The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

THE 0 StyN,', LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 8 1801.

which he thinks will follow from it. With regard to the
titper, f and the
various applications which may be made of
immense spread of knowledge which is follow and
the
repeal of this duty, these arguments may do very well for
Parliament, but I have not the least faith in them I hope
nay noble friend Will not repeat the stale arguments about
cheap literature. These have been all answered. (Earl
Granville : Where?) Why, in every house, in every con-
versation, in Parliament, and in every society where the
questionhas been argued. (Hear.) Look at the most im-
por taut publishers—look at the authority of Mr. Bohn, who
lees surely some knowledge of the subject. (Hear.) I know
None class to whom the relief would be considerable, and
that would be the class of propriet Is of penny newspapers.
They may expect to buy the raw material cheaper, and they
certainly will not make the least reduction in the price to
their consumers. Another point is that it would give re•
lief to the dealers in groceries and other goods which are
wrapped, or. as the noble lord in his peculiar phraseology
says,"wrapped" up. (Laughter.) I belies e that the
main argument in favour of taking off the paper duty con-
sists in an article which has been introduced for the first
time this year into the discussion, and which I
may call the great bandbox argument. (Laughter.) Next
to the proprietors of penny papers the makers of band-
-boxes will derive the greatest benefit from the reduction,
but as to all other classes the advantages will be nearly nil.
(Hear.) I say nearly nil as compared with the reduction
arf tke income tax, or a proportionate reduction of the tea
and sugar duties. My noble friend surely will not deny
that a redaction of the tea and sugar duties would be a
!greater and more general benefit to the working classes than
the remission of the paper duties. But this is a financial
question, upon which the House of Commons has a second
time expressed an opinion. I won't stop to examine whet
may be the various ruotives which induced them to come to
the conclusion at which they have arrived. It will be suffi•
cient for me to say that that conclusion was not simply
guided by the merits of the tax itself, or the degree of relief
which it would give to the community. It was carried by
a majority somewhat large than the third reading of last
year—a majority of 15. But it is perfectly notorious that
that majority was obtained by the votes of a certain number
of gentlemen who were sincerely opposed to a reduction of
the paper duty, but who were still more opposed to running
the risk—not a great risk I think—(laughter)—of disturbing
the Government by compelling them to resign their offices
or to dissolve Parliament. lam not in the secrets pf the
Government, but looking at the complacent manner in
which they took the check of the House of Lords last year,
I confess to a very strong opinion that her Majesty's Go-
vernment would have shown a placid and calm resignation.
And with regard to the dissolution of Parliament, r have
-too high an opinion of the prudence, sagacity, and wisdom
of the noble viscount at the head of the Government to
think that he would appeal to the country on any such
question as to whether paper should be preferred to tea and.
sugar. (Cheers.) But a majority of the House of Com-
mons decided in favour of the repeal of the paper duty ; and
I am perfectly ready to admit that upon a question of a re-
peal of duties, and the financial arrangements generally, it
does not seem expedient that your lordships, save in very
exceptional cases, should interfere with the discretion of
the House of Commons beyondithe extent to which the con •
stitution gives you a right to. Suppose there is a surplus,
all
the the House of Commons, on a full consideration of
the circumstances, have come to a decision that it is expe-
dient the paper duty should be repealed, I certainly should
not wish to take on myself the responsibility of. advising
your lordships to set yourselves on such a point _tn opposi-
tion to the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons.
Last year the question was widely different. The question
then was whether upon the showing of the Chancellor of
he Exchequer that there would be no surplus in the follow-
ing year you would not give to the House of Commons a
further opportunity of considering the policy of sacrificing
this permanent source of taxation. But the question now
arises not so much with regard to the merits of the case as
with regard to the amount of interference which may be
justifiable or desirable en the part of your lordships' house.
And this is a point on which I find myself compelled to differ
in some degree from my noble friend—namely, as to the dis-
cretion that we should exercise on this occasion. As to the
right of the House of Lords to deal with clusters of taxation
—and with regard to the privileges of the two houses gene-
rally, it is extremely desirable that no mistake should exist
as to their respective limits. 14.• bile there is a debateable
ground between the two houses there is certainly one point
on which there can be no discussion at all. As to theother
it must be settled as the question arises by the prudenceand
discretion of each individual house. (Hear, hear.) But
there is nothing more clearly laid down and recognised than
that to the House of Commons belongs the initiation of
every money bill. On the other hand, nothing is more in-
disputable--and that is the vindication of your lordships'
conduct last year—thans that the House of Lords have
the power of accepting or rejecting any money bill. The
debateable point is whether the House of Lords has the
power of altering a money bill submitted to them by the
House of Commons. 'What is the meaning of " having
power ?" The privileges of the two houses depend
on the mutual recognition of their respective powers,
and on the power of enforcing that recognition. The
House of Commons would not look at a money bill which
was introduced by the Lords, and their remedy is obvious—
to refuse to deal with it. The Lora reject a money bill
which they do not approve of, and the result is clearly the
same; the bill falls to the ground and there is an end of it.
The House of Lords alter a rneney bill, and send it back to
the House of Commons. The House of Commons refuse to
entertain it. Let us see on what does their claim rest?
It rests upon a reseAution of 1671, entered into by the House
of Commons ae, to the privileges and rights of that house,
and incident'ally as to the privileges aid rights of the other
house. With regard to the privi eges of the House of Com-
Inol2B tleir resolution may be sufficient to bind them ; but
witk regard to the privileges of he House of Lords, a simple
resolution of the House of Commons is, with all due respect
to that high authority, a piece of waste paper. The privi-
leges of your lordships' house cannot be restricted by a
resolution of the House of Commons. However prudence
may have induced your lordships to refrain from altering
money bills you have never resi,paed the right of making
amendment in those bills, though you have tempered the
exercise of that right by discretion, and by the knowledge
that if you do make amendments it is the same thing as
rejecting the bill. But every authority concurs in giving
this right of altering money bills to the House of Lords if
they think fit to exercise it. Mr. Hallam so lays it down ;
Lord Macaulay so lays it down; and in a work written by
my noble friend on the cross benches, I find the opinion of
Mr. Fox stated to this effect. It was a bill for regulating
csrnmerce with America, and was introduced in 1787. The
bill was committed, andi recommitted, with a variety of
amendment, and under the next administration further
altered by the House of Lords. "It was a money bill, but
lam of 'opinion," said Mr. Fox, "that the order of the
house respectinc, money bills should not be too strictly con-
strued. It would be absurd to send a loan bill to the House of
Lords for their concurrence and at the same time denythem
the right of deliberation." That is the opinion of Mr. Fox
upon the resolution of the Houseof Commons in 1671. The
privilege depends en the power of enforcing it. When you
amend a bill it falls to the ground. In former times—l do
not know whether the practice is still continued—it was
usual I believe to kick such a bill out of the house, or to
throw it tinder the table. It seems to me that such a form
was not a very dignified mode of proceeding, especially
when it was often followed by the introduction of a bill
with those very amendments which had been treated with
so much dignity. The House of Commons, if you choose to
act on your constitutional rights, may refuse to entertain
the bill, in which ca.e it falls to the ground, or they may
introduce another bill or bills carrying out the same ob-
jects, and send them to the Lords in a form that they be-
lieved would be more acceptable to this house. This is the
limit of the rights and privileges of the two Houses of Par-
liament, and their rights can be enforeed in no other man-
ner than by the rejection of the measure, in the one form or
the other. In bills which are for the special purpose of
taxation, not bills in which money clauses may be intro-
duced incidentally, this is of the highest consequence, be•

