Mr. Speaker; It was my duty yesterday, Sir, to be the organ of the regrets of this House at the communication which you felt it your duty to make to them, and of their concern that the next Parliament are not to have the benefit of your assistance in conducting their deliberations. I have to-day a task to perform of a nature more agreeable to myself, and one which I am sure will be more acceptable to the House. I have to propose to this House to return, by their unanimous vote, their Thanks to you, Sir, for your able and distinguished services in the chair during the long period of nearly eighteen years for which you have occupied it. [General and sustained cries of "Hear, hear!"] Sir, that man must have been a very superficial observer of the proceedings of Parliament who has not remarked in how essential a degree the usefulness, the respectability, and the influence of this House must depend upon the manner in which the man who occupies that chair performs the duties which he has to discharge. In a great assembly like this, composed of so many persons coming from all parts of the country, it is obvious that unless the person who regulates their proceedings inspires among the Members of the House that temper, forbearance, and equanimity which he himself possesses, this House might be led by the warmth of discussion and by the agitation of public questions to depart from that order, moderation, and regularity of proceeding which are so essential to maintain in the public opinion that respect which is due to this branch of the Legislature. Sir, it is needless, I am sure, to say in how eminent a degree you have performed your functions. It is needless to remind those who have witnessed your proceedings, how you have combined promptitude of decision, justness of judgment, and firmness of purpose, with the most conciliatory manners—["Hear, hear!"]—and how that dignity—that natural dignity—which belongs to you, and which is most striking when it is accompanied by simplicity of mind and by the absence of all artificial affectation—["Hear, hear!"]—how that natural dignity which adorns yourself has been communicated through your direction to the general proceedings of the Commons' House of Parliament. Sir, not only have you discharged in the most exemplary and useful manner your duties in that chair, but there are other duties, I will not say less important, but nearly as important, which the Speaker of this House has to perform out of the chair. I am sure that I shall meet with the concurrence of every Gentleman who listens to me when I say that no Member ever approached you for the purpose of obtaining that information with respect to our proceedings, either public or private, which it was his wish to receive, without experiencing from you not only the most courteous reception, not only the most ready hearing, but also the most accurate information in regard to the subject upon which it was his desire and his duty to consult you. There is another matter, Sir, in which you have been eminently conducive to the interests of this House. Our forms of procedure are founded upon ancient usage. Many of them were, no doubt, the result of accident, or perhaps of design, at periods when those forms were more essential than at present to maintain the principles on which you, Sir, have had the judgment to discriminate between the principles which ought ever to be upheld and the technical forms which might be varied and modified without detriment to the public, and you have, by the suggestions which you have from time to time made, contributed much to the despatch of business in this House, to the advantage of the country, and the convenience of the Members of this body. ["Hear, hear!"] I am convinced. Sir, that in what I have been saying I have been only expressing the feelings which animate every Gentleman who hears me; and that in moving the Address which I propose to submit to the House I shall only be embodying the sentiments naturally arising in the minds of all who sit in this assembly. ["Hear, hear!"] I therefore, Sir, move—

"That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker, for his eminent and distinguished services during the period of nearly eighteen years for which he has filled the Chair of this House; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal and ability with which he has discharged the duties of Speaker under circumstances requiring unprecedented labour and exertion; and that this House entertains the strongest sense of the firmness and dignity with which he has maintained its privileges, of his unremitting attention to its business, of the care which he has devoted to the improvement of its forms, and of the urbanity and kindness which have uniformly marked his conduct in the Chair, and which have secured for him the esteem and gratitude of every Member of this House."

Sir, I have the honour to second the Motion of the noble Lord, and to express on behalf of the Gentlemen who sit on the left of the chair their entire concurrence with the description which the noble Lord has given of your high qualities, and in the estimate he has offered of the services which, unfortunately, we are about to lose. Sir, we too can bear witness to the blended firmness and courtesy with which you have regulated our debates, and which, when necessary, have controlled them. We, too, can bear witness to that learning which has guided and enlightened our labours. We, too, can hear witness to that high bearing which at all times and under all circumstances, even the most trying, has sustained the dignity of the exalted office which you have filled. Sir, the eighteen years during which you have occupied the chair have been a memorable period in the history of the Parliament of this country. Some of the greatest measures that have ever been proposed in the councils of the nation have been carried during that period; and some of the greatest men that have ever flourished within these walls have been under your guidance. Sir, I make no doubt that in the page of history your Speakership under those circumstances will figure as no unimportant one in the Parliamentary annals of this country. The severance of ties so long, so intimately, and so cordially maintained between you, Mr. Speaker, and this House cannot be witnessed without deep emotion. I confess myself, Sir, utterly unequal to the language of panegyric—I confess myself, Sir, at this moment unequal to offer you those compliments which you so well deserve; yet I can express to you, for those who sit on this side of the House, and I may perhaps presume to say for all present—[Cheers]— certainly for him, Sir, whom you have often so condescendingly aided and guided by your counsel—the tribute of our affectionate respect—[loud cries of "Hear! hear!"]—the hope, Sir, that when your name is mentioned in your absence in this House you will believe that it will always be quoted with regard and reverence—["Hear! hear!"]—and our anxious and earnest wishes that in the comparative retirement which may await you, you may enjoy that perfect satisfaction which you have so worthily earned.

Although, Sir, it is quite unnecessary to add anything to the eloquent speeches in which my noble. Friend at the head of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have expressed the sense entertained by the House of your merits during the long period you have filled that chair, yet for my own gratification it may, perhaps, be permitted to me, having been brought much into personal relation with, you, to say a few words. I cannot but feel, Sir, that during the whole of that period, the manner in which you have conducted the business of the House has greatly facilitated the proper transaction of the business. I cannot forget that at the period when you were elected you succeeded to one of the most distinguished Members of this House—a man eminent for his learning, and who for many years had taken a prominent part in the debates of this House, and who spoke, therefore, with the authority which accompanied that learning and that experience of the affairs of Parliament. But, Sir, although you might seem so far to have been placed at a disadvantage, yet your merit so speedily attracted the respect and affection of this House—["Hear, hear!"]—I may say you so thoroughly won the heart of the House—["Hear, hear!"]—That the exercise of your authority became comparatively easy, and every person was ready, whatever were his previous prepossessions, whatever his previous wish to persevere in some course of which you disapproved, to bow at once to a single word from you. Sir, these Qualities have not only been of the greatest advantage in conducting the ordinary business of the House, but you have been able by these means to facilitate, in a great degree, a transition to more speedy forms which had become necessary from the increasing pressure of business in this House. You have been able, Sir, to discriminate with nicety and judgment where it was possible to depart from ancient and accustomed forms, without surrendering any important or useful privilege. You have accurately marked out the line where it was advantageous to concede, and where it was necessary to resist innovations on our established forms. Sir, I believe there is nothing in our old institutions more artfully contrived, nor more useful for carrying on the business and debates of a free assembly, than the modes of procedure and the regular order of business of this House; but at the same time it is difficult strictly to keep up all those orders without in some degree delaying business. Further changes may, perhaps, yet have to be made, and I can only hope that, whoever may have the honour to succeed you in that chair, we may find in him the same qualities, the same excellent judgment, the same power of wielding authority, and the same art of conciliating the goodwill and affection of the House, which you have always so conspicuously displayed. ["Hear, hear!"] Sir, I beg only further to express my extreme regret, accompanied with that, I am sure, of every Member of this House, that we have on this occasion to take our final leave of you, and that the succeeding Parliament will not have the advantage of your presence. [Continued cheers.]

addressed the House as follows:—

I am sure that the House would not be satisfied If we were to abstain from completely following the precedents which have been set us on occasions of a similar nature. It has been the practice of this House, when it has been deprived of the services of Speakers who have long and ably filled that chair, not to content themselves simply with the expression of their own Thanks, but to give to the Crown an opportunity of going hand in hand with them in the acknowledgment of great and eminent services. I shall, therefore, without further preface, move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, that She will be most graciously pleased to center some signal mark of Her Royal favour upon the right hon. Charles Shaw Lefevre, Speaker of this House, for his great and eminent services performed to his country, during the long and important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and integrity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account, this House will make good the same."

Although, like the noble Lord opposite, I feel that it is impossible to add anything to the eloquence with which the last Vote was moved and seconded, yet I hope that I shall be allowed the great gratification of seconding the Motion just proposed. Sir, I am one of those Members—now, comparatively speaking, few in number—who have had the honour of a seat in Parliament throughout the whole of the eighteen years during which you have so honourably filled that chair. Eighteen years ago, when you were elected to it, I sat, as now, on this side of the House. I was not fortunate enough to be one of the majority by which you were chosen, but I believe that I do but express the universal feeling of those who hear me, when I say, that from the day of your election the Members of the minority equally with the Members of that majority have been influenced by one unanimous feeling of gratitude for your kindness, of admiration for the manner in which you have fulfilled your public duties, and of that deep and sincere private friendship which I am sure must animate every one who has the good fortune to approach you. [Cheers.] I can, therefore, assure the House, that sharing on this side the House the feelings, and reciprocating the language we have heard from the noble Lord, I express the deep regret we feel that this House is hereafter to lose the advantage which we have derived from your services, and we sincerely hope that your retirement may be as happy as it is well earned. [Continued cheers.]

I beg now to move, Sir, that the Thanks of the House, be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has this day said to the House, and that the same be entered in the Journals of this House.

said, that no doubt the formation of the Land Transport Corps took place under circumstances of great difficulty. It was suddenly requisite to embody a large number of men for that peculiar service; and no doubt the men were regularly enlisted in England for a period of ten years. Many of them no doubt were good men, and many of them, on their arrival in the Crimea, were found to be very ignorant of their duties, and therefore some time was occupied with their organization and discipline. Still, as he understood it, there could be no doubt they were regularly enlisted for ten years, and were therefore entitled to a proper parchment discharge. Undoubtedly, also, as far as the amount of their pay was concerned, injustice had been done the men, unless some arrears had been kept back merely through a delay in making up the accounts. To many of the statements in Colonel M'Murdo's letter he fully subscribed. He did not think, for example, that the men were entitled to any gratuity on their discharge; nothing, at least, in the Mutiny Act justified it. But at the same time, the men having been sent out to the Crimea, and formed there in the midst of such difficulties, having become very efficient in their duties and regularly employed, he thought on their return to England they were entitled to arrears of pay and their discharge; and not only that, but also to fair consideration from the country on their reduction. He hoped, therefore, at all events, that means would be taken to ensure their prompt discharge, even if anything should stand in the way of a gratuity being granted them.

said, the Motion and speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury illustrated the difficulty in which Government was often placed in being called upon, on the one hand, to consult the feelings and expectations of men who had enlisted in a time of great emergency and who were afterwards disappointed because they had not realized all the hopes they entertained and all the advantages they expected from joining the service; and on the other hand not to pass by those considerations of economy which, when the emergency was over, were pressed on the Government, but to relieve themselves from those for whom they could no longer find employment. It was not true, as the hon. Member had stated, that the Land Transport Corps had, upon the average, claims against the Government amounting to £14 or £15 per man. Very few indeed had any claims at all against the Government.

I did not say one word about the average. What I said was, that many men were walking the streets with claims against the Government amounting, in some cases, to £14 or £15.

