The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LOIIDON., TUESDAY EVE Net, MAY 20, 1856.

we all regret, and which occurred at the commencement

of the late war, by maintaining a larger army, and sup-
porting in every department of our military system more
extensive establishments, we shall probably find, when a
crisis arrives and a struggle is again to be entered upon,
a repetition of the same mischances and disappointments
which prevailed before, with the consciousness that in the
interval we had expended those resources which, having
been accumulated by the wise system of economy that has
generally prevailed of late years, have enabled us to meat
our difficulties with so much comparative ease, and have
also enabled the Minister of Finance this evening to
make a report of our financial position which must
be most satisfactory to the country. We all hope and
expect that we may profit by what has passed, and
that we may learn what are the weak points of our
system, and take care to be better prepared in those
particulars when a future danger may arise. But we ought
to take this opportunity of impressing upon the country
that there is a great difference between an effective and an
expensive army— (hear)—that we' may have a military
system which is perfect, and which at the same time is
founded on a wise economy • that the military establish-
ment which we sanction should be a model rather than a
force, adequate to any great occasion which may hereafter
arise. These are the true principles, and it we can vindi-
cate them we shall have piofited by our late experience,
and we shall be following a course which will maintain the
strength and honour of this country without endangering
those elements of real power which are derived from the
labour and industry of the people. In looking over the
proposed reductions of the original estimates prepared by
the Government I saw with some distrust the large reduc-
tion proposed in the original estimate for the militia. 'That
certainly is a branch of our defences which I hope this
house will never permit to fall again into a state of ineffi-
ciency. The constitution of that national force should be
maintained largely and liberally. I limit myself to the
constitution, because I cannot suppose that we should
keep on foot a largo force of embodied militia as at pre-
sent ; but if the constitution of that force is largely and
liberally maintained, we may appeal to it, when occasion
requires, as a source of strength which will place this
i'iuntry in that position which it is entitled to occupy in
any great European question which may arise. The com-
e •cc ought to impress upon the Government that it ex-
pects they will take advantage of the recess which is ap-
pro .ching to effect great reductions in the expenditure of
the country, not with the intention of obtaiuing a tempo-
rary popularity, for I know well that redactions effected
in that spirit are generally pernicious, but effected on a
distinct principle—on a principle consistent with the
maintenance of the power of this country, and of the posi-
tion welch it ought to occupy in the politics of the
world. Thera is another point on which I desire to
touch for a moment, and it arises out of the conven-
tion with Sardinia to which the right, honourable gentle-
man particul erly referred. I collected from him that the
impression of the Government—l may say their convic-
tion—watts that, according to the letter of that treaty, we
were not hound to furnish a second million to Sardinia.
Upon a question of so great importance, involving not only
the interpretation of a treaty, but also considerations of
high policy, I would not presume to give a hasty opinion,
nor do I think that the Government would expect the com-
mittee at once to give an opinion which may commit it
upon the subject ; but I am quite sure that I do not mis-
represent the feelings of the douse of Commons when I
s ty tha, to all treaties it is always prepared to give a largo
and liberal construction. (Hear.) Bat, when we are asked
to exercise towards Sardinia, under these cireurnstences, a
liberality which, from what I can gather, the Government
is not prepared to recommend that we should exercise to-
wards our own troops ; when, acting in the spirit and not
in the letter of the treaty, we are asked to advance to Sar-
dinia a considerable sum of money, we have a right to ask,
in our turr, that the Government should put fairly, clear-
ly, and frankly before us some view of the relations which
subsist between this country and the King of Sardinia.
I confess myself that nothing that I recollect ever appeared
to me so perplexing and so perilous as the position which
this country has assumed and the relations which it is now
forming in regard to that very kingdom. If I look to the
protocols of the conferences of Paris which have been laid
on the table, I find expressions of sympathy with suffering
Italy which really exceed the usual caution of diplomatic
language. The Sovereign of Sardinia is encouraged appa-
rently in every way by the English Government to fulfil
the high mission to which his subjects believe him to be
called. He is preparing, and he is encouraged to effect,
what he deems to be the liberation of Italy. We have
authoritative evidence of the feelings of the Sardinian Go-
vernment and of the policy of the Sardinian. Ministers in
the very irapertantdocumente which have been promulgated,
and certainly if we were to judge from the protocols of Paris
and from the documents of the Sardinian Ministers we
should come to the 'conclusion that there was a perfect
understanding between the English Ministry and the Sar-
dinian Government, and that, in fact, not only was the
liberation of Italy an adopted policy, but that the means
of effecting it had been agreed upon, and that England
was to occupy a great position in the undertaking. But
how are we to reconcile such language and such diplom itic
documents with the publication of that tripartite treaty,
if not secretly at least unexpectedly concluded, which ap-
parently not only fashions but consolidates a policy op-
posed and adverse to that which Sardinia has adopted,
which she is encouraged to prosecute, and which, accord-
ing to the documents of her eminent Ministers, she is at
this 1111 oaent actively prosecuting? (Hear.) The language
of the Sardinian Ministers is that the presence and 'the
rule of Austria in Italy are insufferable—l give no opinion
of my own upon these points on the present occasion; that
the occupation of Italian provinces by Austria is the prin-
cipal and the prime source of the degradation, the mis-
government, and the misery of Italy ; that those are evils
which it is the mission and policy of Sardinia to termi-
nate; and that Sardinia looks, and has reason to look, for
the co-operation of England in her efforts to this end. If
this be the case, how can we explain that subterranean
policy which at the same time signs the protocols of the
congress of Paris, delete the King of Sardinia on the back,
ant signs a treaty which, we now understand, appeared
unexpectedly, and which, if it has any point at all, has