cause wherever either house insists on the maintenance of

its privileges in that case, according to the circumstances of
the case, the matter will be judged of by the supremejudge
of all in this country, public opinion—(hear)—and that
house of the two which pushes its privileges to an unrea-
sonable extent and displays an unconciliatory spirit towards
the other will be the one which, in the cause of a great ma•
tional calamity—such as the shocking failure of the means
of carrying on the Government —will be visited by great
public indignation—(hear)—and that is the real control and
the real means by which the apparently conflicting privi-
liges of the two houses are prevented from bringing the
w,,or_kleng,•,oofn tehe constitution to a dead lock. (Hear, hear.)
s have dealt
with regard to the mode in which the
t`-'o7auleo
jilt,vtodzt wit'i this question, and with regard
interpretation of ticeli I wish to refer. Accordino• to the
if their privileges by the House of Com-
mons, that bill, contained a money provision,
could not be amended the House of Lords, but
the whole measure must beswallowedo or rejected alto I
gether ; and it is apparent that .sd exclude the House
of Lords from the exercise of thevirul slative functions.
There never has been any, doubt as tmlehnigieeindmissibility of
tacks—as to the introduction into a
with
billl of subjects
wholly different from and unconnected
ob-
ject. But a more difficult question arises wheni
the
introducedionie todeal wi th large financial schemes, when nothing
but what has reference to finance, but in which various
jects of finance are mixed up and put together for the !Coin--
sideration of Parliament. lam ready to admit to my noble
friend opposite that there are repeated precedents for the
introduction of whole financial schemes, for their being sent
to the House of Lords and agreed to by this house. But,
on the other band, there are repeated cases of financial
measures having been amended by the House of Lords and
accepted by the House of Commons. Suppose ono bill sent
up last year for imposing a penny income tax and repealing
the paper dirty; no one could complain of any excess of
authority on the part of the House of Commons, and like-
wise nobody could complain that House of Lordsi
tits
h judg-
ment d
tohfe
exercising
not the opportunity and the power .
by accepting the whole or rejecting the
one couldthewhole.lfth
two points were fairly counterpoised, n
com-
plain that this house had not an opportunity of
whfdeenalinbyg
with the subject ; but the case is totally different
the action of the House of Commons you take away a
permanent tax and substitute for it a purely temporary
one. This point has been urged in the other house by a
right honourable baronet—a member of great weight and
experience in that house. It was laid down in the draft
report drawn up by a right honourable friend of mine
Whom I highly esteem and regard (Mr.
Walpole), but
which report was not accepted by the committee. But
both of these right hon. gentlemen have come to an opinion
which I think is most fallacious in its origin and most
dangerous in its conclusion. The argument is this—that
if you allow a large portion of the revenue to be raised by
permanent taxation, which cannot be taken off without
the consent of the House of Lords, and it is admitted that
you cannot take it off without their consent, you
weaken the power of the House of Commons. That
power it is allowed has been weakened, and it is argued
that it woo ld be expedient and good policy to recover that
power at 'the expense of the permanent revenue of the
country. ;This is a gross fallacy in argument. It is a per-
you can really affect the control
fect fallacy to say that
which the House of Commons has over the finances of the
country, from whatever source derived. It might have been
all very will in early days, when there was a question
whether the necessities of the Crown might require that
Parliament should be called together to enable toe Crown
to carry on the business of the country without the House
of Commons at all. tut that a .prehension has long since
fallen to the. ground, and ceases to have the slightest prac-
tical effect. What is the power of the House of Commons,
and what is its control over the finances of the country ?
The supplies for the army and navy, the two great services
of the country, are voted tr ,m year to year, and without the
sanction of Parliament to the application of the means for
the payments of the country those services would at once
fall to the ground. That is the case with regard to the
army, the navy, the miscellaneous services, and everything
which has to be provided for by annual, estimates; that is
say, nearly the whole of the ways and means of the
country is entirely and absolutely in the hands of the House
of Commons.
But, again, after the services of the year
posed and provided for, after the measures- of
have been decided upon, the House of Commons
have
t.,a2c,ltte2s anbeen
absolute control, not only over the levying of
ca;itiorn, but over its application, because not one single
ptun 61 the Irey A means reified for the service of the
y s