What had been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich (Sir William Codrington) with regard to the difficulties under which the corps was raised was perfectly correct. The corps was raised at a time when every one attributed the miscarriages in the Crimea to the want of an organized transport service for the army. It was determined, therefore, to raise a special corps for that purpose. The men were hurriedly engaged, perhaps without that strictness. of scrutiny which would otherwise have been proper in regard to their fitness for the service, and as fast as they were raised they were sent to the Crimea. Upon the termination of the war they were brought home and reduced, as all the other portions of the army raised for special services were. He did not think, therefore, that the hon. Member, founding himself upon proceedings taken under such peculiar circumstances, was justified in making a general attack upon the War Department, and especially upon that able officer, Colonel M'Murdo, to whom the army in the Crimea was so much indebted for his exertions in bringing the Land Transport Corps into order. He was quite confident that whatever advice Colonel M'Murdo gave to the War Department was given by him with a single eye to the public service. Again, the hon. Member had stated that the men complained that they were harshly treated upon the termination of the war. It was undoubtedly true that their services were dispensed with as soon as the war terminated; but the same was the case with regard to many other portions of the army. If the Government were to study economy they could not keep men in their pay when they were unable to find employment for them, and that it was impossible to employ the Land Transport Corps in a time of peace was obvious from the fact that the corps which had succeeded the Land Transport was not one-eighth of its strength. The hon. Member had also referred to the mode in which the men were discharged, stating that they received protecting, instead of parchment certificates. The ordinary practice, when a soldier who had served for any length of time was discharged, was for a board of officers to inquire into and record his services, and thereupon to grant him a parchment certificate; but he contended it was perfectly competent to the Secretary of State to furnish a person who was discharged, and particularly when, as in the present case, his services had been of short duration, and a parchment certificate was not necessary for the receipt of a pension, a certificate of discharge in any form he might think proper. If what the hon. Member had stated was true, that some of the men in consequence of being granted protecting certificates only had been unable to obtain employment, all he could say was that they ought to have applied to the authorities at the Horse Guards or to the War Department to ascertain whether the quality of their certificates arose from any imputation upon their characters. Had they adopted that very obvious course he was sure that every difficulty would have been removed by a statement from the authorities that protecting certificates were in all respects equivalent to ordinary parchment certificates. What, however, was the fact? He had been informed by the Horse Guards that when an objection to protecting certificates was stated to exist they offered to grant to every man who chose to make application a parchment certificate. Their offer was accepted in some instances, but in others parchment certificates were refused, unless accompanied by a continuation of payment from the time when the protecting certificates were granted to the period when parchment certificates were substituted for them. Of course that demand could not be listened to; but he repeated there was no objection to the men receiving parchment in lieu of protecting certificates. The hon. Member had also stated that the men were dissatisfied because they were not granted a gratuity, and he had cited the Foreign Legion and Turkish Contingent as instances in which gratuities were given. But the hon. Member had overlooked the great difference which existed between these foreign levies and the Land Transport Corps. The latter body was part of the regular army, and was governed by the same regulations; whereas the Foreign Legion and Turkish Contingent were exceptional corps, raised for a special service, and it was competent to the Crown to enter into a special arrangement with them in regard to the advantages which they might receive upon their reduction. If the Government were to give gratuities to the Land Transport Corps upon their reduction, they ought in justice to grant a gratuity to every man connected with the army who had been discharged. The case of the Land Transport Corps, in respect to gratuities, was really the case of the army at large, and he entirely agreed with what the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich had said upon this point. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated, that he would press for the appointment of a Committee unless it could be shown that the claims of the men for arrears of pay for certain compensation due to them for clothing not issued, had been satisfactorily adjusted. It was quite true, owing to the hurried manner in which the corps was raised, that the men were not furnished with clothing at the moment of their enlistment, and undoubtedly, according to the usual practice, they were entitled to compensation. A great number of such claims did exist; but he had been assured by Colone M'Murdo that, with the exception of a very few cases, which were daily being adjusted, the whole of these claims had been settled. Although he thought that, considering the circumstances in which the House was placed, it would be inexpedient to appoint a Committee, yet he would offer no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that there were great and extraordinary difficulties in the way of a Government who wished to do justice to all parties, when surrounded by those circumstances referred to by the hon. Undersecretary for War. He knew an instance in his own neighbourhood in which those difficulties were made apparent when the Colchester huts were ordered to be erected for the soldiers. The Estimates for placing those huts in a complete state of efficiency amounted to £14,000. But from the pressure of the peace-at-any-price party and other extreme economists in that House, those Estimates were reduced from £14,000 to £2,000. The result of this reduction was, that only a small number of soldiers could be housed. Some of them who wore medals and clasps upon their breasts for distinguished services in the Crimea were punished in a shameful manner for the most trifling offences. They were to be seen marched through the streets of Colchester as felons, without their muskets, with two men before and two behind them guarding them. The accused soldiers were then placed in gaol, with their faces turned to the wall, and treated precisely like common felons. He had witnessed himself those disgraceful proceedings. He hoped after the next general election the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not find himself so impeded in his efforts to do justice to such corps as that in the Land Transport service, or to the other important departments of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was making great efforts to assimilate the present Budget to that of 1853, although the circumstances of the country were as different as it was possible. The right hon. Gentleman might as well take the Budget of 1792 as his model. He trusted that the House would scout such miserable economy. He, perhaps, might be addressing the House that night for the last time; but before he sat down he must express his belief that the late Government had addressed a letter to Lord Raglan in the Crimea, telling him of the pressing necessity of his observance of the strictest economy. He knew of many miserable examples of that system of economy being pushed to a most disgraceful extent. For example, when our army was at Varna there were some excellent coffee-mills offered for the use of the service. Although they could have been purchased for a small amount of money, our Commissariat declined them. The French, however, immediately bought them up, and our soldiers were obliged to content themselves with green coffee and black bread. He hoped that the Government would never consent to cut down the military establishments.

said, that the hon. Under Secretary for War had in, the first place denied the existence of the grievances alleged by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and in the next place he denied the remedy that was proposed. He (Sir J. Fergusson) concluded that no man who entered the service during the war for the benefit of his country ought to be allowed to suffer on the return of peace. It now appeared that there were a number of men who had rendered good service in the Land Transport Corps walking the streets without that discharge which they had a right to receive. They had suffered much from the injustice of the Government; their grievances should be redressed by the House. A comparison had been made between the treatment experienced by this corps and the Foreign Legions. He thought it very likely that a different means must be adopted to get rid of the latter men when the war ceased, and the hon. Under Secretary for War had given reasons why it was necessary that the German and Turkish levies were entitled to more favourable terms on being disbanded than were the Land Transport Corps. He, however, submitted that the treatment given to the foreign soldiers should not be such as to contrast more favourably with that given to the regular army. When the Government granted tracts of land in our colonies to the German Legion, and granted them a free passage out, our own soldiers should not be sent begging about the streets. The hon. Under Secretary had never given any satisfactory answer to the inquiries respecting the intentions of the Government towards the officers of the Land Transport service. He insisted that those officers were entitled to the same treatment as the officers of our regular army. Good faith had not been kept with them. The gallant General opposite paid a high compliment to them. Those officers had a most difficult duty to fulfil, and they had discharged that duty most creditably to themselves as well as to their country. It was stated at the establishment of the corps that it was to be permanent, and in consequence many gentlemen who held commissions in the regular army were induced to join it. Now, however, because they had served in it a few months less than the three years which gave title to a pension, they were informed they had no right to full half-pay. He would certainly support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and when the Committee was appointed he would do his best to urge upon them the claims of those men.

in reply, said, that he would accept the offer of the hon. Under Secretary; but he would altogether eschew his law as to the discharging of those men. Now, he did not think that the Secretary of State at his discretion could alter the Articles of War, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. He never said that the claims of those men upon the Government averaged £14 a man. What he had said was, that there were several men begging about the streets who had claims of £13 or £14 against the Government, who had frequently applied to the Horse Guards in respect of them, but who could obtain no redress. Neither had he stated that those men were entitled to gratuities; but he had stated that the men complained that they had not been treated with the same consideration as the German Legion, the men of which, when the corps was disbanded, each received £22 and an acre of ground at the Cape of Good Hope, together with a free passage. Now, why should our own soldiers be driven to beggary while those foreigners were so well treated by the Government? These Foreign Legions had never served in the Crimea at all, while the Land Transport Corps had seen hard service. Out of 2,100 of the first levy for the Land Transport service, only about 600 and odd men returned home from the Crimea. About 1,400 never left that soil, being buried beneath it, and the survivors were turned by the Government penniless and homeless into our streets.

called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the necessity of the Government making provision in this Bill to exempt persons from having to pay income and property tax twice over, in consequence of defalcations of the collector.

said, that such a provision was already made by the Act for better securing the collecting and accounting for the land tax, assessed taxes, and income tax by the collectors thereof (17 & 18 Vict., c. 85). By that Act it was provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might require any person appointed a collector of taxes to give security, and in default of security being given, might appoint collectors themselves; and that where security was given, or the collectors appointed by the Commissioners, no parish should be answerable for the defaults of such collectors, nor should be liable to be re-assessed for any arrear or deficiency arising from any default or failure of such collectors.

thought it would be much better if the Government would make it compulsory, and not permissive, for the Inland Revenue officers to collect the income tax.

said, that the working of the Act referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been beneficial to the metropolitan parishes, for in three of the parishes in the borough which he represented serious losses had been suffered, owing to the Commissioners not having required security from the collectors.

said that his chief object in troubling the House with a few observations upon this clause was, not to obstruct the Government in raising the supplies really necessary for the public service, but to record his protest against this, the first departure from the Act of 1853. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on more than one occasion asserted that the Act of 1853 was at an end, and that the tax with which they had now to deal was not that imposed by the Act of that year, but that which the people were now by law liable to pay; and that, in consequence, the proposition of the Government was for a reduction and not an increase of the income tax. To that statement he (Sir F. Kelly) could not subscribe. He would not take upon himself to say that there was a "compact" made between the Government and the people in 1853, because he did not seek to invite a controversy upon the words; but this he did say, that the measure brought forward in 1853 was expressly and emphatically stated to be a settlement of the question. It was now, however, said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the arrangement of 1853 was at an end. To that he (Sir F. Kelly) could not agree. Whatever was the arrangement actually made between Parliament and the country in 1853—whether there was a "compact," or what in another place he should call a "contract," between the Government and the people, the consideration for the settlement being the succession duty and the granting of the income tax for seven years—he maintained that the Act of that year was not terminated, but only suspended by the war. No one ever understood that in the event of a war the provisions of that Act were to be adhered to; but the first small and the subsequent large increase of the tax were accepted and agreed to by the country, in the belief that when peace was restored we were to return to the Act of 1853. The war was now happily at an end, and so was the year after the war for which it was intended that the war tax should be continued; and they now had to consider the amount of tax to be paid henceforward. There had been a contention between the right hon. Gentlemen the present and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether fixing the income tax at the rate of 7d. in the pound was, in fact, an increase or a reduction of the tax. This was really a mere question of words, a species of logomachy between these two great Oxford logicians, into which he would not presume to enter; he would merely suggest that the difference between these two right hon. Gentlemen arose entirely from the fact that one spoke of the war tax of 16d., and the other of the peace tax of 5d. in the pound; in the one aspect 7d. was a reduction from 16d., and in the other an addition to 5d. The House had heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman by way of ground for calling on the country to pay a higher rate of tax than the Act of 1853 contemplated. He (Sir F. Kelly) would not quote from Hansard any of the declarations made during the debate of 1853, but would merely observe that if without any statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the particular grounds upon which they were called upon to increase this tax, and without any estimate of the Supplies required for the public service they were upon trust and acting merely from their confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers to add 2d. in the pound—which meant the sum of £2,000,000 sterling—to the tax leviable under the Act of 1853, he saw no reason why upon any exigency, real or imaginary—existing, or alleged by the Ministers of the Crown—Parliament might not hereafter be called upon to add to and to continue this tax; so that the Act of his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) might really become a dead letter. He would not, at that period of the Session, enter into the many questions connected with the income tax, but there was one subject to which he should briefly advert. In the course of the year 1853, it had been his misfortune to differ upon many points from the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had three times proposed Amendments to remedy what the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted to be grievances. These Amendments had been overruled, but, at the same time, upon the understanding that the tax should expire in seven years from that date. The defects, however, which he had then pointed out, and the arguments which had been then employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, afforded a strong reason for making a stand now in favour of the Act of 1853, and he should therefore move an Amendment, that 5d. in the pound be substituted for 7d. as the rate to be levied in the ensuing year.

