said, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman understood fully the extent to which the Motion he had made would affect the procedure of Committees. The alterations introduced into these clauses, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, were adopted on the Report furnished by the Board of Trade, and the effect of this Motion would be to put aside altogether the recommendations of the Board of Trade, so that in future these Reports, which were of so much assistance to Committees, would be so much waste paper. According to the Standing Orders, notices must be given to all parties interested in a Private Bill before the 30th December; but the Board of Trade could never see the Bill before the end of the month of January at the earliest. The consequence was that the Reports were furnished to the Committees long after the parties interested had had their notices served on them; consequently, if it were insisted on, that no parties could be dealt with by the Committee, except those who had had notices served on them, these Reports would be utterly futile for the future. Of course, if the Amendments were adopted, the Examiner has but one Report to make—namely, that the parties concerned have not had notices served on them. It must not be forgotten, that these requests had lately been much more strictly insisted on than had hitherto been the case. Not more than two months ago, a Resolution was passed to the effect, that any Committee receiving a Report from the Board of Admiralty, the Board of Trade, or any other department, and departing from those recommendations, should make a special Report to the House stating their reasons. They must, therefore, take either one course or the other. If they were to lay down a rule that no Committee was to adopt the recommendations of the Board of Trade, or any other Department, if they affect persons who have had notices served upon them, let them say at once that these Reports should be treated as waste paper henceforth. The tendency of legislation of late years had been to attach greater importance to these Reports. This Bill had been under the attention of the Committee for many weeks. There had been a great expenditure of public money on the inquiry, and the interests of the parties concerned in the alterations had been by no means damaged—in fact, he believed, they were very much advanced by the provisions which had been introduced into the Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.

said, that as a member of the Committee, he wished to state in the absence of the Chairman, that he entirely agreed in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. FitzRoy). If this Motion were carried it would be absolutely fatal to the progress of the Bill this Session. He trusted the House would affirm the decision of the Committee.

, also Members of the Committee, urged the House not to accede to the Motion.

said, he had no disposition to dispute the nature of the decision of the Committee. He had no doubt it was perfectly correct; but what he contended was, that it was beyond their powers. They had put in a clause which they were not competent to enact in conformity with the Standing Orders. He had no wish to upset that decision, but simply to ask from the regular officers of the House whether the Standing Orders had been complied with or not? and if they had not, he was perfectly ready to have the matter referred to the Committee on Standing Orders, to say whether they ought to be suspended or not. The doctrine of the right hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. FitzRoy) was certainly a most dangerous one, because it went to this, that a Ministerial Board might make reports which would have the effect of over-doing the rules which the House had laid down for the protection of private rights. If that doctrine were to be maintained, the Standing Orders must be reversed altogether; and he could scarcely believe it possible that the right hon. Gentleman had considered what his doctrine would lead to.

insisted that the Board of Trade ought not to be allowed to override the Standing Orders in the case of a private Bill of this importance. The Standing Orders were established for the protection of private rights, and it was palpable the Amendments made in the Bill were at variance with these safeguards.

supported the Amendment. He did not think it would be advisable to call upon the Senatus Academicus to manage mere pecuniary affairs. He felt persuaded that the Senatus would not be properly qualified to discharge such a duty.

said, that the proposal submitted to the Committee by his hon. and learned Friend differed very materially from that which he had brought forward on Friday last. His hon. and learned Friend on that day advocated the expediency of transferring the management of the property to the University Court; but he seemed at present to be disposed to leave the administration of the funds of the University of Edinburgh in the hands of the Town Council of that city. Now, with regard to the original proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, he should observe that he did not think the University Court was a body that ought to be expected to undertake that duty; not for this reason, that it was a body that was not to be in constant action, but was, on the contrary, to exercise its powers upon only rare occasions. The Senatus Academicus, on the other hand, was a resident body, always on the spot, and administering all the other business of the University; and he did not see why it should not be entrusted with the management of the property, subject as it should be to the general control of the University Court in all its proceedings. Then again, with regard to the proposal for entrusting the management of the property of the University of Edinburgh to the Town Council of that city, he had only to state that the House had already, on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, pretty distinctly intimated its opinion that that was an arrangement which it was not desirable to adopt. The present proposal seemed to him to be nothing more than an attempt to reverse what had virtually been the former decision of the House; and under these circumstances he felt it his duty to oppose the Amendment.

said, that his objection was to have that duty committed to the Senatus Academicus; but if it were removed out of their hands, there was no other body to whom he was specially anxious to see it entrusted.

said, he did not understand that the Vote of the House on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill would amount to a decision upon any of its details; and all the provisions of the measure were, he thought, open to the fullest consideration in Committee.

said, he should feel it his duty to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. The Lord Advocate had said that there was no reason why the Senatas Academicus should not be entrusted with the administration of the funds of its own University. But it appeared to him (Mr. Baxter) that a very good reason against the adoption of such a proposal was to be found in the fact that the various Senatuses had mismanaged the funds in times past. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the Senatus was the worst body to whom the management of the revenues could be entrusted; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would take the sense of a Committee upon that subject.

said, he thought it would be unfair to conclude that because one Senatus had mismanaged its funds, every other body bearing the same name should be distrusted. A Town Council might be a good body to manage property; but it had been shown upon a former day that in one instance at least it had been found very difficult to get property out of their hands. It seemed to him that the Senatus who were always on the spot, and who would at the same time be subject to the control of visitors, would be the very best body for the discharge of that duty.

said, it had not been shown that the Town Council of Edinburgh had abused the trust which had been reposed in them; and until that should be proved, he should vote against any proposal for depriving them of the powers they had hitherto enjoyed.

said, he could not but think that his hon. Friend had somewhat mistaken the object of the clause. He (the Lord Advocate) had certainly no intention of converting Sir David Brewster into a professor of theology—and neither did he propose to place any of the Principals in a degrading position. But his hon. Friend did not seem to understand the difficulty with which the clause would deal. There were at present no duties of teaching assigned to the office of Principal in any of the Universities. It so happened that, in one case, the Professorship of Theology was combined with the position of Principal; but that was a mere accident; and no such duty necessarily attached to the office. He thought it desirable that some duty of teaching should be assigned to the Principals. and he did not see how that result could be attained except by the adoption of some such provision as that contained in the clause. Any enactment for giving the right to regulate that matter to the Sonatas Academicus would only be more degrading to the Principals, and it was much more natural that the power should be entrusted to the Commissioners in the first instance, and then to the University Court.

said, it would appear from the statement of the Lord Advocate that the Principal was a supernumerary, and in that case it would be better to appoint one of the Professors to the office. He would not, however, divide the Committee upon that subject, as he could not calculate on the support of the Scottish Members.

proposed to add the following proviso:—

"Provided always that the several faculties shall, subject to the regulations of the Senatus Academicus, have power to maintain order and xercise discipline among the students belonging to them respectively, an appeal being competent from each faculty to the Senatus Academicus; and provided always that if there shall be fewer than three professors in any of the said faculties, there shall be elected only one professor as a delegate for such faculty."

said, that the present system would be in no way interfered with by the clause, and that only was given to the Senatus which had before belonged it, in so far as it was not already provided for by the Act. The several faculties acting as Senatus Academicus would superintend the whole teaching of the University. He really thought that provision was unnecessary.

proposed an Amendment, with a view to limit the necessary attendance in course of study in faculty of arts to two years instead of four years, as provided in the Bill, after which they should be eligible as members of the Council. He observed that the effect of the clause as it at present stood would be to render the Council too exclusively ecclesiastical, for with the exception of the small Faculty of Medicine, there was no other class of students who studied in the Faculty of Arts for so lengthened a period as that named in the Bill. To render the Council ecclesiastical would be, in his view, to render the whole Bill most objectionable. One of the highest recommendations of the Scotch Universities was, that they were not at all ecclesiastical in their character, but were intended for the general education of the people. On Friday last they gave to the Council the power of appointing the high officer of Chancellor, who would name his own assessor; and, as the Bill now stood, they were also to have the main voice in the election of the Rector. He should, however, endeavour to prevent that by his Amendment. Believing that this clause would introduce a fundamental alteration in the character of the Scotch Universities, he thought it was necessary to introduce an Amendment to modify the proposal of the learned Lord. The learned Lord proposed that all who, as matriculated students had attended the Faculty of Arts for four years should be eligible as members of the Council. But, in the case of persons attending the Faculty of Law and other Faculties, they did not require to attend the Faculty of Arts for so long a period; and yet, although they might be fully competent, they would, if this clause were adopted as it stood, be excluded from the Council. They might have an education superior to that of most country clergymen, but that would be of no avail. He thought that, if they were to depart at all from the rule of having a Degree of Art, the change ought not to be in favour of a specific body, but in favour of all classes in the University. He therefore proposed to strike out that portion of the clause rendering it necessary that there should have been an attendance of four years, and insert a provision that they should have been in attendance two years on the Faculty of Arts, and two years as two years on any other Faculty.

wished to offer just one word in explanation of his reason for assenting to this Amendment. When it was first mooted he did not quite understand his hon. Friend opposite; but he now saw that his object was the admission to the Council of persons who would probably be temporary members, and that, as it would not be necessary that such members, to qualify themselves, should attend the Faculty of Arts four sessions, they might be allowed to attend that faculty two sessions, and some other faculty two, to which they were more particularly devoted. He thought that the effect of such a provision would be to introduce variety into the Council, which was not desirable; and he, therefore, had great pleasure in yielding to the hon. Member.

could not consent to the Amendment, because it would effect a fundamental change in the whole theory and constitution of the University Courts. It was proposed to compose that Court of persons in whom the greatest confidence was placed, but if they subjected it to such an element as that provided by the Amendment, they would do very great harm. In the second subdivision of Clause 12 powers were given to effect improvements in the internal arrangement of the University after due consultation with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor. It appeared to him that the consultation with the Senatus Academicus and Chancellor were very sufficient conditions or checks to impose upon the action of the University Court in this particular case. If they introduced over and above that the control of what in some degree must be a large and popular assembly to override what had been done by the University Court, they would, in his opinion, introduce a very great element of confusion, and probably disincline those who desired, and were the best persons to be members of the University Court, from acting as such.

thought that it was very desirable that matters of business affecting the University should be laid before the graduates, in order that they should express their opinion upon it. No regulations could be passed without being submitted to the Council. At the same time, he agreed with the learned Lord that it would not be right to confer upon them the absolute power of veto. They certainly ought to have the power of expressing their views, but as the clause stood, it was not necessary to lay anything before them. Their opinion might be taken, he thought, with reference to the University regulations.

in reply said, that to create a body corporate in the University, and to give it no power of legislation whatever, would be to create one of the greatest anomalies that ever existed. In the English Universities, and in all European Universities, there was a body composed of certain persons established for certain purposes of legislation, but to this body no other power was given than that of electing its own officers, and it was to be composed of persons who need not be members of the University at all.

, Jun., understood the Lord Advocate to have said, on a former occasion, that there would be no interference with the right of election of Rector by the students. It could not be shown that, on any previous election, they had abused their right of election; but, on the contrary, had always exercised it most satisfactorily. He thought there were no grounds whatever for interfering with that right.

said, that since the claim had been prepared in its present form, the Committee had given to the Council a greater amount of influence and weight than it formerly possessed; and, therefore, there were goodly grounds for reconsidering this clause, particularly in the interests of the students who, he was glad to say, had always exercised their right of election in the most beneficial manner. He was extremely happy to be able to assent to the Amendment. The provision would extend to Aberdeen.

thought that such a provision would strengthen the Court very much.

was sorry he could not assent to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend behind him, and would state shortly his reasons. He was by no means indisposed to listen to any proposition which should have the effect of popularising the different bodies of which the University was composed; but the sort of popular voice which he should wish to see brought in was rather that which was represented by the General Council of the University itself. Be was quite at a loss to understand why it was sought to unite municipal institutions with Universities. He thought such union by no means desirable to unite the two. He did not know what sort of popularity they expected to get; the mere situation of a University, in or near a great town, was a matter of accident, and it did not seem to him to be a very favourable accident that it should be so situated. He thought that in many cases, if the Universities were removed from the vicinity of such towns, it would be better for the health and morals of the young men receiving education at the Universities. There were no particular claims why the Provost of St. Andrews should be one of the University Court, and even if there were, the question ought to be argued more upon general principles than local circumstances. They had endeavoured to make the constitution of the Council which was to be created as liberal as they could, and he could not help thinking that the only ground upon which this claim was put forward for St. Andrews, was that which arose out of some supposed similarity in the case of St. Andrews and Edinburgh. But the case of the latter city was an extremely peculiar one. There, a connection had many years subsisted between the University and the Council, otherwise it never would have occurred to any hon. Member to have proposed forming such a connection. But the connection had always been one which the whole city had just reason to be proud of, and therefore, in continuing the connection between the city and the University, the framers of the Bill had made a graceful acknowledgment of what the University and principality owed to each other. He could not, however, find any general inherent principle, in virtue of which it was necessary that a similar connection should be made between the Universities of Scotland and the towns in or near which they might be situated, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.

thought the proposal an unsound one. The University Court had duties entirely distinct from the Town Council, and unless soma special reasons were shown for the proposed connection he did not think it was one which ought to be entertained. The Corporation of London had no representative in the University of London, nor had Oxford or Cambridge in the sets of learning in those places.

thought it would be better both for the country and the Universities that the people should be brought into closer connection with Oxford and Cambridge. He certainly desired to see no contraction of the popular element in the Scottish Universities, and should vote for the Amendment.

said, he had given notice of an Amendment, that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should be one of the members of the court; but he would not press it at that moment. The University of Edinburgh had been fostered, managed, and maintained by the Town Council of the city for nearly 300 years. The University might, in fact, be considered as their child. He considered that it was indeed but a small compliment that the Town Council should be allowed still to have the management of the University.

quite concurred with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, that the University of Edinburgh owed a debt of gratitude to the municipality of that city. The hon. Gentleman who had exercised the duties of Lord Provost was a witness to the truth of that statement.