country, not titan that raised by permanent taxation, can
be applied to the purposes for which they are destined with-
out an appropriation act which must originate in the House
of Commons, and which receives as a matter of course the
sanction of your lordships, to carry into etf,ct the engage-
ments previously entered into by the House of Commons.
(Hear.) The control of the other House of Parliament over
the finances of the country consists, first, in die necessity
by an annual vote to provide for all the great services of the
country; and next, that no step can be taken for the appli-
cation of the money voted without the introduction of all
the items into an appropt iation act. But let us suppose that
this privilege of the House of Commons is carried to the
utmost, and that they do away with the whole of the per-
manent taxation of the country, and observe that if thispre-
cedent is to be followed, and that the surply for the
year is to be purchased by the abolition of some permanent
luty, then gradually the permanent taxation of the country
will be reduced to a minimum, and if the permanent taxa-
tion be reduced to a minimum then all the great services of
the country will be compelled to be provided for by the an-
nual vote of Parliament. Then if all the taxes affecting
trade are required to be provided for and made dependent
upon the annual votes—if permanent taxation, which alone
can give security for the interest of the national debt, and
for the maintenance of the credit of the country, is to be
done away with, most serious and ruinous consequences
must be the result. Therefore, while Ido not say that in
the present case I am disposed to object to the exercise of
the discretion of the House of Commons, I do say that it is
a serious question, not only for your lordships' considera-
tion, but for the consideration of the members of the House
of Commons, and I hope of the great majority of those who
value the permanence of the inst tutions of the country,
and I warn them to beware of any attempt to substitute
annual for permanent taxation, and thereby to unsettle the
whole relations of commerce, checking its credit and faith,
and introducing into all financial matters an uncertainty
which mu• t be prejudicial to the highest and best interests
of the country. (Hear) It is in my recollection when the
sugar duties used to be an annual vote, and so great was
the inconvenience found to result, and such the paralysation
of trade that took place from the uncertainty.whether the
duty would be left unaltered, reduced, or increased in the
course of each successive year, that it was found absolutely
necessary to continue that which had been annual and to
make it a permanent duty. And if it is this that the right
hon. baronet of whom I have spoken complains of, as an
infraction of the privileges of the House of Commons it was
a concession by the House of Commons not of its privileges,
but of that which was felt to be absolutely essential for the
commercial and mercantile interests of the country. (Hear.)
Therefore I do earnestly hope that this question of substitut-
ing annual for permanent taxation will be carefully weighea
by this and the other House of Parliament before the sys-
-1 tern is allowed to proceed to that extent which must be
adverse to the beat interests of the country. From what
I have already said, your lordships will infer that it is not
my wish or desire to recommend to your lordships to inter-
fere with the exercise of the discretion of the House of
Commons so far as relates to the abolition of the paper duty.
(Hear, hear.) I think myself that it is an imprudent and
improvident course in the face of the future difficulties;
but it is a measure that has been determined upon twice in
succession by the other House of Parliament ; it is a purely
financial measure, and we are to suppose it has been decided
upon by the House of Commons upon purely financial
grounds, and that being so I should be sorry to see your
lordships set yourselves at variance with the House of
Commons upon a matter purely of their own privileges.
Bat there is a question that remains. The question has
been raised as to the power of the House of Lords ; not, in-
deed, to debate the motion of ray noble friend, and reject
the bill, involving the rejection of the whole of the supplies
of the year, not to put ourselves in opposition to the vote of
the House of Commons, but to take a step which we cer-
tainly have the power to take, and which is quite constitu-
tional, namely, to divide this bill into two, and send the
two bills down to the House of Commons, for them to ac-
cept or reject. I must say that the course of proceeding is
one that has much to recommend it in point of principle,
but in point of prudence I very much doubt whether it is a
desirable course for your lordships to take. (Cheers.)
The noble earl opposite (Earl Granville) has repeated to-
night what was said elsewhere, that in sending the bill up
to your lordships' house in this form the Government were
taking a measure of the most conciliatory character, and
were actuated by the moat conciliatory intentions towards
this house. It is certainly a strange way of conciliating,
when this house has already refused to accept the proposi-
tion, simply to send it back and say, " Accept it now or re-
ject it now, but it you do not accept it you will expose the
country to considerable inconvenience; but we send it up
in such a form that it is practically impossible for you to
exercise your own judgment upon it." The noble earl
protested the good intentions of her Majesty's Government ;
but when they talk of the conciliatory character of the
proposition, I regret that I cannot concur with them in my
view of its nature; and, moreover, I am very strongly in-
clined to the opinion, that if her Majesty's Government
denied as a body that this should be a conciliatory
measure, this was not a view which was shared by the
right honourable gentleman who was supposed to be its
principal author. (Hear, hear.) I cannot but believe that
the right hon. gentleman, unfortunately I think for his own
reputation, allowed himselt to be influenced bya feeling of
mortification at the rejection of a bill last year in which he
took great interest, and has unhappily adopted a mode of
showing that feeling which is not altogether consistent with
the right bon. gentleman's high character and high posi-
tion. (Cheers.) But the question is, if the House of Com-
mons, having cent up the bill in this form, and if we, with-
out placing ourselves in the slightest degree financially in
opposition to the House of Commons, should make the alte-
ration which we have certainly the power of doing, we leave
to the House of Commons only the rejection or adoption of
the whole. But we have the remedy in our own hands.
We can, if we please, vindicate the privileges we possess ;
and in any case, where the magnitude of the interest in-
volved appears to justify that extreme course, I hope your
lordships will not be slow in vindicating your privileges, if
you think it essential for the interests of the country that
you should do so. But in exercising that power upon the
present occasion, we should be following the example which
we so earnestly deprecate, and taking a course calculated to
promote feeling of animosity on the part of the House of
Commons, and we should render ourselves liable to have it
said, " You have no objection to the proposition we make,
but you send it down in a manner which makes ir, a chal-
lenge and a defiance to the House of Commons." Therefore,
while I protest, in the first place, against the policy of the
measure now introduced, and while I deprecate making
sacrifices of permanent revenue secured by permanent Acts
of Parliament, at a time when you require all the available
resources of the country--at a time when, as my noble
friend behind me has pointed out, the state of affairs
abroad is too critical to allow us to tamper with
the finances of the country, to place us in a posi-
tion in which we cannot at once put forward all
our resources, instead of relying upon ordinary means
to meet extraordinary occasions—l consider this policy
improvident and unwise; and while I think .the form of
the bill is not such as the noble earl told us her Majesty's
Government intended it to be, namely, of a conciliatory
character to this house, I do not advise your lordships to
incur the responsibility either of rejecting the bill as a
whole or sending it down in such a form as to render
necessary the re-introduction and re-discussion of the whole
question, and the re-introduction of those feelings on the
part of the House of Commons, which I should be the last
man to excite, but which I am most earnest to allay, and
which might make us open to the suspicion of tampering
with the privileges of the other house. I yield to no man in
the desire to maintain to the Commons House its privileges,
and I hope try noble friend will not call upon your lord-
ships to divide upon the question before us. (Cheers.) I
earnestly hope that no proposition will be made in the sub-
sequent stage of the measure for its amendment, or such a
division of it as I have mentioned. I think such a course
would be most unfortunate ; I think it would place the c un-
try in a great difficulty, and that it would expose us in some
degree to well-merited censure. I concur with my noble
friend in many of his objections, but I hope, with me, while
lam very unwilling to say content to the second reading,
he will at once consent to let the bill pass without recording
his dissent, and leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and the Government the responsibility, which I think very
heavy, of having dealt in the manner they have done with
the finances of the country, and with having made great
sacrifices for apparently insignificant results, and deprived
the country of resources which may be required in an un-
expected hour, and God knows how soon it may come when
we may be threatened by foreign dangers. (Loud cheers.)