said, he quite agreed with the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The amount of the Esti- mates for the year so much exceeded the amount of them before the war, that the Government could well afford to make this reduction of 2d., which would amount to about £2,000,000. He considered that a reduction to that extent might be made in the Estimates without impairing the efficiency of the public service. He could not understand on what grounds this increase in the Estimates was called for. We had two wars, it was true; but in these Estimates no provision had been made for the expense which they would occasion. The Estimates were £4,000,000 over those of the year before the war commenced, and unless the Government showed some reason for this large increase, he could not see that there was any necessity for this expenditure.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not only too distinguished a practical lawyer, but also his mind has been too well trained in the study of jurisprudence, to dispute the position that the existing income tax, being levied under the Act of 1855, is levied under an authority not less binding than the Act of 1853. Nor do I think that he will dispute the fact, that if the present law remains unchanged—that is, if no measure be passed for reducing the rate as established by the existing law—an income tax of 16d. would be leviable, and would be levied in the ensuing year. I do not see that any advantage can be derived from continuing the discussion as to whether 16d. is higher or lower than 7d., or whether the Bill which I propose is or is not a reduction of the existing tax. I take the law as I find it, and, without going into the question of what the law might have been, I propose a reduction in the rate of the income tax which is now leviable by law. That being the case, I think the legal grounds urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman in support of his proposal are entirely swept away. I now come to the moral grounds. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that, putting aside the question of legality, there was a moral contract entered into in the year 1853 between Parliament and the nation, the consideration for that contract being that Government should impose certain duties on successions, and, in consideration of those additional burdens, that the income tax, after being lessened according to a settled scale, should cease within a fixed period. Now, I admit that if the state of things upon which the Act of 1853 was founded—namely, an uninterrupted continuance of peace—had continued, and the Government had come forward and proposed a large increase of income tax, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been of great weight. He might have said that, although you cannot bind Parliament by a legal obligation, still you have incurred a moral obligation, which you have broken. What has taken place, however, is wholly different. The very foundation of the settlement of 1853 has been subverted by the war, which rendered it necessary not only to provide for its expenditure during the years which it lasted—which we did partly by increasing the income tax, first to 14d. and then to 16d.—but also to make provision for debts contracted for the purposes of the war payable in subsequent years. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me how I justify the addition of 2d. to the 5d. at which the tax ought to stand during the next year according to the settlement of 1853. Well, Sir, during the next year we have £2,000,000 of bonds to meet which have been made payable in May next, to liquidate debts contracted for the purposes of the war, on the very ground that the income tax would take some time to collect. Then, again, there is a sum of £250,000 for the war sinking fund. So that altogether £2,250,000 of war expenditure will have to be defrayed during the next year. If, therefore, we view the case upon legal grounds, nothing can be more simple; and, if we look to the moral ground, I think I have advanced a full justification for the course which is now proposed; and if I have, there can be no reason why the Committee should assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government have shown no reason beyond their own will and pleasure why the House should consent to their proposal; that they have not shown that any need exists of so large a sum for the public service. Well, Sir, I can only say that on a recent occasion I trespassed at considerable length upon the attention of the House, and endeavoured to the best of my ability to show what would be the probable expenditure of the country, and also the means by which we proposed to meet it. The Estimates for the army and navy have been laid upon the table, and although they have not been discussed in detail, still their details have been exhibited to the House. Then, again, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) says that the Estimates are too large. Now, it is quite clear that I cannot at the same time be amenable to the charge of the hon. and learned Gentleman of having kept the House in ignorance and to that of the hon. Member for Lambeth. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Lambeth says, if you can show that you have two wars upon your hands, and that you require this money to carry them on, then you have made out a case. I confess, if that is the case which we are called upon to establish, that I am totally unable to meet the view of the hon. Member. In the first place, with regard to the Persian war, a treaty of peace has been negotiated at Paris with the Persian Plenipotentiary, as to whose full powers no doubt can exist. It is well known to the House that no treaty is valid until the ratifications have been exchanged between the contracting Governments; but there is no reason to suppose that this, any more than any other treaty, will not be ratified in due course. At all events, the treaty has been signed, which is a great advance to make, and we are not entitled to anticipate that the war with Persia will continue. As to the expense of that war, I estimated it at a certain sum in the statement which I gave. All that the Exchequer of this country will be called upon to contribute is one-half of the extraordinary expenses of the war. [An hon. Member: "What is the amount?"] Until we know the total expense of the expedition, of which the account can only be prepared by the East India Company, I am unable to answer that question. But, whatever the amount may be, the whole of the ordinary expenses will be paid by the East India Company, and only one-half of the extraordinary expenses will fall on our Exchequer; therefore it is incorrect to say that the entire expenditure for the Persian war has to be defrayed from our Exchequer. With reference to the events that have occurred at Canton it is of course impossible for me, or anybody else, to speak with confidence. I can only say that, as far as Her Majesty's Government are at present informed, they see no cause to anticipate that the ordinary naval and military forces of the year will not be sufficient to afford to British subjects at Hong Kong and Canton the protection which will be required for their lives and property; and, as at present advised, we do not look forward to the necessity of presenting an estimate of an increased charge for hostilities in that part of the world. At the same time, I cannot pledge myself that such a contingency might not arise. Therefore I cannot claim my hon. Friend's vote on the ground of increased charges for either of the wars to which he referred. The Estimates are on the table; they are justified by the difficulty of making immediate reductions after a great war, a difficulty which has been invariably felt at the close of previous wars, and which, if hon. Members will look to the debates in 1816, they will find was distinctly pointed out by the Government of that day, and was to some extent recognized by this House. Other circumstances have also combined, as I have previously stated, to produce some additional charge for the army and navy. When the Estimates come to be closely and jealously examined in Committee of Supply, which they will be in the course of the summer, it will be found that they have been framed upon reasonable principles; and, therefore, we are not to assume that any further economy could enable us to dispense with another £2,000,000. I trust, then, that the Committee will see that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to reduce the income tax to 5d. would derange the finances of the year, and either lead to a deficiency or prevent you from discharging those war obligations which, under other circumstances, would be discharged. Before I sit down I would merely call the attention of the Committee to this fact,—that since the income tax was first imposed upon the proposition of Sir Robert Peel, in time of peace, it has never been lower than 7d. It was renewed at several periods; but it remained always at the same rate until 1853, when it was continued again for two years more at 7d., for another two years at 6d., and for three years more at 5d. in the pound. Before the 6d. scale came into operation the tax was doubled in consequence of the war; and it never, in fact, fell below 7d. in the pound. The general sense and rude appreciation of the country, entirely overlooking the niceties and refinements of the hon. and learned Gentleman, asked from the Government nothing more than the surrender of what was called the "war ninepence"—that is to say, the difference between the 16d. rate, which the present Act fixes for the ensuing year, and the 7d. rate which existed before the war. This general desire of the country is adequately met by the Motion now upon the table, and I therefore trust the Committee will find no difficulty in acceding to the scale which we propose.

said that the Bill consisted of only one clause, and he was desirous of striking out the proviso which imposed a tax of 5d. in the pound on all incomes between £150 and £100 a year. When this tax was originally proposed by Sir Robert Peel, that great statesman distinctly stated that £150 was the lowest point to which the impost should descend, otherwise it would inflict the most serious hardship upon a large and deserving class of the community. At each successive renewal of the tax the exemption of incomes below £150 was invariably continued, until the year 1853, when incomes as small as £100 were brought within the range of this impost, thus provoking loud and grievous complaint from those who were for the first time affected by it. The injustice of this provision lay in the fact that those subjected to it consumed as large an amount of the necessaries of life charged with excise and custom duties as was consumed by those who possessed the largest incomes in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, possessing a very large income himself, could not appreciate the pressure of this tax upon a man with only £100 a year. It deprived such a person of many of the comforts of life, and seriously interfered with the education they were most anxious to afford to children. The small shopkeeper, struggling to make both ends meet, the artizan, earning weekly in wages, with the aid of overtime, just £100 a year, and the hardworking and scantily paid clerk, striving to maintain a respectable appearance, were all entitled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's compassion. Moreover, the mode in which the tax was assessed was most oppressive to this class of persons. A striking illustration of this was furnished by the case of a poor man who kept a chandler's shop, the average weekly return of which he swore did not exceed £3 15s., yielding a profit of only 10s., and who, although his entire earnings, with the addition of 10s. from precarious employment as a dock labourer, were not more than £40 a year, was nevertheless charged to this tax on an income of £100. This poor person went before the Commissioners, and was put to great trouble before he obtained redress. He had been told of numerous cases of oppression by working men, and one of his constituents, whose income was a little above £100 a year, but who, having a family in a state of great distress, was absolutely unable to save the amount necessary to pay the income tax, was thrown into prison, where he remained about three weeks, and was then released through the charitable assistance of some friends. Clerks and shopkeepers were obliged to keep up a respectable appearance, and the deduction of £2 or £3 from their small incomes for the purpose of paying the income tax was a very serious matter to them; and he was convinced that the money now required by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be saved by making a reduction in the expenditure. He concluded by moving the omission of the proviso to which he had referred.

seconded the Amendment. Many cases of hardship in connection with this tax on the lower class of incomes had fallen under his consideration. It certainly pressed very heavily on the description of persons alluded to by the hon. Member, and he would instance the case of a poor widow whose goods were seized for income tax due from her deceased husband. Supposing the income tax collector called upon a poor man for £2 at a time when, perhaps, he was out of work, how could he possibly be expected to pay the money? A poor working man might be able to make weekly payments of income tax, but he would find it difficult to answer a demand for the payment of the whole amount of a half year's income tax at once. Though Mr. Pitt's income tax went down to incomes of £60, it nevertheless exhibited in its graduated percentage greater consideration than the present proposition of the Government for the lower class of incomes. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, from motives of humanity, acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, and it would be found that the nation would gain by giving satisfaction to the working classes.

fully concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth with regard to the oppressive nature of this tax on the working classes. He understood that circulars had been sent from the Commissioners in London to the various large manufacturers in the country, requiring them under penalty to make returns of the incomes of their superior workmen, although there was not, he believed, any section of the Act authorizing them to do so. One of the firms applied to was that of the Messrs. Minton, the celebrated porcelain manufacturers at Stoke-upon-Trent; and he had received a letter from the managing partner in that firm upon the subject, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would take the liberty of reading—

"Stoke-upon-Trent, Feb. 16, 1857.

"My dear Sir,—I should have replied to your note on Saturday, but was anxious to get at the exact facts of the case before doing so. The first application was made to our cashier in the autumn of 1855, by the collector of the district, for a return of all our workpeople whose wages amounted to £80 and upwards per annum, for which printed forms were handed to him to be filled up, giving the name, residence, and amount of earnings. As this involved a considerable amount of labour he at first demurred, upon which he received a peremptory message that it must be done, and that if it was not immediately sent they had the power and would enforce it.

"Upon this a return was made out and sent. It comprised about thirty names, all of whom, I believe, were charged income tax, although most of them were not legally chargeable, but were put to the expense and trouble of appealing, losing in consequence, from one to two days' wages—from 5s. to 10s. as the case might be. If this is not an iniquitous proceeding on the part of the Government (for they ought, like other people, to be held responsible for the acts of their servants), I do not know what is.

