The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 28, i 866.

nable annuities. He should deal with the question as briefly
as possible, but he must put before the house the means by
which loans were raised in this country. He would first say
a few words on loans raised in the shape of Consolidated 3
per cents. No less a sum than £16,000,000 hus been
raised in 1855. The price of that loan was 88 per cent., and
the difference to the contractor was 2 per cent. The coun-
try, therefore, had the opportunity of raising money at £3
Bs. per cent. The next instance was that of the following
year, when a loan of £5,000,000 was contracted for at 90;
the interest to the contractor was 6s. 6d., making the price
of stock to him £B9 13s. 6d. The market price was £9l,
therefore the contractor had an advantage over the public
of £l6s. 6d. That loan was contracted in February. On
May 19, in the same year, a second loan of £5,000,000 was
contracted for at the price of 93, the interest to the contrac-
tor
being 13s. 3d. ; the price to him, therefore was £92 6s.
9d., and his advantage over the public £ll3s. 3d., the inte-
rest to the country being £3 4s. There were thus three in-
stances in which over £25,000,000 were borrowed on Con-
sols at an average diminution from the market price of 2 per
cent., and an average interest of £3 7s. 6d., which was so
moderate a rate of interest that no one could suppose any
other stock could be raised at so small a charge. He knew
very well it was said of Consols, " If you borrow on Con-
sols you add to the national debt," but that depended
very much upon whether they were repaid or not, and the
debt so paid between the sth of April, 1845 and 1846,
amounted to no less than £4,600,000, and between April,
1846, and April 1847, to £2,700,000, and that had been done
by the usual machinery in such a way as not in the smallest
degree to affect the stock market, as would be seen by look-
ing at the share list, and showing the price of stocks on the
day after the Government broker bought in, which was at
regular specified quarters. It thus appeared that money
could be raised on Consols and repaid without disturbing the
market, and that the money could be obtained by Govern-
ment at about 2 percent. only above the regular market price,
and although it was true that the funds were generally high
when the Government broker sold out, and low when he
bought in, that was not peculiar to the case of raising money
by means of stock, but applied to all descriptions of loan,
Allowing 2 per cent. to be lost in the first instance in the
turn of the market, and assuming that 2 per cent. more
would be lost before they could replace it through the me-
dium of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na-
tional Debt, that would be 4 per cent. spread over 30 years,
or about per cent. There were these Exchequer bills,
which could not be thrown on the market without dimi-
nishing the value of the amount already there. There were
also the Exchequer Bonds ; and with respect to them he re-
gretted:that the feeling of the house had been unfavourable
to the continuance of that sort of Government stock. He
thought Exchequer Bonds only required to have a large
circulation, in order that they might attain permanent and
easy standard circulation throughout the country. Leaving
these securities, he next came to the question of raising
money by terminable annuities, and he would allude to the
one mentioned the other day by the First Lord of the Trea-
sury, which he termed the dead-weight annuity. The sum
of £585,745 was taken by the Bank in 1823, at a time when
the funds were exceedingly disturbed, so that they could only
make an approximation to the value. In 1842, when the
income tax was imposed through the medium of an old act
of Parliament, a grievous mistake was made, inasmuch
as it taxed both capital and interest, and instead of
receiving £4 2s. ld., the Beni; was obliged to recast
the whole schedule of their affairs, and reduce the interest
to £3 18s. 2d. In April, 1847, there was another change
in the income tax which forced them again to recast their
schedule, and the interest was reduced to £3 15s. 6d. In
1851 it was again reduced to £3 ls. 9d., so that they might
well imagine how uncertain a security this was, and how
little capitalists could look forward to it with confidence as
a valid security. The next annuity was in 1834, which was
left in the hands of the Bank of England, and the story of
this transaction was a remarkable one. The Bank of Eng-
land had to receive back in that year from the Government
' one-fourth of the capital it had lent to them. The Govern-
ment had to repay £4,080,000, and it was agreed to put it
into Reduced 3 per Cents., the amount of capital invested
being £3,671,000, and from some cause or other the Bank,
instead of receiving these Reduced 3 per Cents., received
ultimately an annuity for 26 years, calculated on precisely
the same rate of interest which the 3 per Cent. Annuities
bore; and the large amount of £64,000 was absolutely con-
fiscated for 61 years by the operation of the income tax from
the capital of the Bank of England for the payment of the
debt. £4,000 was lost owing to the operation of the income
tax, and £60,000 had never been paid to the Bank at all.
The next annuity was that which was known by the name
of the Long Annt“ties, which had been created at different
periods from 1780 to 1860, in which latter year they were
to expire. Those Long Annuities paid habitually 10s. in-
terest, but when the holders and investors became fright-
ened at this additional income tax, the prices fell, and the
holders protected themselves not only against that diminu-
tion which had taken place, but from what they appre-
hended further. He had been obliged to state some parti-
culars at variance with the calculation of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer ; hut he agreed with him as to the reduction
which might be taken for the risk. The contract was made