The Duke of ARGYLL could not agree with the noble
duke who moved the rejection of the bill, that debates in
that house were of little value unless they were followed
by a division. He thought the feeling in the house was one
of relief and gratification that they had really come to the
close of this controversy with regard to the paper duty, and
that in the speech of the noble earl they had heard the last
accents of a party contest, the strangest that had happened
in Parliament of recent years. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment, having an estimated surplus of £2,000,000, proposed
to divide it between the reduction of the income tax and
the removal of an Excise duty; but in this they had been
met with violent, and he must say, fanatical opposition.
He confessed that he was surprised that opposition was
made to the abolition of the paper duty, which was the
last of a family of taxes, all the others of which had been
eregardaecitoe
rtteacil
rathereofifetith e°
year,of
repealed, and to the advantage of the country. With
over-estimated
laste r
e as
ntir year,therea t s tdh than
aaCdhh
been
Chancellor
under-estimatedl
al
sra
vo
saving
theg in
the expenditure
the estimates for the China
the reduction of the war of £BOO,OOO, which went to
of the basis of the right deficit.ho The noble earl had complained
it was quite legitimate thatu • gentleman's calculations, but
year and another another, he should take one basis one
moos distinctly widersterovided that the House of Corn
calculations were made. Thethe principle upon which the
the house by his _noble earl had himself bam-
boozled. calculations,
deficit at £10,000,000, upon the basis , for he estimated the
expiring taxes, whereas, ifthat of not calculating upon
basis wa
would have been £22,000,000. It w s t aken, the defiit
members would make a frank statementuld be interesting if
at
a session to admit how far their predictions had
be,ginning of
realised, but the noble earl had braved out hisag really been
in this respect in the boldest manner. The noedequencies
year predicted a deficit of £2,800,000, and as there earlwas an
last
actual estimated surplus of £2,000,000 sterling there would
have been a deficit of £4,000,000 and deducting the
ex-
penses of the China war the error of the noble lord would
amount to £2,000,000 sterling, or 1,200,000 at the 'very
least, which was the whole amount of the paper duty upon
which discussion was then going on. The noble earl
the
tura of last year would have been
assumed that tie expenditure
much greater.
Earl of DERBY explained that his calculations were
founded on the continuance of the Chinese war.
G vernment had as
The Duke of ARGYLL--Surely the. o
tion of that war. The
good a rig • ht to calculate on the termma
• ht • and yet this was the
event proved that they were rig ,
argument last
with which their lordships were induced
year
to reject the bill. With respect to the tea duties, the
Government would last year have been ready to accede b
a proposal for their reduction, but this year they
.had pre-
ferred the paper duties, because they thought their repeal
would be more generally beneficial to the country. Other
reasons had, however, been attributed to the Govern-
ment. They had been accused of a wish to cast an undue
burthen on the contributors to direct taxation, whilst the
tea duties were persistently referred to as war duties.
What were the facts? In 1851 they st)od at 2s. 2d. a lb.,
in a time of profound peace. In 1853 the Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposed a gradual reduction, and that reduc-
tion was allowed to go on for one year, notwithstand-
ing the war. In 1855 Sir G. C. Lewis increased it to
1r.10., and the year after the war it was reduced to ls. 51,
a. which it had remained ever since. That rate had nothing
, 4
whatever to do with war expenditure, but it was neverthe-
less his ()Pinion. that all
ex expenses connected with the mili-
tary and naval
in aexpenditure of the country should be borne
great measure by the whole
ture w - as stilt £6,000,000 b
community. That expendi-
ture
war. With respect beyond what it was before the Rus-
objected to give itii to the paper duty the noble earl now
nue of the country Pias being part of the permanent reve-
oPinion that there should be (the Duke. of Argyll) was of
me consistency between the
language of public men when '')
1854 a retiolutio. Condemning the paper duty was proposed