"The same application was made the following year, but upon my hearing of it I gave directions that whatever the consequences might be no such return should be made. You are quite at liberty to make use of this and my name in any way you may think proper. It is a simple statement of the facts as they occurred, and points to only one of the objectionable means which are resorted to for the imposition of this tax.—I remain, Sir, yours very truly, M. D. HOLLINS.

"To S. Child, Esq., M. P."

He thought the Committee would agree with him that this showed a very strong case of oppression upon persons whose incomes were derived from the wages of labour, and he wished to know whether the Government would take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings as he had just narrated to the House?

The observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, that the case of men with incomes below £150 is not likely to meet with much sympathy from a class of persons whose incomes are of a much larger amount, does not appear to me to have any foundation in fact. Although the Members of this House may not be included in the class of persons possessing small incomes, yet, I am sure, they have sufficient sympathy with that class, and sufficient appreciation of the position of the working classes, to make the case of a mechanic their own, and to take into their consideration the difficulties to which a man earning small weekly wages is exposed by being made subject to the income tax. It is true that Sir Robert Peel, when he proposed this tax, did not carry it below incomes of £150 a year; that change was of subsequent introduction. But the cases which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward are cases which did not arise when that change was made; they have arisen during the last two or three years, when the increased amount of the tax has pressed heavily upon persons of small incomes. When the tax was extended to incomes of between £150 and £100 it was only at the rate of 5d. in the pound, or £2 1s. 8d. per cent.; but it has since been raised to 11½d. in the pound, which is equivalent to £4 15s. 10d. per cent. Undoubtedly a half-yearly charge of nearly £2 8s. is a heavy burden on a man who earns a weekly salary of £2; but the hon. Member for Lambeth entirely overlooks the fact, that by this Bill that half-yearly charge will be reduced from £2 8s. to about £1—a sum which a man with £2 a week may not unreasonably be expected to be able to pay. It is not very easy to ascertain precisely the amount paid by this class of incomes, but as nearly as I can calculate the total amount of duty in question is £350,000—a much larger sum than I feel justified in surrendering, especially when it is borne in mind that by this Bill the charge on these incomes is so much reduced. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the case of a labourer in the docks whose wife kept a chandler's shop, and who was charged with the income tax. That case was carefully examined twice over by the Commissioners, who are officers quite independent of the Government, and after going into the circumstances of his expenditure they were of opinion that his income was more than £100 a year. No doubt it was a case of some hardship, and I believe that on reference to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue they felt justified in granting him relief. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) mentioned the case of a widow whose goods were seized for arrears of income tax owed by her husband; but, from the manner in which he described that case, it does not appear to have any particular reference to this class of incomes. The same thing might have happened to a widow whose husband had been possessed of an income over £150. If the hon. Gentleman, however, will give me the name and the particulars of the case, I will take care that it is properly investigated. The hon. Member told the Committee that Mr. Pitt's income tax bore less heavily upon small incomes than the present income tax. I am quite ready to meet the hon. Member on that ground, and if he can establish the fact that this income tax is heavier on persons of small incomes than Mr. Pitt's was, I will consent to remodel it. But I find that under the income tax of 1803, which was the second income tax, the rates were as follows:—On incomes of from £60 to £70, 3d. in the pound; £70 to £80, 4d. in the pound; £80 to £90. 5d. in the pound; £90 to £100, 6d. in the pound. Under that income-tax, therefore, there were four classes of small incomes chargeable which are now exempt. On the classes of incomes above £100 the rates were these:—from £100 to £110, 7d. in the pound; £110 to £120, 8d. in the pound; £120 to £130, 9d. in the pound; £130 to £140, 10d. in the pound; £140 to £150, 11d. in the pound; £150 and upwards, 1s., or 5 per cent. On all of these, except the last, the rate imposed by this Bill is only 5d. in the pound, and in the last case it is only 7d. I think, therefore, that I have satisfactorily established that, as compared with the income tax of 1803, this income tax presses with great indulgence on the small incomes. Looking to the exigences of the public service, and considering that the great reduction which I propose by this Bill to make in the tax on this class of incomes will very much alleviate the cases of hardship complained of, I trust the Committee will agree with me that it is inexpedient to assent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth.

intimated that he should withdraw the original Amendment, and propose in its place to leave out all the words in the clause after the word "shall," and to substitute in their place these words, "not be chargeable with any income tax on an income of not less than £150."

wished to know if the Commissioners had authority under the Act to direct such inquisitorial proceedings to be taken as those which were referred to in the letter he had read to the House; and whether workmen who had been returned as earning £80 a year were to be surcharged with the income tax?

said he was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the machinery of collection to enable him to answer the first portion of the question. He presumed that if the local Commissioners had made such inquiries they possessed the power of doing so; but whether or not it was the general practice he could not take upon himself to state. If persons returned at £80 a year had been charged with income tax he apprehended it must have arisen from their having other sources of income. For instance, a man earned £80 a year in wages, and by keeping a little shop made a profit say of £20 besides. In that case, he would clearly be chargeable to the income tax. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to give him the particulars of the case to which he had referred, he would make inquiries upon the subject.

The case, as he had already observed, was that of Messrs. Minton, the celebrated porcelain manufacturers at Stoke-upon-Trent; and their complaint was that 30 of their workmen earning £80 a year wages had been surcharged to the income tax.

said he must oppose the Amendment of his hon. Colleague. All taxes should be made to press as equally as possible. If the House relieved the class of persons with incomes between £150 and £100 a year from this tax, it could only be done at the expense of those whose incomes were still less than that; neither was there any reason why they should excuse persons of incomes of £150, and make those of incomes of £151 pay.

thought a large addition to the revenue might be derived from an alteration in the mode of assessing farmers. They were now charged on half their rent, and he saw no reasons why they should not be compelled to show their books and be charged in the same manner as the industrial classes.

said the justice of the farmers' schedule had frequently been discussed in that House and elsewhere. It was well known that farmers did not keep their accounts in so clear and complete a form as was adopted in mercantile establishments, and he thought, upon the whole, that the existing arrangements with regard to that class of taxpayers were not unreasonable.

could not allow such an observation to pass. It was holding out a premium to ignorance. What would the Commissioners of Bankruptcy say to a tradesman who kept no books? He believed that, in point of fact, farmers now kept their accounts as accurately as any other class.

said that the accounts of farmers might not generally be kept with the accuracy observed in commercial establishments, but he believed that the schedule which applied to them operated with great fairness.

pointed out that the word "property" was omitted from the proviso of the first clause, so that only gains and profits were included therein. He wished to know what necessity there was for having £2,000,000 in the present year for paying off the Exchequer bonds.

said he was not aware that there was any reason for the difference in the phraseology of the clause. He thought that the words gains and profits were sufficient, and would necessarily include gains from "property." The item to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was not merely the charge for the repayment of the principal of the debt, but was also the interest payable for the loans contracted during the war. The sum of £3,671,000 was the increased charge this year upon the increased debt owing to the war. The Exchequer bonds were not charged upon any particular fund, but came out of the general taxation of the year. If the House would support the proposition of 7d. income tax there would be no difficulty in meeting the Vote, and paying off this £2,000,000.

agreed with the hon. Baronet that the omission of the word "property" in the latter part of the clause would tend to raise a doubt as to the construction of the Act.

to avoid uncertainty was willing to insert the word "property," but he believed it could only be done by a recommittal of the Bill.

wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great complaints were made of the trouble given to parties who had occasion to appeal to the Commissioners. They had frequently to leave their homes very early in the morning, to travel some distance, and then to wait the greater part of the day for their turn before they could go before the Commissioners. It would give great satisfaction if his right hon. friend would give such instructions to the Board of Inland Revenue as would obviate the inconvenience, expense, and waste of time now incurred.

said he would communicate with the Commissioners on the subject.

then moved that the Bill be recommitted, with the view to the insertion of the word "property" in the proviso of the first clause.

wished to know the cause of this change of usage. Why was the Amendment made by the immediate recommittal of the Bill, rather than at a future stage?

said it frequently happened that an error in a clause was not discovered until the clause was agreed to, and the practice was to amend the error by the immediate recommittal of the Bill. Verbal alterations could be made on the third reading, but the insertion of the word "property" was more than a verbal alteration, and could not be made on the third reading.

Sir, in rising to discharge what I feel to be a pressing duty I shall endeavour to pay all the respect in my power to what I perceive to be the general impression of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was guilty of an imprudence last night when he availed himself of his position to prevent me from addressing the House, and compelled me to postpone my observations till to-day, because it is perfectly well known that intended speeches of Members in this House do not waste by keeping, like spirits in bond, but, on the contrary, rather have a tendency to grow and augment, till the time comes when they can be delivered. I think, therefore, it is better to allow speeches to come out at the moment they are intended to be given rather than incur the risk of such augmentation and growth. However, I will not trespass on the attention of the House at any length. I will confine myself within those limits of observation that are compatible with the discharge of duty, and an earnest desire to respect the impressions as well as the conclusions of the House, even where I differ from them, as I do in this instance, and that with the deepest regret. In fact, nothing but the deep regret I feel, nothing but the thorough conviction that we are entering on a mischievous course that before any long time has elapsed we shall regret the consequences of, could have induced me in this state of the House to make any remarks on a matter of such extent and importance as the expenditure of the country. I intend to move as an Amendment—

"That, in order to secure to the Country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this House to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State."