for the last loan on the 10th of April, and in May, when
Consols were at 901, the omnium representing the new loan
was granted at 2 per cent, premium; therefore there re-
mained 881 as the value to be given by the contractor
iu arranging the taking up of the loan; but that sum was
not given by the contractor immediately, but there was an
allowance for interest of £1 25., which, if deducted from the
£lOO, left £9B 18s., whereas Consols being at 88, no less
than £lO 12s. was actually given for taking up that annuity;
so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them
that the interest per cent. on the annuity was £3 155., he
must have been mistaken, for a deeper and more accurate
scrutiny would convince him that the rate of interest in
reality was no less than £5 4s. 2d. per cent. (Hear.) The
last bargain entered into by the Government in reference
to annuities was a most unsatisfactory one. Whatever the
reason might be, the fact was patent that the Government
had sold annuitiesat a most extravagant rate for the finances
of the country. The present price of annuities had nothing
to do with the question. The great bulk of holders were
holders of exceedingly small portions, and if any person
took the price at which they were quoted as the real price
he would find himself woefully deceived. It was said that
the House of Commons, unless they were bound down by
obligations of this kind, weuld never consent to raise a suffi-
cient sum for the service of the country, but he protested
against the whole system, believing that a less complicated
and more simple financial system would be productive of
far higher advantages. The advantages of borrowing in
terminable annuities were that two things which were in
their nature totally distinct were confounded, namely,
capital and interest, and that the property of the nation
itself was diminished in a manner that left a stigma upon
the intelligence and character of the house itself. A much
more simple method would be to raise money by loan, and
make the loan repayable by equal instalments over a period
of years.
Sir B. BRIDGES wished the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to state, before he replied to the speech of the hon.
member for Buckingham, when the excise duty on hops
would be brought on for discussion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question to which the hon. member for Kent referred had
already undergone discussion, and must take its chance.
With regard to the speech of his hon. friend the member
for Buckingham, he admitted that it was a most lucid and
able statement, yet he could not avoid expressing great
regret at the opportunity which his honourable friend had
selected for bringing it forward. In point of fact his hon.
friend with a little concealment had made a speech which
had reference entirely to the financial part of the scheme
for providing for the erection of fortifications. He would
not attempt to follow his hon. friend into all the details
which had been laid before the house, but he must say that
he thought the hon. gentleman had understated the cost to
the public of borrowing in consols, if they were to include in
their estimate of that operation the full charge which was in-
curred by the public before the debt was repaid. His hon.
friend had made an allowance of a quarter or ss. per cent.
only which was to cover the profit of the contractor and the
average difference between the rate at which the public
borrowed and that at which theyrepaid: His hon. friend
after all overlooked the sole argument which induced the
government to recommend }sorrowing in terminable annuities,
namely, the spontaneous action of the machinery. Ile was
sure the house were obliged to the hon. gentleman for the
details he had laid before them, but it would have been
much more convenient if he had availed himself of the re-
gular legitimate opportunity of raising the question.
Mr. CAYLEY inquired what the legitimate opportunity
was ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Upon the
resolutions of my noble friend in all their stages.
THE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HORSMAN, in rising to call the attentien of the
house to the state of public business, said he thought, un-
less the house was prepared to look the condition in which
the public business was placed in the face, they were likely
to incur great embarrassment and a serious amount of re-
sponsibility. Parliament met in the month of January, and
they were now arrived at the 27th of July, and yet the
business, and especially the financial business, was in a
most backward state. After the last vote in supply was
taken, ten days must elapse before Parliament could be pro-
rogued, and yet the Government were indefinitely post-
poning the committee of supply upon which the termina-
tion of the session depended. They had already passed
the navy estimates, but a considerable portion of the army
estimates remained. They lacjd still to dispose of the cf•
fective service votes, the educational vote, a vote for for-
tifications irrespective of the loan, and the whole vote of
two millions for the non-effective service; then, as re-
garded the civil service estimates, they had almost the
whole to go through. The entire amount of those esti-
mates was £7,492,000, and they had yet £6,152,000 to vote.
In point of fact no less than 191 votes had still to be taken,
and many of them would give rise to considerable discus-
sion. On Monday next they were to go into the question
of fortifications, and it was generally intimated that this
discussion was not likely to terminate in one evening. He
did not know whether the Government was likely to have
the Tuesday, and if so next week would be mostly taken up
with the discussion of the question of fortifications. The
followingweek they would have the papor duties and a dis-
mission which would be likely to occupy more than one
Wight. They would also have the question of the spirit
duties, the question of the hop duties which had just been