in the House of Commons, and that resolution was, slightly
altered, accepted by the noble earl's Government, and his
then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) interpo-
lated an addition to the resolution of Mr. M. Gibson, de-
claring that the paper duty was a tax which ought to be
abolished. (Hear, hear.) Surely, after such a declaration
it was hardly consistent with his former acts for the noble
earl now to oppose the Government bill. Before he sat down
he must allude to the personal motives which had been
attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the noble
earl in discussing the mode in which the bill was sent up to
that house. Surely, if personal motives were attributed to
any minister the accusation should be made in the house of
which the accused minister was a member, and surely, if it
were thought that an insult were intended to the House of
Lords, the Lords should have found defenders in the Con-
servative party in the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.)
And yet when on a recent occasion a member of that party
proposed a method of saving the House of Lords from in-
sult, the rush of the whole party from the house was so tre •
mendous that the door was blocked up for several minutes.
(Laughter.) The paper duty was the last of those protective
duties which had been removed successively by Mr. Hus-
kisson, Sir R. Peel, and now by Mr. Gladstone. Without
those taxes they had last year 69 millions of revenue. Sorely
this was a great and triumphant result, and in spite of the
solemn adjurations of the noble earl he could only say that
all the ability and all the eloquence the noble earl had
shown was only another proof that eloquence and ability
could be wasted in resisting the most salutary reform, and
in defending a bad, but which he rejoiced to think was in
this case a losing cause. (Cheers.)
Earl GREY said, though he trusted there would be no di-
vision, for he had no doubt the noble duke would follow the
advice given to him by the noble earl near him,yet he should
take the liberty of making some observations upon the
conduct of the other house of parliament, and the speech of
the noble duke who had just sat down. He thought he
ought to congratulate their lordshipsupon the course which
they adopted last year—(hear, hear)—although they all
knew how their conduct was condemned by certain persons
and papers. It was argued that this house had no right
to throw out a bill in which the House of Commons had
repealed a tax, but the wisdom of the course pursued
last year was shown by the fact that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not intend to repeal the paper duties
before October next. (Hear, hear.) If the arguments ad-
vanced were allowed they would apply to all bills relating
to the appropriation of money, and that great principle of
the constitution which was now recognised would be at an
end. Fortunately, however, that principle was not in
danger, for it had been clearly admitted that this house had
a right to exercise a judgment upon all bills brought before
them, whether they referred to matters of taxation, appro-
priation, or anything else. While contending that they had
this, right, he admitted that it ought to be exercised with
judgment and discretion, and no man would say
that, except in extreme eases, they ought to inter-
fere with the financial ai rangements of the House of
Commons. (Hear, hear.) He could not say that he saw in
the bill that desire for conciliation which his noble friend
had referred to. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he thought
he observed traces of a mortified feeling, and a sense of
having been in the wrong. (Hear, hear.) As to the form
of the bill, there could be no doubt that the House of
Commons had a right to pass it in that shape, and he Could
not help saying that he saw some advantage in having the
bill in this form. (Hear, hear.) Of this he felt sure, that
if the Government had confined the whole of their finan-
cial arrangements in one bill last year, their lordships
would not have been called upon to exercise their power,
for the reason that the small majority of nine in the House
of Commons would have been converted into a minority.
The great good achieved last year was that it
bad placed the right of the House of Lords in a sound posi-
tion, and their right would not be contested again. (Hear.)
The noble duke said the noble earl opposite was in error in
his statement as to the reasons for rejecting the bill for the
repeal of the paper duty last year, and he added that if
there had not been a bad harvest the proposals of the Go-
vernment would have been fully borne out by the result.
Now let them consider how tar that was true. The decision
of their lordships last year was quite independent of con-
siderations in reference to the harvest, for they had infor-
mation before them which clearly proved that if they re-
pealed the paper duties there would not be the means of ad-
justing the balances at the end of the year. The house came
to the vote on the paper duties on the 21st May, and in less
than two monthr=viz., on the 16th July—the Chancellor
of the Exchequer brought forward a supplemental budget,
and in that budget he was obliged to state that he required
£3,300,000 more than he had made provision for. At that
time there was nothing said about the harvest, and in the
month of June the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that
his expectations had been fully satisfied, notwithstanding
that there was a deficiency to a large amount in the revenue.
The extra expenses, no doubt, arose in consequence of the
China war. But from returns which were moved for by Sir
J. Pakington it appeared that all the most important orders
in reference to that war ranged from September and Octo-
ber, 1859, to March, 1860, and therefore the expenses of the
expedition had at that time been incurred. There was a de-
spatch from Julia which showed that the whole of the
forces to be employed in China were collected and ready for
action early in the year, and that they were only waiting
for the French troops, and perhaps their lordships would re-
member that before commencing the discussion on the
paper duties he (Earl Grey) asked whether it was true that
. certain Indian troops would not in China be entitled to
extrapay and allowance, and, if so, whether any provision
had been made for the amount which would be required.
The noble earl in answer said it was true that they
would be so entitled, and that no provision bad been
made for the expense. Then he (Earl Grey) said there
were orders given before the end of the year which sub-
stantially involved the whole expenses of the China
war, and therefore it was clear that asking for
the sum of £500,000 for the expenses of that army,
included in the army estimates of the year, while the gov-
ernment had the means of knowing that a larger sum
would be required, was absolutely ludicrous for the
purposes for which it was intended. (Hear, hear.) Conse-
quently the government proposed to repeal these duties at
a time when they knew they would be absolutely necessary
for the purposes of the country. (Hear, hear.) He had no
' doubt the revenue was seriously affected by the bad harvest.
Well, they all remembered that the sowing time of 1859 was
' not propitious, that the growing crops never looked thin-
' rishine% and consequently the government ought to have
calculated on a loss from that cause. (Hear, hear.) It