thought, that the mode proposed of dealing with the municipality of Edinburgh was most unusual. He thought that his hon. Friend should press his Amendment, in order that the votes of the Committee should be placed upon record. The University of Edinburgh had hitherto been upheld by the Town Council, had been fostered and regulated by them. By them it had been raised to its present position, being, it might be almost said, one of the most famous Universities in Europe. Nevertheless, it was now proposed to take the management, as well as the patronage, out of the hands of the city. But to deprive them of all control over the University, which had heretofore been managed so well, was an act not only insulting to the people themselves, but one that would prove injurious to the University. Their friends in the south seemed to have a horror of having the municipal body represented in these institutions. Whilst the English Universities were gradually opening their doors to the people, it was too bad that an endeavour should now be made to return to the exclusive days of past times in regard to the Scotch Universities.

said, as the subject of patronage was not then the question before them, it was not quite regular to discuss it; but as the hon. Gentleman had thought proper to introduce this subject, he would take the liberty of offering him assertion for assertion. He would therefore venture to say, that the University of Edinburgh had not worked admirably well, and he would be prepared to prove that statement when the proper time arrived. There were, in his opinion, strong reasons for depriving the Town Council of the management of the University, and he thought that real injustice would be done in leaving the power as it stood, rather than removing it into other hands. He admitted that the position of the Town Council of Edinburgh, in regard to the University there, was different from that held by other Town Councils, in regard to their Universities. There was no doubt that the city of Edinburgh had largely endowed this University; and in spite of the gross mismanagement, as he could show at the proper time, of the Town Council, the University had prospered considerably. In considering here the relations existing between the Town Council and the University, he hoped that the Committee would take a middle course—a course between that proposed by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, and the one proposed by the hon. Member for Greenock.

said, after the encouragement which he had received he would persevere with his Amendment.

said, that he could not assent to the Motion, the effect of which would be to deprive the Town Council of Edinburgh of all representation in the governing body of the University. On the other hand he was not opposed to the appointment of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in addition to the two Assessors. There could be no doubt that the Town Council of Edinburgh might, in a certain sense, be called the founders of the University; but they must not take too much credit for that, because, although they were the nominal founders of the University, they were enabled to become such munificent founders by means of Royal Grants. But certainly the ancient and original constitution, and the long continued connection which has existed between the municipal body and the University has led the Government to think that it is only fair and decorous that the municipal body should maintain a continued connection with the University; and he thought that the clause, as it stood, providing for the presence of two Assessors representing the Town Council, would be the best means of maintaining that connection.

said, that it was too much the practice amongst the friends of disappointed candidates and the enemies of popular institutions to find fault with the manner in which the University of Edinburgh was managed by the Town Council of that city. He believed that the main body of the students attached the greatest value to the management of that body, which had been excellent for many years past. He could appeal to the excellent appointments hitherto made in the University, as entitling the House to place a higher value on the management of the Town Council, than his learned Friend seemed willing to concede. This was a great experiment. Upon the continued prosperity and good management of the institution would depend much of the prosperity and welfare of Scotland. It was, therefore, better to proceed more cautiously than has been found the Lord Advocate seemed disposed to do. If, in the course of a few years the Corporation of Edinburgh belie the character which it had borne in times past, there would be good reason for interposing to overthrow the past management. He would move in line 13 that the name of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should be added to the two Assessors for the Town Council.

would suggest, and would move an Amendment to the effect that the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should be one of the two Assessors to be nominated by the Town Council of their city.

said, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh seemed to think that those who opposed the insertion of additional members of the Municipal Council of Edinburgh in the University Court were opposed to liberal institutions. But he had given his support to the measure of the Lord Advocate because he thought it a very liberal measure, and because he thought that the movement to give a liberal constitution to the Court, was not by the addition to the influence of the municipal body, but by the liberality shown in the constitution of the constituencies, by which the Chancellor and the Assessors were to be elected. The Lord Advocate had given a good reason for the representative of the Town Council in the Court. But he thought when they had recognized the position of the Town Council of Edinburgh by appointing two Assessors, they had done as much as could be expected. He was much surprised at the hon. Members for Edinburgh making the speeches they had done; for every humane person must feel for the Damoclesian portion of those hon. Gentlemen who had been discussing this Bill in the presence of the Lord Provost and a deputation from the Town Council of Edinburgh. Whatever influence that might have on the speeches and votes of those hon. Gentlemen, he hoped the Lord Advocate would not be induced, by their arguments, to alter the clause as it stood in the Bill.

said, that the Lord Advocate had stated that the Town Council of Edinburgh stood in a peculiar position to the University of that city. The citizens of Aberdeen, however, stood in the same position towards Marischal College in Aberdeen; and therefore it is not just that two Assessors should be given to the Town Council of Edinburgh, and none to that of Aberdeen.

said, that he had given notice of an Amendment which raised one of the most important points connected with the Bill. The proposal of the clause is that the right of nomination to Professorships, which is now possessed by the Senatus Academicus, should be transferred to the University Court. The clause said nothing about two other classes of professorships—those in the gift of the Crown, and those in the gift of the Town Council of Edinburgh and other similar bodies. They were debarred from dealing with the question, so far as the Crown was concerned, except with the consent of the Crown, and he should therefore for the present say nothing about the Professorships in the appointment of the Crown. Otherwise he should have proposed that the nomination should be transferred to the University Courts. In Edinburgh University twelve out of the twenty Professors were appointed by the Town Council, and a similar body appointed one or two Professors at Aberdeen, Now, he thought it hardly admitted of argument, that the appointment of professors in a University is not a function which could be properly intrusted to a municipal body. A Town Council is too numerous to begin with. It consisted of thirty or forty gentlemen selected for every possible reason to represent the City of Edinburgh in the Town Council, but without any reference to their power of making a good selection of literary or scientific professors. It is necessarily a political body—politics exercising a considerable influence in the election of its member. Politics were now very much mixed up with questions of religion, and thus these appointments were directly and unduly mixed up with, and influenced by associations of religion and politics. The Town Council of Edinburgh was a fluctuating body. It had no responsibility to the public. It is too numerous for that, and, therefore, without arguing a question that hardly admitted of argument, he would propose that the new Courts should be invested with the patronage now exercised by the Town Councils.

most emphatically denied that the Corporation of Edinburgh was liable to the imputations cast upon it by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He believed that there never was a more baseless charge than that they were actuated by party politics or sectarian bigotry. He believed that a large proportion of the Town Council never knew, up to the time of election, of what politics or of what religious denomination a candidate for a professorship was. It was their qualification or non-qualification for the appointment sought that was alone regarded. Of the existing Professors of the University of Edinburgh appointed by the Town Council—which, be it remembered, is a Presbyterian council—seven were members of the Church of Scotland, five were Episcopalian, two belonged to the Free Church, and one was a Unitarian. He was quite sure that the Town Council of Edinburgh were actuated by time most pure and patriotic motives, and that on every occasion they endeavoured to appoint the very best man they could find, whatever might be his country or his religious tenets. Although they might not always succeed in appointing the very best man, they in almost every instance appointed a man who was an honour to the country that gave him birth, and was likely to perpetuate the fame of a University which had so long enjoyed a high reputation.

(who spoke amid continued cries for a division) said, he was determined to defend the rights of his fellow-citizens. This was not merely a question of patronage, as was so generally understood. but of property. It was a property that belonged to the Town Council and inhabitants of Edinburgh. It was one of which they had always been and still were proud—which they considered as their own—which they had nurtured, watched over, and provided for—and which they had regulated for 300 years. The hon. and learned Lord opposite had told them that it was not the inhabitants of Edinburgh that founded the University. Let him refer on that point to Maitland's History of Edinburgh, where it was shown that the inhabitants of that city founded the University and supported it. In the Report of the Royal Association it would be found that all that was given by King James—who is sometimes called the founder, but who was the curse of the University—was somewhere about £20 or £30. The University had in fact been founded and supported by the citizens of Edinburgh. All the grants by the Crown were insignificant. Up to 1747 the whole sum only amounted to £175 2s. Before then the sums paid by the Town Council were not known; but after that period, and up to 1833, they were, without interest, £54,367; and at the present day the University may be said to receive £2,000 a year from funds belonging to the city. The University of Edinburgh was as much the property of the Town Council as was the Merchant Taylors' School of the Company to which it belonged, and the House might as well take charge of that as deprive the Town Council of Edinburgh of the patronage of the University. Would any one say that those who had paid the sums, to which he had just referred, for the founding of the University, were not entitled to the patronage which they now held by as good a right as that by which any nobleman held his estates? They had it by Royal grant, and not of Parliament; and by the fact of their being the actual supporters of it, and having maintained it for 250 years, be thought it was right to maintain that property in the Town Council. It might not be a moneyed property; but it was one that the citizens of Edinburgh regarded in a higher light than moneyed property. They had managed it well, and believed that in whatever hands it was placed it Could not be better managed. They had, he thought, too, a right to complain of the manner in which this question had been brought forward. For they had been taken by surprise, and had not received fair notice that this Amendment, which would take from them the most valuable property they possessed, would be proposed. It was the opinion of the late Lord Advocate, that the appointment of the professors by the Town Council should not be interfered with. I had been said, that a Town Council were not the proper parties to have the management of an University. He begged leave, however, to trouble the House with a few authorities to show the manner in which the system had worked. Both Dr. Allan and Professor Napier expressed an opinion that the magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh had exercised their patronage well. Dr. Chalmers—(no slight authority)—said that, looking to the experience of the previous fifty years, he did not know in whose hands the appointment of professors could be better vested, whether looking to the interests of literature or the church. Dr. John Thompson said that he thought it could be shown, by reference to the men of distinguished learning who had filled chairs in the University, and by the high place that the University had filled in its own and in other countries, that the patronage of chairs in times past had been beneficially exercised; and he added that he entertained no doubt that it was expedient that the patronage should continue to be vested in the Town Council. Professor Turner said that, looking to the history of the University and the men who had filled the chairs, he did not know how the patronage of the professional chairs could have been more purely and efficiently exercised. Would the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) state that no men of eminence had been appointed while tho patronage was vested in the Town Council?

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the decision given by Mr. Howard, upon the Memorial presented to him by the Colliery Proprietors in the Forest of Dean in July, 1857, was founded on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown; and if not, whether there would be any objection to take their opinion?

replied, that Mr. Howard's answer was not founded on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The provisions of the Act relating to the subject of the Memorial appeared so clear that it was not deemed necessary to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon them.

