 125,000l. The sum of 125,000l. was the largest amount of accommodation from the Bank during the last quarter. There was, therefore, he repeated, no foundation for the statement that he was an habitual borrower—far less that he had made the issue of deficiency bills the keystone of his system of finance. Nothing which lie had ever said, and nothing which he had ever done, bore the slightest correspondence with the statement of the hon. Member for Huntingdon on this point. He had, indeed, said—and this was a matter no doubt open to discussion—that a moderate and limited use of deficiency bills was, in his opinion, a good and prudent practice.

I did not attribute to the right hon. Gentleman the use of the expression that the issue of deficiency bills was the keystone of his financial system. I only said that was the tenor of his argument.

How was it possible that any such deduction could have been made from what he had said, when his argument went only to the extent that you might, within narrow limits, go to the Bank for advances which might be taken up within a week or fortnight of the quarter's revenue? The amount of deficiency bills was the result of the extraordinary demands made for the liquidation of stock. But a more important point than this was, that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members were under the impression that a deficiency of this kind, once created, was not to be restored without the use of some extraordinary measure. Now, he might tell the hon. Member (Mr. T. Baring) what, if he might say so, was the keystone of his system of finance. It was invariably to ask this House to provide an income which would more than meet the expenditure of the year. That, in his opinion, was the keystone of finance, and his secondary doctrine was this—that the question of having a large or a small balance at the Bank was a question open to discussion, but it was a matter of no great moment, provided you kept within narrow bounds, and provided you always adhered to the principle of avoiding a deficiency upon the year's account, of avoiding a fictitious surplus, and of having an income which would always more than cover your expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had stated that he trusted he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would devise some means of escaping from his present situation in respect to the public balances during the recess. Now, the statement which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made to-night was, with the same exception, what he had stated about the issue of Exchequer bills—it was a retrospective statement. He had admitted that, although he did not consider there would be anything inconvenient or alarming in the present amount of accommodation under ordinary circumstances, yet that, under present circumstances, the case was not exactly the same. He admitted that at such a period as this we ought to have a wider margin at the Bank, that we ought to take what in ordinary phraseology was called more elbow-room, with reference to the provision of means for the public service. Upon that subject it would be absurd to enter into a discussion at the present moment. It might, however, be his duty to take a further view of the demands of the public service for the year, and, if he was unfortunately compelled to do so, then would be the time to state to the House the means by which he proposed to place the Exchequer in what he believed to be a safe and satisfactory condition.