raised, and also the question of the malt duties. Therefore,
they might fairly conclude that the financial questions
could not occupy less than a fortnight. They were, there-
fore, not likely to have any evening for the ordinary com-
mittee of supply until towards the middle of August. Next
came the question whether they would be able to take sup-
ply at morning sittings. There were many bills which the
Government were going to proceed with, although the
number had been considerably reduced, for not less than 15
bills had been withdrawn, together with several notices of
bills which lead appeared upon the paper. There were,
however, stin to be discussed and passed upwards of 40
bills, either originating in this.house or coming down from
the House of Lords. This was a very serious prospect,
as they could not go into supply until the middle of
August, and there were besides this upwards of 40
bills, with respect to some of which there were many
amendments on the paper, and others had upwards of 300
clauses. If the business of the house proceeded smoothly
and methodically he was of opinion that it could not rise
before September. But the house was in a very unsettled
state with respect to its legislation, and no one who looked
to the state of its business could venture to predict on what
day in September even it would be able to rise. He had
looked minutely into the question ; he had consulted the
best authorities, and he believed it to be the general opi-
nion amongst them that it was extremely difficult if not
impossible to say what time Parliament would rise. A
short time ago there were hopes that they might be able to
rise on the 24th of August, but those hopes were now ma-
terially receding. Now, he must say that this was a very
serious question, for the most important legislation of the
country was put off until it was too late to consider them,
especially most important financial legislation. (Hear.)
It was a great public injury, a great public wrong, and he
did not hesitate to say that if in former days this had been
the practice it would alone have given rise to general cry
for the reform of Parliament. He knew of no greater in-
jury that could be inflicted upon the country than wasting
four or five months on business which did not pass, and
then hurrying over most important matters. They had al-
ready before them five bills of Indian legislation, and two
more were expected. He did not wish to comment in any
spirit of hostility upon the conduct of the Government, but
he simply desired to place before the house the position in
which they stood with regard to Indian legislation. His
own opinion was that the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment would consult the honour of the house if he did
not now press on the legislative business of the
country. On due consideration the Government would
find themselves in an entirely false position with
regard to Indian legislation. He believed he could show
that they had not complied with the provisions of the act
of Parliament which was passed in 1858, and if that were
really so, he thought they would do well to acknow-
ledge the false position in which they were placed, and
withdraw the bills which they had laid upon the table. The
great security which the act of 1858 endeavoured to esta-
blish, was to give the Secretary of State for India the as-
sistance of a council of experience to aid him in the admi-
nistration of Indian affairs. Parliament looked forward to
the probability of a Secretary of State being appointed who
was not acquainted with Indian affairs, and who was al-
ways liable at a very short notice to be removed, and under
these circumstances a council composed of men of experi-
ence was provided. Now, the views of Parliament at that
time were so well stated by the noble lord the Foreign Se-
cretary, who took a prominent part in that legislation, that
he would read his words. The noble lord said, No one
could overrate the benefit that would result to the Govern-
ment of India if the Secretary of State were assisted by emi •
nent men intimately acquainted with Indian affairs. In the
place of the Court of Directors we are to have a council well
acquainted with India, who will afford information to the
Secretary of State upon any question on which he may re-
quire their assistance and advice. Now, I think this a
great improvement in the Government of India." Again he
said, " I cannot imagine that any Secretary of State would
be so unwise as to set this council to mere routine duties
which might be performed by clerks, instead of consulting
them upon the main points of Indian policy ; and any Secre-
tary of State for India who so acted would but ill discharge
his duty. (Cheers.) I think the Secretary of State would
receive important and highly valuable assistance from his
council on all great matters of war and general policy,"
This was the view upon which Parliament acted in passing
the measure to which he had alluded, and in the act it took
care to insert provisions for carrying out that view. It stated
in one of its provisions that the council should, under the
direction of the Secretary of State for India, and subject to
the provisions of this act, conduct the business of the United
Kingdom in relation to the Government of India; the mean-
ing being that in all matters of Indian legislation the Secre-
tary of State for India should have the assistance and ad-
vice of his council. Accordingly it enacted that all powers
required to be exercised by „he Secretary of State shall be
exercised by the Secretary of State in Council at meetings at
which not less than five members of the council shall be pre-
sent, and that such meetings shall be not less than once in
each week. Further, the act provided, in case of difference
of opinion upon any question decided at any such meeting,
the Secretary of State may require that his opinion and the
reasons for it be entered on the minutes, and any member of
of the council differing from him may, in like manner, re-
quire that his opinion and the reasons be entered on the
minutes. He (Mr. Horsman) wished the house to observe
how careful Parliament was in passing this act, that every-
thing that was done by the Secretary of State and by his
council should be recorded, and recorded expressly for the
information of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The act required
further that every order and every communication sent to
India by the Secretary of State, or sent from India to the
United Kingdom, unless the same were submitted to the
members of the council, should be placed in the council-
room at least seven days before such order was made, or for
a certain number of days after such communication was re-
ceived, and that it shall be lawful for any member of the
council to enter upon the minutes his opinion of such order
or communication, a copy of which opinion should be sent to
the Secretary of State. Then came the 25th clause, to which
he would call special attention, and which he was sure the
house would support him in saying that the right hon. gen-
tleman had not complied with. That clause was "If the
majority of the council record their opinions against any pro-
posal submitted for adoption, the Secretary of State shall, if
he do not defer to the opinions of the majority so recorded,
record his reasons for acting in opposition to it." (Cheers.)
The house would see the excessive importance of these pro-
visions, and the reason of the excessive care wi th which
Parliament inserted them in the act. The reason was this:
They felt the responsibilities, the difficulties, and the dan-
gers of Indian administration. They accordingly appointed
a Secretary of State, who was to have the as-
sistance of a council, and when they diffeted the
council were on their part to record the reasons of their dif-
ference from the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
State was on his part to record the reasons of hie not acting
in accordance with the views of the majority of his council.
And what was the reason of this ? It was that when any
measure was submitted to Parliament on the authority of
the India department, Parliament might see the reasons on
the one side and on the other—(hear, hear)—and exercise its
power of review, and thus might on full information form its
own judgment as to the legislation which should be adopted.
(Hear.) He did not think on this point there could be any
difference of opinion in that house, but he wished to point
out the very false, embarrassing, and complicated position
in which they were placed in regard to Indian legislation this
year. It was manifest, he thought, that the various difficulties
of that legislation had been foreseen by the Government and
Parliament of 1858, and on full consideration provided for
as far as possible by the Act of Parliament. It was ob-
viously the intention of the framers of the act he had
quoted that all bills introduced in regard to Indian legisla-
tion should be well considered beforehand ; that they
should be submitted to the house after full consideration by
the Secretary of State and council; and should be brought
before Parliament under such circumstances as would give
ample opportunity to both houses to discuss them both in
principle and detail. (Hear.) But what had happened
this session ? They had at this moment five bills in refer-
ence to India before the house, and notices had been given
of two others, which had since been withdrawn. Besides
these, there was a bill coming down from the other house,
and there was the financial question of India in
respect to which they had found it impossible to
obtain an answer from the noble lord as to when it would
be brought forward. He would call attention for a moment
to the dates when these several measures had been intro-
duced. The Indian Army Bill, a measure which proposed to
effect the greatest changes perhaps ever made in any part
of her Majesty's dominions within our recollection, was
read the first time on the 21st June. The East India Stock
Bill was brought in on the 20th June. Notice stood for
two bills of which it was difficult to exaggerate the im-
portance, especially of that regarding the civil service of
India—these were to have been brought in on the 23.1 of
July, but from the opposition and objections made to their
being brought forward at so late a period, the Secretary of
State withdrew the notice. The Superannuation Act
Amendment Bill was introduced on the 24th of July, the
Senior Member of Council Bill on the 24th July, and the
Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Bill on the 24th July. All
these bills were introduced after the 23d of July. Then
there was the finance question, and although he had asked
the question twice he was unable to obtain an answer when
that would be brought forward, or if it was to be delayed
until two-thirds of the members had left town for the ses-
sion, and there would be no opportunity for discussing it.
He asked when all these bills were thus crowded in upon
them at so late a period of the year, was not the responsi-
bility largely aggravated by the fact that the most impor-
tant of them was submitted to Parliament without the ap-
proval of the Indian Council ? Was not the fact that all
the members of the Indian Council were opposed o the
Secretary of State in the matter a sufficient reason for ask-
ing the Government to postpone this legislation for the
present session? (Cheers.) But the real point he would
fix upon the attention of the Government was this : had the
Secretary of State for India complied with the provisions
of the act in bringing before Parliament on the one hand
the recorded dissent of the Council, and on the other
.the
recorded reasons of the Secretary of State for acting con-
trary to their opinions ? (Hear.) The right hon. baronet
had told the house that he had not thought it necessary
under the act to lay this information before the house. The
right hon. gentleman said, " I am only bound to consult my
council in respect to such acts as I may bring forward as
Secretary of State;
this bill is an act of the Cabinet, and