said, he rose to move the Resolution on this subject of which he had given notice. In making the Motion he could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the House that he was not actuated by party motives—his only object was to afford an opportunity of considering one of the most important questions of finance. He did not intend to avail himself of any argument as to breach of trust with the public creditor, though no doubt that argument might be urged fairly when the clauses which it was now proposed to repeal had been passed so recently. What he wished was to call attention to the impolicy of repealing these clauses, which, in point of fact, contained the only legal guarantee that there was now extant for the reduction of the national debt during the time of peace. He would draw attention to the frame of mind which prevailed at the commencement of the last war, in 1854, when his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford came down to the House to ask for supplies for the Russian war. On the 6th of March, in that year, his right hon. Friend induced the House to adopt the principle that in carrying on war it was the first duty of the House and the country to provide as much as possible for it without encumbering the resources of posterity. In accordance with that policy, the whole expenditure of 1854 was raised from taxes within the year. No doubt they did in that year issue £6,000,000 of bonds, but that was rather by way of anticipating taxes than of adding to the debt. It was contemplated that those bonds should be paid off by taxes that were considered as war taxes. In the following year the policy was laid down, and accepted by the House, that a portion of the war expenditure should be raised by taxation within the year and a portion by way of loan. He believed the proportions were nearly equal. A very general opinion prevailed, that in whatever way those loans were raised it should be on some principle that would include their early repayment after the conclusion of the war. One of the means to accomplish that object was by raising the loan by way of terminable annuities; but it would be remembered that when the attempt came to be made, his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor the Exchequer found that he could borrow in the most economical manner for the public by availing himself of what has been termed "the sweet simplicity of the Three per Cents." At the same time his right hon. Friend was not deterred from making an attempt to pay off the debt in time of peace in accordance with the recommendations of the Finance Committee of 1828, and he inserted a clause in his first Loan Bill rendering it incumbent on the country at the conclusion of the war to create a surplus of the Ways and Means of the year to the extent of a million, so as to provide for the liquidation of the debt. That principle the House then affirmed by the large majority of ninety-nine; but no sooner had the Act come into operation than the Government of the day came down to the House the other day and asked them not to postpone the operation of the Act, but to repeal the provisions of the Act. The total addition made to the funded and unfunded debt between the commencement and the close of the Russian war was twenty-nine millions. The obligations left upon the country by enactments passed during the war were—an obligation to pay off two millions of bonds in 1857, two millions more in 1858, two millions in 1859, and one million in 1860. There was a further obligation to pay a million and a half towards what was called the Sinking Fund. Last year we redeemed the bonds falling due, and paid £250,000 to the Sinking Fund. Now, he had no desire of disturbing the financial arrangements of the present year, nor was it his intention to reopen the discussion upon the Budget; but looking to the manner in which the provisions of the Act had been rashly laid aside, he would ask the House not lightly to commit itself to a policy of repudiating obligations entered into in time of war. This year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) postponed the payment of two millions of bonds for several years; and as to the £1,500,000 due to the Sinking Fund, he proposed not to postpone it. but absolutely and for ever to repeal the clauses which made it payable. In recommending that course, the right hon. Gentleman confounded the character of the provision made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) with that of the Sinking Fund as recommended by Lord Stanhope and Dr. Price, and adopted by Mr. Pitt. The principle upon which that Sinking Fund was established involved several fallacies and dangers. The first fallacy was, that as the payment was to be made under all circumstances, and whether we were at peace or at war, we might have to borrow money at a very high rate of interest, in order to redeem debts which had been contracted at a low rate. The next fallacy was, that the nation would profit by the accumulation of money at compound interest. Dr. Price had a curious theory founded upon his calculation, that if one penny had been invested at the period of the birth of Christ, by compound interest it would have swelled out to the dimension of several globes of gold by the present time. But it was altogether forgotten that the interest by which it was to accumulate must, like the principal, come out of the pocket of the taxpayer. The third fallacy, or rather danger, arose from keeping up a large fund which was really a portion of the national debt under another name, and which was entirely at the mercy of the Government of the day. In 1818 Dr. Hamilton called attention to these fallacies, and in 1823 the Government of the day abolished the old Sinking Fund, but provided instead for the raising by Ways and Means every year of a surplus of £3,000,000, which should be applied to the reduction of the national debt. To this they added what was called the dead weight—namely, two millions of annuities, making up the amount of the Sinking Fund to £5,000,000 per annum. The Committee which sat in 1828 condemned the portion of this scheme which referred to the annuities but recommended that the surplus of three millions should continue to be raised for the reduction of the debt; and the principle of that recommendation was supported by Mr. Goulbourn (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Mr. Huskisson in that House, and by the then First Minister, the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords. With the permission of the House he would give a brief history of the national debt, in order to show that at no previous period had, its aspect being so alarming as it is at present. It was erroneous to suppose that the national debt was of ancient origin. It was an engine of comparatively modern invention. The first public loan was contracted in 1690, and in 1792, at the commencement of the French war, the debt amounted to £261,000,000, with an annual charge of £9,500,000. During the next twenty-three years the debt was increased to £854,000,000, with a charge of £32,000,000 a year. Let them see what was accomplished by what was called a fallacious Sinking Fund in the following twelve years. During the period between 1816 and 1828 under various Governments, although in the face of much national suffering, the debt was reduced by £54,000,000, and the annual charge by £3,277,000. In 1828 the debt amounted to £800,000,000, and the annual charge to £29,179,000. What was the state of things at the present moment? Thirty years of great prosperity had passed over our heads, and yet the funded and unfunded debt now amounted to £808,000,000 with an annual charge of £28,500,000. so that, instead of having effected any reduction since 1828, we had, under the specious but deceptive principle of taking accidental surpluses, which no Chancellor of the Exchequer was ever allowed to retain, instead of a surplus provided by Ways and Means, added £8,000,000 to the national debt. That was not a very creditable or satisfactory result. It might be said, however, that since 1828 considerable additions had necessarily been made to the national debt. True, there had been a loan of £20,000,000 for the emancipation of our slaves, and a loan of £10,000,000 for the Irish famine, and loans of one kind or another, to the amount of £29,000,000, for the Russian war, but still it was discreditable to a great nation that during a period, of remarkable prosperity, in which there had been only two years of war, it should have added £8,000,000 to its national debt without making provision for repayment as soon as possible. What prospect had we under existing circumstances, of improving our financial position? We had in the present year postponed the payment of bonds that were due, and there was a Bill before the House to repeal those clauses in existing Acts which made it incumbent upon Parliament to provide a surplus for the reduction of the national debt. How we were to fare next year it was difficult to say. We had again £2,000,000 of bonds falling due next year, and our means would be less by £1,000,000 to pay them with, because the reduction of 2d. on the income tax would operate only to the extent of £1,000,000 in the present year, whereas it would deprive us of the entire £2,000,000 next year. Then we had to meet £2,000,000 of bonds in the succeeding year, and £1,000,000 in 1860. We were told that we should postpone all these engagements till 1860, because in that year terminable annuities would fall in to the extent of more than £2,000,C00. But these were not our only engagements for 1860. In addition of £7,000,000 of bonds postponed till that year, it was proposed to abolish the income tax entirely in 1860 when there would also be a reduction of the tea and sugar duties to the amount of £3,000,000. The anticipation of the public was, that what between the income tax and the tea and sugar duties there would be a reduction of taxation to the extent of £8,000,000 in 1860; but, if against that we could place a reduction of expenditure on account of the falling in of annuities to the extent of little more than £2,000,000, how, he asked, were the expectations of the country to be fulfilled? Was it wise for any Finance Minister to encourage such delusive hopes on the part of the public? He believed, for his own part, that the alleged unpopularity of the income tax had been greatly exaggerated in that House. All the best informed and most reflective people out of doors were in favour of maintaining the tax, and that in the great seats of industry, among those who wished to reform our taxation, and even among those affected by Schedule D. it would among admitted that it was a less injurious tax than any other existing. He believed that nothing would have been easier than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have maintained the 2d. which he had abandoned. In the discussion which took place the other night upon the paper duties the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out some prospect of the removal of those duties at no very distant time. Now, in the abstract he was free to confess that it was the worst tax that had ever been imposed; and, if it were to be a new tax, to be now put on, he believed it would be one of the most difficult to impose. He thought it would have been far better for the right hon. Gentleman to have repealed the paper duties than the income tax. But we were not in a condition to abolish duties of any kind, and indeed his object was to show that if we persevered in our present course we should not be able even to fulfil our obligations. The fact was, we had been burning our candle at both ends. On the one hand, they were in every possible way increasing the expenditure, and on the other, in every possible way they were pressing for a diminution of taxation. They were very properly repealing indirect taxes, but they failed to retain direct taxes. The only direct tax they seemed to have imposed of late years for the purpose of meeting the loss of the income tax was the succession duty, but the produce of the latter tax had caused disappointment, notwithstanding it was predicted at the time of the imposition of the succession duty that the tax would realize twice or three or four times the amount estimated. The estimate of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) when he introduced that measure to the House was, that it would yield in the first year. £500,000; in the following year, £1,200,000; in the year after, £1,600,000; and in the succeeding years £2,000,000. Previous to the year 1863 the legacy duty was annually increasing at the rate of £50,000; but as that duty since then had been mixed up with this succession duty, it was difficult to calculates its produce. In the first year of the succession duty, or for the portion of that year (1853 and 1854) the sum realized by shall impost was only £3,587. In the next year it amounted to £150,000; in the following year, £320,000; and in the last year, only £148,000. So that, in point of fact, the money that had fallen into the Exchequer from this duty up to the present time was only £1,407,000, instead of £7,000,000, as estimated by the right hon. Gentleman. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, moreover, had expressed themselves as wholly unable to account for this fact. If, then, the succession duty which they were told was to be a sort of sheet anchor when the income tax should be repealed, had disappointed expectation what were they to do with the various obligations crowding upon them? What were the objections which would be urged against his Resolution? He should be told no doubt, that it was unwise to anticipate the decision of Parliament, and to tie up the hands of the House of Commons in reference to the disposal of the finances of future years; but he replied, that they had tied up the hands of the House and created great obligations, and it was their duty now in time of peace to find Ways and Means to meet those obligations. He should be told that it was illusory to enact that a portion of debt should be annually paid unless they secured a surplus every year; but the object of his Resolution was to secure that annual surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, no doubt, say that the real Sinking Fund was the surplus at the end of the year; but what surplus had the right hon. Gentleman provided? He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had provided a deficit, because in the budget the right hon. Gentleman brought up the expenditure and income to a level by the addition of a spirit duty in Ireland; and then the right hon. Gentleman added that he would make a surplus of £300,000 by a penny duty on bankers' cheques. But on what basis was that calculated? The Army and Navy Estimates were reduced by £400,000, and the Miscellaneous Estimates by a similar sum, but he was afraid that that saving had vanished. The First Lord of the Admiralty had been obliged to trench upon one portion of the saving, and with respect to the Miscellaneous Estimates it turned out that the saving was more in name than in reality. Therefore, instead of a saving of £800,000 in the expenditure, the most that could be calculated on was about £200,000; and in the present state of the Session they were really in a deficiency of about £400,000. according to the budget. Therefore, they would be deluding the country if they refrained to make in time of peace any honest effort to pay the debts incurred in time of war. They had heard a great deal about the state of the national defences and the exposure of the coast; but let them consider the danger this country would be exposed to in any great contest by being burdened with an enormous taxation arising out of the amount of the national debt. The national debt of France amounted to only £321,000,000 against the £800,000,000 of the English national debt; and the United States defrayed in peace the debts they incurred in war; and up to the present time they had kept themselves almost free from national debt. For many years past this country bad been in an exceedigly advantageous and prosperous condition, and had almost monopolized the trade of the world. Was there, however, any security for the continuance of such a state of things? Positively, so far as this country itself was concerned, there could be little doubt of its continuance; but, relatively to other countries, he thought the extent to which we were losing our vantage ground was not understood. In 1847 the value of exports from France of articles produced and manufactured in that country was £28,000,000, last year it was £72,000,000. The value of British exports in 1847 was £58,000,000, and in 1856 £115,000,000; so that while our exports doubled in the interval, those of France had nearly trebled. There was no absolute guarantee for the continuance of the present satisfactory state of affairs, and he would ask, therefore, whether advantage should not be taken of the existing prosperity of the country to endeavour to reduce the national debt. He did not wish in any way to embarrass the Government, and the proposal he made was an extremely moderate one. He merely wished to assert a great principle which he desired to see reduced to practice—that it was the duty of Parliament in time of peace to make arrangements for providing out of surplus revenue for the diminution of the national debt which had necessarily been incurred during a period of war; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to alter the Bill in accordance with his (Mr. Wilson's) suggestions, and to appoint a Committee in the next Session to consider the whole question of the finances of the country he would be quite satisfied with such an arrangement. He believed that the three great principles upon which alone the national finances could be safely managed were, that they should avoid, as far as possible, engaging in war; that they should, in case of a war, exercise the utmost possible economy in its conduct; and that in a time of peace they should make every effort in their power to repair the disasters which had occurred during war.