appeared, however, that no less a sum than £BOO,OOO had
been received from the customs duties on corn. (Hear,
hear.) But it shOuld be remembered that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on the 16th July last year not only ap-
plied for the sum of £3,300,000, but he impesed
n:w taxes he increased the duty on spirits.
which he calculated would produce £1,000,000 sterling.
The result was that in spite of this additional £1,000,000
imposed in July, and in spite of their lordships having re-
tained the paper duties, the governe.ent admitted that there
was a deficiency on the year of 21 millions—in fact, as
money had bees applied for the purposes of the year which
did net fairly belong to revenue, the financial situation of
the country was 31 millions worse at the end of the year
than at the beginning. It appeared to him that in these
circumstances the right and wise rule in forming the
financial scheme for this year would have been to adopt
the worse view so far as revenue was concerned,
and to have expected an increased expenditure. He
would ask, whether, upon the showing of the government,
this was the character of the present question, and of the
budget now before them ? In his opinion it was a highly
speculative budget. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, could
any man look at the present state of America without fear-
ing that there would be an augmented price on cotton?
If he had not been misinformed—supposing there would be
no less produced in America—the price would be much in-
creased, for the freight had risen from 4d. to 21d. a lb to
Liverpool. An increased price would lead to a slack trade,
and with deficient employment there would be a diminished
revenue. Then, as to the next harvest. They all knew
that last autumn was not favourable for sowing grain, and
ho was sorry to say the crops in the north were not very
premising. (Hear.) Then, again, they were not certain
of receiving the indemnity from China,upon which so much
stress had been laid in the other house, and even if it was
received he was afraid the expenses for keeping up a force
in China would have to be paid out of the money. Again,
he could not find that in the calculations of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer he had made any allowance for the ex-
penses of the war which was now raging in New Zealand.
Now, in the face of all the information which the Govern-
ment possessed, or might have possessed, the extraordinary
expenses of the China war were kept out of sight from Par-
liament. (Hear, hear.) All these were considerations
which prevented him from placing confluence in the finan-
cial policy of her Majesty's Government, and he could not
look upon it as a whole without seeing that it was ono
which appeared to rest upon no principles which were
steadily adhered io or deliberately considered. (Hear,hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said he should not detain their
lordships many moments. An estimate of the deficiency
made by him had been alluded to in the course of the de-
bate ' • but that estimate was formed on the supposition that
good faith would be kept with the public, and that the in •
come tax and the tea and sugar duties would be reduced.
(Hear, hear.) He confessed that the estimates of revenue
and the realisation of those estimates of late years were net
calculated to inspire him with much confidence. The in-
come tax would have produced £8,928,000; under the
altered circumstances in which it was introduced by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, it produced £10,930,000. The
malt duty, which would have produced £5,771,000, pro-
duced £6,374,000. The hop duty was a loss. Ilut in all
these cases you were living by anticipation last near, and
you were doing the same now. (Hear, hear.) The budget
of the year was, therefore, as objectionable in his opinion as
those of former years.
The Duke of RUTLAND intimated that it was not his
intention to press the amendment.
Earl GRANVIL LE was glad the noble duke had ac-
ceded to the appeal made from-both sides of the house, and
had withdrawn his amendment. The embarrassment which
ho (Earl Granville) felt in addressing the house upon a
question of such importance was increased by the fear of
offending the critical ear of the noble earl opposite. The
noble earl on the present occasion complained that he used
the pronounciation "wrap," where he should have used
" wrap"—(a laugh)—but this was only a peculiarity of
to use
pro-
nunciation, and he asserted his right, as an Englishman, to
pronounce doubtful words in the way which seemed best
to hims,e,Wlf.ra(Laughter.)
f ~Bewforroe,
,h,ohweemvuser,thkne woNovuuldpochonwshenatt
grounds the capital of the
Midland county was called
satisfied with the course
satisfactory to know thaYthemeasure
upon(
dLeabuatght
ehe t
hades rh.
o) r
tt Heake nfe,l
debate t
and veryth itat wellhwaads
the said against the present bud, t
their lordships' house. ' heard withnow theal l
t ha assent ncould
f
The points upon which
been
hien
nobletrodu introduced into tpleo
saiduse
the
absence
uekfe a chiefly
sreltheied to)ro the surplus were
of
site
the tea and
p
and the mode in
sugar duties to the paper duty for repeaaljns
that the
With
expenditure, in. making his calculations, should always be
placed at the highest, and the income at the lowest by rwehgitterhd tthoethbiellshuarpdlubese,
the
Chancellor of We Exchequer. The word " honest,e which
the noble earl made frequent use of in his speech, could
hardly be applied to such a principle of calculation, and
such a curse must involve the Government in in unplea-
sant opposition with the country. With regard M the tea
and sugar duties, their abolition would have diminished the
surplus still more than it would be by the repeal of the duty
oa paper. Regarding the constitution al question—the mode
—it was satisfact try to
in which the bill was brought up
find that the noble duke was the only person
theho consti-
dered it offensive to the house, and contrary o n
ethad ° admitteda .
t ution al practice. The noble earl oppo.sit
l,
ste fur-
and thethat the measure was perfectly constitutions'a
noble earl near him (Earl Grey) had even
')
ther, and had said that the House of Commons were jus-
tified in the course they had taken. The gretiter part of
the argument of the noble baron (Lord Monteagie) was
directed not against the present budget or the present bill,
lAA sesiiist the financial proceedings of last Part and

- •
even against propositions of the Present Chancellor of the
Exchequer of an earlier date. The noble lord laughed
at the Uovernment for talking of the weather as such
an important element in the disappointment of their
expectations, but in malt and hops there was a deficiency
in the autumn of £1,000,000, attributable of course
to the weather, and something like £900,000 was lost upon
spirits, one of the chief reasons ,for which was that the
weather had made the barley unfit for use. A great deal of
irrelevant matter had been introduced into the discussion,
which he did not think it necessary to go into. He should
not enter into the financial statement of Mr. Gladstone, and
it would be even more out of place to go into the question
mooted by the noble earl (Earl Grey) with regard to the
Government having borrowed money last year for fortifica-
tions. Again, with regard to the construction of a certain
class of ships now building, to which the noble earl had ob-
jected, he thought that a very fair subject for debate, but
certainly not upon the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) But
the noble earl had referred to rumours of disunion in the
cabinet. The noble earl, from his intimacy with members
of the cabinet, should not have been so indiscreet as to al-
lude to any such rumours. If such disunion did exist it
could only have come to the noble earl in private conversa-
tion, and he would in that case be discreet enough not to
inform any of his friends upon the subject, and his sense of
honour would be sufficient to prevent him alluding to it,:or
he must gather it from rumour and then there was even
less justification for its being mentioned. But the noble
earl was the last person to talk about such rumours, for
when he (Earl Granville) was young in political life he re-
collected the prevalence of a rumour amongst the clubs that
under Lord Melbourne the noble earl objected violently to
all the measures proposed in the cabinet, and that Lord
Melbourne requested him at last to set down in writing his
objection. The noble earl, it was said, declin d to do so,
and therefore Lord Melbourne rubbed his hands and said,
"Now you have no one to object to but yourself you can-
not get on." (Laughter.) Regarding the policy of the
measure under discussion, he thought that they had a suf-
ficient lesson that prophecies were not safe things to indulge
in. He believed the present scheme was a prudent and
well considered. one; that it was wise in principle, and
likely to lead to the same happy result that all similar mea-
sures for the removal of restrictions from commerce had
succeeded in accomplishing.
The bill was then read a second time.
Their lordships adjourned at 10 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Great Northern Railway
(Purchase of Hereford, &C., Railway) Bill were considered
and ordered for third reading.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
—Bognor Railway ; Kingstown Improvement; Leven and
East of Fife Railway Companies (Amalgamation, &c.) ;
Leven and East of Fife Railways (Extension, &c.); and
South Wales Mineral Railway.
The following bills were considered and ordered for third
reading :—Bolton Corporation, and Ware, Hadham, and
Buntingford Railway.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod summoned the
members to the Upper House to hear the Royal assent
given by commission to several bills (for which see Lords'
report).
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented from different parts of
Ireland against the withdrawal of the Galway subsidy, as
being impolitic and a breach of faith, being also the means
of inflicting great loss on persons who had subscribed their
money to the company under the impressionthe Government
contract would be continued; against the Irish Poor Law
Bill ; in favour of railway communication being established
between Halifax and Quebec; for the opening of the Bri-
tish Museum at such hours in the evening as would enable
the working classes to avail themselves of the benefits of
the institution; in favour of promoting the cultivation of
cotton in India.