therefore lam not bound to consult them," What wasthe
answer to that ?

The SPEAKER called the right hon. gentleman to
order, reminding him that it was contrary to the rule of the
house to refer to a previous debate and reply to arguments
therein used.

Mr. HORSMAN was not replying to the arguments
used in a debate. The right hon. gentleman had published
his opinions, and he was answering them.
The SPEAKER reminded the right hon. gentleman
that he had said he would answer the arguments of the
hon. baronet.

Mr. HORSMAN begged pardon; but the right hon.
baronet said, " I am bound to consult the council in respect
to any act of mine as Secretary of State for India, but in
respect of any act of the Cabinet I am not bound to consult
them." But what was the common sense construction of
the Act of Parliament, and what did Parliament obviously
intend by the pi ovisions to which he (Mr. Horsman) had
referred ? Was it not that the Secretary of State for India
should be the adviser of the Cabinet in all matters concern-
ing India, and being the Cabinet adviser was it not also in-
tended by the act that the council should be the advisers of
the Secretary of State ? (Hear.) And if a question was
so important as to be raised to:the dignity of a Cabinet ques-
tion, aid it not follow that that importance made it the more
essential that the advice of the council should be taken ?
(Cheers.) That was the common sense construction of the
Act of Parliament, and he was sure it was the common
sense construction every man in the house and out of the
house would put upon it.

Sir C. WOOD had to thank the right hon. gentleman
the member for Stroud, in the first place, for giving him
notice of his intention to bring under consideration the bills
in the other House of Parliament ; and, secondly, for the
calm and temperate manner in which he had objected to the
course he (Sir C. Wood) had taken. He would dispose of
that bill—which had not unnaturally excited the amuse-
ment of the house—by informing the right hon. gentleman
that he never saw it until he found it enclosed in a commu-
nication that morning which the right hon. gentleman had
been good enough to send him. It was true that a question
had been pending as to the transfer to the Colonial-office
of the Straits and Singapore, a petition having been pro •
rented from the inhabitants of those settlements in favour
of such transfer. The Governor-General of India concarred
in the proposal, and early in the present year he (Sir C.
Wood) wrote to state that, as far as the Home Government
was concerned, there would be no objection to comply with
tho wieheo of the irthithiltultm. Ou tho Farb, hews-Ter, of the
India-office, he disclaimed all responsibility of blame with
regard to the bill; and it must, he thought, be obvious to
the right hon. gentleman, if he looked carefully at that bill,
that the words ke alluded to were never intended to be
inserted in the bill. The draft bill had got into the hands
of the printer before it was finally revised. But the
greater portion of the speech of the right hon. gentleman
referred not so much to the India business in the house as
to his conduct in introducing a bill without consulting the
council. If the right hon. gentleman carefully consulted
the act of parliament for the government of India, he
would find that he had totally misrepresented its object
and spirit. He admitted fully that it was intended that
the Secretary of State, in transacting India business, should