said, the Resolution involved several assertions which appeared to him to be of a very questionable character. In the first place the principle declared in the Resolution, that, "the extraordinary expenditure incurred during a war beyond What is obtained from taxation should he raised in the form of terminable loans, the redemption of which should be provided for within a specified period after the return of peace," had been acted upon during and since the occurrence of the late war. They had had a terminable loan both in the shape of terminable annuities and of Exchequer bonds; and he did not think, therefore, it was necessary for the House to endorse such a declaration with regard to the future. The second part of the Resolution declared that "if, with a view to greater economy, it is raised by loans in the shape of permanent annuities, that a provision should be made for the liquidation of the same by moderate annual instalments after the war expenditure shall have ceased, from surplus revenue to be provided for that purpose." Now, it was very difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by a moderate annual instalments." During the late war it was determined that the first loan should be repaid by a "moderate annual instalment" of £1,000,000. Another loan was raised, and the "moderate annual instalment" for its repayment was fixed at £1,250,000. A third loan was raised, and the "moderate annual instalment" for its liquidation took the shape of £1,500,000. Then Exchequer Bonds came into play, and Parliament engaged to pay them off by a "moderate annual instalment" of £2,500,000 in one year, and a "moderate annual instalment" of £3,500,000 in the succeeding year. It was, therefore, clearly impossible by such phraseology to lay down any rule which would provide for artificially paying off debts of this description. He thought, also, that the principle laid down in the Resolution. that arrangements for the liquidation of debts incurred during war should be made immediately upon the cessation of hostilities, must be taken with considerable qualification, for it was very often impossible at once to reduce expenditure upon the termination of a war. Then it was an error to suppose that extraordinary expenditure was only incurred in time of war. A potato famine might occur, which would lead to extraordinary expenditure. They might be obliged to increase their armaments even in a time of peace, owing to the peculiar conduct of other Powers, and that would lead to extraordinary expenditure. Domestic disquietudes, and even insurrection, might occur. Many disturbing causes entailing an extraordinary expenditure might arise in time of peace, and, therefore, to lay down a fixed rule, that because the country was not at war, an artificial system for the reduction of the debt should be rigidly pursued, would, in his opinion, be most injudicious. What, then, was the practical proposition which the hon. Member placed before them? He said—"When you pay off your Exchequer Bonds (which will not be for four years) then let us institute a Sinking Fund, and, in the meantime, let a Committee be appointed to consider the national finances and to lay down principles for their management. If, however, a Committee was to be appointed he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should postpone the appeal he had now made to the House until the result of the labours of such Committee was laid before Parliament. What would be the use of their passing a Resolution in favour of an artificial Sinking Fund to reduce our debt, which is not to come into operation till 1861 or 1862. He called it an artificial Sinking Fund, although Ways and Means might be supplied by taxation for the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, the reduction of our debt. The great objection which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had to the reduction of the public debt by special taxes for that purpose, was a conviction that it was a mere theoretical arrangement, that it would never work, and that the only sound principle upon which our debt could be reduced was the principle of the Act of George IV., which had for a considerable period conduced to the reduction of the debt, though the hon. Gentleman seemed to think it had practically been abortive. But, said the hon. Gentleman, what with increased expenditure and a desire for reduced taxation, it was quite clear that unless we built up these artificial barriers no reduction of the public debt of this country could be secured. In truth, they could only secure a reduction of the public debt by a conviction in the public mind that it was wise to pursue a policy for its reduction; and if they could get public opinion to embrace that principle they would then be supported, not only in the taxation which1 was necessary for that object, but also in the reduction of the expenditure which was chiefly required to obtain it. If they had not that public opinion sufficient to support a Minister in a policy so wise and equitable they would find in practice that it would be totally impossible to observe those regulations which they made beforehand for the reduction of the debt, and which demanded from the pockets of the people taxes for that special object. It appeared to him that the fatal objection td the theory which the hon. Gentleman had recommended the House to adopt was that it could not be put in practice. It was quite possible that they might have a large surplus revenue, and might succeed with the aid of that surplus in diminishing the public debt; but notwithstanding the impatience of taxation of which they heard so much, notwithstanding there were still many taxes in our system which required to be modified and even to be diminished, he could not but believe that, in the long run, the finances of this country being in so healthy and prosperous a state as to produce a genuine surplus, Parliament would devote no inconsiderable portion of that surplus revenue to the reduction of the public debt. Nor could he agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even from the experience of the past, they were not justified in entertaining such a belief. There had been a considerable reduction in the public debt since the passing of the Act of George IV. In 1829 the surplus invested was, in round numbers, upwards of £1,200,000; in 1830, a little less than £2,000,000; in 1833, £792,000; in 1834, upwards of £1,700,000; in 1835, upwards of £500,000; in 1836, upwards of £1,200,000; in 1837, nearly £1,500,000. Then they came to very bad years, in which there was no surplus revenue. But why? Because they had then three bad harvests. Every department of industry in the country was then suffering, and would it have been wise in such circumstances—because they could not reduce the debt when the country was in a state of paralysis—to inflict extra taxes upon the working population of the country in order that they might be able to say they had reduced the public debt? Or could they adduce those five years as a proof that the Sinking Fund Act was a failure? But the moment that prosperity returned, and the country revived—in 1844, and in subsequent years—there were great reductions of taxation. In 1844 they again proceeded to reduce the debt. [Mr. J. WILSON here made a remark across the table which did not reach the gallery.] He did not see how that observation affected the argument in the least. Whatever might be the amount of public taxation the question to be decided was whether, with the revenue at the command of the Minister, he had the power of meeting fairly the demands of the year and of reducing the public debt. When the country had rallied again—in one year—(in 1845) the public debt was reduced by nearly £1,400,000. In 1846, after a still greater reduction of taxation than had been made in the preceding year, the debt was reduced by nearly £1,200,000. In 1847 there was a reduction of £628,000. In 1849 nothing was done; but in 1850 there was a reduction amounting to £2,321,000. In 1851 there was a reduction of nearly £3,000,000; in 1852 of more than £1,800,000; in 1853, upwards of £1,000,000. Could they say, in the face of such facts, that the Sinking Fund Act of George IV., founded, as he thought, on sound principles, was a failure, as the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to induce the House to believe? On the contrary, it was quite evident that tinder that Act large reductions of the public debt had taken place in many years. He had shown to the House that in the years referred to by the hon. Gentleman as those in which no reduction of the debt had taken place this country was suffering under a visitation of peculiar hardship—no less than three successive bad harvests. It suffered also from a great collapse in mercantile speculation, and from what took place in America. He, therefore, thought it would be most unwise in the House to depart in any way from the Act of 1829. But they would be departing from it if they recurred to a system of making artificial sinking funds by imposing special taxes for the purpose of creating a surplus. And, in his opinion, and he trusted the House would support him in it, they would take a most contradictory and conflicting course if, while they adhered to the law which regulated the distribution of the natural surplus in their revenue, they at the same time had a law founded on totally different principles, but aiming at the same end—namely, the reduction of the debt. The question which they had now to decide was simply this—would they maintain the Sinking Fund Act of 1829? That was the single issue before them, and he hoped the House would be firm in its resolve to support that law, founded upon the wisest principles. He had shown the House that in practice it had completely vindicated the objects of those who introduced it. It had considerably reduced the debt. It secured the devotion of the surplus revenue of this country to the great object of the reduction of the debt. It was quite evident from the facts which he had placed before the House that the natural surplus revenue did find that outlet which the advisers of that law contemplated, and had fulfilled its purposes. And if there were years, and even a series of years, in which no reduction of the debt took place, that want of power in the law arose from natural causes. Suppose that during these five dreary years—from 1837 to 1842—in which there was no reduction of the debt, they had by legislation secured a certain reduction of it— say, £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 each year—what additional suffering and hardship would they not have thereby inflicted upon the people of this country! It was under a feeling of that nature that Her Majesty's Government proposed their financial policy, which he was glad to say the House adopted. They could not decide upon these questions without referring to the condition of the country during the last autumn. It was impossible to forget that there was throughout all the ramifications of commerce in this country a state of considerable suffering and stagnation, mid was that a time for the Minister of Finance to come forward and say we are resolved each year, this being a time of peace, to reduce the amount of our national debt and to levy new taxes in order that we may pay off those engagements of a terminable character which we entered into during the war? That, he thought, would have been most unwise, nor did he think that any Minister would have the power of carrying a measure of that kind. It was a moment when it was expedient to treat with as much tenderness and indulgence as possible the industry of this country, and he thought the House showed great wisdom in supporting Her Majesty's Government in the course which they had recommended. The hon. Gentleman had entered into a very great eulogium of the income tax, which he said was a very popular tax. He would not now enter into any question of that kind, but the hon. Gentleman blamed him for having reduced that tax. He could not claim that merit, for the real fact was, that he had found the income tax reduced by operation of law, and if lie had proposed that it should be maintained during the present year at the same figure as last it would have been in point of fact to propose an increase of the tax. It was true that two new taxes had been imposed, but that was necessary in order to supply the deficiency which would arise from the reduction by law—and not by the act of the present Government—of the income tax. The hon. Gentleman had talked about the necessity of adhering to engagements. Now, he would not go into the old question whether what took place in 1853 was a compact or engagement, but certainly there was an understanding that the income tax should cease in 1860, and the Government had given due regard to that understanding. The case at issue was a very simple one, and that was, whether they would or would not adhere to the Sinking Fund Act of 1829, which, in his opinion, was founded upon sound financial principles, and which he maintained had, as regarded the intentions of its framers, completely succeeded. In prosperous times a large stun had always been contributed to the reduction of the debt; in times less prosperous a sum of a more moderate character had been contributed; and, when the country had been in a state of exhaustion, then the operation of the Act had been a faithful mirror of the condition of the public finances. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not support the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. Apart from that greater consideration, even if its principles were sound, and did not clash with the Act of 1829, he thought it unwise and inexpedient that the House should lay down rules and regulations for a Sinking Fund that, according to the views of the hon. Gentleman, could not come into action for four years. For these reasons, because he thought it inexpedient, even if there were no Sinking Fund in operation, and because he thought the existing Sinking Fund Act was a wise and judicious measure, he should oppose the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman.

stated that there was an express condition in the Act which authorized the raising of the £29,000,000 for the Russian war, that a million and a half should be paid off every year, and of that condition the Bill before the House was a direct repudiation. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the years in which a reduction to a small amount had been made in the National Debt under the Sinking Fund Act of 1829, but he had said nothing of those years in which the debt had been increased. He (Mr. Williams) objected to the Bill as a violation of the engagement entered into with the fund-holder, and as a violation also of an important financial principle. He was not aware whether the engagement to pay off this money upon those conditions had not enabled the Government to raise the loan on more favourable terms.

The condition was not in the contract.

It was so understood.

No.

observed that the condition was referred to in the debate upon the Bill. He held it to be the duty of the present generation to pay the expense of its own wars, and not to saddle them upon posterity. The right hon. Gentleman claimed credit for having met a deficiency and reduced taxation. But he had done so by postponing the payment of £2,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds, and of £3,000,000 more which fell due next year, or the year after, till four years hence, when, if the right hon. Gentleman should still be Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Williams) had no doubt the whole amount would be added to the permanent debt. He would support the Amendment.

said, he thought that the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) who had just sat down,—namely, that by voting in favour of this Bill they would practically be guilty of an act of repudiation, ought not to go forth uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman held that the engagement to pay off a million or a million and a half annually was part of the contract entered into with the public creditor in regard to these loans. The right hon. Member for Radnor, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the time, was certainly the highest authority in the House on that subject, but unless he was himself much mistaken, he recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question put to him on this very point when the loans were proposed, distinctly stating that no such condition formed any part of the engagement with the public creditor, or gave him any title to interfere with the free judgment of Parliament in dealing with this question in future. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) there were topics in the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he was glad the attention of Parliament had been directed. All that related to the doctrine of making effectual provision for the payment of the public debt, and all that related to the amount of the debt and the importance of reducing it, was important, and he was glad that the hon. Gentleman had brought it under consideration. But he could not vote for the Amendment. In the first place, he was sceptical as to the soundness of the hon. Member's principles. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was a distinction between the Sinking Fund of 1855 which was now about to be done away, and that of Mr. Pitt; but he was by no means sure which was the better of the two. It appeared to him that the Sinking Fund of Mr. Pitt had some reason in it, in refer- ence to the circumstances in which it was established—inasmuch as it had a direct and powerful tendency to keep up the price of the public stocks during a period of war, and in that way conduce to economy, by enabling the estate to borrow money on better terms than it otherwise must have submitted to. Therefore the waste of public money involved in the principle of a Sinking Fund might have been in some degree redeemed by the plan of Mr. Pitt. But whether the comparison was in favour of the later or earlier form of Sinking Fund, he was not prepared to join in a vote, the apparent object of which, was to force upon Parliament and on the Government the recognition of a principle so doubtful as that which was involved in the hon. Gentleman's proposition. For to what did it amount? The hon. Gentleman said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no surplus revenue for the present year. The hon. Gentleman said, "the budget puts before us not a surplus but a deficit." If so, why did not the hon. Gentleman make a Motion on that subject? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed before them a scheme which showed an insufficient provision on the balance of income and expenditure for the wants of the year, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not hesitate to say that the right hon. Gentleman had done wrong in proposing such a scheme, and the House had done wrong in accepting it, and the hon. Member for Devenport would have been doing his duty only if he had called upon the House to reject it, and to provide by some means a surplus in the revenue of the year as compared with the expenditure. But the hon. Gentleman had done nothing of the sort, he had taken no issue upon the question. He asserted that there was a deficiency, but he took no step whatever to remedy that which, if it existed, was so gross and glaring an evil, He (Mr. Gladstone) had not followed the Estimates of the year as the hon. Gentleman said he had done, and could not say whether the hon. Gentleman was right or not; but if the hon. Gentleman thought that there were so many hundred thousand pounds short of what would be the actual expenditure, he would have done well to call their attention to that fact and propose some remedy for so glaring an evil. But he had made no such proposition, neither had he made any proposal for the repayment of the debt. He merely asked them to enter into one of those prospective and remote engagements by which, instead of doing something themselves to relieve the public embarrassments, they were, as far as they could, to pledge and bind a future Parliament to do something. And this in the teeth of all experience, which told them that when a future Parliament came to be a present one it would resent the attempt made to limit its liberty and discretion by antecedent votes on the part of those who, it might justly think, ought to have confined themselves to minding their own business. Therefore, because the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Motion was doubtful, and because it was strictly prospective and theoretical, and because it passed over the duty which was within arm's length in order to deal with matters that were in the clouds, he could not support the proposition. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had omitted the principal point in the case—which was in the state of the expenditure and the disposition of the executive Government and the House of Commons with regard to the increase or diminution of that expenditure. The Act of 1829 was amply sufficient to secure the regular application of any surplus that might arise in time of peace to the reduction of the debt under all circumstances, except such as were of an extraordinary nature, provided the Finance Minister of the day did his duty, and the House of Commons supported him in the endeavour to keep the public expenditure within due bounds. But if the executive Government and Parliament were possessed with a spirit of extravagance, and there was a sort of rivalry between Governments, and upon every occasion it was endeavoured to show how much larger the views of the Government of the day were than those of their predecessors—if the House of Commons urged upon the Government, or the Government urged upon the House increased expenses and the Government met the extravagant views of the House with but a feeble resistance, or the House fell in without resistance to the extravagant views of the Government, they would go on from bad to worse, and to talk of providing a sinking fund was useless and absurd. The true secret of an effectual sinking fund lay in public economy—and the provisions of the Act of 1829 he maintained were amply sufficient to secure all that was necessary, provided the House of Commons and the Government continued to abide by an honest desire and a strenuous effort to bring the expenditure of the country within reasonable bounds, and to reduce the public burdens as far as possible. His hon. Friend had been able to show that in former years much had been done in the way of sinking fund, but that was not so much because of any technical provisions of the law, but because Parliament and the Executive had felt that extravagance was one of the most threatening public evils, and that it was their most sacred duty to the people of England to preserve a due balance between income and expenditure, and to restrict that expenditure to objects expedient and necessary for the national welfare. And he was bound to say, although, perhaps, he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, that he could have wished to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a somewhat stiffer and more rigid doctrine on the subject of surplus revenue. The sound doctrine he took to be this—that it was the duty of Parliament in time of peace to make such financial arrangements from year to year as should secure the application of a considerable sum to the reduction of debt. Nor was it enough to say, "In this year we had a bad harvest, and in that year there was commercial embarrassment;" that was no sufficient reason in his mind for making an addition to the public debt; for when they spoke of a deficiency it meant generally (provide for it as they might) an addition to the national debt. Looking to the Finance Minister as the oracle of sound doctrine in that House on that subject, he hoped he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman as implying that such incidents as bad harvests, large armaments, or commercial depression, are sufficient to prevent the provision of surplus revenue. Intending to vote with the right hon. Gentleman, and thinking that he was right in doing away with the sinking fund of 1855, he wished not to be misunderstood with regard to the doctrine which ought to be held on the question of surplus revenue, which appeared to him to have been laid down less stringently than the times required. He could not consent to regard the public debt as a matter to be looked at with indifference, much less as one of the incidents of the State to be borne with content and satisfaction. It was, in his view, a most serious and grievous evil, the pressure of which did not fall on the possessors of property, but was felt in the condition of the masses of the people. On them the burden fell. By the consumption of capital in war you raised the price of capital, and so eventually added to the burdens of the people. He should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt himself in a position to make a bolder and larger provision for meeting the expenditure of the year, but under the circumstances he did not think that he was open to censure on that account. He trusted that the House would adhere to the principle which was established by the Act of 1829: but he was convinced that they made no advance towards the observance of that principle by endeavouring to impose on future Parliaments obligations which by their acts they showed that they were not themselves prepared to perform.