THE STATE OF OUDE.
Mr. TORRENS moved an address for copies of any
letters from the Secretary of State for India to the Gover-
nor-General of India in Council, subsequent to the 26th of
May, 1860, calling for a reply to the reference that was
then made to the Governor-General, on the subject of cer-
tain claims which have been preferred on the late Govern-
ment of the State of Oude.—Ordered.
EXPORTATION OF RAGS.

Mr. NORRIS moved an address for return of the names
of those countries in Europe which permit of the free ex-
port of rags, and of those other countries that prohibit such
export, or impose a duty thereon, with the amount per ton
of such duty, in each case.—Ordered.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL (1860).
Mr. BEAM iSH moved that the reasons given by this
house, and communicated to the House of Lords on the
17th day of August, 1860, for disagreeing to certain of the
amendments made by their Lordships to the Tramways
(Ireland) Bill, be printed as the same are entered in the
journals of this hi/use.—Ordered.
AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNS.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer if her Majesty's Government had any reports
from the Master of the Mint, or other official persons, on
the subject of making the sovereign coined at the branch
mint at Sydney a legal tender throughout her Majesty's
dominions; and if so, whether there was any objection to
produce such reports for the information of the house ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was a correspondence in progress on this difficult and in-
teresting subject. That correspondence was of necessity
slow in its progress, because the colony, the Government,
and the Bank of England were all interested. He was ready
to produce this correspondence as far as it had gone..

the merits of his character rising go conspicuously to our
view, it is fitting that we should give some exprecsion to the
regret and sympathy which are felt, nct only by this house;
but by very, very many persons in this country. (Cheers.)
. _

Lord J. RUSSELL—Having been engaged in diplomatic
transactions with Count Cavour, I think the hon. baronet
has taken a very proper course in bringing this subject be-
fore the house. I cannot but feel that it is due to him who
has gone away from us to say that I believe there never
was a man that devoted himself—heart, mind, and soul--
more entirely to his country and to Italy than Count Ca-
your. (Loud cheers.) He was endowed with great abilities.
He had also a capacity for great labour ; and those abilities
and that labour were d evoted from the earliest time at which
it was in his power to give an opinion, to the achievement
of the independence of Italy. (Hear, hear.) There is no one
that looks back to the time when Count Cavour commenced
that enterprise but must see that it was a task attended
with great difficulties; and the manner in which he began
to interest the Powers of Europe by proposing to act in
concert with England and France in the Crimean war, and
the way in which he afterwards, at the Congress of Paris,
stated amongst the statesmen of Europe what he conceived
to be the griefs and wrongs of Italy, showed not only that
he deeply felt those griefs and those wrongs, but that he
had a clear intuition of those means by which the indepen-
dence of Italy, now happily achieved, could be accomplished.
(Cheers.) With regard to his historical career, this is not
the time to s!- eak of the various transactions in which he
was engaged. I have had the good fortune both to treat
with him diplomatically, and to be personally and privately
acquainted with him ; and I cannot forbear offering this
tribute to the memory of a man who will stand conspicuous
in history as the great liberator of Italy. (Loud cheers.)
The O'DONOGH UE —I rise for the purpose of expressing
my entire dissent both from the proposal of the hon. baronet
the member for Tamworth, and from the praises which have
been lavished upon Count Cavour by the noble lord the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Afftirs. (Oh, oh.) One of the
principal features of Count Cavour's policy was its decided
hostility to the temporal power of the Pope. (Cheers.) The
chief characteristic of that policy was a persistent and syste.
matic misrepresentation—(no, no)—of the state of things in
the territories of the Pope, in order to screen and cover the
aggrandisement of Sardinia. (No, no.) Sucha policy might
no doubt harmonise with the prejudices of many gentlemen
on both sides of this house, who are ready to believe every
story of Papal misgovernment, and with that stupid bigotry
which is displayed by too many persons in this country—
(cheers)—but I have no hesitation in saying that his policy
wt .s the grossest outrage upon the most sacred feelings of a
great majority of Christians throughout the world, (Cheers
and Oh, oh.) I yield to no man—neither to the hon. baronet
the member for Tamworth nor to the noble lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs—in my desire to see the people of
Italy free. (Ironical cheers.) I yield to no man in the dis-
like I have to see Italy under the domination of Austria ;
but I refuse to accept the armed supremacy of Sardinia over
the heretofore free people of Italy—(Oh, oh, and laughter)
—as the true definition of Italian liberty. lam not afraid,
even in this House of Commons, to say that I think I see
the finger of God's justice in the death of Count Cavour.
(Great disapprobation, and loud cries of " Oh, oh," hisses
and groans, which were repeated at short intervals till the
close of the hon. gentleman's remarks.)
Sir R. PEEL—I would make a suggestion. (Confusion,
in which the hon. baronet resumed his seat without con-
tinuing his interruption.)
The O'DONOGHUE (resuming)—Don't let the house
misunderstand me. (Oh, oh.) I am far from expressing
any exultation in the termination of Count Cavour's career.
(Oh, oh.) On the contrary, I regret as much as any gentle-
man in this house can regret, the death of Count Cavour;
but I regret it for very different reasons. , (Oh, oh.)
Mr. MILNES—I think the hon. gentleman has entirely
misapprehended the suggestion of my hon. friend the mem-
ber for Tamworth. It was not his desire that this house
should begin to dispute over the dead body of a great man.
(Cheers.) He desired, I believe, as most members of this
house desire, without reference to any particular form of
opinion, to pay the homage of the constitutional government
of this country to a statesman who has foutted constitu-
tional liberty in his own land, and who in anition to that
glorious achievement has brought about a great national
unity, and made that a fact which for so many years had
been the dream of the best men in Europe. (Cheers.) I
feel SO deeply the disappearance of this foremost man in
Europa that I am conscious that words are utterly inade-
quate to express the solemnity of an occasion when we are
not called upon to discuss the character of an individual but
to express as strongly and as simply as we can our sense of
the mighty loss which Europe has sustained in the disap-
pearance of so great a mind— a mind which could not only
grasp the destinies of Italy, but comprehend what would
contribute to the peace of the world, by a combination of
profound policy, moral courage, and intellectual power, such
as existed in no other statesman in Europe. My hon. friend
has alluded, with that modesty which becomes him as the
son of so great a man, to the fact, that the National As
of France entered upon its formal records an ex-
pression of the sympathy which France and Europe felt for
the death of Sir Robert Peel. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps it is
not in accordance with our usages, not being somuch within
the influence of continental struggles, to adopt such a for-
mal course ; but I believe it will be thought right on both
sides of the house to expres-= our sympathy and our regret.
Perhaps it is all the better that no political feeling should
be mixed up in the matter ; and I should not have said one
word if the hon. gentleman opposite had not taken upon
himself the function of interpreting the ways:of Providence
—(loud cheers)—in a manner which I am sure in his better
mind, he will feel that he would not have done had he not
been led away by his religious enthusiasm. (Hear, hear.)
It was hardly fair for him, neither is it for me, nor for any'
other mortal man, in the exercise of his miserable and feeble