this point—that the government of Europe is to he carried
on for the future by France, Austria, and England, and
that the security for the tranquillity of the world depends
upon this tripartite alliance? (Hear.) I am not saying
one word against that tripartite alliance—l am not saying
that the alliance of France, Austria, and England may not
be a wise policy. I know that it has been sanctioned and
adopted, on some of the greatest occasions of history, by
men second to no living statesmen. I know well that Lord
Castlereagh, Prince Metternich, and M. de Talleyrand, de-
vised and, I believe, accomplished such an alliance at a mo-
ment of great difficulty at the Congress of Vienna. lam
not now saying anything against that policy, but at a
future time it must form a subject of discussion. The
present state of affairs and the foreign policy which
this country is now pursuing are not only legitimate
subjects of discussion, but our constituents would justly
blame us if we went back to them without having fully
and completely discussed them. Ido not wish to
,enter
into these questions to-night, but when I am asked to
sanction a treaty which demands from the people a large
portion of their treasure to be contributed to a foreign
Power I have a right to ask for some explanation of the
mysterious circumstances which apparently at this moment
affect our relations with that Power. I give no opinion
as to the foreign policy which it may be wise for this
country to pursue. Au alliance with Franco and Austria
may be wise and politic, but it is neither wise nor politic
to enter into an alliance of that kind which, if it means
anything, means a guarantee of the consolidation and the
perpetuity of the Austrian empire, and of course of her
Italian dominions—no mean portion of her empire—and,
at the same time, to enter into relations with the King of
Sardinia which stimulate him to a policy utterly opposed
to the Austrian and Imperial policy, utterly opposed to
the retention of those Italian provinces by Austria, and
utterly inconsistent with the policy which has produced
the tripartite treaty. For the interest of the country and
for the sake of our national reputation it is in the highest
degree desirable that there should be a satisfactory expla-
nation of the strange inconsistency between the protocols
of Paris and the tripartite treaty. How is it conceivable
that England should at one and the same time engage to
rescue Italy from the grasp of Austrian dominion, and
conclude a treaty which in effect guarantees the integrity
of the Austrian empire and declares that the destinies of
Europe shall henceforward be governed by England,
France, and Austria? (Hear.) I want to prevent a re-
petition on the part of the British Government of the
scenes that were enacted is 1818. I hare never met with
any gentleman of any nation who, whatever his political
opinions might be—whether he was a Conservative or a
Liberal in England, or an aristocrat or democrat in some
other country—whether he was a devoted advocate of
monarchical despotism or a frantic follower of Red Repub-
licanism—did not hold the opinion that our conduct in
1848 was not only most disgraceful to ourselves, but most
injurious to Italy. (Hear.) If for the rake of exciting
the unreflecting applause of a mob, and in order to obtain
for the existing Government the reputation of being de-
voted to those vague entities called " liberal opinions"—
(cheers) —we are again to be in the position of stimulating
Italian liberalism, while at the same time we rivet the
fetters of Austrian despotism, I foresee for this nation
consequences most fatal to her just and legitimate influ-
ence, and to that high character which, notwithstanding
the mistakes we sometimes commit, and despite our party
conflicts, it is our happiness to think that our country has
hitherto maintained, the'o will, no doubt, be ample op-
portunity to discuss this question in all its bearings when
the Chancellor of the Exe.equer shall hereafter ask us for a
vote—(hear)—but it appeared to me impossible that the
observations of the right hon. gentleman on the subject of
Sardinia should in the meantime ba allowed to pass wholly
without notice. Ido sincerely hope that.profiting by the
bitter experience of 1818 and by the recollection of Lord
Minto's mission and of tuose scenes of popular tumult
which, excited by English influence, were deserted by
English power—a desertion remembered to this day on the
continent with anguish anti indignation, notwithstanding
the intervening war in which th troops of Sardinia took
so gallant a part—l say ',sir, that Ido devoutly hope that,
bearing all these things in mind, the House of Commons
will refuse to be made the cat's-paw of any Government
for the sanctioning of that pseudo-liberalism which, while
it affects sympathy with oppressed lands, strengthens the
hands of their oppressors. Should the house unhappily
neglect this lesson, they will pursue a policy better calcu-
lated than any that I can imagine to impair their own
authority and to bring dishonour on the reputation of
England. (Hear.) I trust, therefore, that we shall be
most scrupulous in exacting from the Government a pre-
cise, frank, and definite account of the relations between
this country and Sardinia, that we may understand whether
we have played our cards so badly at the late game of
diplomacy that we are at the same time pledged to sup-
port Austrian authority and Sardinian regeneration. This
is a question which is recurring to many minds in this
country. It has touched the heart of England, and be as-
sured it is watched with anxious attention throughout Eu-
rope. I feel a deep interest in the future of Italy, and sure
I am that there is no honest man in this empire who does
not look forward with delight to the day when that im-
memorial land to which we all owe so much shall take her
proper place among the nations, and be again one of the
leading communities of the world. (Cheers.) But I, for
one, base my hope of that consummation on my faith in
the genius of the people and the resources of the country.
Time, the great reformer, will save Italy, but if Um) e can
be anything that will throw her back in her career—:any
thing that will baffle her advancing destinies—it will be
the intrienes of politicians who are not Italians, and who,
for the sake of getting an impulse and support which other-
wise they might not command, trifle with the fate of a
great people, pander to the lusts of secret societies, pretend
to sympathy they do not feel, and for the love of popular
applause and a momentarysuccess, compromise the destiny
of a great anti gifted nation. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—We have heard a great deal of
that eloquence which the right hon: gentleman is capable
vif summoning at any moment to his commande-eloquence
expressing a world of virtuous indignation, which would
be well deserving of the attention and commendation of the
house, were it not that, unfortunately, it is wenting in one
essential—that of having the sli"htest foundation in fact.
(Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman has talked of
mysteries" where WWI and attached to