I do not intend, in moving this Amendment, to reopen any of the discussions that have taken place on the more extensive and important propositions which I consider to have been either directly or by implication disposed of by the House in the course of former debates. For exam- ple, I conceive that the House has given a significant intimation to the country that it does not now consider it an object of public policy to take any measures with a real and substantial view to the cessation of the income tax. The House by a positive vote declared on Friday night that it did not intend to adhere to the arrangement of 1855 with respect to taxation on tea and sugar: and if it is not bound to adhere to the arrangement with respect to those articles it is uncertain how far it may be called to travel. Again, with regard to the income tax, the House has just treated it simply as a mode of providing for the Ways and Means of the year, and it is not disposed to weigh that question in connection with the circumstances tinder which it was originally imposed—namely, with prospective and further practical reforms in our tariff and in our legislation. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Willoughby) alluded to another subject on which likewise an important change has come over the opinions of the House—I allude to the £6,000,000 of Exchequer bonds which were levied in 1854. It was then proposed by the Government that these bonds should be provided for out of revenue specifically set apart for that purpose; now, however, the House was told that they would be met by a half-year's income tax—a portion of the general revenue. If the House were willing to enter into the discussion I should ask it to appropriate a specific portion of the revenue for the purpose of redeeming the obligations we then incurred; but, as that in the meantime does not seem to be the wish of the House of Commons, I shall forbear to argue those subjects as already decided by the House, and shall confine myself to the terms of the Resolution which I have placed upon the paper. In doing so let me state why I do not pass over this matter in silence. The position of the House at this moment appears to me to be peculiar, and so far as my experience serves me, unexampled. Great exception was taken in the early part of the Session, not by one, but many Members sitting in every quarter of the House, to the amount of the Estimates now on the table. I need hardly remind those who hear me that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London expressed in the strongest terms, and in very considerable detail—even while he did not withdraw his general support from the Budget—his objections to the amount of the Estimates. I may truly say, therefore, that strong objections are entertained to the amount of the Estimates now on the table; and I feel considerable confidence that, had the deliberations of the House not been affected by the prospect of a dissolution, it would have been disposed to entertain a Motion that would have had the effect of affirming generally the principle of further reduction in the expenditure, and, in fact, of remitting the Estimates to the Government for further examination with that view. But now the position of the House is peculiar in this respect: it sometimes happens, as in 1841, that we pass Votes on account, to enable Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, with the view of taking the opinion of the country in respect to confidence in the Government; but the Estimates of which we then sanctioned a portion were Estimates to which the House in general was ready to assent. There was no general complaint against them, or any question raised as to how far they should or should not be reduced. At present there is that disposition. But we are in this predicament, that by the Report now brought up to the table of the House we are about to commence affirming a Vote of four months to Estimates against which strong objections are entertained, and for no other reason than that these Estimates are presented to us by a Government which has been visited with what has been justly called a vote of censure by the House. The Government on that vote of censure appeals to the country; and the House, because the Government is under the vote of censure, is called on to pass, not for the year, but for four months, Estimates to the general scale and formation of which objections are extensively entertained. Now, the effect of my motion, as I understood it, would be, in a legitimate and Parliamentary sense—not to assert a mere abstract principle—not to interpose any obstacle to proceeding with Votes in Supply, but to do exactly that which it appears to me is the right thing to do—viz., to refer back these Estimates to the Government for the purpose of reconsideration, or, if not formally and technically to refer them back, yet to express in practical and indubitable terms the opinion of the House, that it is the duty of Her Majesty's advisers, in the interval that is to elapse before they meet the new Parliament, to apply themselves to the reduction of the Estimates, in order to a reduction of the public expenditure. To making Votes on account I have no objection. I have no objection to make a Vote on account—we have done so on many former occasions; but I have the greatest objection to make a Vote on account of the Estimates before us, and thereby to appear to approve, either tacitly or by direct sanction, of the plans proposed by Her Majesty's Government, either as relates to the scale or the form in which they have been made up. I ask the support of the House to this Motion on two grounds. The first ground is that there does not appear to me to be any proposition by which an adequate provision is made for the necessities of the year. The second, and the most important, is that the expenditure of the country has not of late been kept under due control, but, on the contrary, that it has increased to a point which has become embarrassing, and which threatens to become, if due control is not applied, even alarming. With respect to the deficiency, it was shown in former debates that if we are to assume the present expenditure and the present productiveness of the taxes, there will be in 1858–59 a deficiency of £5,500,000, which deficiency three years later would probably be increased to £8,000,000, or £9,000,000. Since those debates, no doubt, material changes have taken place in the proposals of the Government with respect to the coming year—for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no proposal as matters now stand for the increase of the tea and sugar duties beyond 1857–58, or for any increase of the income tax beyond that year. We must, therefore, add to the deficiency which it was formerly shown would exist the deficiency that will result from this decrease. If the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been adopted, as it was proposed in the first instance, it would have made an additional provision for 1858–59 from tea and sugar of £1,400,000, and the income tax for that year would have made a further provision of £2,000,000. As the plan of the right hon. Gentleman at present stands, the duty on tea and sugar will fall to a minimum in April 1857–58, and therefore a loss of £1,400,000 as I have just stated, will accrue to the revenue as compared with the amount which my right hon. Friend calculated his original plan would realize. There is, therefore, about £3,400,000 to be added to the deficiency of permanent provision for the year 1858–59; and I am rather startled to see that, adding that sum to the deficiency of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 formerly shown, on the data I have supposed, there will be a deficiency of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000. Of course, I have not taken into account any improvement of the revenue from the general prosperity of the country. I have not assumed either that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will fulfil the plan with respect to a sinking fund, because my right hon. Friend opened to himself the other day a retreat by saying that the sinking fund might be postponed. Nor have I taken into consideration any reduction of expenditure. But my object in making a statement showing the immense deficiency to be provided for in the year 1858–59 is to demonstrate how urgent and necessary it is that Parliament should begin to consider seriously, and at the present moment, the expenditure of the country, because otherwise you will be driven to this alternative—either to make loans in time of peace or to impose a large amount of new taxes. That is the case with respect to the next year. But I am bound to say I think the provision is unsatisfactory for the year immediately before us. The surplus of £890,000 has been reduced to £500,000, and against that we have to take all the charges which may arise out of the war in Persia, and out of the war in China, except only £265,000, which is included in these estimates. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say—my satisfaction however would be much more lively if I felt more confidence in it—that he did not anticipate any charge on account of the Chinese war. I am afraid that is almost too good to be true. I shall be delighted to see his prediction verified, but I cannot dismiss my scepticism on the subject; and if we have a charge for the Chinese war (as we know we must have for the Parisian war, over and above the trifling sum which appears in these Estimates), and our available surplus stands at only £500,000, or £520,000, I cannot consider it a satisfactory state of the balance between income and expenditure for the coming year. Therefore, it appears to me to be distinctly the duty of this House to make known the views which it may entertain in a shape which will amount to a direction to the Government to reconsider the scale of the expenditure, and to effect a direct reduction in it before they submit Estimates to a new Parliament. I feel the necessity of it for another reason. This Parliament has been doing a most popular act in remitting what is wrongly called the "war 9d." It is done in haste, and not under the pressure of necessity. There was no reason why the present Parliament should have considered it at all, because my understanding is, that the Bill which we are now passing for reducing the income tax from 16d. to 7d. will have no practical effect whatever on any payment which is made before the 1st of July; and if that be so, it is pretty plain there was time for the new Parliament to operate on that subject. However, I do not enter on the question whether it would have been better to let that matter stand over or not. A popular act is done, and perhaps it would have required some self-denial to leave the grace of that remission to another Parliament. What I do want however to put to the House is this:—If provision for the expenditure of the financial year is narrow and inadequate, and if the expenditure shows a dangerous tendency to growth, it is material that we should place on record our views on the subject. Although it is more popular to attack taxes than to attack expenditure, yet economy is the only true, real, permanent basis of any plan with respect to taxation which will give satisfaction to the country. I ask the House to come to a resolution of this kind, because the deficiency in the revenue stares us in the face, and likewise because the scale of our expenditure is already too high, and is, moreover, growing in that direction. I wish to say a word with regard to one particular item of revenue, and that is the succession duty. We have been told during the present Session that the succession duty is at present yielding a very small sum of money. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Half a million.] Not only is the full yield of the tax estimated much lower than it was two years ago by those who ought to have been the best judges, but it appears that the period of arriving at the maximum yield of the tax is very seriously retarded; because, while the Succession Duty Act passed in 1853, it appears that we shall not arrive until 1863 at what if called the maximum produce of the tax—namely, £1,300,000, I must express my regret that, considering the deficient yield of this tax, Her Majesty's Government have not thought fit to introduce the necessary supplement to it, announced from tin first with almost universal assent—the succession duty on corporations. Why are we to go on from year to year levying the tax on individuals, and not levying a corresponding and equivalent tax on corporations? It may be said I ought to have done that myself in 1854; but the reason for not doing it was stated at the time. The Act had only come into operation a year. It was thought it might require early amendment, and it was thought better to take the delay of a Session for the sake of presenting the subject of alterations in a combined form. But that reason does not apply with equal force to the year 1855, or the year 1856, or the year 1857, during which we have not had any intimation from Her Majesty's Government of their intention to extend the succession-tax to corporations. I am sorry, too, that no more energetic steps have been taken to strengthen the department of the Board of Inland Revenue, which is conversant with this difficult question, because I know from practical knowledge that department is grievously in arrear. I venture to state that there is at this moment an enormous amount uncollected in the possession of individuals due to the public in respect of the succession and legacy duties, particularly the legacy duty, which is not collected, because the department is not strong enough to keep abreast of its work. If the succession duty is likely to be less productive than was originally supposed, that is not a less, but even a more urgent reason for applying all the strength which can be made available to enable the department to perform its labours with promptitude and alacrity. I wish to say a few words as to the actual excess of the military and civil service estimates. The total expenditure of the country has increased since 1853 nearly £7,000,000. Striking off a considerable item which is due to the collection of revenue—part of which is productive, while part of it, I should hope, may be got rid of—there is above £6,000,000 net increase in the expenditure since 1853. Out of that amount a very small portion is due to charges of the war. I believe there is only a net increase of £750,000 in the charges of the Funded and Unfunded Debt, taken together since 1853; and, therefore, about £5,500,000 of the total increase is represented by sheer augmentation of expenditure independently of the war—nearly £5,500,000 in the space of four years. My right hon. Friend has said it is difficult to reduce estimates immediately after a war; but this is not immediately after a war. For fifteen months, practically, we have been aware that the war is at an end. Supposing this to be the end of a financial year, for twelve months we have been absolutely at peace. For those twelve months the House has voted the amount of money asked with the same unquestioning liberality as if we had been in a state of war; for this reason, the House felt it was a year of transition, and the Government ought to have ample means to clear up the charges for the war. I wish I could believe that in the Estimates of the present year a large amount is due to the war. I confess I have heard nothing from any Member of Her Majesty's Government which tends to make good that proposition. It may be true there are some charges, perhaps not inconsiderable, amounting to some hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are arrears and leavings of the war; but I am very doubtful whether they are not more than counterbalanced by other permanent or increasing sources of outlay which are augmenting at an accelerating rate. On the whole, I look at these estimates as peace estimates; I look at these establishments as peace establishments; and, looking at them as peace estimates and as peace establishments, though it is not my intention to challenge a division, I earnestly hope this House may be disposed to record its opinion that these estimates are susceptible of reduction. Now, as to the general amount of the Estimates, I have a few words to say. I do not wish to go into details, and when I speak of the military estimates I shall confine myself to a rough comparison with the estimates of former years. In 1841 and 1842 the military estimates, including the whole defensive estimates of the country, amounted to £14,700,000. At that period they had been increased by several millions beyond the amount of 1835. In 1846, when very large and extensive military preparations had been made on account of the menacing state of our relations with America, the Estimates rose to £16,500,000. In 1848 they were £17,600,000. But they had then reached a point beyond the patient endurance of Parliament; and, as the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said the other night, the House gave such an undoubted indication of its determination not to entertain those estimates, that the Government withdrew them, reconsidered them, and referred them in their revised shape to a Committee, the result of all which operations was that they were reduced by an extent not far short of £3,000,000. They began to increase again, and in 1852 they stood at £16,012,000. I am inclined to take that year as the fairest year of comparison, because the charge for 1853 was affected by the cost of preparations for war. I therefore shall take the Estimates of 1852 as a fair standard of comparison—of course, not upon every point—I do not mean to discuss the cost of improvements in our establishments, in barracks, in the comforts of our soldiers—I allow for all these things:—but, on the other hand, when we come to look narrowly into the matter, we shall find the cost of these things compensated with a real diminution in our military necessities. In fact, now, under happier circumstances, under better arrangements, with a better state of the population, with a better police, with Ireland more happy, and the people better employed, the Colonies managed on a different system, you have not the same demand for soldiers which you had in former times. A small but well-paid and well-treated army ought to answer your purpose now better than a larger army in former times, which was frittered away by being employed upon duties not properly military, and which were not calculated to keep it in a high state of efficiency. Without entering upon those questions, I shall take the Estimates of 1852 for comparison. They were £16,012,000. The Estimates now presented, including the estimate of cost of the Persian war of £265,000, which, I imagine, is put down at too low a figure, and a small sum of £60,000 for an increase of the coastguard, amount to £20,573,000. Thus, in fact, upon the military estimates there is an increase of £4,500,000 over the estimates of 1852. Then, I take the civil estimates, with which, I must confess, I am not disposed to deal more lightly than with the military estimates, but rather it appears to me that we are in more danger from the civil than from the military estimates. The latter come to us in great lumps, and as the amounts are so large, we are compelled to look into them more or less, and if in any particular year any great excess in those estimates is permitted the reaction and retribution are sure to come, and most likely will appear in the shape of undue, unwise, and precipitate reductions. But that is not the case with the civil estimates. They come in 10,000 forms. They grow up by small charges here, small charges there; a little