generally act with his council. There were cases in which
he was bound to consult them, and sometimes even though
he might ultimately overrule them. The right hon. baronet
then referred to the 23d and two following clauses of the act
showing the modus operandi prescribed for the transaction
of India business, and said it was plain from the2ith clause
that power was given to the Secretary of State to address a
letter to India without submitting it to any meeting of the
council. If, however, he determined to take such a cause
he was bound to place the letter on the council table for
seven days before it was despatched, and every member of
the council had an opportunity of recording his opinion
upon it in a book which was kept for the purpose, and that
opinion so recorded was to be sent forthwith to the Secre-
tary of State. In the council itself, it had never even
been suggested that the Secretary of State was bound
to record his reasons in the event of his overruling the
majority of the members. He maintained that in his ex-
ecutive capacity he was not legally bound to consult the
council in the way the right honourable gentleman sup-
posed. The amalgamation of the Indian army was not a
question which the council could decide ; it was a question

to be decided by the Government and the House of

Commons, and upon such a matter he was under no oblige••
tion to eonsult the council. His own opinion was that it
would have been wrong for him to do so. The object of
their recent legislation with regard to India, as he under-
stood it, was to impose a more clear and undivided respon-
sibility upon the Secretary of State ; and as to the question
of the Indian army, he thought he might say that there
was no difference of opinion between the leaders of the two
great parties in the house. The right hon, gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Disraeli) said, in 1858, in announcing the in-
tention of the Government to issue a royal commission on
the organisation of the Indian army, that it would be their
duty, when the commission had agreed to a report, to come
to a conclusion upon the matter; but that although the
council of India might be very useful in carrying out any
measures on the subject, he did not think it would be right
to leave to them the decision of so important a question.
He entirely concurred in that expression of opinion by the
right hon. gentleman, and he contended that he (Sir C.
Wood) was not open to the censure of having acted ille-
gally or contrary to the spirit of the act. The Government
might be right or they might be wrong in introducing this
measure, but of its importance there could be no question.
The hon. and gallant member (Colonel Sykes) said the
safety of our Indian empire was involved in the measure.
So said the Government, but they held that it was involved
not in the maintenance of a local army, but in the intro-
duction of a uniform military system. It was nothing but
an imperative sense of duty that impelled him to bring for-
ward the measure, but from that duty he would not shrink.
The question was asked, who wanted this bill ? He would
reply, the 282 members who voted for it in 1851. The only
way he knew of testing the sense of the house was by see-
ing on which side there was a majority ; and when he saw
the second reading of the bill carried by five to one, he
must take leave to think that the wisdom of the house ap-
proved of the measure. At all events let them have no
delay, for he was satisfied that all parties in India would
regard even what they might deem to be an adverse decision
as infinitely preferable to being kept in a state of suspense.
Mr. T. BARING observed that if the measure
was of the imp rtance which his right hon. friend now
stated it was, he must say that it could not be discussed
under more unfavourable circumstances. (Hear.) Surely
a bill which her Majesty's Government regarded as neces-
sary to the safety of our Indian dominions ought not to be
introduced at this period of the session. There was still
touch information which they ought to have before they
proceeded any further, for at present they had received only
the merest crumbs. (Hear.) All India must know it was
not by hasty decisions that she could be governed ; it was
by consideration of every question, and sifting the reasons
for every measure. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I concur with the right hon.
gentleman who brought this subject under consideration

in regretting that so much businesshas accumulated so late

in the session ; but at the same time I must repudiate the
accusations which, by implication at least, have been made
against her Majesty's Government as being the cause of that
accumulation.

Mr. HORS `IAN—I avoided saying anything about that.
Lord PALMERSTON—Just so. Everybody knows, and
therefore it is needless to refer to it, that in the early part
of the session questions undoubtedly of very great import-
ance and interest, which it was the duty of her Majesty's
Government to bring under consideration, tended to pro-
duce the result which, in common with the right hon. gentle-
man, I certainly regret. But when he goes a step further,
and endeavours to make out of that state of things a reason
why the measures of great importance now pending should
be thrown over and postponed until another year, I can-
not acquiesce in the conclusion he thus draws.
It is true, no doubt, that satisfactorily to dispose of the bulk
of business which still requires to be transacted, it may be
necessary for the house to sit to a laterperiodyhan, perhaps,
is the usual course of business in this house; but at the
same time we have only to look back to former years to see
that it is not unexampled that the business should not be
concluded until near the termination of the month of
August. The moral I shall draw from the statement of the
right hon. gentleman is not that the house should fly from
its duties, and from lassitude or impatience of getting away,
neglect to dispose of matters which it would be competent to

deal with ; but that gentlemen should set their shoulders to

the wheel and devote their minds really to the transaction of
business, and that they should abstain from taking up more
of the time of the house than is necessary for the useful
and practical enforcement of the opinions they entertain,
and of the arguments by which those opinions are to be sup-
ported. But now I must say that what has passed this
evening is rather a departure from the course which the
right hon. gentleman and I should join in recommending;
because we have the first order of the day, after disposing
of the motion for adjournment until Monday, the Indian
army question, which has been the subject of discussion now
for a considerable period of time on the motion for adjourn-
ment. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has
made a very animated speech, not merely on the question of
the Indian army amalgamation, but even going back to the
question d isposed of nearly two years ago—the abolition of the
East India Company. A great portion of that speech was oc-
cupied in endeavouring to show that Parliament ought not
to have made a change which they did make. I submit that
question would have been more appropriate if the hon. gen-
tleman had waited until the Speaker had left the chair, on
going into committee on the Indian Amalgamation Bill, and
that discussing by anticipation the measures which are
coming on in their regular order isnot a practice which tends
to the despatch of business, or to bringing the session to a ter-
mination at a proper and early period. Having said this much
I should be acting- against my own opinion if I went at any
length into that which has been stated. But I must say that
I think much of the argument used on this Indian question
rests on what appears to me an entirely false conclusion,
namely, that there are two Governments in this country-7
one the responsible Government--responsible for the conduct
of the affairs of the empire—and another irren,onsible Go-
vernmenf,-to be established peculiarly to the government
India; because, if it is not true, as quoted by ale Tight heA.
gentleman from the speech of . 11P14 frieAd last year,
that the ecrety.y o f Stato is to be auptorge ix his council,
and that the council is to be 5 co-ordinary authority—not