Rome, finding at her own doors—one might almost venture
to say in every parish—some portion of her subjects upon
whom little reliance can berplaced...At the same time I ven-
ture respectfully to express the opinion that if 3ardiaia
carries the same enlightened spirit into her foreign policy
which has governed her domestic policy she will renounce
and forswear schemes of aggressiou. She has need of a lofty
self-denial and self-command, but a disinterested part is
that which in the end will best serve her interest. Her
duty is, as stated by the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment, to exhibit a right example to Italy, and in the
moral force of that example and the consequences flowing
from it she is certain to find the reward of all her efforts
and struggles. (Cheers.) I am sure it is the unanimous
feeling of the people that we should discharge in an un-
grudging spirit of liberality, and something more, not only
our written obligations to Sardinia, but also those more
general obligations which are to be found beyond the limits
of the treaty we have concluded with her. 1 hope the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will show—l have no doubt
he will, but I express the hope in a distinct form, because
I did not understand that portion of his speech se clearly
as the est—that whatever advance he may propose to make
to Sardinia is to be bona fide for the purpo-e of liquidating
the pecuniary obligations which - are due to her far her
Crimean operations; and I am sure that, as far as the
question of money is concerned, nothing will induce the
House of Commons to stay its hand, provided my right
hon.- friend conforms to the principle which I have thus
ventured to indicate. (Hoer.) And now, following the
example of the last speaker. I feel it to be my duty to re-
fer to those statements which I heard with sincere setis-
, faction proceeding from the right hon. gentleman the mein•
her for Buckinghamshire with respect to the priuciph
upon which Our military expenditure is to be conducts ..
(Cheers.) To whatever it may be owing, we cannot be
blind to the fact that there is a vague impression abroa
that the parsimony of tire Sousa of Commons has been the
cause of the evils and disasters we have recently incurred.
There is no man who, after the light which time has thrown
upon these matters, will deny that we hove incurred evil-
which might have been avoided ; but I hope there at
many men bode in• this house and out of it who will de-
mur to the conclusion that a legitimate connexion can be
traced between those evils and 'an undue economy on th
part of the House of Commons (Hear.) - Let us look t.
the examphss that are immediately before us. If it is eco•
'tenses that has produced those evils, what aro we to sad
to the case mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
—the case of Prussia ? Whatever we may think of th
policy of Prussia, or of the errors which she may recently
have committed, we must regard her as a considerable nit
litary Power, with a well-organised and disciplined army.
and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the
whole of the military expenditure of Prussia, her nave
force being comparatively insignificant, does not amount
to more than 4,900,000/. a-year. I do not suppose that an
English army can be maintained as economically as a Prus-
sian army ; there are many reasons why it should not let
so ; but when we hear language held with respect to th
proceedings of various Administrations and of this house
as if the national purse had been closed and our establish
meats reduced to the lowest scale, it should be recollecte..
that 13,000,0001., 14,000,0001., 15,0)0,000h, and eve'.
16,000,000/. a-year have been ungrudgingly voted for thi
house for many purposes. (Hear.) But if we want ti
dissipate the delusion that an effective army u-nally means
an expensive army, let us take a much stronger case the!
Prussia—the case of Sardinia. The Sartliniau army ii
every point—in.equiPment, in organisation, in discipline
as well as in courage—has won the admiration of all ac-
quainted with it ; and.yet Sardinia is a small country, lie)
army is numerically much less than the British army ha'
ever been and it is maintained at a cost which might wel
make the lips of the most rigid economist in this houst
i water, but which one would be almost afraid to me itio
for fear of frightening the English people into the notio,
that we were going to ;educe our expenditure to the same
level. (Hear, hear, and a lauele.) One word upon a sub
ject whichjhas been-frequently referred to in this debett .
Gentlemen speaking from various parts of the house, upo'
the score of the fact that we have returned from
state of war to a state of peace, seem to be contemplat-
ing a reduction of taxation, and we have even had in-
timations that positive proposals of that kind are to le
male. Yet I think it is undeniable that, as far a,
experditure is concerned,' the year now before is
is not a year of pence at all. 1 do not us•
those words merely in a general sense, but in a sense very
specific, because if you compare the expenditure of 1856-7, a
it has to-night been estimated by the-Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, with the expenditure of 1851-5, which was through
out a year of war, you will find that the former greatly ex-
ceeds the latter. Tho expenditure of 1854-5 was somewhere.
about 68,000,0001., but the statement which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer has made to-night shows that the expendi•
ture of 1855-6 is not 68,000,0001„ but is to amount t(
77,000,0001. With respect )o the provision he has made, the
hon member for Sheffield -mpliinents him upon its lavis'
amount, and t.reatens to aim a blow at a great branch of re-
venue, which will cost a million of money, and he says the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided for it three time:
over in his surplus of revenue over expenditure. I conies-
the provision with reference to the expenditure as it stands on
paper seems to me somewhat narrow. If it be sufficient, it is
qu:te plain it will not be more than sufficient ; for while the
expenditure is 77,0- 0,00,.:/., tee revenue amounts a
67,- 00,0 01. Then there is 1,5 0,0001., which may be takes;
from his balances, and still there is between 8,000,0001 an,'
9,000,0001. deficiency. TL:ere may be 2,1;00,000/, for a vote
of credit, and that reduces it to between 6,000,0001. our
7,000,0001., but nearer 7,000,000/. than 6,000,0001. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to provide 5,000,'0 i.
by the loan for which he has just made arrangements, and he
proposes to borrow 2,000,0001., if necessary, upon Exchequer
bonds or Exchequer-bills. Supposing he gets his 2 000,000/.
on Exchequer-bonds or Exchequer-bills, I do not think the
figures, when they come to be balanced, will show more th :u
a surplus of 160,0001., and such a surplus upon a sum or
77,000,0001. is sailing very near the wind indeed I, for
one, shall be delighted, when the proper opportunity
arises, to see the hoe, member for Sheffield succeed in tak-
ing away a million of money from the revenue of the coun-
try ; but in the present state of our finances I hope the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will hold very firm and