increase of expenditure in this or that Government department; a few thousands additional voted under Acts of Parliament. They are brought forward in detail, and we do not see them in the total. In my opinion, those estimates require to be rudely overhauled. I do not doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does his best to keep them down. Perhaps I may be allowed to observe here that I am very sorry if on the first night of the Session I misled the House by assuming that the estimates were intended to be proposed upon a scale different to that which was really intended by the Government. If I was misled, it was by the statement of the War Minister, who had so distinctly announced what the military estimates were to be. I hope, however, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider those who have pestered him ab extra as his allies. I know his position is a difficult one; but it is the duty of the House of Commons to strengthen his hands. It is the duty of the House of Commons, when discussing the estimates, to strengthen the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer against all the world; against those who are petitioning for favours; against his own colleagues; against this House itself:—because, although he may hope to bring the House to a serious consideration of matters as a whole, yet when we come to the subject of charges in detail it is difficult to control the House and prevent it from encouraging additions to the public expenditure. I will just give one or two most impartial illustrations of that view. There was the immense charge which by a Vote of this House last year we incurred prospectively for the Ordnance survey. That was a charge which I think was inadequately considered. I have not the least doubt that the effect of that Vote, unless it be intercepted, will be to entail a charge of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 upon the country. That was a most serious matter, which was decided in an hour or two, and I doubt whether a tenth part of those who voted knew the extent of the question with which they were dealing. Then I may mention another matter of expenditure, which I do the more earnestly as it is a popular description of expenditure—I mean the Votes for education. I do not scruple to say that I view with great jealousy the repeated and constant growth of these educational Votes. I do not mean to say that we have reached the proper maximum of those grants, but I have come to the conclusion that a spirit of extravagance has found its way into many departments of the State. There is an idea that it is a popular thing to announce an increase on the educational Votes. And so, no doubt it is. Some persons regard such increase as a good means of stopping the plans of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) and the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), and therefore they are content to vote £500,000 last year, £600,000 this, and £800,000 next year. It is a good stopper to educational movements upon different bases. I am not a friend to the Bills of the right hon. Member for Droitwich or of the hon. Member for the West Riding; but I am not desirous of getting rid of any Bills by illegitimate means, and, although I hold it to be most desirable to assist the efforts of voluntary education, yet I think the administration of sums voted for that purpose ought to be regarded with as much strictness as the application of any other public money. I do not mean to say there has been any laxity of conduct, but it appears to me that a spirit has grown up which has led the officers of that particular department to require fresh means of expending the public money, as if the public money were something of which it was necessary to get rid of as much as possible. That spirit, I think, has led to an unnecessary waste of the public money, and to deluding the country on the subject of the nature and extent of their operations. I have been aware of that fact from the demands made by the officers of the Privy Council upon the local promoters of education for expenses of a kind which appear to be perfectly needless, and, in in some instances, almost mischievous, but all sweetened by the promise that if the promoters will find one-half of the outlay the Privy Council will find the rest. Having mentioned that, I come to another matter, which illustrates another class of instances in which I think there has been an undue tendency to extend the public expenditure; and I hope the House will not consider it disrespectful to them when I say that those charges have been incurred under an Act of Parliament, and therefore it is a matter which has received the sanction of this House—I refer to the Act which was passed creating the office of Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council of Education. I regarded the passing of the Act with great jealousy at the time. I now regard it with increased regret. Objections were raised to the Bill when introduced here that it was a Bill to create an office and grant a salary without defining any duties to be performed. The only answer given to those objections was that it would be more convenient to have a Vice President of the Committee of Council upon Education in this House to answer questions than to have those questions answered by another Minister. Now, I do not think it is a satisfactory mode of dealing with the public money that because three or four times in the course of a Session questions should be asked across the table respecting the subject of education, therefore you should create a State functionary expressly to answer those questions. Assuming, even, that it would be better that those questions should be answered by a Vice President of the Committee of Education, still the work could not be better done by an officer of inferior rank than by a Cabinet Minister. The other day the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) brought in his Bill about education. If any one subject more than another should have attracted the attention of the responsible advisers of the Crown it is the subject of education; and if we had not been guilty of the extravagance of creating an officer with a salary of £2,000 a year and nothing to do, the Secretary for the Home Department—a Cabinet Minister—speaking with the authority of the whole Cabinet, would have risen to give us the views of the Government upon this most important subject. What actually took place? A most irreproachable appointment was made to this office. I have not a word to say against the right hon. Gentleman who fills the situation, but he is not a Minister of the Crown; he delivers his own views on education as an individual, and cannot speak in the name of the Cabinet. The result, therefore, of our having constituted that office is that, instead of hearing at first hand, from the most authentic source, the views of the Government on education, we have delivered, not the views of the Government, but rather the views of a gentleman worthy, it is true, of all respect and regard from this House, yet still a gentleman holding a secondary and inferior position in the Government. So much for the business in this House, because it was alleged as the reason why this office should be created, but it appears to me that we should have a little regard for the business out of the House. It is not wise, with regard to the right discharge of public business, or to the maintenance of this House in due respect among the people to constitute new offices which are entirely without duties. How does the office of Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education stand with reference to that matter? We asserted that there were no duties to perform out of this House. I am sorry to say that the statements made by myself, among other gentlemen, received an illustration in what was then taking place, and what subsequently took place, more astounding than even I had expected. At the time that this House passed an Act to appoint a Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in order to assist the President, the President was abroad. He had been abroad for a considerable time. I think he went in the month of June last. He remained abroad in July, in August, in September. I think he came back in October, and all this time there was neither President nor Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. Such is the state of that office; such the duties—most important, I admit, but still not requiring the attention of officers of that kind—that while the Government had in their hands, by Act of Parliament, the power of appointing a Vice President they did not exercise that power, although the President was abroad for four months, until the very eve of the meeting of Parliament. Of course, they will not suppose that I am finding fault with the non-exercise of the power. I am grateful to them for not putting the Act into operation until Parliament met; but I should have to be still more grateful if they had withheld it from operation altogether. I am not making an attack upon the Government, but merely endeavouring to illustrate what appears to me to be the loose and inconsiderate method of performing that which I, for one, shall always hold to be the first and most essential among all the duties of Parliament—namely, the administration of public money. I illustrated it by showing that we have constituted an office without duties, for the purpose ostensibly of discharging some usually called Parliamentary functions, but functions which, when they do ascend to a character of gravity and dignity, are much better placed in the hands of a Cabinet Minister than in those of any person occupying an inferior situation in the Government. Having spoken of the tendencies of the country and of the House of Commons in this respect, I do not feel that I shall fulfil my duty entirely unless I frankly state that I am not satisfied with the spirit of Her Majesty's Government in regard to economy in the public expenditure. It does not appear that the public money is administered by them with the fidelity and strictness which ought to be observed. Without drawing a distinction between one Government or one set of men and another—without inquiring how far it is due to men, and how far to the circumstances of the times—it seems to me that we have got quite different notions and rules with regard to the management of the public purse in small details from those which were formerly in vogue, and which had the sanction of all parties and all public men some ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. Having stated that, I shall give an instance, because then the thing will be open to examination, and no unfairness can be practised. The instance I take is one connected with appointments of the very highest class—I mean appointments to the judicial bench. In the course of the last Session of Parliament the House was pleased to throw a burden of about £160,000 a year upon the public purse in order to alleviate the expenses of suitors in County Courts, and so far to provide for the administration of justice at the public expense. I confess I thought that a very doubtful measure, and was not disposed, without further consideration, to give it my assent. But I venture to say, at any rate, that if the public are to be subjected to so great a charge, let us inquire whether it is or is not true that nearer home—namely in Westminster Hall—the duties of the Judges are falling below and within the strength of the staff appointed to discharge them. I made the same observation at the time, and I believe I spoke in conformity with a strong public impression. There was a strong public impression that the duties of Westminster Hall were no longer such as to require the large and augmented number of fifteen Judges. I believe, also—although here I touch upon a sore subject, but public duty demands it—that similar remarks have been made with regard to some existing equity judgeships. Her Majesty's Government, by the mouth of the Home Secretary, gave a pledge that the whole subject would be inquired into during the recess, and that a report would be presented upon the question whether or not the number of Judges could be reduced. Very late in the recess a Commission was issued for that purpose; but, in the meantime, two judgeships had fallen vacant, and, instead of making any temporary provision for the discharge of essential duties pending the inquiries of the Commissioners, Her Majesty's Government at once filled up those two judgeships. Life salaries, or salaries only terminating in pensions proportioned to the salaries—sums of £5,000, or £6,000 a year—were granted to the two gentlemen who were added to the number that adorn the judicial bench, while a Commission was issued to inquire whether there were any duties which required to be performed. But that was not all. A third vacancy happened by the deeply-lamented death of Baron Alderson, and I am sorry to say that the same course was taken. I am bound, however, to state, in justice to the Government, that I think it was taken without the disapproval of this House. I remember putting a question myself to the Government upon the subject. The Government answered that the vacancy would certainly be filled up without waiting for the result of the inquiries of the Commissioners, and immediately gentlemen were found ready to laud and commend that determination of the Government. I do not mean to say, therefore, that the spirit of laxity respecting which I make my complaint is confined to the Government. My belief is that it affects us all; and if I complain of the Government I do so only because I think the executive Government ought to be among the first and most effectual cheeks for restraining that spirit of laxity in regard to the administration of the public money. As I have mentioned the name of Baron Alderson, and complained that the seat which he occupies upon the Bench should have been filled up while a Commission was inquiring into the duties of the fifteen Judges, let me render a further tribute to the memory of that lamented man, because I hold in my ham a letter which Baron Alderson himself spontaneously addressed to me in the autumn. He was abroad at the time, ant seeing that I had made a proposal to the Government, and the Government had assented to it, that the question of a possible reduction in the number of the Judges should be inquired into, with that high spirit of honour and public duty which animated him, he immediately addressed to me a letter containing his views upon the subject, and in that letter—I need note only three lines—he says, "It is indisputable that twelve Judges are sufficient for the term business." Such was the deliberate opinion expressed by Baron Alderson himself. [Mr. MALINS: He says, "for the term business."] I am no lawyer, but know that the Judges have something else besides the term business to do. Baron Alderson knew that, too, and in his letter he enters fully upon the subject of the circuit business. He is disposed to admit that there would be inconvenience in any considerable alteration of the circuits with a view to diminish the number of Judges, and he states the reasons in great detail; but he comes to the conclusion that provision might be made for discharging the circuit business, and at the same time reducing the number of Judges to twelve. I need not say that the letter of Baron Alderson, in which I entirely concur, is at the service of Her Majesty's Government or of any person who may wish to inquire into the subject. I think that what I have stated is not an unfair illustration of the mode in which we are now going to work upon questions relating to the public money. My belief is that if during the Government of Lord Melbourne a Commission had been issued to inquire into the duties of the Judges, and the Government had filled up three Judgeships while the Commission was sitting, Sir Robert Peel, as the leader of the Opposition, would have risen in his place and moved an Address to the Crown on the subject, and that Address would have been carried, not by the Opposition merely, but by a majority consisting of Members belonging to all parties in the House. In the same way, if the Government of Sir Robert Peel had ventured upon such an operation as creating three great officials with life salaries while a Commission was inquiring into the question whether there were any duties to discharge or not, Lord John Russell would have moved an adverse Resolution, and an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons would have supported him. But I feel that I am insulting both the Government of Lord Melbourne and that of Sir Robert Peel in supposing that they ever could have done such a thing, for I am satisfied that the temper, not only of the Governments themselves, but of Parliament also, would have rendered it entirely impossible. Having thus far illustrated my meaning by particular instances, I shall not further trouble the House, but shall only say, in addition, that in the Miscellaneous Estimates and other civil services there has been since 1853 an augmentation of no less than £1,700,000. I know that we cannot now get rid of some part of that augmentation, but it is something enormous with regard to the whole sum. Within the recollection of many who now hear me—at least within the recollection of those who sat in Parliament twenty years ago—the Miscellaneous Estimates amounted to only £2,000,000 per annum, and even then they had been greatly increased. Many necessary and beneficial additions have been made to them; but that is no reason why the same strictness of rule and method should not now be applied to the consideration of every question connected with them as used to be applied for almost the whole period which is within the memory of the existing generation. I am convinced, whether it be owing to the war, which engendered a kind of extravagance in trifling sums, or to some other cause, that a very great change, an unhappy and mischievous change, has come over the spirit of Parliament; and the time will come—nay, has come—when it is necessary to make some vigorous effort to return to the wholesome rules and maxims which used to prevail some ten or fifteen years ago. Of one thing at least I feel quite certain—that you will not go on, peace continuing, for twelve months longer without some strong movement in this direction. I defy you to meet the finances of this year without opening up the whole subject of your expenditure; and what I now propose is that we should express our desire, before we go to the country, that Her Majesty's Government should, during the interval of comparative leisure and repose which they will enjoy, employ some portion of it in a careful consideration of the Estimates, which appear to me beyond what the necessities of the country require, I do believe, if the Parliament had continued, that that would have been found to be the genuine and deliberate feeling of the House. At present I only appeal to the Government and those who hear me to give this subject its due consideration, and with no intention of challenging a division. I confess I believe it is one of those subjects which are always handled better when handled early, and with respect to which, if we do what we can by a judicious and well-considered measure, we shall be the more likely to give greater satisfaction to the country, and run much less risk of coming to a precipitate conclusion than if we delayed dealing with them to the very last moment, under the pressure of public impatience, when the time for judicious retrenchment has passed away. I beg leave, Sir, to move this Amendment,—stating, at the same time, that I do not wish to interfere with Votes of Credit in the Committee of Supply:—