said, he was not prepared to support the Motion of his hon. Friend on the ground of contract, because he did not understand that the subscribers to these loans were, by the clauses in the Act of Parliament, entitled to any priority over the other national creditors. He was quite prepared to argue the question upon the ground chosen by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), who had, he thought, placed the question on the fair issue when he asked—did they prefer a natural Sinking Fund, a Sinking Fund resting on an annual surplus, or what he called an artificial Sinking Fund? What the right hon. Gentleman called a natural Sinking Fund was the surplus which, under the existing law, was applicable to the redemption of the debt after the whole of the expenditure of the year had been defrayed. At present the Finance Minister was not bound to make any provision for the reduction of debt beyond the interest of the terminable annuities. If there should be any surplus in the revenue beyond the expenditure of the year, then the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were bound, under the provisions of the Act of 1829, to apply it to the redemption of the debt. But the analogy between the income of an individual and that of the State, which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of a natural surplus, scarcely held good. The nation had no regular income—no income except what came to it by votes of Parliament made upon the proposal of the Minister; and if the Minister did not provide for a surplus, the natural surplus of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke could have no existence. The principle he had endeavoured to establish, and which was embodied in these clauses, went to the provision of a surplus for a particular purpose, which should not be dependent upon accident or upon the volition of the Finance Minister for the time being. The right hon. Gentleman might call that artificial; but it was artificial only in this sense, namely, that it rested upon positive enactment, and the Finance Minister would be bound, unless Parliament interfered to stay the operation of the Act, to provide the ways and means to meet it. Considering the pressure always brought to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce expenditure, he confessed he thought that course was a wise one, and would lead to a more certain reduction of the National Debt than would arise if the matter were left to the chances of a voluntary and natural surplus. This view of the ease was confirmed by experience, because in the five years from 1823 to 1827 inclusive, when we had an artificial Sinking Fund, and were under an obligation to lay aside five millions a year, a surplus of more than that amount was provided, although 1825 and 1826 were years of great and peculiar distress. He must say that lie did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that a bad harvest or commercial distress would be reasons for creating a deficit which should be met by loans, but only that when we suffered from such evils it would be unwise to make a surplus for the redemption of debt. To a certain extent he agreed with that doctrine, but it was a principle which ought to be laid down with great reserve, and he should doubt extremely its application to the circumstances of the present year. What his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) stated with regard to the income tax was, that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had allowed the existing rate, as it stood at the beginning of the year, to fall under the operation of the law, and made no effort to keep it up to that amount; and he (Sir G. C. Lewis) very much doubted whether the commercial distress of last November furnished any valid reason against the continuance of the tax at the sevenpenny rate, for let it be remembered that the reduction would only operate this year to the extent of a million, or a penny in the pound, which was the whole amount of the relief which would be afforded. He could not but think that an artificial Sinking Fund, founded as it was on the principle of making it imperative upon the Government to provide a certain amount every year towards the reduction of the debt, was sound and wise in principle. That which was now stigmatized as "artificial" was a principle that had always been acted upon by the House when they conferred powers of raising money upon subordinate bodies for local objects. When Parliament allowed corporations and other local bodies to borrow money upon the security of local taxation, they invariably imposed upon such bodies the condition of providing an artificial Sinking Fund, and required that a part of the debt should be paid off by that means every year, allowing twenty or twenty-five years, as the case might be, for the payment of the whole, and the same principle was followed by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners with regard to all loans made by them for carrying on public works. No doubt, with regard to the national expenditure and income, there were difficulties which did not exist in these subordinate bodies; but, nevertheless, he thought the principle was a sound one, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of postponing the payment of the Sinking Fund, should propose to repeal it; and that in laying down the doctrine of the equitable principle of providing in each year for some diminution of the public debt, he had made so little effort to carry it out.

said, he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) for a most interesting discussion, but he was afraid it would not be wise to adopt the Resolution which he had proposed. The adoption of that Resolution would only be, on the part of the House, a new prospective engagement with regard to the liquidation of debt. Now, nothing was easier than to make prospective engagements; the difficulty was to keep them. Let them consider whether they were in a position from their performances to enter into new voluntary engagements. They began this year with Parliamentary obligations to pay two debts—namely, £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds and £1,500,000 in connection with the very Sinking Fund now under discussion. What did they do with regard to the bonds? By the almost unanimous consent of the House the time for their payment was postponed. It was in their power either to pay the £2,000,000 of bonds or to reduce the income tax by 2d., and they adopted the alternative, not of fulfilling their obligations, but of permitting a fall in our taxation. That certainly was not encouraging for them to enter into new verbal engagements. How stood the case with respect to the statutory Sinking Fund of 1855? The right hon. Member for Radnor had said that it was paid in the balance-sheet of last year. Yes, it was paid, but then the balance-sheet did not exhibit a surplus; on the contrary, it exhibited a deficiency greater than the sum charged on the other side for the Sinking Fund. If, therefore, even as regarded the last year, their performances were not so brilliant, what was the prospect for the present year? Why, the hon. Member himself did not propose that any payment should be made to the Sinking Fund in the present year. He accepted the Budget as an accomplished fact, and merely proposed that they should enter into obligations to renew their payments in some future year. Again, he said, their performances did not warrant their entering into any such engagement. The right hon. Member for Radnor had said that they always imposed conditions of this kind upon inferior bodies when they permitted them to borrow money. The difference between those bodies and Parliament was, however, very marked. Such bodies had no power to repeal their Acts of Parliament, and therefore it was not a verbal obligation, but a binding arrangement which was imposed upon them. But experience showed that the House of Commons having the power to repeal its Acts did repeal them; so that those Acts became practically inoperative, or, what was worse, had only the effect of inducing the Government to borrow more recklessly than they would do if they relied solely upon the ordinary and natural operation of their financial arrangements for the liquidation of debt. He agreed with the remarks which had been made with regard to what was a true Sinking Fund. Magnum vectigal est parsimonia; it must be accomplished by retrenchment of expenditure, by a jealous and vigilant economy, such as we had not seen of late years to the same extent as formerly. He trusted, moreover, that when by such means they had attained a surplus revenue, they would bear in mind the remark of the right hon. Member for Oxford University, that the chief burden of the debt fell upon the labouring classes, and in future remissions would not forget those indirect taxes which bore upon the working man and fettered the energies of trade. The abolition or reduction of duties of that description formed of itself an available Sinking Fund, for if they referred to the history of the past fifteen years, during which so large an amount of indirect taxes had been repealed, they would find, not only that the sources of revenue had produced far larger sums at a lower rate of taxation, thereby contributing more to the Treasury while bearing with less severity upon the people, but that in every year the result of that increase had outstripped the most sanguine anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the surplus at the end of the year had always been far larger than he ventured to announce as probable at the beginning, and that a sum had thus appeared at every quarter day, which, under the statute of 1829, was applicable only to the liquidation of public debt.

said, he quite agreed that the hon. Member for Devonport had done good service in calling attention to the public debt. He rose, however, for the purpose of directing attention to the fact that it was impossible to ascertain at any given period what was the exact amount of the public debt. It was quite possible that, without a single act on the part of that House, the funded debt might amount next year, not to £808,000,000 but to £816,000,000. During the war with Russia he believed a large amount of savings-bank stock had been applied to the purchase of Exchequer Bills. The amount so converted into unfunded debt was £7,600,000. By an odd construction of an Act of Parliament, if these were hereafter funded it must be at the average price of the quarter in which the bills were purchased. At that rate these bills would yield £8,624,000 of funded debt, and the Minister could fund that amount without any control of the House upon him. In fact the whole system of savings banks was an engine for increasing our funded debt, and unless some check were created it was impossible to say what might be the amount of it in any one year. The hon. Member for Devonport had pointed out the necessity of a Committee on the subject. One of the inquiries of such a Committee ought to be into the way in which the funded debt had been created. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford that the true Sinking Fund was a rigid economy of the public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Radnor had departed from the principle laid down by the right hon. Member for Oxford, and had borrowed largely. He feared that it would be seen that monstrous extravagance had taken place in the expenditure of the public money. He could not vote for the Motion, because he had no faith in abstract Resolutions; but while he thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, Her Majesty's Government had taken a prudent course for the present year, he hoped that the next year's Estimates would be framed on a different scale.

said, it seemed to him that there were two questions raised by the very interesting speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. One was of an abstract nature, relating to the mode of treating the public debt and the endeavours which should be made to diminish it. The other, which under the circumstances his hon. Friend could not help calling attention to, was the subject of the financial arrangements of the year. As to the first point, he entirely differed from his hon. Friend. He remembered the old Sinking Fund and the defence which was made for it. That defence was, that in time of war, when they had to raise large sums, the Sinking Fund contributed to keep up the price of the funds. But the effect could not have been great, because, if the Government wanted a loan of fourteen millions, they had to make it twenty in order to enable them to keep up the payment to the Sinking Fund; and by so much it acted on the public securities. Whatever might be the advantage of being able in years of prosperity to apply any surplus that existed in the Sinking Fund in times of depression, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to go into the market and create as much debt as he destroyed, or else the Sinking Fund was not applied to the public debt, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer never attempted in times of distress to lay on new taxes which would be oppressive to the people at a time when their burdens required to be lightened. He thought, therefore, that the old Sinking Fund was a bad thing, while he was of opinion that the measure of 1829, which provided that half the actual surplus should be applied to the extinction of the debt, was founded on sound principles, and effected a great improvement in the old practice. He did not regret, therefore, that they were going back to it. Another question had been raised, and that was the financial proceedings of the present year. He owned that while he thought it unwise to say that any fixed sum should be applied to the reduction of the National Debt, yet he believed it necessary to a sound system of finance to have a real surplus. Nothing but such an extreme of distress as made the revenue fall below the amount it might naturally be expected to produce should prevent our having a regular application of surplus revenue for the purpose of reducing the debt. Now, he could not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this year made any provision for such a surplus. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that the country was in such distress as that the income tax could not have been retained at its existing rate; for it was during the first six months of the year that the income tax of 7d. in the pound was levied, and it was only during the commercial distress before Christmas that it was felt. He thought it was unwise to part with one million, for this two millions for the next year, which, if not absolutely required for other purposes, might have been uselessly employed in the reduction of the public debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to notice a statement of his hon. Friend, to which reference had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in stating his budget had taken credit for a reduction of £800,000 in the Estimates, and his hon. Friend had said that the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken back a part of the £400,000 which had been part of the reduction in the Naval and Military Estimates. It was desirable that it should be known how much of that £400,000 had been so taken back. There was also another statement of his hon. Friend which required some answer in explanation, and that was with reference to £400,000 said to be reduced in the Civil Services Estimates. As to a great part of this sum, they knew that it was no reduction of expenditure in the present year, but a reduction of the Vote on the ground that the sums granted in the past year exceeded the money actually expended. The revenue would not be in excess by a single pound in consequence of that change. £800,000 was a considerable item to be looked to, with so small a surplus as the revenue expected front bankers' cheques; and it was desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have stated exactly how the matter stood. It was now some time since the budget had been brought forward, and the House ought to know if there was to be a surplus, and from what source it was to arise. It could not arise from the alleged reduction of £400,000 in the expenditure of the Army and Navy, and it must be small if it was to be derived from any other source. He thought it would be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, on an early day, to make a statement on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford said that the best Sinking Fund should be made to arise from economy in expenditure. He regretted—although he did not blame the present Government for it—that such large sums had been voted in this and last year, and that the defences of the country were so inadequate to the money voted. The whole subject required revision. It must be most disappointing to the House and the country that there should be voted Estimates to such a large amount, and that when they spoke of our naval and military preparations they were checked on items which might be necessary for the defence of the country. The subject required the serious consideration of the House, and he hoped that next year they would have a more satisfactory prospect in that respect than they had at present.

observed, that some articles of food were still the subjects of taxation, and if we intended to do justice to the industrial population of the country we must abolish those taxes. He could not support the Motion, but he thought the hon. Member's suggestion for the appointment of a Finance Committee a sound suggestion.

said, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Resolution relating to military organization which was adopted by the House on Tuesday the 1st day of June. He was exceedingly unwilling at that hour to offer any opposition to the Motion that the Speaker leave the chair, but he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to the somewhat unsatisfactory and almost unprecedented position in which the Resolution passed by the House stood, in consequence of the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 3rd of June to a question asked by an hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walsh). The question was, whether it was the intention of the Government to take any notice of the Resolution adopted by the House on the Tuesday preceding, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that, considering the importance of the question, the comparatively small number of hon. Members who divided, and the bareness of the majority, it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the Resolution. To a further question, whether it was the intention of the Government to give the House any opportunity of rescinding its Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman stated that he did aot understand the question, at the same time repeating that it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the Resolution either in or out of the House. He did not now intend to detain the House by any lengthened remarks on the merits of the Resolution adopted on the 1st of June, but he would take this opportunity to remove the impression that it was the intention of those who supported the Resolution to do away with the office of Commander in Chief, and to place the whole control of the army under a civilian. It was said that in consequence of this supposed intention the army was entirely opposed to the change proposed by him. He was certainly not in a position to say what were the entire opinions of the army on the subject, but he had had the advantage of communicating and conversing with many gentlemen of the military profession of all grades, and though he should be wrong in saying that they unanimously concurred in opinion with him, in respect to the change he proposed, yet he might say that the majority of opinions was decidedly in favour of some such change, and in condemnation of the present system. And why should the army be in its favour? Had it been found so efficient in times of emergency, and so perfectly organized as to administer to the army even the common necessaries they required? The army did not forget the misfortunes of the Crimea, and attributed them, he believed rightly, to the want of proper organization in the military departments at home. The army knew that while they were almost starving on the heights before Sebastopol, heaps of provi- ions of all kinds were locked up in the harbour of Balaklava, but that those provisions could not be circulated among them because a proper system was not organized among the various departments whose duty it was to circulate them. There was one voice, now silent in the grave, which he wished could still be heard in that House. He wished that one who had made it his study to observe what occurred at the time were now present to describe the wretched scenes he witnessed in the hospitals at Scutari and in the Crimea; for he would repeat, what he had often stated, that the whole medical system of the army was totally and entirely wanting in efficiency, the result of the want of proper organization. When the army found our military system to be in such a condition, why should they wish that it should continue? Why should they desire a system in which advancement was owing to interest rather than to merit? He did not blame the present Commander in Chief, who had done all in his power to remedy the evil, but who was rendered powerless by the system. The army was for efficiency and justice, and they cared not whence they came so that they obtained them. He did not seek to transfer the duties connected with the command and the discipline of the army from the Commander in Chief; but he believed that the present position of the Commander in Chief must be unsatisfactory to himself, and certainly was very unsatisfactory to the country, for the highest authorities differed as to the point whether that officer was or was not responsible to the Minister. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (General Peel) considered the Commander in Chief entirely irresponsible as regarded the military control and discipline of the army; but the right hon. Member for Wiltshire declared that the Commander in Chief was completely under the control of the Minister for War. The Duke of Newcastle, on the other hand, considered neither of those authorities right, and thought that the present position of the Commander in Chief involved the Minister for War in legal though not moral responsibilities. Only the other night a question was asked as to whether the old power vested in the Commander in Chief of selling Commissions for certain purposes existed or not. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite replied that the practice had been discontinued. He (Captain Vivian) ventured to ask whether it was in the power of the Commander in Chief to sell commissions, and his right hon. and gallant Friend replied in the negative. The hon. and gallant Member might be right in his view, but if that were the case, he (Captain Vivian) thought it was a strong argument in favour of the concentration of authority which he advocated. The Commander in Chief was dealing every day with large sums of public money; he was giving away, day by day, commissions which represented public money, because every commission so bestowed must eventually be sold, or the recipient would be entitled to half-pay from the public purse when a reduction of the army took place. It appeared, however, that the Commander in Chief, who could give away these commissions, had not the power of selling them for the public advantage, if he thought it advisable to adopt such a course. He (Captain Vivian) thought the better course would be to place the power of selling or giving commissions in the hands of a responsible Minister. He by no means wished to vest the patronage of the army in the House of Commons; and if the change he had proposed should be adopted, it would, in his opinion, be necessary by some strict and rigid rule to prevent the patronage of the army from being exposed to the influence of political corruption. He conceived, however, that the Minister for War should have the power, if he thought right, to sell commissions for the advantage of the public. Such a course had been pursued to some extent by the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) when he was Secretary at War. During his period of office he had sold 100 commissions for £45,000, and his conduct in that respect had been very severely criticised in some quarters. He (Captain Vivian, and those who agreed in his views, did not wish to abolish the office of Commander in Chief, or to transfer the control and military discipline of the army to a civilian; but they were of opinion that the office of Commander in Chief should form part of a great military system, which should be under the presidency of a responsible Minister. That was the case in France. It had not been deemed advisable to publish the Report of the British officers who had inquired into the organization of the military system of France, but be believed it was no violation of confidence to state that they had strongly recommended to Her Majesty's Government the adoption of the great fundamental principle of the French military system—the consolidation of authority under one head. The same principle was adopted in Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia. When the Resolution he had proposed on this subject received the assent of the House, he thought that great progress had been made, but his delusion was soon dispelled, for at the very next meeting of the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was not the intention of the Government to take any notice of the Resolution, on account of the small majority by which it was adopted. There were 214 hon. Members present when the division took place, and on the following day he saw in the newspapers a list of about 100 hon. Gentlemen who had paired for and against the Motion. He also observed that some hon. Members had been accidentally shut out from the division, and he had received private communications from many Gentlemen who stated that, had they been present, they would have given him their support. As the question was admitted to be one of great importance, he would ask why, if the Government objected to his Resolution, they had not brought down as many of their ordinary supporters as they could muster to aid them in their opposition. It was not for him to explain their absence; but at all events, he should have expected to see all the Members of Her Majesty's Government present on that occasion. However, five or six of the ordinary occupants of the Treasury bench were absent, and neither the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who on a former occasion made an excellent speech advocating precisely the view he (Captain Vivian) took, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a word in opposition. He could only presume that the absent Members of Her Majesty's Government felt so strongly the force of his case that they were not able to vote against the Resolution. It was said the Resolution was carried by a bare majority; but would not a dangerous principle be established if it were left to the caprice of a Minister to determine what was a majority which justified the action of the Government? If such a principle had been admitted in former times, many most important decisions of that House would have been utterly disregarded. Why, during Lord Melbourne's Administration parties in Parliament were so equally divided that the Government possessed what was ironically called "a good working majority of three." If the Chancellor of the Exche- quer had come down and said the House had been taken by surprise, that he could not regard the vote as a fair reflection of the opinion of the House, and that he intended to take an early opportunity of testing that opinion again by moving that the Resolution be read at the table and rescinded, no complaint could have been made of such a course; but he (Captain Vivian) submitted whether it was not a somewhat discourteous proceeding that the leader of the House of Commons should by one short sentence dispose of a Resolution of which ample notice had been given, which had been fully debated, and which had received the approval of a majority of the House. For his own part, he regarded this question as one of very great importance, and it was acquiring so much interest in the public mind that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would feel it necessary to reverse the decision which, on the part of the Government, he had announced. He (Captain Vivian) would await the result patiently. He felt confident that, if not this Session, at all events during the next, the Government would adopt the principle embodied in his Resolution; but if they (did not so, he (Captain Vivian) held himself perfectly free to take whatever course he might think advisable to carry out a principle which had received the sanction of the House.

; —Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought forward this question with so much candour and temper that I lose not a moment, Sir, in replying to the speech which he has just addressed to the House. I do so the more willingly because I cannot help feeling that there has been a great misconception on his part as to the course which I pursued in reference to the Resolution which he moved some days since, and I think that I shall be able to show to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the House that I have taken no unusual course, and that I have done nothing and said nothing with respect to his Motion which I did not believe it to be my duty both to do and to say. I will not enter into any argument upon the important subject of the original Motion, because it is evident that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not invite discussion upon this occasion; but that his wish is to place himself in a clear light before the country. I did not, certainly, express any opinion upon the subject when the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought it before the House, because the division which was arrived at unexpectedly took place after a most complete speech in opposition to the Motion from the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston), and it appeared to me to be awkward and inconvenient that I should rise immediately after the noble Lord to repeat the same arguments with less force and to urge the same views with less authority. It is always a disagreeable thing to follow in debate an hon. Member who takes the same view as yourself, and for me to follow one who spoke with great authority on the subject, and who seemed entirely to settle the merits of the question, was, I thought, unnecessary; and it was out of no disrespect, therefore, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or indifference to the importance of the subject, that I did not speak upon that occasion. Well, Sir, that Motion was carried very unexpectedly; and notwithstanding the ingenious gloss which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has placed upon it, I think that it was carried very much to the surprise of the whole House. I will not analyze the number of Members present, the Members absent, or the Members that may be supposed to have been neither present nor absent. I will only say that the Motion was carried by a very bare majority; and surely a bare majority in the case of a Resolution is not to be regarded in the same light as an overwhelming majority. I admit the importance of majorities. One may go further back than the time of Lord Melbourne, when a slight majority sustained the Government for many years. Some of the most important events in our history, some of the statutes on which our liberties depend, were carried by the slightest majorities. I could refer to many instances of this sort, and no doubt the retentive memory of the noble Lord the Member for London supplies him at this moment with a variety. But they were majorities which sanctioned legislation, and, when legislation was arrived at, every one without a mumur accepted the decision of the House. In cases where repeated opportunities are given for discussion, and every means are taken to prevent measures being hurried to a precipitate conclusion, then, however slight may be the majority—though it should be as slight as that which decided the Act of Settlement, which was one of the smallest I believe in historical record—the House at once bows to that which is the only practical test—the will of the majority. But that is not the position in which a Resolution stands, and it never has been admitted, when the House has arrived at a Resolution, that that Resolution is to be irrevocable or is to bind the decision of the House, except for that particular occasion and that particular stage; and it is quite legitimate, when a Resolution is carried by a bare majority, that that fact should be mentioned in Parliament, as it has often been by those far more competent than myself who have filled the office which I now occupy. Look at what has happened in our own time, and see the cases in which a Minister has not thought it necessary either to act upon a Resolution, or to call upon the House to express an opinion contrary to the Resolution. There was the Resolution, for example, declaring that in the opinion of this House it was desirable that the votes at the election of Members of Parliament should be taken by Ballot. That was carried a few years ago, but no action was taken upon it. Again, the endowment of Maynooth was denounced in this House, and a Resolution embodying that feeling was carried, but no notice was taken of it. Again, my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on more than one occasion brought forward a Motion and vanquished the Government with respect to Irish distilleries, yet no Minister ever acted upon those significant expressions of the House. It may be said that in all those cases the Motion was for leave to bring in a Bill, and that that makes a distinction. Literally there is a distinction, but virtually there is none. No one will for a moment pretend that, if they had been simple Resolutions, the Minister would have acted on them, or would have been expected to act on them. It is hypocrisy to pretend it; but I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the advantage of that objection. But much more recently we have had simple Resolutions carried upon subjects of equal importance with that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has introduced, and in none has the Minister thought it necessary to act upon them. In 1855 there had been a Committee on the salaries of public officers, and they had reported in favour of a great reduction in the diplomatic salaries. No notice was taken of the recommendation of that Committee, and an hon. Gentleman brought forward a Resolution in which he called on the House to express an opinion that the recommendation of the Committee should immediately be carried out. There was a debate. The Motion was opposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and he was defeated by a majority, not of one or two, but of fifty or sixty. What happened? Why, the noble Lord never took any notice whatever of that Resolution. And now we are told that not to take notice of a Resolution is "unsatisfactory and unprecedented." Unsatisfactory it may be, but I think I have shown the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not unprecedented. But not only did the noble Lord take no notice of that Resolution, he did more. The Committee to which I have alluded had particularly attacked the whole of our diplomatic service in Germany, and they recommended that the missions at the smaller Courts should be immediately terminated. After the Resolution was carried in this House, a vacancy occurred in a mission at one of those very German Courts to which the opinion of the Committee particularly referred, and what happened? Why, the noble Lord, whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman so consistently supports, took this notice of the opinion of the Committee, and of the Resolution of the House—that he immediately filled up the vacancy. Then, why did not some hon. and gallant Gentleman come forward and notice the "unsatisfactory and unprecedented" conduct of the noble Lord? The noble Lord complained of me for giving a cavalier answer to a question put to me; but he did not give even that—in words at least—although he behaved much more cavalierly than I ever did, for he acted in direct opposition to a Resolution of the House which was carried by a large majority. But I do not take the same uncharitable view of the noble Lord's conduct which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so ready to take of mine. I have no doubt that the noble Lord acted from a strong feeling of public duty, and that he took a very different view of the value and importance of those German missions from that which had been taken by the Committee and by the House. The noble Lord therefore—acting, no doubt, upon what he believed to be best for the public service—left the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution to take those further steps which the forms of the House offer in Supply to an hon. Member in such a position, in case the Minister does not carry out a Resolution which has been agreed to. The principles upon which the diplomatic service and the military administration shall be conducted are, doubtless, important questions; but surely the Civil Service of the country is not of inferior importance. The means by which the greatest amount of ability may be infused into the Civil Service, and the principles upon which that service is to be regulated, are questions deeply interesting to the public mind. They became the subject of discussion in the House, and a noble Lord (Viscount Goderich)—who thought the competitive system had not been fairly acted upon by the Government—brought forward a Resolution, which was carried by a majority opposed to the Minister. What happened? The Minister never took any notice of the Resolution, and the Minister was, I believe, the same distinguished man to whom I have already referred. Many persons may have thought it unsatisfactory. No one got up and said it was unprecedented; and surely, when we found a Resolution respecting the military service of the country carried unexpectedly, and, as the hon. and gallant Member admits, by a bare majority, in a not very full House, it was my duty to consider well the course which I and my colleagues ought to take, what was the practice of the House, and what were the precedents which, under the circumstances, ought to guide us. Sir, I cannot find that, in anything that I have done or said, I have exceeded my duty. I might have fenced with the question. I might have given an evasive answer. I might have played with the question for the rest of the Session. I might have kept hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. and gallant Member himself (Captain Vivian) quiet by holding out some idea that we were considering the point. But having considered the subject, and having a decided opinion upon it, I thought it was only due to the House clearly and frankly to express what was our opinion, so that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends might not say they had been deceived and lost time in consequence of the evasive answer of the Government. I do not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vivian) really complains of my answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh). He cannot deny that it was frank, and I hope the House will not think it was discourteous. But another hon. Gentleman, as I thought, most unnecessarily, put another question, and my answer to him is styled by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton a cavalier answer. I cannot imagine that any hon. Gentleman, wherever he may sit, supposes that I could ever intentionally have acted with discourtesy to any one here. My highest hope and wish have ever been to enjoy, if possible, the respect and the good feeling of all Members of this House, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman must, on reflection, see that, placed as I am here to conduct the business of the Government, I have to depend on the gentlemanlike kindness of Members, whatever may be their opinions, and am the last person, from my own interest, and I hope from disposition, to be wanting in courtesy to any hon. Gentleman. But I will confess that what I said may have been liable to misinterpretation, because neither I nor the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench clearly understood the meaning of that second inquiry. I said that I had a difficulty in answering because I did not understand the nature of the inquiry. I had stated to the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) that it was not our intention to take any steps upon the Resolution; and being asked whether we should take any other steps than that in this House, I said that neither in this House nor in any other place was it our intention to take any other step. And I am still at a loss to understand why it is supposed, from that answer, that I said anything discourteous. This I will say, that it was not so intended; and if I have ever said anything at any time painful to the feelings of any hon. Gentleman, I sincerely regret it. But let that pass. I have stated to the House the precedents with regard to the order of business in Parliament, which guided us in the course which we adopted; and until I hear a sufficient answer to those observations, I cannot for a moment see that the course which we took was not perfectly regular and straightforward. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to me not to have understood the position in which by a fortunate accident he found himself. I am willing to admit that he showed great ability, and spoke like a man who ought to have carried a Resolution; but it is not the first time I have seen men who really deserve success, and have laboured to attain it, embarrassed by unexpected good fortune. It is said that a bird never makes so much noise as when it lays the first egg; and I can easily conceive that in carrying his first Resolution, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was overpowered with excitement. But, after all, laying the first egg is only a very natural operation. So carrying a Resolution is really in the due course of Parliamentary nature; and although it is not the fortune of many to meet with such good chances, everybody should be prepared fur the success which he may perhaps have never anticipated. What is carrying a Resolution? You have a declaration of the House of Commons to a certain extent, and on a certain occasion, to give you warrant to proceed in the path where you have already been so successful. But, instead of proceeding in the path, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, stupefied with triumph, turns round upon the Government and says, "I call on you to act. I have gained the opinion of the House of Commons in favour of the policy which I recommend. I shrink from pursuing that policy, and I ask you to come forward and rescind my Resolution. I had embarked in an enterprise in which I did not expect to be successful; but, trembling at the possibility of success, I looked forward to the safety-valve of a Minister who should rescind my Resolution." I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think his observations, to use his own language, are unsatisfactory and unprecedented. There have been, indeed, instances of Resolutions rescinded in this House. I remember two, and in both those instances, with regard to the malt duty and the sugar duty, it was absolutely necessary to rescind them, because if left unnoticed, they would have affected the revenue of the country. The Minister must either at once have given up the responsibility of office, or asked the House to take a course to maintain the fiscal system already sanctioned. But this is a different case. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had his choice between acting on the Resolution and introducing a Bill, or retiring into that select circle in which he would meet the hon. Gentleman who carried a Resolution in the diplomatic, and the noble Lord who carried a Resolution on the civil service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not content with either course. He will neither ask the House to assist in carrying his policy into effect nor rest contented with the barren triumph he has already achieved; but he rates and scolds the Ministers because they will not take upon themselves either to act upon the Resolution or to rescind it in the Journals of the House. I maintain that the course which we have taken has been the Parliamentary course—the course which precedent justifies—the courteous awl frank course—the course which was due to the House from any one who pretended to carry on its affairs, and that we have done only that which is our duty to do throughout these transactions. The hon. and gallant Member has adduced many instances of what is done by France, Austria, and other great military States as precedents, but I cannot forget that the laws, manners, and customs of England are different from those of these great military States. If the Commander in Chief were really irresponsible I should be ready to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman in considering a position so anomalous to the constitution and so injurious to the service. But knowing, as I practically do every day of my life, that he is under the direct authority of a Secretary of State, that he can do nothing without the approval of that Secretary of State, I am not only content, but I rejoice to know that, while the discipline of the army is left to the Commander in Chief, and while its civil administration devolves upon the Secretary of State, yet that the Commander in Chief is practically responsible upon all questions to the Minister of the day, and that Minister to Parliament. That division which confers upon the Commander in Chief the discipline and upon the Secretary of State the civil administration of the army is a system consistent with the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to the Minister, and of the Minister to Parliament, and is more consistent with our constitutional system than would be any of the centralized military systems to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred. I trust that we shall not hear anything more on this subject until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has formed more mature views than I have heard in this House to-night, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that, with regard to the patronage of the army, he should be sorry to see that corrupting element introduced into the House of Commons. What we want in questions of this kind is, that Reformers should come forward with plans. We do not want mere announcements and windy Resolutions upon great changes, with a salvo that when they are discussed the obvious difficulties which surround them will be removed. Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends come forward with plans to meet these obvious difficulties, and they will then assume a more commanding position than at present. I wish to speak with respect of a majority of this House, even when it is a majority of one or two. Such a majority might be unanswerable if it occurred, for example, on the last stage of a Bill. But when the hon. and gallant Gentleman vindicates his majority from all criticism, when he says that it ought to guard his Resolution from all further objection, and when he assumes that the opinion of the House so expressed must not be revoked or doubted, there I must join issue with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I trust that the House will excuse me for proving that we are taking no other course than that which has been frequently and properly taken before. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings this question before us again, with a fair notice, I will undertake that there shall be no lack of discussion, and that, so far as we are concerned, his Resolution shall meet with that complete and ample deliberation which I admit it certainly deserves.