' decided language to prevent incursions on the funds at hiS
command ; and I trust, whatever may be our differences of
opinion, we shall not set the pestilent example of abolishing
' taxes and- supplying their place by borrowed money. lob
served in the early part of this debate that, for the moment,
hon. gentlemen seemed to forget the inevitable relation be-
tween the expenditure and the taxation of the country, It
is now the disposition of the House of Commons to force
increased expenditure upon the Government. From every
quarter we hear suggestions that this ought to be done and
, that ought to bo done—that there should be no parsimony
here and no niggardly proceedings there—until the House of
Commons has become a power on.the whole rather favourable
to increased expenditure than to economy. I must confess
that I should have been glad to see greater reductions than
those which have been announced. If I look at the army
estimates, I am sorry to find the vote which the House of
Commons passed, rather as a war measure than upon any
distinct examination of its merits, for 870,0001. for works,
which is a peace vote rather than a war vote— I am sorry to
find that vote is not likely to undergo more effective scrutiny
or be subject to any sensible reduction. I confess that I
likewise view with some disappointment the amended navy
estimates. A sum of 16,800,0001: is very large ; I will not
say it is alarming, but it is a very disagreeable figure to see
for naval expenditure in the first year of peace. I perceive
a considerable part is for transport service-6, 00,0001. But
still a sum of nearly 11,000,000/. remains for the naval esta-
blishments of the country for the first year of peace ; and,
considering that our n .val establishments are not like those
of the army—considering that the navy can be recalled and
its excess got rid of with far greater facility than the army,
the whole strength of which is in the Crimea, and to bring
hone which will require many, many months, I should have-
been very glad if the right honourable gentleman had pro-
posed to us a more moderate amount, and I am sorry the
house has not seemed disphsed to take hint to task upon
the subject of those estimates. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") If
the house were disposes to do that, whether right or wrong
in particulars, it would be going the right way to work,
(Hear, hear.) But, instead of that, there seems to be a dis-
position to stimulate increased expenditure, while, by ques-
tions, motions, and divisions, every effort isdirectel to stint
ing the means of meeting that expenditure, although those
means are already quite enough, if not perhaps too much, re-
duced. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hold
firm and decided language upon this subject, and make it un-
derstood that it is the intention of the Government to main-
tain taxes until the time comes (no man longs for it more
than I do) when the Government will be in a position to pro-
pose those remaining reforms which I quite agree are yet to
be accomplished in our system of taxation. I long for the
arrival of that time, but until that 'time does come I trust
the Government will be firm in its language, and. I am confi-
dent, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hold language
which is intelligible, he will find that the House of Commons
will never refuse to support him in maintaining the public
' revenue. (Cheers )
Mr. MALINS did not rise for the purpose of complaining of
any of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's propo-itions, but he
thought the countrysweuld be disappointed at learning that
it would have still to bear the infliction of the income tax till
the sth of April 1858. (Hear.) He admitted that the act of
Parliament gave the Government this power, but it was an
accidental error in the act, and he doubted whether the Go-
vernment ought to avail themselves of it. By the strict let-
ter of the law the Government were not bound to give Sar-
dinia another million, yet they were going to do so. He did
not mean to say that the conduct of Sardinia did not fully
entitle her to this money, but what he wanted to show was
that in the ease of Sardinia the Government did not take ad-
vantage of the strict letter of the act of Parliament. He con-
curred in the principle of 'taxation laid down by tho right
hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), and though he ob-
jected to the-insurance duty as an oppressive and impolitic
tax, he would not vote for a proposition which would strike
off 800,000/, from the revenue, which was barely sufficient to
meet the demands of the country. He regretted that some
general agreement was not come to at the Conference of Paris,
by which a reduction could be effected in the armaments of
the military establishments of all countries. (Hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the committee were now aware
of the cost of the war, namely 12,506,000/.; that was to say,
65,744,600/. was raised by taxes, and 254 millions by bor-
rowing. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex•
chequer shook his head, but he (Sir H. Willoughby) believed
he was near the right figure. He thought the house had
come to the conclusion that 774 millions would be required
for the expenditure of the foregoing year ou very light
grounds. Ho could not but come to the conclusion himself
that 77i millions was too much for the public expenditure,
bearing in mind that had been concluded at the begin-
ning of the financial. year. Ho objected to the system of
raising money by bonds as one that would lead to confusion
in the financial accounts. With regard to the loan to Sardinia,
he wished to know whether it was a bona fide loan or not,
He believed, for his own part, that it was a gift and not a
loan, and that, in the circumstances of the Sardinian exche-
quer, they could not expect one farthing of the money back.
They had increased the capital debt of the country, during
two years of war, more than it had been diminished during
40 years of peace. He disapproved of the system of resorting
to loans as highly mischievous, and thought that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer ought to have appropriated some
revenue for the payment of the interest and loans effected.
It was not wise to borrow money and then leave posterity to
pay it as they could.
- Mr. J. G PHILLEVIORE considered the tax on insurances
as-most mischievous, but tinder the present circumstances ho
was not prepared to vote with the hon. member for Sheffield.
He trusted ne attempt-would be made to keep up a great
military establishment, but that a most rigid and unsparing
economy would be exercised in regard to the army. He did
not look on our maritime establishments with the same eye.
The navy- was a constitutional force,. from which no danger
could be apprehended, and it was the best protection for the
Country. . . .
Mr.-HENLEY wished to know whether the sum of
5,000,0001. in Exchequer-bills, which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had stated to be held by the Commissioners for
the Reduction of the National Debt, included the savings
banks investment I • .