"That in order to secure to the Country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this House, to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State."

seconded the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had made out so clear and urgent a case of necessity for revising the extravagant expenditure of the country for the ensuing year that he could not by any observations of his own hope to strengthen it. He would only remark, reference having been made to the subject of the legacy duty, that he (Mr. Williams) had on several occasions called the attention of the House to that question, and had urged them to impose some such duty on real property as had been imposed on personal property for the last sixty years, and by which he had no doubt a sum of from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 would be added annually to the revenue of the country. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in order to secure to the Country that relief from taxation which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this House, to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State," instead thereof.

Mr. Speaker,—In the wide-ranging survey of the present state of the finances, both of revenue and expenditure, illustrated by his official experience and his extensive knowledge of public affairs, which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has just taken, there is much in which I concur; and, with regard to that part of his address to which I cannot altogether assent, I quite admit that the subjects which he has brought under the attention of the House are fully deserving of its serious consideration. I conceive that the principal object of my right hon. Friend has been to a great extent satisfied by the statement which he has made—that he wished to bring his views on these important matters under the consideration of the House and the country—and I trust, therefore, that he will not think that I am treating him or the House with any disrespect if I do not follow him item by item through his statement. But I think it my duty to advert to some of the subjects which he has brought under our consideration. The right hon. Gentleman arranged his observations under the two heads of taxation and expenditure. With regard to the question of taxation, as involving an apprehension of a deficiency in future years, I will say at once—since I have put all years after the present out of the question, and have confined the plan I submit to the House to the present year, on account of the position of the Government and the House, it would be mere waste of time if I were to go into an investigation of the probable balance of revenue and expenditure in any year after that which commences on the 1st of April next. It will be the duty of any Government which may be at the head of public affairs in future years to propose to the House means for meeting the expenditure of the country out of the taxation of the year, and not to resort to the method of burrowing in order to defray the current expenditure in a time of peace. How that is to be effected—whether the result is to be attained by a reduction of expenditure or by the imposition of new taxes—it is not now my wish to express any opinion; but I do maintain, in the most confident manner, that in a time of peace it is not a legitimate source of revenue to resort to the credit of the country with the view of making up for insufficiency in taxation. I have now only to deal with the taxation of the present year. Let me observe that this is the first year since 1853 in which it has not been the duty of the Finance Minister to exhibit a great deficiency of revenue as compared with expenditure, and to appeal to the House to have recourse to different means of borrowing on the national credit. This is the first year since 1853 in which it has been possible to show a surplus derived exclusively from the ordinary resources of taxation. My right hon. Friend says my surplus is not a sufficient one, and that he fears, under the augmented expenses of the year, it will be found that it is not adequate to bear those charges. I can only say, judging from my present lights, and looking forward to the proba- ble revenue and expenditure of the year, that I entertain no such apprehension. It is indeed impossible to be prepared against, all contingencies; but I anticipate, as far as my present information and means of judging of the future go, no difficulty with regard to the ensuing year in meeting the expenses by legitimate means. As to the alterations in taxation which I have felt it my duty to propose—if it had not happened that the income tax was fixed for another year at the high rate at which it stood during the war, and if the Government had not felt that that rate was greater than was demanded by the probable expenditure of the year, and that probably much dissatisfaction would be created if they postponed the settlement of the question, undoubtedly they would have abstained from making the proposition which they have submitted to the House. But, believing that so large a sum was not wanted for the service of the year, and seeing what a natural amount of anxiety prevailed in the country lest the income tax should continue at 16d. for another year, they felt it their duty in this Parliament to propose the measure which has gone through Committee this evening. I cannot but think that the discretion they have exercised is a sound one, and that in the exercise of that discretion they will be confirmed by the deliberate judgment of the House and the country. With regard to the duties on tea and sugar, unless it had been deemed desirable that they should descend to the rates fixed by the previously existing law from the 1st of April next, the whole stock would have been taken out of bond before April, and it would not have been open to the new Parliament to deal with those questions when they met, as the time would then have passed for their doing so; and therefore we felt it our duty to make the proposals which we did with regard to those two taxes. Those were the reasons which influenced us in our proposals upon the subject of taxation, and I cannot think that the House will regard them as insufficient. I now come to the subject of expenditure and of the Estimates which have been laid upon the table. My right hon. Friend says, that by granting a Vote on account, the House has expressed a "tacit" approbation of the scale on which those Estimates were framed; but I don't understand that the House has expressed any approbation, tacit or avowed, upon the subject; and I wish it to be distinctly understood, so far as the Government are concerned, that they do not consider that the House is in any degree pledged to the amount of those Estimates. I do not understand that the House has given any approbation to them; but I hold that whenever we shall reassemble, it will be competent for the new Parliament to examine the Estimates as if they were then proposed for the first time. I believe that the course will be to revote the Estimates for the whole amount, and any modification which may be then deemed desirable can at that time be made. At all events, when we propose a Vote on account, I do not see how any Member who agrees to such Supply can be said to give his approbation to the total amount. All that he says is, "I trust the Government with a sum which I believe will be sufficient to carry on the public service until the new Parliament assembles." It is utterly impossible that any other course could be adopted; the public service must be carried on during the interval between the dissolution and the reassembling of Parliament; and if any feasible course can be suggested other than that which we have adopted, I shall be quite willing to try it; but believing that no other can be suggested, all I can say is, that I shall not consider the House in any way pledged by its Votes on account. My right hon. Friend asserts in his Resolution, that "it is necessary to revise and further reduce the expenditure of the State." Now, I do not see how this Parliament, by coming to an abstract Resolution that reduction in the expenditure is necessary, can promote the object which my right him. Friend has in view. If we were about to go into a Committee of Supply, the Committee might be guided by such a Resolution, and might proceed to reduce the Estimates; but, inasmuch as this Parliament will not vote the Estimates in their final form, the new Parliament might take altogether different views upon the matter, and might decline to be bound by the Resolutions of its predecessor. I altogether approve, however, one portion of the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. Without saying how far it may be possible to reduce the Estimates for the present year—which I believe will be found to be more difficult than is supposed, because they have been very carefully examined with the view of making all practicable reductions—I nevertheless think that it is most important at the termination of a great war, when many agents of the Government being removed from immediate control, may have acquired habits of lavish expenditure, that the House should at such a period, when they are accessible to the opinion of Parliament, carefully revise the whole of the public expenditure. Whether the result of that revision will be during the present year to make any material reduction I confess I doubt, because I do not believe that the Estimates, in the form in which they are laid upon the table, are extravagant. I admit that they are high Estimates, but I do not think that they are extravagant with reference to the present year. We have reduced the Army and Navy Estimates in the present year by £17,000,000, and the House must remember, that when we deal with millions in the way of reduction, we have to experience great difficulties; so that I think, upon the whole, that when hon. Members come to an examination of the details they will be satisfied that there has been, on the part of the Government, a sincere and honest desire to bring down the war expenditure as speedily as possible to a legitimate peace footing, I do not mean to say that the careful criticism of the House may not discover further sources of economy; but I say that there has been no want of an energetic attempt by the Government to bring the Estimates to a shape which shall entitle them to the favourable consideration of the House during the present Session. If the House will examine the reduction of the expenditure which took place at the end of the last war, they will find that it was not made in one year, but that it was the result of the efforts of successive years and of close Parliamentary investigation, carried on at different times. My right hon. Friend adverted to some instances of extravagance at present existing. I do not wish to follow him in detail through the examples which he adduced, but there is one to which he referred upon which I will say a few words. I allude to the case of the Ordnance Survey of Scotland. That subject was much pressed upon me and other Members of the Government by Gentlemen connected with Scotland, and it was ultimately referred to a Select Committee. The Committee investigated the matter carefully, and they came to a resolution in favour of the survey of Scotland upon a very large scale. The matter was then debated in Committee of Supply, and the House, upon a division, came to the conclusion to support the Report of the Committee. I freely avow that my opinion did not agree with the Report of the Select Committee. I yielded my judgment, however, to others whom I thought to be better informed upon the matter than myself, and reluctantly I gave way to their recommendation. My individual opinion is, that all that the Government can be properly called upon to do in such a matter is to make an accurate survey of the country, fixing all the principal points with mathematical accuracy, and thus providing a geographical map which may be used for national purposes. I do not hold that the Government is called upon to produce a plan upon so gigantic a scale that the outline of a single county in Scotland would about cover the floor of Westminster Hall—a scale so large as to be utterly useless for all the ordinary purposes of a map, and only applicable to the objects of estate surveys. That was decided by the House, however; but I still entertain the opinion that a map upon the scale of one inch to the mile, accurately laid down, is all that the Government ought to furnish for national purposes. There is another point with reference to the recent appointment of Judges, upon which I will say a few words. That is not a subject with which I am minutely intimate; but if my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department were in his place, he would be able to give the fullest information with respect to it. The facts I believe to be these:—A Commission was issued during the recess to inquire into the possibility of diminishing the number of Judges of the Superior Courts of common law. Among the numbers of that Commission are to be found the names of very eminent men; and the issuing of that Commission at least evinces, I think, that the Government had not neglected the question, but that they were willing to entertain the idea of a reduction if it were practicable. Vacancies in the judicial bench have occurred since that Commission was appointed, and my right hon. Friend says that Lord Melbourne's Government, or Sir Robert Peel's Government, would not have been guilty of such an act as filling up those vacancies while the Commission was sitting. It must be remembered, however, that judicial duties cannot remain unperformed, that they are of vast importance to the lives and property of the country, and that this cannot be regarded as a mere question of expenditure so long as the present division of circuits exist, so long as there is a demand for winter cir- cuits, and while so much continues to be said of the importance of frequent gaol deliveries. It is necessary, in the meantime, until a reconstruction of the circuits can be effected, or until it is shown that a smaller number of Judges than at present exists can perform the duties required of them, that the judicial bench should consist of as many members as now. No temporary arrangements could have been effected in the interval previous to the Commission making their report; and it was for these reasons that the vacancies were filled up. I cannot doubt, then, when the matter shall be more closely examined, that it will be seen that the Government had no other alternative open to them than the course which they have adopted. There is only one other point to which I will allude, and that is with reference to the increased charge for interest upon the Funded and Unfunded Debt, occasioned by the war. I think that my right hon. Friend underrated the amount—the increased charge for interest caused by the war being rather more than £1,400,000. I believe that I have now gone through the principal subjects which were adverted to by my right hon. Friend; and, although my right hon. Friend will probably not press his Motion to a division, but will be satisfied with what I have stated, I believe that the discussion which has taken place will be likely to be productive of no inconsiderable benefit hereafter.