T ~x~

responsible to any human being, and being appointed by the
act (very unfortunately I think) for life, you are establishing
an imperium in inzperio totally at variance with the funda-
mental principles of representative Government and free
constitution. It seems to me there cannot be a more uncon-
stitutional doctrine entertained than to contend that the
opinion of the Indian Council should be taken against the
opinion which the responsible ,Government for the time
being may entertain upon questions of this imperial and ex-
tensive character. I quite concur that this amalgamation
of the Indian army is a most important measure—important
it is in one sense—that is to say, my opinion is, and always
has been, that the creation and maintenance of a large local
army in India is pregnant with the utmost danger to our
Indian empire. I derived that opinion from my own
convictions. It is an opinion I entertained from the
very first time the subject was ever mooted, and
that opinion has been strengthened every day by
everything said for it and much that has been said
against it. (A laugh.) It is all very wtll to have a local
military force of a small amount in a particular colony. We
may have a local force at Malta, or at the Cape, or in
Canada, but to constitute, as is now proposed, a local army
of 40,000 men in India, irremovable from that country, I
say, would be to deliver the destinies of India into the hands
of a prsatorian band, attended with the utmost danger to
the imperial authority, and I contend there could not be a
more fatal proposal adopted by this house in regard to that
great and important empire. Therefore I look at the ques-
tion as one of the utmost importance, but quite in a different
point of view from that which hon. members opposite view
it. However, 1 will not go into that now. We have been.
discussing the question of adjournment for four hours, only
twice as long as the time occupied by my right hon. friend
in explaining at full length all the reasons upon which he
founded his proposal. My right hon. friend on the 12th of
June stated all the reasons—and 1 never heard a more mas-
terly speech than he made on that occasion, taking, as he
did, a general comprehensive view of every bearing of the
question, and now he is reproached by the hon. member
(Mr. T. Baring) with not having stated or given full infor-
mation to the house as to the grounds upon which the mea-
sure itself was proposed. I shall merely entreat the house
to permit us to get rid of this motion and go into committee
on the bill. In that committee every hon. member willhave
a most appropriate occasion of expressing his opinions. We
think the measure so important that, if the house should not
be able to come to a decision on it to-night, I shall be willing
to postpone from Monday that motion which otherwise
stands for that day, and propose to go on with this bill on
Monday if we cannot go on with it to-night; but I should
hope we might be able to come to a decision now on the
matter. (Hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI—There have been some observations
made with respect to the general state of the business of
this house, and the causes for that state, which it would
hardly be consistent with my duty to pass in silence and un-
noticed. I am unwilling in any way to refer to the past—to
an old grievance—but I cannot help feeling that the remark-
able and, I might almost say, the unprecedented condition
in which the house finds itself, having been summoned to
meet at an earlier period than usual, and with a prospect of
sitting later than any of us have ever experienced, is such
that I should not be doing justice to the subject if I did not
advert to what I believe to be the real causes of that position,
and tracing the cause of that condition to the circumstances
under 'which the present Government acceded to office.
(Opposition cheers.) I really am referring to that event in a
statistical and not in a political spirit. The noble lord (Pal-
merston) admitted the great importance, which no one can
question, of the measures which have come under our con-
sideration, and he said they could not have been proceeded
with earlier, because the house was engaged with other very
important business which took up its time. No doubt the
house was engaged with very important business from the
time that Parliament met, and for a considerable period.
But what was the important business ? The Government,
sanctioned by a majority of the house, had laid down two
principles of great importance in politics which were to be
accepted by the House of Commons. One was that there
there should be a reform of this house on principles more
democratic than the measure produced by the late Govern-