very simple treaties meanings which any man who takes
the trouble of reading them for once in his whole life will
perceive at a glance are utterly inapplicable to them.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentlemam has chosen to go
back to the year 1848, making assertions with respect to
the conduct of the Government at that period which I
hesitate not to say are not only totally unfounded, bat
wholly devoid of even the semblance of truth, and which
imply charges whioh are totally untrue. (Laughter.)
As regards our relations with Sardinia, and those allu-
sions to them in the protocols of Paris which the right
hon. gentleman desires to have explained, all I have to say
is that there is no mystery in them. They are known to
everybody, and are manifest on the face of the protocols,
as well as on that of the treaty we have concluded with
Sardinia. They are the relations of perfect confidence, of
cordial friendship, and of intimate alliance—(hear)—but as
to our having engaged with Sardinia in any secret project
for revolutionising Italy and. overthrowing tke govern-
ments that exist in other parts of that country, there is
not the slightest ground for such a supposition, nor the
shadow of a pretext to justify such a charge. (Hear.) It
is not to be denied that Sardinia has a mission to fulfil, a
destiny to accomplish—the great mission, the high destiny
of holding out to all the other States of Italy a bright ex-
ample of liberal institutions and a constitutional govern-
meat—(hear)—and most sincerely do I hope that she will
succeed in that noble enterprise, and that the day is not
distant when all the Italian nations will give proof of their
capacity to govern themselves in a manner to insure the
maintenance of order and liberty and to command the ap-
proval of Europe. Such as I have described them are our
relations with Sardinia, and there is nothing in the proto-
cols that implies anything different from what I have stated.
Nothing has passed between Sardinia and England which
is not known to the world, and which does not do honour
to both countries. No doubt, when a country like Sardinia
nobly joins an alliance such as that subsisting between
France and England, and gallantly launches into a war to
which tho'se allies are committed, there are considerations
of honour -and friendship which make it understood that,
if Sardinia should ever be menaced by an unfriendly Power
she will have a fair claim on England and France to pro-
tect her from insult and injury ; but it is far from the
thoughts of the Sardinian Government, and it never en-
tered into the contemplation of France and England,
that that honourable alliance, founded on good faith and
for noble objects, should be the means of enabling Sar-
dinia to set forth upon a crusade of aggression against
any other State. The right honourable gentleman talks
of the " tripartite treaty" as of an instrument that
contemplates en its execution that the three contract-
ing parties shall govern all Europe and guarantee all the
possessions of Austria. I am really surprised that he should
hizard assertions of that kind with regard to a document
which any man who reads it must perceive t , be suscep-
tible of no such interpretation. The treaty does not imply
that the three Powers in question shall take upon them-
selves any authority or interference in the-general affairs
of Europe, nor does it say one word about guaranteeing
the territories of the contracting parties. (Hear.) It has
only one object, the same that Austria proposed at Vienna
in the spring of last year, namely, that there should be an
undertaking between England, Franco, and Austria to pro-
vide for the due execution of a common treaty having for its
object the securing of the integrity of the Turkish empire.
I am utterly at a loss to understand where in that treaty
the right hon. gentleman finds anything to warrant the im-
pression that it is a treaty erecting those three powers into
the orbitals of the destinies of Europe, or binding England
and France to any guarantee of the territorial possessions
of Austria. There is nothing, therefore, inconsistent in the
provisions of that treaty with the protocols of Paris,Or with
any diplomatic engagements or intercourse which may have
taken place between the British Government and the Go-
vernment of Sardinia. The right hon. gentleman has, I
think, fully j ustifiel what passed in the conferences of Paris
in regarn to the unfortunate condition in which many parts
of Italy now are. He did not, perhaps, go to the extent of
expressing censure ; but, by the anticipations which he ex-
pressed of a better destiny for the future, he very signifi-
cantly showed what be thought of the present state of that
country. We may or may'hot agree with Count Cavour as
to the extent to which the military occupation of States by
foreign troops may affect the happiness, welfare, prosperity,
or greed order of those States ; but I have no hesitation in
saying that I think those occupations are misfortunes, and
that they should cease as soon as possible. They began
under very different circumstances, which might or might
not havej notified them at the time; butthoSe circumstances
have long ceased to exist, and I an ready to admit that,
in my opinion, the time has come when those occupations
ought to be put an end to. But with regard to any en-
gagement for that purpose, there -is nothing but what is
public to all the world on the face of those protocols. These
matters were openly discussed at the conferences of Paris
in the presence of the Austrian Minister, there was no con-
cealment, no mystery about them, the opinions which were
entertained were expressed without the slightest reserve
and withperfect good faith on the part of all who were con-
cerned in the discussions. As to what passed in 1648, those
transactions have often been the suej set of debate in this
house and elsewhere, and those who assert that the Go-
vernment of this country were not actuated by perfect good
faith in the course which they took must assert it in com-
plete ignorance of what passed. The part which we took
was perfectly fair and open. Lord Minto went to Italy for
the avowed purpose of tendering advice to those Govern-
meats which might be willing to receive it with respect to
improvements in their administration. At that time there
was an insurrection in Sicily, and at the request of the
King of Naples we endeavoured to mediate between him
and the Sicilians. We had brought that mediation nearly
to a point. The question was - not what institutions they
should have, because the King of Naples was willing to give
them institutions almost similar to those which teey had
before possessed—but the question was, whether the Crown
of Sicily was to be united with that of Naples on his head.
That would have been settled in a manner satisfactory to
the Sicilians and consistent with the unity of the empire,
when the French Revolution occurred. The news of that
revolution kindled a fresh flame among the SiciliauP, and
they refused to have the King of Naples as their Sovereign.
. Earl Mints, then acting according to the instructions of
the Government, and to the spirit of the mediation which
; we had proposed said that he could no longer carry on coin-
' muoicatious with those who refused to remain subjects of
the King of Naples, after offers had been made to them
which ought to have satisfied them in regard to their in-
stitutions. There was no abandonment of any party that
we bad undertaken to support. We gave them our good
offices up to the point of their continuing to be subjects of
the King of Naples ; but when excited and encouraged by
events in France, they declared that they would no longer
consent on any terms to have the Crown of Sicily united
with the Crown of Naples, we said that good faith to that
Sovereign with whom we were in alliance, and with whose
consent our diplomatic agent had entered on mediation,
prevented our carrying on that mediation any further.
Earl Miate therefore retired, and the parties were left to
deal with each other as they pleased. There was nothing
then in that transaction with which this country need be
dissatisfied. We gave every assistance to put an end to the
quarrel which had broken out between the people of Sicily
and the Neapolitan Government ; and our failure was not
owing to any want of effort or goodwill on our parts, but
to events which took place in another part of Europe which
proved fatal to an arrangement which was otherwise in a
fair way of being satisfactorily settled. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. T. BARING supposed that he must be: labouring
under some grave delusion, for he had thought that they
were called upon to consider some financial resolution, but
somehow, instead of talking about the Three per Cents.,
the right hon. gentleman opposite had led them into a dis-
cussion about a tripartite treaty. Recalling the attention
of the committee, however, to the subject of the budget, he
(Sir F. Baring) thought that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had taken a wise course in not pledging himself with
regard to his future policy. At present it was difficult to
ascertain what our war expenditure had actually been; nor
was it easy yet to see what estimates would be required
for the future. His right hon. friend would find himself
beset in all quarters by gentlemen who had hobbies of their
own with regard to particular taxes, but he trusted that
his right hon. friend would stand firm, and that he would
abandon no revenue -until he could submit to Parliament
a statement as to what the future peace establishments
of the country were to be, and as to the mode in which
ha proposed to provide for those establishments. (Hear,
hear.) It was no very easy thing to define what a per-
fect tax was. Since 1816 we had been constantly revising
our system of taxation; and yet in all his financial expe-
rience he had never been able to meet with a perfect tax;
but he begged to remind his right hon. friend and the
committee, that there were certain taxes which had been
imposed purely as war taxes under the promise that they
should be removed within a certain time after the conclu-
sion of peace ; and that it would be impossible for the
Government to fulfil their promises with respect to those
taxes if they were induced to part with other sources of
revenue with respect to which no such promises had been
given. (Hear.) He concurred with the right hon, gentle.
man the member for Buckinghamshire in hoping that, be-
tween the present time and the setae period next year, the
Government would take seriously into their consideration
the establishments of the country with the view of re-
dicing them. (Hear, hear.) He believed that economy
and efficiency not only could, but generally did go toge-
ther, and that lavish expenditure was frequently produc-
tive of great evils. (Haar.) He did not think that we
should have been better prepared for the late contest if we
had spent double the sums upon the army and navy.
(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, he trusted that
next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able
to tell the country that- the Government had, while still
retaining the establishments iu an efficient state, reduced
them to a,peace level. If that should not be the case, he
felt convinced that the people would sail upon the house
to reduce the expenditure, and return to those ld prac-
tices of economy which had not been so fashionable during
the last years as they formerly were. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE—AIthough I may regret that we
have been led to trespass to so considerable an extent upon
questions of foreign policy on an evening devoted to finan-
cial concerns, yet it is not to be denied that the pro-
posal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with
respect to Sardinia—a proposal the grounds of which were
not fully developed—has tended, to a certain degree,
to carry us into that field. , For my right hon. friend
has proposed to the committee, with regard to Sardinia,
that we should enter into an arrangement which is not
comprehended within the treaty we have concluded with
that Power, and upon the grounds of which we ought
to be fully informed. (Hear, hoar.) Recollecting the
Manner in which the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire, notwithstanding his objections to the
system of subsidies and guarintees in general, received, in
common with those who sit, beside him, the proposal of
last year to make a loan to Sardinia, I am sure we are not
to regard his speech to-night as indicating any change of
feeling on his or their part with respect to the policy of
that measure. (Opposition cheers.) I take the liberty of
saying so much, because, even at the hazard of following
the example, if such it he, of discussing what is beside the
question, I crnnot say how much importance I attach to
maintaining abroad the conviction that if there is a subject
of foreign policy upon which the House of Commons, if not
absolutely unanimous; yet approaches to'bunanimity, it is
in the feeling of respect and regard which we entertain
towards the Sardinian Government and people, and in our
sense of the duty of lending them every support that the
moral influence of England can give. (Cheers.) The right
hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire alluded
to certain indications which he finds in one of the protocols
of the conferences at Paris-of an aggiesiive policy on the'
part of. Sardinia. I venture to say that, even if Serdinia did
entertain such schemes of aggression—and although we
might, upon being assured that such was the fact, regret
that she harboured such feelings—yet, considering her po-
sition, we could. scarcely wonder at it. We must consider '
the extreme difficulty which is experienced by a very small
country that has one neighbour—awl •Ictiireß rno.o.than
•
one—of whom stlo has cause to he a fie;id, end onlv • I,:v .Lastrrauffes. It war; sa,cl-ia.,!l
her polhical position complicated by foreign- policy io its -of tee c- entry a more temporary oraarg•eney -r:
ordinary sense, but is likewise troubled in the rectification offices were aliowed'to retain the duty for a lens time ; and
of her ecclesiadieal laws on account of her relations with ; if the duty was reduced at owe, the pressing necessity for