confessed he was one of those who thought that by taking the Committee of Ways and Means before the Committee of Supply the House had fallen into considerable error. He was, however, certainly of opinion that with regard to the Estimates the first year of peace ought not to be taken as the criterion; but he conceived that it would be the duty of the next Parliament to take, not only the question of the Estimates, but the whole question of the public expenditure seriously into their consideration. He believed much good would result by the appointment of a Select Committee for the examination of this expenditure. He was not sure that it would not be right, immediately on the assembling of the new Parliament, to appoint such a Committee, and the Estimates for 1858–9 ought not to be voted until that Committee had reported. Then the House would probably have some certain data upon which to proceed, and would be enabled to settle the national expenditure much better than by trusting to the or- dinary discussions which took place upon the Estimates. He confessed that he had listened with considerable surprise and apprehension to some remarks which had been made as to the mode in which the probable expenditure of the country might be met. In the discussion which took place upon the tea duties, he was astonished to find the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) allude to an operation which appeared to him the very last which this House ought to sanction. The hon. Gentleman said he objected to the increase of the duties upon tea and sugar, and he hoped the Estimates might be reduced, but that if they were not reduced the House had at its command the means of meeting any excess of expenditure by renewing the obligations entered into during the war, alluding to those floating securities, Exchequer bonds. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Glyn) that a postponement of that character was one which the House of Commons ought never to entertain. It might be all very well for railway companies to have recourse to such subterfuges, but he hoped the House of Commons would never attend to advice of that description. At the end of the great French war, when the country had to pay a greater taxation with smaller means of doing so than at present, and when therefore there was the more excuse for such a course, the Government resorted to many expedients to relieve the country from the immediate pressure of taxation—expedients from the effect of which we were suffering even at the present moment. Soon after the close of the French war, owing to what was called at that time "an ignorant impatience of taxation," the Minister of the day had recourse to the expedient of raising that which was commonly known as the "dead weight," the result being an annuity of £600,000, to which the country was at this time liable. He trusted the next Parliament would benefit by this experience, and, if the Estimates could not be reduced, would meet the expenses of the country by a proper system of taxation. There was another duty incumbent upon them. Both sides of the House should agree in deferring and in opposing Motions fur the reduction of particular burdens until the war taxes were fairly got rid of, and they were really in a position to dispense with a certain amount of revenue. If they pursued this plan, at the same time introducing as economical a system of expenditure as possible, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would soon be able to bring about those remissions of taxation which every one admitted to be so desirable.

said, he concurred with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) in thinking that no demand for relief from special burdens should be demanded until the Estimates had been reduced to something more nearly approaching their ordinary peace rates; he hoped that the constituents to whom they were about to appeal would bear in mind that they had still to bear some of the burdens of the last war, and that they would not be led away by any promise of relief from taxation to countenance the idea that this country could hastily reduce its establishments to the point at which they were before the war. He thought, also, that a full and rigid inquiry into every item of expenditure was necessary; but he thought it would be useless to turn over the whole Miscellaneous Estimates to a Committee in a lump, for the magnitude and complexity of such an inquiry would defeat the object of it by delay, but every department in which extravagance seemed to prevail, should be submitted to a distinct Committee for investigation. By this means the House would really resume its power of controlling the lavish expenditure which he admitted to exist. He hoped that in another Parliament the right hon. Member for Oxford University would view with more favour than he had done, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, the attempts of those who sought to produce economy in the public service. At that time the hon. Member for Birmingham moved for the appointment of a Committee on the subject of providing small arms for the use of the army. In that Committee it was proved that the factory proposed to be established in 1854 at Enfield, at a cost of £100,000, was not necessary in order to ensure a supply of small arms. The Committee, after a full investigation, recommended that an enlargement of the then existing factory at Enfield should be made at a cost of £38,000, instead of erecting anew one at the cost of £100,000, and the House curtailed the Vote in the Ordnance Estimates in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee to £38,000; and that the orders, which had been withheld, should, in accordance with former practice, be issued to the arms trade of England; but the right hon. Gentleman declared that whatever might be the decision of the Committee, or of the House, he would continue the expenditure according to the original estimate for the new factory, and so he did in defiance of the Appropriation Act. After all the expense, that factory had not provided a single musket for the war. The House was, the next year, in 1855, led to believe that the trade of England could not supply the demand, and sanctioned the violation of its authority under that belief, but too late discovered, that it had been imposed upon, and had better have trusted its own Committee, for the Government officials had declared that the arms trade could not be trusted to produce £30,000 stand of arms per year, and clamoured for what they termed the only alternative, the costly new factory and the foreign orders, which the Government issued. These, however, remained totally unproductive until after the war had closed, while the much-abused arms trade had produced 227,000 stand of arms in two years, and such arms as had never been before produced. The right hon. Member for Oxford University was on that occasion instrumental in defeating the attempt to control the lavish expenditure of the Government. He (Mr. Newdegate) lamented the increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates; but if Parliament, as in the case of the County Police force, and as in multitudes of commissionerships and inspectorships continued to substitute paid service for that system of local self-government which had existed for hundreds of years in this country, they would not only be sanctioning a departure from the old constitutional practice of the country, but they would be encouraging an expenditure which they might find it difficult to meet.

I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of entering into this discussion; and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), considering the state of the House, will exercise a wise discretion in not pressing his Motion to a division. What I wish to do is to protest against a discussion of this sort in this last stage of our existence. I think we have quite enough to do in preparing to meet our constituents, instead of carving out the work of the next Parliament. It is indeed almost arrogant for any of us to suppose that we shall be Members of the next House. I may have opinions as regard my own chances of election, and other Gentlemen may entertain opinions as to theirs, but I do not think, Sir, we ought to intrude those views upon your observation, and give notice, as some very eminent Members have done, as to what they intend to do in the next Parliament. I think that nothing could be more dangerous than the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) that the new House of Commons, which will meet, I trust, full of vigour and renovated from the embraces of the people, should commence its career by first of all proposing a plan to relieve the Government from the discharge of their duties. In extraordinary cases, when Ministers have not been able to perform their duties, the House has consented to the appointment of Finance Committees; but would it be safe to adopt the rule that the Government is to be superseded in its executive functions by a Committee of this House, and that this House should perform those duties which ought to be performed in Downing-street? If we were to adopt such a principle, we should have to consider whether our administrative organization is not on too great a scale; and I confess I hold precisely the contrary opinion, and we should place the Executive in a position which it was never intended to occupy. We might have on the Ministerial bench representatives of the poor ignorant and indolent creatures who in France, under the Merovingian dynasty, held high offices of State; and we, perhaps, might see a Secretary of State, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a First Lord of the Admiralty who had nothing to do with the department of which he was the head. I have only risen to protest against the principle of Committees of the House of Commons being called upon to prepare estimates which it is the duty of the Government to prepare. I trust that in the interval which will elapse before the meeting of the new Parliament, all those influences will be exerted which make men wiser, better, and perhaps sadder, and I hope that the result will be that the next House of Commons will have laid before them Estimates lower than those which have been submitted to us. But, whatever the estimates may be, let them come from the Government, and by the manner in which they are prepared and defended, let Her Majesty's Ministers show whether or not they are entitled to the confidence of Parliament. The principle that the new House of Commons, with all its crudeness and want of experience, should be called upon to discharge functions which properly belong to the Executive, is one which, in these our last days, we ought not to sanction. We ought, on the contrary, to hope that the new Parliament will hold the Government well to the performance of their duties. That is what we want. We want a Government which shall possess the confidence of the House of Commons, and which will not shrink from the performance of its duties, and not one which is content to carry on from hand to mouth, and which, whenever a difficulty occurs, is willing to be superseded by a Committee of this House. If a Government perform their duty in an efficient manner, that Government cannot fail to meet with confidence from the House; but I must protest against Parliament, whose part it is to act the critic upon the schemes of the Government, being called upon to act as the inventors and authors of their plans.

reminded the House that four millions and a half of the total revenue of the coming year arose from the war income tax, which must be regarded as an extraordinary Ways and Means, which, if calculated in a future year, would leave the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the lurch. If they did not reduce the expenditure in time, they must impose fresh taxes or there would be a deficiency.

objected to entrusting to the Poor Law Board the power of adding these extra-parochial places to the adjoining parishes for poor law purposes at their will and pleasure. How was this Poor Law Board composed, and of whom did it consist? From a document that came to his hand the other day it consisted of Mr. Bouverie, the Chairman, and Lord Courtnay, the Secretary, and as according to Mr. Chadwick the Secretary was nobody, the Board really consisted of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. During Mr. Baines's administration of the Poor Law Board not a single case of complaint remained unredressed—and the whole country acknowledged the change from the tyranny of the former system to the justice which characterized the law as administered by that right hon. Gentleman. But a change of Government took place—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was appointed as President of the Board, and from the time he entered upon the office he had been disputing with almost every board of guardians in the country. At Preston he insisted upon the guardians building a workhouse at a cost of some £40,000, and on their refusing, on the ground that there was no necessity for incurring the expense, the Board sent down an inspector, who got up a memorial which he induced between thirty and forty guardians (most of them ex officio) to sign in favour of the objects which the Poor Law Board only wished to carry out. Of course the workhouse was not erected, and in the next Session the case would be brought under the notice of Parliament. Then the right hon. Gentleman had a difference with the guardians of St. Thomas's, Exeter, in reference to the appointment of a relieving officer, and he could mention many other instances where the Poor Law Board had created dissatisfaction by attempting to coerce the guardians. During the administration of Mr. Baines there was none of this inquisitorial interference, and if he and the right hon. Gentleman were returned to Parliament at the next general election, he should require the right hon. Gentleman to give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct.

said, by the first clause the Bill would not come into operation till the 31st December next, and in the meantime the poor in the extra-parochial places would be chargeable on the common fund. There was, therefore, no necessity for proceeding with the Bill then, and in the present state of the House he hoped it would be postponed until the new Parliament met.

accounted for the small number of Members present by saying, that all the Gentlemen who were materially interested in this question had given their assent to the provisions of the Bill. He denied that the Poor Law Board was, as had been asserted by the gallant Admiral (Admiral Pechell), in a chronic state of hostility with boards of guardians, and asserted that, on the contrary, with most boards of guardians it worked with the most cordial co-operation and in the best possible spirit.

reminded the Committee that he had on the previous day presented a petition against this Bill from a person interested in this question, and pressed the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the measure, unless he was quite certain that the absence of Members did not arise from a belief, which he (Mr. Malins) had himself entertained, that it was to be postponed until the meeting of the new Parliament.

trusted that the noble Lord would not allow the Bill to be proceeded with at present.

reiterated his objections to the Bill, and moved that the Chairman Report Progress.

trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Motion. The Bill was of very limited range, and was designed to remedy an admitted evil, and had the assent of most persons conversant with the subjects to which it related. It was fixed for last night, and so far from there being any surprise it was specially fixed for to-night.

was desirous of amending the law, but still thought this Bill would require some discussion, and it ought to be postponed.

said, the Bill was intended to remedy a great grievance. In these extra-parochial places the poor had no means of obtaining relief as they had in parishes. But he was met by objections to the details of the Bill.