The right hon. Gentleman has said, and has said truly, that the precedents alluded to, of the practice of certain Continental States, do not apply to this country, because we have a free constitution. The difference is, that we have a representative Assembly, the resolutions and opinions of which receive respect. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has also said, that whatever may be the Resolutions of this House, it is for the Minister to decide whether they shall be carried into effect. It is for him to say. This Resolution was carried by a certain number, and in a thin or full House, and we will take this or that course in regard to it. But I do not think that matters ought to rest in their present state. It is quite impossible that the Resolutions of this House can be constantly and continually held at nought by the advisers of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman says, there are precedents for the course which the Government have taken, but they all, except one, turn out to be inapplicable. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Resolutions passed by the House upon the ballot, and on various other subjects upon which no Resolution would be valid without an Act of Parliament. He then quotes the precedent of the Resolution moved by my noble Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Viscount Goderich). But that precedent was inapplicable, because my noble Friend moved a preliminary Resolution as a preface to another Resolution that was to be carried on a future day. But when that future day came, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a course which was satisfactory to my noble Friend, and he moved a Resolution which I think met with the unanimous concurrence of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted one, I confess, and that is the precedent when a Motion was made that the Government should carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the diplomatic service. My noble Friend the Member for Tiverton opposed that Resolution. I believe that the Resolution was inexpedient, but no doubt it was carried by a majority of this House, and I do not think it was right on the part of the Government of that day to neglect the vote of that majority. In my opinion the Government of my noble Friend was bound to take some action on that vote, or else to come down and ask the House for a contrary vote. The Resolution now in question was not brought forward as preliminary to the introduction of a Bill. A Bill would have been quite out of place, because this Resolution referred to a matter of administrative regulation. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) proposed an administrative Resolution which, in his opinion, it was advisable for the Crown to carry into effect by an administrative measure. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think it right to carry into effect this Resolution, and if he thought it carried in a thin House, somewhat by surprise, and by a majority of only two, the proper course would be for him to propose to the House to rescind that Resolution. But I submit that it is not consistent with the dignity and position in the constitution of this House that Resolutions upon its Journals should be allowed to remain, and that they should be habitually neglected, despised, and set at nought. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is right in not proposing to carry his Resolution any further during the present Session. The Session was advanced at the time he proposed it, and it is very much further advanced now. But I hope he will feel it due not only to himself, but to the House, next Session to ask the House to inquire what are the relations of the Minister of War and the Commander in Chief, and what ought to be those relations. I took no part in the debate, but I must say this, that my hon. and gallant Friend made a very able speech, characterized by great diffidence, and by no tempt to overbear the House, and that he did not deserve those remarks by which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to discredit him in the opinion of this House. My hon. and gallant Friend said—and he repeated it more emphatically in his reply—"What I propose is not to take away the command and control of the military discipline from the Commander in Chief." The whole argument of those who opposed my hon. and gallant Friend went upon this supposition, that he proposed that a civilian should take the entire control of the discipline and command of the army. It was evident, therefore, that one party were defending one proposition, and that the other were attaching another and totally different proposition. I think that the matter is one which requires further inquiry. I do not think that any Commander in Chief, who is wise and discreet, is likely to set at nought the opinion of this House. I remember going to the Duke of Wellington at the time Sir John Bowring proposed to move a Resolution on the subject of flogging in the army. Now, you could not more vitally affect the discipline of the army than by introducing into this House a Resolution on such a matter as that; but the Duke of Wellington did not despise the opinion of this House; he knew the powerful influence it possessed, and how much weight attached to the expression of public opinion in this country, and he showed me a proposition he had framed to meet the Motion that was to be made by Sir John Bowling. That proposition was moderate and sensible in itself, and enabled me to meet the Motion when it was brought forward. I hold, then, that the Commander in Chief must always be responsible to the opinion of this House and the country. But then the question is still one of very great doubt as to what the actual condition of the Commander in Chief is. It is irregular to refer to the precise expressions employed, but some hon. Gentlemen, in the course of the debate that formerly took place, used language that seemed to imply that the Commander in Chief should have absolute and irresponsible control. Now, that cannot be the case in this country. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seems very nearly to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, for he said the Commander in Chief should always act with the sanction of the Secretary of State for War. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: He does so act.] That makes it stronger. He does act with the sanction of the Secretary for War; but still inquiry would put matters on a sure and proper footing, and pre- vent the confusion and misunderstanding that may possibly arise. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has called forth this explanation. He was perfectly right in the argument he used when he brought forward his original Motion, that you cannot have two authorities to regulate one and the same matter without causing confusion; one authority must be supreme. As to placing the discipline and the patronage of the army under party and political influences, nothing was further from the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that next Session of Parliament we shall have some inquiry upon this point. There are other parts of the service that require further regulation and better organization. I have no wish that this matter should be unduly pressed. I remember that the gallant General now at the head of the War Department, when out of office and sitting on the Opposition benches, showed a commendable anxiety for the improvement of the civil department of the army; I have no doubt he shows the same anxiety now, and that he is doing all in his power to improve the position of that important branch of the service; but the authority of this House may be of great value in assisting him in these efforts, and he should not therefore refuse to submit to any inquiry that the House may wish to institute. I hope, in conclusion, that such an inquiry will not be refused, as it will lead to some clear definition of the duties and powers of the several departments of that army, which deserves so highly the admiration and gratitude of the country, and I hope that we shall yet see that army placed in a better and more efficient position than it has hitherto been.

said, that having had an opportunity of expressing his views when the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Vivian) brought forward his Motion, would not now enter into the general subject; but he must say, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Vivian) and be noble Lord (Lord John Russell) complained of the Government not carrying the Resolution, which had been carried, into effect, that he was utterly at a loss to know how it was possible to carry that Resolution out. His hon. and gallant Friend in his reply on that occasion, and again in his speech that night, said nothing was further from his intention than to interfere in any way with the functions of the Commander in Chief with respect to the command, discipline, and patronage of the army. If that was so, what possible object could he have in view in proposing his Resolution? The Resolution passed on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend implied that some changes were required with reference to the responsibilities of the offices of Secretary for War and Commander in Chief. He (General Peel) denied that dime was any divided responsibility in the matter. The responsibilities attached to the two offices were so distinctly laid down in the patents by which the two offices were held that there could be no confusion. For the command, the discipline, and the patronage of the army, the Commander in Chief was directly responsible; and he (General Peel) was indirectly responsible for every act of the Commander in Chief. Suppose a case were to arise—not very likely, he confessed—in which the Commander in Chief were to commit some gross offence with regard to the discipline of the army, a question would be sure to be asked upon the subject in that House, and the Minister for War would have to reply to that question. If, on inquiry, he were not satisfied with the explanation of the Commander in Chief, it might be the duty of Government to advise the Crown to remove him; and if the Crown refused to attend to that recommendation, then the Ministers would have to resign their offices. Since he had addressed the House on this subject he had seen the Commander in Chief very frequently. They had their weekly meetings, and so far from any difficulty arising in the discharge of the duties of the two offices they had but one thought and one feeling of responsibility, and that was to promote in every way they could the interests of the magnificent army committed to their charge. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said, he (General Peel) had on former occasions expressed a strong feeling in favour of the improvement of the civil department of the army. He was not disposed to deny that, but it would be remembered that when the Russian war ceased a great reduction of the army took place, and that that reduction had hardly taken effect when the war in China and in India broke out, so that it was almost impossible to judge of the real working of the department. All he would say was, that it contained a staff of officers second to none in any department in this or any other country. No doubt improvements might be made in the working of every department. They were trying to effect these improvements, and if that House would not interfere he had not the slightest doubt that the objects they had in view would be in due time fully accomplished.

said, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) had stated that it was the opinion of the army that the Motion which he had brought forward was a proper one.

I said nothing of the kind.

Then what did you say?

I said I was not in a position to say what was the opinion of the army, but with regard to the opinion of those with whom I had communicated, it was decidedly against the present system.