iiis

-:7_011 to rrA,,iitai

tat

money would have passed away before the reyenuo would son making the insurance, he being a British subject, and
feel the effects of the reduction, against whom they could enforce it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to answer -Sir F. KELLY had great difficulty in seeing how the Go-
several questions that had been put to him in the course of vernment were to derive means of knowing what insurances
the discussion. The sum of 5,000,0001. Exchequer Bills in might be effected abroad.
the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Na. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
tional Debt did include the investment ou account of the say- clause of importance in one respect ; but as to the essence of
ings banks. The hon. and learned member for Wallingford the bill he considered it was comained in the third clause.
bad referred to the provisions of the act imposing the income ' Mr. WILKINSON hoped the committee would not enter-
tax. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not attempted tarn the clause, which, in his opinion, would prove inope-
to argue as to the equity or justice of the provision, but had i ratite.
simply taken the act as it stood, and if they looked to the Mr. BAXTER looked upon the clause as calculated to en-
previsions of it they would see that the conclusion of a treaty courage a system of espionage in this country which was
of peace referred to the exchange of the ratifications. He had quite foreign to the habits and inclinations of the British
not entered at all into the question of the financial arr imp- people.
ments for the following year; they would come better before A conversation ensued, in whict, Mr. Hankey, the Solicitor-
tne house when they hail had experience of the expenditure • General, Sir F. Kelly, Lord Stanley, Mr. Hadfield, the Attor-
of the coming year. With regard to the malt tax, it was only nu-General, and Mr. Ewalt, took part, as to what the et-
the addition of five per cent. cl.ded for the war that expired feet of the clause would be in relat ou to the non payment of
in July next ; the tax remained as before. The hon member the duty to the Crown, and how it was to be ascer-
for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) stated that his (the Chan- tained that the persons effecting such policies were become
cellor of the Exchequer's) estimate of 77,500, :13011. for the ex- debtors to the Crown, and which, it was intimated by the
penditure of the coming year was excessive. but such was not Attorney-General, a machinery would be provided by the bill
he ease, as might be found by adding the amount of the esti- to inee, such cases Much, no d'oub, would depend upon the
mates on the table to the charge for the debt. With regard honout and faith of those insuring.
to the Sardinian loan, it was true, a 4 stated by the hon. gen- Sir F. KELLY would assume that the object in view was a
tleman the member for the University of Oxford, that'ho had proper object, but how was the duty to be paid ? There
not submitted a complete view of the grounds on which the should be some machinery devises under which persons liable
Government asked the house to consent to the payment of to pay this duty should be able to pay it.
the second million ; but it would be necessary to propose a The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that it was the duty
1)ill to give effect to the stipa.ati .ne of the treaty. and when of the Government to effect this object, and it should have
it was int, oduced the subject could be fully considered; but their consideration.