mont. The other was, that if the late Government were
allowed to remain in office after the general election our re-
lations with France would be in danger. Well, events proved
that the late Government, so far as reading the feeling of the
country as to the principles upon which a reform in Parlia-
ment should be conducted, did not err in supposing that a
more democratic measure than they themselves introduced
would not be acceptable to the country; and the House of
Commons, which had sanctioned a contrary opinion, upon
reflection and after due consideration and prolonged debate,
had recurred to the opinion the late Government had main-
tained. It did not prove the peculiar discrimination of the
present advisers of the Crown that they took a contrary
course. Then with regard to the relations between this
country and France. It was held out as one of the principal
grounds of a want of confidence in the late Government
that those relations would be in danger if they were allowed
to retain their places. Well, I think it has transpired that
the conduct of the late Government was not of that charac-
ter which should have prevented a good understanding ex-
isting between the two countries, and I think it will be
generally admitted, particularly after the speech with which
the noble lord favoured us a few nights ago, that the rela-
tions between France and England at the present moment
are not more amicable than they were when we quitted office.
I do not find fault with the decision of the House of Com-
mons ; but what was the consequence of their vote ? In the
first place, the Government, who, if they were entitled to
the confidence of Parliament, ought to have had that discri-
mination to have recognised the measure that was adapted
to the necessities of the times and to the inclinations of the
people with regard to parliamentary reform, introduced a
bill on different principles to that introduced by their pre-
decessors. That bill was no doubt a lamentable failure and
grievous disappointment to all sides of the house. But that
lamentable failure occasioned a great loss of time; and it is
to that circumstance, in the first place, that a great deal of
the unsatisfactory state in which the business of the house
is now placed is owing. With regard to the second point, the
friendly relations between France and England—having
laid that down as the second great cause why we should be
expelled from power—a decision with which we do not want
to quarrel, and which I touch upon now only historically--
it was necessary for the Government to prove that there was
between France and this country, under their auspices, an
extraordinary degree of sympathy, and to demonsti ate that
they were the only statesmen who could produce and carry
measures which would be the happy consequence of that
extreme and happy sympathy. Therefore, there was pro-
duced at the commencement of the session that most extra-
ordinary treaty between this country and France which I
acknowledge was received by acclamation by the house, but
which every man now in his calmer moments looks back to
with regret and apprehension—(no, no)—which has entailed
on this house enormous trouble, and which will bring us
now, in a few days at this very end of the session—at the
fag end of our deliberations—another great Parliamentary
conflict and contest. Well, then, I say it has been in con-
sequence of her Majesty's Government being formed on
these two principles, of carrying a more democratic measure
of Parliamentary reform and of introducing a more intimate
alliance between France and England than it was supposed
could be carried out by their predecessors, and it is in con-
sequence of the ill-conceived and ill-timed and unfortunate
and unhappy measures, whether in the shape of reform
bills or of commercial treaties, which that policy introduced,
that we have, in fact, wasted the whole of this session in
measures which have either totally failed orbeen withdrawn,
or have been only partially successful, and in a great de-
gree disastrous. There are the two measures of the session
—the Reform Bill and the French Alliance—followed by
consequences so different from what was anticipated, and
which have led to the state in which the house now finds
itself. The Reform Bill—withdrawn under circumstances
upon which I will not now dwell—the treaty which, though
introduced with acclamation, was followed by a project of
extensive fortifications against our only and prime enemy,
according to the Prime Minister, France. (Cheers.) I say
it is forming a Government on false principles, and wasting
the session, to introduce measures to vindicate these false
principles, this waste of time, and thin almost scandalous
position in which we find ourselves. Look at the conse-
quences. I will not talk of small points. I will merely re-
mind the noble lord that the house met in February; that
the Reform Bill was not introduced till March ; tho Bank-
ruptcy Bill not till much later ; and that during this period
days and weeks have been wasted. I come to the measures
now before us, this important group of measures affecting
the future destinies of our Indian empire. Ido not wish to
offer to the Government an unfair opposition. (Oh, oh, from
the Government benches.) I say frankly my desire and wish
is to support her Majesty's Government in their policy
with regard to India. (Oh, oh.) Ido not shrink from the
opinion I expressed in the speech which has been cited by
the right hon. gentleman. Ido not avail myself of any un-
expected opposition which may spring up; but I do say
this, that, instead of wasting our time on moonshiny'mea •
sures of Parliamentary reform, and on phantom treaties of
commerce, if the Government had come forward when Par-
liament had first assembled and said, " A great revolution
has taken place in the imperial relations of this countrywith
India—late measures have rendered it necessary to change
the conditions of our power in that country—and in conse-
quence the House of Comtuons has assembled and must not
shrink from governing that great country with intelligence
and adequate knowledge," then you might have come for-
ward with your measures, and I do not think you would
have had a session barren of results. If, with lingering ad-
miration for the glorious career of the East India Company,
we had said, " Well, after all, it was a statesmanlike deci-
sion, fully in accordance with the spirit of the times, that ,
there should be an unity of Government, that we should .no
longer be found existing under different rules and a different
policy, and that Parliament had acquired a great responsi-
bility," and if the Ministry, sensible of that responsibility,
had shown on the first occasion that they were equal to it,
and had appealed to the knowledge and thought of Parlia-
ment to pass measures, provided they wereworth passing—
I say it would have been no mean session of Parliament, and
we could have dealt with adequate measures for the Govern-
ment of India—we oeuld, at the end of tbsi..,ion, haVe ap-
pealed witch vc,rrnate Verson of our Speaker, to the
SOvereign, and have said that we had brought up these bills
as the naatuse result of statesmanlike thought and adequate
knowledge, and have shown ourselves worthy of the occa-
sion, and of the great trust and new responsibility we' had
incurred. But is that our present condition ? No ; weeks,