His hon. and gallant Friend might have consulted half a dozen officers, but he (Colonel North), feeling a deep interest in the question, had conversed with a great number of officers, who one and all felt that a more dangerous Motion for the army was never introduced into the House. He could not help thinking that his hon. and gallant Friend, in order to get an affirmative from those whom he consulted, must have brought under their notice the position of the Secretary of State for War in the different countries to which he had alluded; and he could quite understand that there was not an officer in the army who would not feel that, if possible, in this country, the Secretary of State for War should always be a distinguished soldier, and that the offices of Commander in Chief and Secretary of War should be held by one person. To the interference of civilians with the army its officers attributed much of our disasters in the Crimea, and they did not forget the green coffee which was sent out. They had to thank Sir C. Trevelyan for that. There was quite sufficient interference of civilians with the army already; and he recollected stating that when the office of Secretary of State for War was created, the principal ingredient in the dish was omitted, for in all countries throughout Europe where a Secretary for War was appointed there was not an instance in which he was not one of the most distinguished officers in the service of that country. There was not an officer in the army who would not prefer a soldier combining the two appointments; but, as the noble Lord had stated, under a constitution like our own, the thing was impossible. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) took some credit to himself for the majority he ob- tained, and said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not supported by his followers. Now, the real state of the case was, that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London intended to make a grand speech on that occasion. He recollected seeing his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bodmin during the previous debate on this question continually jumping up like a Jack-in-the-box, and going over to his commander in chief (Lord J. Russell), like a faithful aide-de-camp. It was generally understood that the noble Lord the Member for London said to his hon. and gallant Friend, "Now is your time—divide," and consequently that division was carried by the enormous majority of two. He (Colonel North) recollected during the administration of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), when he was endeavouring to obtain the commonest justice for some of the most distinguished officers in the army, he was usually met with the observation, "Oh, you canaot do that, you are infringing on the prerogative of the Crown." He believed there never was a greater infringement of the prerogative of the Crown than the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. He should like to know how the noble Lord the Member for London, if he ever again obtained power, could satisfy his Sovereign that he would protect the prerogative of the Crown. His hon. and gallant Friend referred to a question which he had put, two nights ago, to the right hon. and gallant Secretary at War. He put that question because he could not help thinking that those letters signed "Civilian," which appeared in The Times, had no earthly purpose but to throw discredit upon the statements of his right hon. and gallant Friend. He thought he might say, without the slightest chance of misstatement, that there was no Member of that House who enjoyed the respect and good opinion of every Member in it more than his right hon. and gallant Friend. He believed that no Minister could answer with greater honesty and sincerity every question that had been put to him since he came into office. That most honourable and gallant soldier, Sir Charles Yorke, stated, in reply to a question put to him by the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the purchase and sale of Commissions in the army, as to commissions being sold by the Commander in Chief without the sanction of the Secretary for War; that he was net aware that any Commissions had been sold since 1825. That fact was corroborated by other distinguished authorities. He (Colonel North) was long enough in the army to recollect two or three augmentations and reductions. Those augmentations were effected, not by increasing the officers, but by adding certain companies to each regiment, which saved great expense to the country.

said, he wished to say a few words on this matter. As long as there existed between the Commander in Chief and the Secretary for War that unison which the House was so glad to hear at present existed things would go on smoothly, but points night arise as to which the difficulty would be to decide where the authority of the Commander in Chief and the Secretary for War respectively began and ended. Their respective powers, therefore, should be distinctly defined, in order that the public might know upon whom the responsibility of any proceeding with reference to the army devolved. He should like to see the Commander in Chief made responsible in his own name for his own acts, so that the Minister for War might in Parliament he called upon to remove the Commander in Chief for any reprehensible act if so extreme a course should be thought desirable. It was impossible for the Secretary for War, if a civilian, to be responsible for the discipline, movements, and appointments of the troops. The Commander in Chief would be able to shelter himself wider the civil officer, unless there was a proper division of the departments, It was impossible to compare the management of the army of this country with that of the armies in such countries as France, Sardinia, or Austria, because in them a military man was placed at the head of the army, to whom were intrusted the command, discipline, and patronage of the army.

said, as he understood the question, he entirely concurred with the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was no doubt of the fact that the Commander in Chief was not responsible to that House. He thought that the time had arrived when it was necessary to consider whether it was proper that the only person who was to take the pleasure of the Crown on military affairs should be the Secretary of State for War. In his opinion the subject should be taken up seriously by the House at the commencement of next Session. At present the Judge Advocate waited upon the Queen with the reports of the courts-martial, a practice which might be dispensed with, as they had dispensed with the Recorder of London laying before the Sovereign the report of the cases tried at the Old Bailey sessions. He put that as an illustration of his meaning. As far as military matters then stood, he did not think that they could be in better hands than in those of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Every one who had marked his conduct would be satisfied that they could not be in better or safer hands. But his right hon. and gallant Friend must concur in opinion with him, that, in respect to the many departments that were under separate heads, though under his control, the House required much more information to ascertain whether the consolidation principle was going on in the right direction, and whether it was likely to answer its objects. He hoped that a Committee on this subject would be appointed early in the next Session.

said, he could assure the House that the army departments were not in that state in which his right hon. Friend who had just spoken supposed them to be; that great improvements were being made in them from day to day; and he trusted that before the next Session arrived, all the improvements which it was desirable to make would be introduced under the efforts of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for War.

said, he rose to move the following Resolution:—

"That it is the opinion of this House that the Sailors and Marines in Greenwich Hospital should be allowed to receive their pensions for wounds and injuries in the same manner that the officers do."

said, he wished to ask the hon. and gallant Admiral whether he would have any objection to postpone his Motion till a later period. Before the hon. and gallant Admiral gave notice of his Motion, his (Sir J. Pakington's) attention had been called to the subject. He had been informed that considerable inconvenience had resulted from the practice of pensioners going into Greenwich Hospital being deprived of their pensions for wounds and injuries. He believed that this difficulty was felt more particularly in the case of married pensioners, many of whose wives had been obliged to seek admission into the workhouses of their unions. So that in several instances parishes had obtained the discharge of pensioners from the hospital so that they might resume their pensions and support their wives. Now, this was a state of things which, in his opinion, ought not to be allowed to go on. He had caused inquiries to be instituted, and the matter was at present under the consideration of the Admiralty. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. and gallant Admiral would not press the matter further.

said, he hoped that the gallant Admiral would adopt the suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and withdraw his Motion under the circumstances which had been stated by the Government. He wished at the same time to express his own thanks for what had been already done by the Government, which gave him hope for the future.

remarked, that he would be very unreasonable indeed, if he did not adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to be directing considerable attention to those questions. He would, therefore, with confidence, leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that in pursuance of his notice he rose to call the attention of the House to the noxious state of the Thames; and to move "that this House considers it the duty of the Executive Government to take immediate measures for abating the dangerous nuisance caused by the noxious state of the Thames." The difficulty the House was in arose from their having made that a local which was essentially an Imperial question. If it were not an Imperial question, on what principle could they justify the veto they had given the First Commissioner of Works upon the plans of the Metropolitan Board? Or how could they justify the levying of the special metropolitan taxes, such as the coal tax, the duty on omnibuses and cabs, which amounted to £160,000 a year, and other Imperial imposts? Hon. Gentlemen also might point to such towns as Hull, Liverpool, and Birkenhead, where works of public improvement had been carried out at the expense of those places. But those works had not been effected by direct local taxation, but in a great measure by taxes on shipping and other similar modes of levying the cost upon the general trade of the country. At the present moment, however, the metropolis was called upon to execute at its own cost great works of public utility. They were told that they must take their sewage to Sea Reach, or to the German Ocean; and he had no doubt some hon. Gentlemen would be disposed to have it carried still further. Anyhow it was to be a grand work, and to cost money. But bow was it possible to raise in the metropolis the sum that would be required, say front ten to fifteen millions, by direct local taxation? They might just as well attempt to raise the whole revenue of the country by an income tax of from 10s. to 12s. in this pound. The Thames embankment, which alone would cost some £5,000,000, could not be called a local improvement. He was not arguing that the veto of the Government upon the plans of the Board of Works should be removed. On the contrary, he should look with great suspicion on any proposition of the kind; and he considered that the late First Commissioner (Sir B. Hall) deserved great credit for refusing to sanction the plans which had been submitted to him, and which were contrary to the Act of Parliament. The plans for draining the metropolis did not include any scheme for purifying the river, for the Metropolitan Board of Works had no jurisdiction over the Thames. It was the duty of the Executive Government to deal with that question. He would remind the House that what was wanted was an immediate remedy; whereas the plans that had been proposed for relieving the metropolis from the evil complained of would take from five to seven years, in which time half the inhabitants who could not get away to the highlands or the Continent, might be poisoned. He should now move his Amendment, with a view to test the feeling of the House. If the House agreed to the Resolution, he should propose another on an early day, to the effect that the Thames Committee should be made a permanent Committee, and that it should act in conjunction with the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Board of Conservancy of the River, for the purpose of improving the banks of the river, and dealing with the mouths of the existing sewers. He did not think they ought to leave that House without attempting to devise some remedy for the serious evil of which they had so much reason to complain.

, in seconding the Motion, said that the sanitary improvements at Birkenhead, which are planned and carried out by himself, were completed without a farthing's expense upon any one except the inhabitants of the town. When this subject was last before the House, he stated that he was not prepared with any plan; but considering the gravity of it, he had devoted last Saturday to its consideration, and he had arrived at the conclusion that an efficient remedy might be applied to the purification of the Thames. He did not mean to say that it would be a permanent remedy, but he thought it would at once abate the greater part of the nuisance. He had communicated his notions to Mr. Bidder, who had directed his attention for a great many months to the subject, and he entirely approved of the plan which he recommended—a plan which he (Mr. Bidder) said was not new, but had been recommended by Mr. Hawkshaw and himself to the Board of Works last year. The plan was this—that lime should be mixed with water, and put into the sewers three quarters of a mile from their mouths in the river Thames. Lime was the only in- gredient used by Mr. Wheatstone in his deodorising process at Leicester, and by introducing it in solution, at the places he had mentioned, the sewage water would be completely deodorised when it reached the river. He did not mean to say it would not affect the colour of the water and not kill the fish, but Mr. Wheatstone's process killed the fish; but at all events that would not be so bad as killing people. If the plan he suggested were carried out, within forty-eight hours the Thames would be in a very different state.

said, he would not enter into the general question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth, but he thought the House would like to know what steps had been taken by the Government for applying a temporary palliative for the evil. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them what he thought would relieve a great part of the evil. He was happy to inform him that the Government had communicated with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and authorized them to use a preparation of lime in the way he had suggested. He hoped that in consequence of the authority so conferred upon them, they would apply the remedy to all the chief sewers in the metropolis. If it should be found that the Metropolitan Board exceeded their authority in applying lime in this way, the Government would introduce a Bill to Parliament for their indemnity. Allusion had been made on Friday last to the state of the docks, as tending to aggravate existing evils. In consequence of this the Government had also instructed two officers of the Board of Health to visit and inspect the docks; and if these gentlemen should suggest any measures as likely to remove the existing evils, the Government would be prepared to take whatever steps might be necessary for that purpose. So far, however, as they were at present in-informed, it did not seem likely that the state of the docks would have any material effect upon the state of the river. When the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to the Government any general scheme which seemed likely to effect the ends they had in view, it would receive immediate consideration, and the Government would not hesitate to afford every facility for carrying that scheme into effect.

hoped that the measures which were being taken for palliating the existing evil would not hinder the prompt adoption of a permament scheme; especially as he could not conceive but that they would fail. The opinion of Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cubitt, and other eminent engineers, held that there was no adequate remedy for this gigantic evil than tile construction of large intercepting sewers. There was no help for it—that scheme must be carried out; but it seemed to him that a much less cumbrous body than the Board of Works might be advantageously constitued in order to effect it. His view was to constitute a Board of five Commissioners, including the present Chairman Mr. Thwaites, the noble Lord the First Commissioner, and the Secretary of the Treasury. If the Government would borrow the money and charge it on the rates, he was satisfied that it could be obtained at a very much lower rate of interest than the Board could borrow it at themselves. The sum required would be about £2,500,000, which, spread over thirty or forty years would not add a very serious additional burden to the rates.

said, he thought it extremely inconvenient to prevent the House from going into Committee of Supply by any further discussion on this subject at present. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Roupell) applied to immediate remedies, and not to the permanent remedy referred to. He could assure the House that, as far as immediate relief was concerned, the Government had taken the most decisive measures. They had sanctioned a series of remedial operations on Saturday last, which would require the use of between 200 and 250 tons of lime per day, involving an expenditure of about £1,500 per week. This showed that the steps being taken were of no trivial character. With regard to more permanent measures, they were of too grave a nature, as well in point of expense as upon other grounds, to be conveniently discussed at that moment.

said, that the real question in connection with this subject was, where was the money for executing the scheme of the main drainage to come from? and he intended to take the sense of the House before long upon it. It was impossible that the Metropolis could raise the requisite number of millions by direct taxation, and the Imperial Exchequer ought fairly to contribute. To say that this was not a national work, when men in that House, representing all parts of the country, loudly cried out aganst the evil, while the people of Hornsey, Highgate, Finsbury, and various other Metropolitan districts made no complaint, was manifestly preposterous.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would take a very early day for such a purpose. He could promise him a pretty decided opposition. The whole question was this—the inhabitants of a very large town put an enormous quantity of dirt into their very fine river, and then they wanted the inhabitants of smaller and poorer towns to come and take it out for them. If the local authorities of London had not sufficient legal powers for effecting this sanitary improvement, let their powers be increased; but the people of other towns who had cleansed their own rivers at their own cost ought not to be taxed for the benefit of the Metropolis. It would surely be enough if the Houses of Parliament, the palaces, and public offices paid their proper quota to the rates levied for such a purpose.

said, that the inhabitants of the metropolis did not object to pay for the drainage of their own district, but they objected to pay for carrying the sewage five or six miles below that district. Moreover, if in addition to that the House chose to have an embankment of the Thames with an esplanade, they must find the money for it. He took it for granted that the Government would pay out of the Consolidated Fund the £1,500 a week to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, because they had no power whatever to direct the Board of Works in what way it should expend the money it had raised by rates.

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) that the Government could not interfere in the expenditure of the rates raised by the Board of Works. It was clearly a matter of impossibility to levy a metropolitan rate sufficient for the purification of the Thames. It would in fact be a confiscation of property, as the present rates were so heavy that they had put a stop to all improvements. If they had any rate, it should be an Imperial one. How had this nuisance occurred? Formerly, before this stench arose, London was drained in the ordinary manner by cesspools; but an Act of Parliament was passed compelling every parish to drain into the river. The House of Commons had done the mischief, and the House of Commons should find the remedy by levying a fair uniform rate on the whole community. He was satisfied that the various consituencies who were so attached to their Members would not grumble at anything that contributed to their comfort.

said, that the case had become intelligible at last. The representatives of the metropolis had expressed their determination that the metropolis should not pay more than its fair proportion of the expense for purifying the Thames; so, on the other hand, the representatives of the country at large were determined that the country should not be taxed for metropolitan purposes. He should have liked to have had a more explicit statement from the noble Lord as to the expenditure which he had authorized for the temporary purpose of purifying the Thames. He had no objection to the Government giving facilities for a loan under such securities that the nation could never be called upon to pay it.

said, he thought the explanation of the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works unsatisfactory, and he should like to know who was to pay for the present palliative—he feared imperfectly palliative—measures. He was glad, however, to see the increased interest now evinced on metropolitan affairs, as he remembered that when the Drainage Bill was before Parliament it was discussed in Houses varying from nine to twenty Members.