he was Satisfied the house Would consider that the nation
was bound in honour t pay the 'mone.T. The expense acta-
dly incurred by the SArdiuian Government'bad exceeded the
un of two millions, and they had made application to her
\fajesty',4 Government fur additional assistance ; but her
lij-Lsty's Government did not, under the circumstances, feel
tnemselves warranted in assentiu,r to the proposal. Some
•cference had been made to the subject of a revsiou of te,xa-
Lion, but what he intended to say was, that the mere fact of
a change from war to peace was to be followed by a general

'avision of taxation. The house should recollect that within
;he last few years every branch of taxation had undergone a
systematic review. '-
Mr. WILLIA.MS said the right hon. Chancellor of the Ex-
3hequer had not answered his question as to when details of
lie reduction in the estimates would be laid on the table.
Sir C. WOOL) said that nine•tenths of the votes in the
•aval estimates had been taken in full. There were only two
•rotes in which there was -a reduction—in the number of men

I.nd the vote for the •transport service. Ho would make a
itatement ou moving the balance of the votes which would
;ive every information
Mr. WALPOLE asked whether it was intended to separate
the votes for the ordnance service from those more properly
ielonging to the army ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCLIEQUER said that it was
:utended, in the Appropriation Bill, to divide the military
estimates into two portions, analogou4 to the old distinction
between the army and ordnance votes. Full opportunity for
iscussing the whole army estimates would be given when
Aue votes were taken for the balance.
The resolutions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exche-
inor 3vcre then agreed to:

On the question being then put, that clause 2 stand part of
the bill, the committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
• Against it

On clause 3,

Majority

-89

Mr HENLEY said that the first lino of the clause was
rather obscure, and he proposed to insert the wards, " amd
agent," to make it more intelligible.

-The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought the amendment un-
necessary, and
After some discussion, it was withdrawn, and the clause was
agreed to.

The remaining clauses were agreed to.
Mr. HADFIELD proposed a clause reducing the present
rate of duty to a shilling in a hundred pounds by the year.
He believed that in consequence of the present enormous duty,
one-half the property in London and one-third in the country
was uninsured. He apprehended that the removal of this
duty altogether would not be bad policy.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER said, whenever
the time should arrive for taking into consideration the abo-
lition of existing "taxes, the propo.sal of the hon, member
should be taken into consideration.