long months, have been wasted in attempting to carry out
an illusory programme which was the pretext on which the
change of government was carried. That is the true cause,
that is the real cause, that is the sole cause, of the position
in which the House of Commons is placed, and which, I
cannot conceal from myself, has placed it lower in the opi-
nion of the country than it otherwise would have been.
That is the true cause why we are not equal to the occasion,
but find ourselves at the end of the session with exhausted
energies, called upon to fulfil the highest duties, and when
we are obliged to submit to a lecture from the treasury
bench, that we must talk as little as we possibly can, saying
of course what is useful and practical, but not for a moment
venturing to diverge into any of those considerations the
contemplation of which affords so vast and colossal a theme
as India would naturally be supposed to create in the minds
of English statesmen. Sir, in my mind this is not by any
means a satisfactory position. This has been the longest
session of parliament—it probably will be the longest ses-
sion that has occurred for the last 20 years: We probably
may sit to the:end:of August. There is little hope now that
we shall pass any measure—l will not say of importance,
because it is not improbable that some of these Indian mea-
sures may pass—but no measure of importance carried with
maturity of thought, with that adequate and sufficient de-
bate which measures of this kind require. And the cause is
open to all why so little time is left to the real business of
the country. Sir, Ido not feel lam justified in the House
of Commons, placed in the condition to which I have referred
on the present occasion to make invidious comments on these
two principles. Ido not think the House of Commons ,
although they have made, no doubt, a great mistake on the
subject of parliamentary reform—although, no doubt, they
have made a great mistake on the subject of our relations
with France—ought to rise up and accuse the Government,
which they have formed on those principles whose practice
has proved to be utterly illusory and futile. Sir, it is our-
selves on these benches—the minority, which might prefer
these claims and pleas of objection. We do not. (Ironical
cheers.) We regret very much the time that has been
wasted. (Laughter.) The time that has been wasted has
been the inevitable consequence of a majority—a bare majo-
rity of the House of Commons, choosing to form a Govern-
ment on principles which every human -being knew could
not be practised. We knew very well that it was utterly
impossible that the country would be deluded by a measure
of Parliamentary Reform such as that shadowed forth in
the programme on which they destroyed the late Govern-
ment. We, at least some of us who from our position were
obliged to be acquainted with the facts, knew very well that
there was nothing in the histo/ y of political misrepresen-
tation more false and flagitious than those misrepresenta-
tions which pretended that the late Government, in their
management of our foreign relations, were false to the in-
terests and hoiour of England. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
We knew all this. We knew very well that when you
chose to displace an administration on such a plea, and
form a Government on such grounds, you were building a
house on the sands. But we are not going to take advan-
tage of your inconsistency. The government of this coun-
try is not to be made the shuttlecock of contending parties.
You determined—and you solemnly determined--to estab-
lish and form and maintain the present administration.
You have no right to accuse the Government for that waste
of time. You have voted for an impossible Reform Bill.
You sanctioned the accusation respecting our foreign policy,
which, if you had knowledge, you must have known to be
false;; which, if you were igaorant, you were not justified
in giving your vote for. (Cheers.) And now what
is the best course to take to maintain the reputation of this
house, and to satisfy the fair claims of the country ?
So far as I am concerned, I will give an impartial
consideration to the measures which her Majesty's Go-
vernment may bring forward even at the end of July.
(Ironical cheers.) I shall support them if they are con-
sistent with sound principles of government and with the
true policy of the country. Nor should I have risen on
this occasion, when this controversy was taking place be-
tween the Government and their general supporters—con-
troversies to which we are now accustomed—had it not
been that not once, not twice, but frequently, in this dis-
cussion comparisons were made to which I could not sub-
mit with any feeling of self-respect—comparisons made
first by others than the noble lord, and then by the noble
lord himself, who spoke of the present scandalous position
of the House of Commons as being attributable to the
cause of very imprtant business having engaged the at-
tention of the house during the first months of the session
—important business which really never had any existence
—brought forward to fulfil the pledges of faction, and which
I should not have murmured at myself had it not wasted
the precious time of the nation. But one topic there is
upon which I must address an inquiry to the noble lord.
We have heard to-night from the noble lord that the well-
considered programme of puhlic business announced last
night is now to be changed. On this subject I should like
that there should be no misapprehension on the part of the
house. I ventured last night to say that there was a gene-
ral disposition on the part of the douse of Commons to as-
sist the leader of the house as far as possible in the conve-
nient management of public business. I think we have a
right to expect from the Government, as I ventured to say
then, a spirit equally frank and confiding. Last night the
noble lord made an arrangement which at this time of the
year is more important than at any other, and everything
that falls from the lips of a Minister in the conduct of pub-
lic business is important at all times—last night the noble
lord made an arrangement which the house finally ac-
cepted without hesitation, cheerfully and with satisfac-
tion. I understand that on the 6th of August the pro-
posed change in the paper duties will certainly—if the Go-
vernment persist in that measure—be brought forward.
I take it for granted, notwithstanding the change which
the noble lord has made with respect to the Fortifications
Bill, I take it for granted that the arrangement with regard
to the paper duty will be adhered to.

Lord PALMERSTON—Yes, certainly.
Mr. DISRAELI—I am glad to hear that assurance,
which I am sure will give satisfaction on both sides of the
house. We shall now enter on the discussion of this
measure (the Indian Army Bill). I shall take that course
whici I consider consistent with the course I have taken
previously, and that I have always expressed ; and I have
only risen because the course of public business has been
referred to, and the position of the House of Commons bas
been so treated that a gen‘z al impression would go about
that it was the fault of individual members—who are only
doing their duty to their constituents in this house, in ex-
pressing opinions on public matters—that we are in our pre-
sent mournful condition ; and it is only because that
assertion has been more than once repeated, that I have
risen to make any protest against it. (Cheers.)
The SPEAKER—Perhaps the house will permit me
again to put the question before it, which is that the house
at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next. Two or three
of the later speeches which had been addressed to the house
have passed into the question which is really waiting for
discussion—(hear, hear)—and if this debate goes further, I
must request that hon. gentlemen who may flarther address
the house will not fall into that error. (Cheers from both
sides of the house.)
The motion for the adjournment of the house was then
agreed to at 11 o'clock.