FIRE INSURANCES BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill.
Mr. BAXTER said he had several objections to the bill in
is amended form. It had its origin in the circumstance of
'oreign insurance companies having opened offices in London
tied seriously affected the insurance duty. The Chancellor-of
;he Exchequer was naturally anxious to apply a remedy to
.his state of things ; but ho doubted whether the proposed
•emedy would be efficacious. The bill would only be an
advertisement for foreign insurance companies. It might
;hut up one or two offices in Loudon, but the necessary con-
4equence would be to increase the number of insurances
effected abroad. This could only be prevented in one way,
iy reducing the present exorbitant duty, which was so ex-
:essive that it defeated its own object of raising revenue. At
,resent, only one-sixth of the insurable property of this
eantry was insured. It was only in 1820 that the business
if. fire insurance had been taken up in France ; and at this
aoment upwards of sixteen millions worth of property was
"'mired there, double the amount that was insured in this
;ountry. The duty on marine insurance in this country was
it one time excessive ; and the result was that a great part of
le business went abroad ; but the Government seeing this,
.00k the alarm, and reduced the duty. At p: esent, the duty
in fire insurances was 200 per cent. ; but on life insurances
t was at a much lower rate, aud there was even a bonus on
ife insurance in the Income Tax Act. The provisions of the
,ill before the house could only be enforced by opening every
otter that passed through the Post-office. • It was a mere
Chbling at the difficulty, and trifling with a great question.
-'Hear, hear.) ,He hoped that the right hon gentleman, with
niat philosophical accuracy for which he was distinguished,
vould take a proper view of the subject, and remit this duty.
dear, hear.)
Mr. WILKINSON said he would not be one to urge the
Yiaucellor of the Exchequer to remit any duties at the pre-
sent moment; but this wee a case in which the revenue
:vould inevitably be lost if something were not done to enable
~aglish offices to compete. with those abroad. He hope the
-.gilt hon. gentleman would give sin assurance that this
.could be the first tax to be repealed. (Hear.)
HA.DFIELD said the principles of free-trade were
leaking great progress ou the continent ; and this bill went
,o prove to our neighbours that we were most selfish and
determined to maiutain a monopoly where our own trade
vas concerned. At this moment, when most important
emstious ,were being agitated on the continent, this lithe
iltry bill was likely to stop the movement in favour of
free -trade. The duty of 200 percent. was most exorbita et ; and
tie believed that the drawback allowed, amounting to 65,00:
issisted sonic small offices to pay their expenses. ,
Sir S. BIGNOLD hoped the Government would persevere
.vith this bill, whose object-fie considered to be, not to shut up
two or three foreign agencies in London, but to place the Eng-
lish aud foreign offices on the same footing. The revenue de-
rived 1,3000,0001. from this tax, and in return the Govern-
.nent might to do something in favour of the English compa-
nies, which supported the fire brigades, and afforded other ad-
vantages to the public. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer
could afford to give up two-thirds of the duty, the companies
would gladly accept the boon, bat they did not press for it.
Mr. GLYN supported the bill, on the ground that the
foreign offices were carrying on a contraband trade, and com-
peting unfairly with English companies. He was surprised
that gentlemen connected with insurance offices should oppose
this bill, which was meant more for their protection than for
that of the revenue. (Hear.) Considering that this tax yielded
1,300,000/2a year, which was more easily collected, perhaps,
than any other, he thought the Government would be blame-
able for giving it up in the present state of the revenue. The
total amount of insurable property in this country was 3,250
millions, of which about one-third was insured. When the
duty on agricultural policies was reduced, it was not imme-
diately followed by a large increase in the insurances on that
class of property ; the amount had only increased from fifty-
I two millions in IP4I to sixty-seven millions in 1856. The in-
ferenee was that such reduction as was now proposed in the
duty on fire insurances would not lead to anything like such
an increase as was anticipated. When they spoke of the
amount of insurances abroad, it should be borne iu mind that
both in France and Holland the " average clause" was inserted
in every policy. (Hear.) Should the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer be much pressed on this question, he might give relief
by reducing the duty to Is. or ls. 6d. on policies containing
the average clause ; and in this way the competition of the
French offices might best be met. This system of the absence of
the average clause operated detrimentally in another way. The
greatest amount of losses arose from small fires, which might
be obviated, but which the parties had no desire to obviate,
because they got full payment for the loss. If they had the
average clause losses in that way would not arise.
Lord STANLEY said he thought this tax not only the
most inexpedient, but, to use a stronger word, the most im-
moral tax that could be conceived. But, still at this particu-
lar moment he quite concurred in the general feeliug of the
house that they should not disturb the financial arrangements.
Ho believed, however, that the bill would be inoperative un-
less larger powers were given than those it now contained.
Under the bill every person who acted as an anent for a fo-
reign office, unless he took out a lice- e was liable to penal:
ties. But an nines might advertise, and the business miget
and would be- transacted by correspondence ; there was no-
thing to -come before the public of which it was-possible Go-
vernment could take cognisance. He should therefore reluc-
tantly vote against going into committee on the bill.
Mr. TITE seid lie held a foreign policy in his hand, dated
the 7th of May', which contained the ave:wee clause, and
there was also anothe;' condition, that if the parties could not
ee
a.ree as to the total value the matter must he erni tt d to the
French courts ir their decisice:e He did not mean to insinu
; ate that justice would not be done in the It Deli courts as
well as in those of England, but still x:../Jere was the expense
and inconvenience of having proceedings in a foreign court.
Fir this reason lie thought that into, ference was not neces-
sary, but still he found that them was a large amoCht of Eng-
lish insurances effected with foreign offices, and there: should
be some protection for the British offices till the Government
could consider the whole subject.'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the bill
proposed to remove the unfair competition now existing be-
tween British and foreign companies, and against which com-
petition the preseut state of the law provided no remedy The
foreign offices weie under no duty, while' the British were The
bill, however, was objected to ou the ground that it would
not effect the object in view, and that objection lead been urged
even by those who professed their anxiety to remedy the evil
complained of. Tho bill h.d been drawn up by able mem, and
submitted to and approved of by the law iifficers of the Crown.
It also received the sanction of men engaged in and well ac-
quainted with the business if insurance offices. He thought
it would answer the purpose for which it was introduced, au,i
felt himself responsible for its int eduction, If it should
prove a failure, a more stringent measure might be intro-
duced ; but ho did not think it right that hon. gentlemen
who thought the object it proposed a proper one, should
satisfy themselves by simply objecting that it could not carry
out that object. • Their duty was manifestly to go into com-
mittee, and then endeavour to improve it Those gentlemen
who were in favour of a reduction of the duty said, " We will
mot allow you to amend the law unless you make a bargain
with us to diminish the duty." He could not, however, con-
sent to sacrifice-300,000/. per annum at the very time when
he was asking the house to sanction a loan of 5,000;001. He
was also of opinion that any attempt to force by leeis'ation
such a provision as the average clause, would not meet either
the acceptance of the house or the country. He hoped the
house would agree to the motion, that the Speaker do now
leave the chair.
Sir F. KELLY said the right hon. gentleman had not dis-
tinetly informed the house whether the duty was imposed for
the protection of insurance offices or the revenue, but for
whatever purpose the bill was brought forward, in his (sir F.
Kelly's) opinion, it was a total failure. It came back to the
question whether they were to continuo a protective duty ou
foreign policies. If they were to say that every or• who put
his name up to take foreign insurances was bound to take out
a licence, that was quite understandable. But that was not
the purpose of the bill for it said that " every one who took
a proposal for an insurance" was to take out a licence, and
that, unless he did so, he was to be fined 1001. a day for
every day he neglected to do so. He contended that this
was a violation of all propriety and justice. It was an effort
to impose a tax which it would be impossible to carry out.
Ho suggested that the better course would be to leave these
foreign agents to act in accordance with principles which
influenced man and man in the ordinary transaction of
business.
•
Mr' GREGSON said that the only object of this bill was
to make foreign offices pay the. duty now paid by English
offices..

The clause was then negatived without a division, and the
house resumed.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL.
On the motion that the Speaker should leave the chair,
Mr. SPOONER objected to going into committee at that
late hour.

Mr. LOWE hoped they would allow him to proceed with
.the bill.

Mr. HENLEY and Mr. MALINs objected to going into com-
mittee, and the commitiee was postponed till Friday.

POOR-LAW AMErsTDIIENT BILL.

On the motion that this bill should be read a second time,
Mr. HENL t,IIY objected to the second reading at present,
as there were some important principles involved in it.
Sir G PECHELL and Lord J. MANNERS also objected.
Mr. BOUVERIE said the objections to certain clauses were
objections to be considered in committee.
Mr. HENLEY said be was sorry to be compelled to move
that the debate should be now adjourned.
Lord J. MANNERS said there was no expectation on the
part of hon. members that the second reading would be pro-
ceeded with that night.
Mr. BOUVERIE consented hot to press the second read-
ing, and it was adjourned till Friday.
Transfer of Works (Ireland) Bill, and Court of Exchequer
(Scotland) Bill, were each read a second time.

Mr. ALCOCK reminded hon. gentlemen who supported
this bill that it, would be a premium upon habits of i:nprovi-
donee. lie would vote against the bill.
Mr. VANSITTART moved that the bill be committed that
day six months.
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority —l4l
The house then went into committee.
Clause 1 ;vas agreed to. On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. BAXTER -id that the bill aNnecl rt a s stern of
,71.1 • • _ •:7.111. ,tion was cn „az,,

- .
f,, j, • ERA', sairi bii,.ifici'dy wont: to
impose a duty on foreign offices similar to that paid by Eng.
Lash offices, The object wad-to impose thil duty on the per.