judgment—(hear, hear)—to say whether the disappearance
of Count Cavour from the scene will really tend to the ac-
complishment of even the.object which the hon. gentleman
wishes to promote, or whether the confusion and difficulty
to which the Church with which he is connected has
in later times been subjected may not be infinitely
increased by the removal of so great a leading mind. It
never should be left out of consideration that he always
respected the rights of the Catholic church, that he lived
and died a member of that church, and that he has passed
from this scene not more with the character of a great fo-
reign statesman than of one who had rendered the greatest
services to his own country. It is not for me to pronounce
a panegyric upon Count Cavour; the panegyric of Count
Cavour is the sympathy of the civilised world—(cheers)—
and the sympathy with Count Cavour is referable to not
only, I believe, the sense we have of the loss we have sus-
tained, but to the fear which I believe will agitate the mind
of every far-sighted statesman at the difficulties which may
now come upon those great questions, which will now have
to be discussed, without the aid of his great mind—of his
powerful spirit—to lead them on to the glorious end he had
in view. (Cheers.)
Viscount PALMERSTON—I cannot. refrain from add•
ing a few words to what has been said by those who have
preceded me in this discussion. And I must fairly own that
there was no person more fitting to introduce this subject
to the house than the son of that eminent statesman whose

memory was the subject of a still more formal tribute of ad-
miration by the legislature of a neighbouring country—that
Of France. My hon. friend has suggested that some pro-
ceeding of the same kind should be adopted on our part on
the present occasion. But with all submission, I would re-
mind him that each country is guided by its own habits ;
that that which may be congenial to the customs of a coun-
try on the Continent, may not be in accordance with our
own ; and I believe there is no such proceeding as that sug-
gested on record in the case of any of the most eminent
statesmen of our own land, whose departure from amidst his

contemporaries may have been iuost the subject of regret.
I therefore think the house will content itself with the ex-
pression of sympathy with the feelings put forward by the
hon. member for Tamworth, which have been already ex-
pressed in the course of this discussion. lam not about to
follow the hon. member on the ether side, who has imported

into the discussion matters which are not connected with it ;
but I feel that I should be wanting to my own sentiments
if I refrained from concurring with those who have ex-
pressed the deep regret they feel at the loss of this dis-
tinguished man; a loss not only to his own country, who
will deeply deplore him, but to the whole of Europe—and
whose memory will live embalmed in the grateful recollec-
tion of his countrymen, and iv. the admiration of mankind,
so long as history records his deeds. When I speak of what
hghas done—it ought to be borne in mind that those bril-
liant acts of his administration which have most attracted
the notice of the world, viz., the political extension of
unity throughout Italy, are perhaps Rot those forwhich his
countrymen will most revere his memory. It should be
remembered that he laid the foundations of improve-
ments, constitutional, legal, and social, in all the internal
affairs of the Italian people, which will long survive him,
and confer inestimable benefits, both on those who live, and
on those who will come hereafter. I was going to say—
" He left a name
To point a moral and adorn a tale."

The moral to be drawn from the life of Count Cavour is
this, that a man of transcendent talents, of indomitable
energy, of inextinguishable patriotism, by the impulses
which his own single mind may give to his countrymen,
aiding a righteous cause—for so I shall call it, in spite of what
may be said—(cheers)—and seizing favourable opportuni-
ties, may, notwithstanding difiliulties which at first sight
seem insurmountable, confer upon his country the greatest
and most inestimable benefits. That is the moral to be
drawn from the life of Count Cavour. The tale with which
his memory will be associated is one of the most extraordi-
nary—l may say one of the most romantic—recorded in
the annals of the world. We have seen, under his impulse
and guidance, a people, who were supposed to be torpid in
the enjoyment of luxury—enervated by the pursuits of
pleasure—having no knowledge or feeling of politics except
what may be derived from the traditions of their history,
from the jealousies of rival states—we have seen that people
at his call, and under his guidance, rising from the slumber
of ages, with the power of a giant refreshed, breaking that
spell by which they had been so long bound, and displaying
upon a great occasion the courage of heroes, the sagacity of
statesmen, and the wisdom of philosophers; and attaining
for themselves a unity of political existence which bad been
for centuries denied to them. (prolonged cheers.) Sir, I
say that this is a great event in history, and that the man
whose name will go down to posterity connected with this
691615 of events, whatever taay be she Pried of his death;

however premature fox' he hopes of his countrymen, cannot
be said to have died too Boor, for his glory and for his fame.
(Prolonged cheering,)
The subject then dropped.
gUPPLY—THE VOLUNTEERS.

- - - - The house then went into Committee of getpi:fy.
On the Volunteer vole i the Army Estimatefi
Lord ELCHO called attention to the wants of the Vo-
lunteer force. He said that when ge.t.! the Volunteer move •
ment was commenced, it was ridiculed eVeit by the Premier
himself. But novt times were changed, and the toast of
"The Volunteers" was teceiveri with enthusiasm at all
public dinners throughout the country, and even the
noble lord himself could not be elected recently for
Tiverton without calling in their aid. The force numbered
at present 147,955 men, and these had to provide them-
selves with uniform, accoutrements, bands, &c., to the
amount of £1,00,000. Government were now called upon
to contribute something tovtards the equipments of the
force, and this they might do without in the slightest
degree interfering with the independence of the corps. His
Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge affoided his advice
and encouragement to the corps, and therefore there was
no ground for contending that the Volunteer movement
was 'viewed with anything like hostility by the Horse
Guards. the Government had already given some assist-
ance to the corps, and now some further assistance was
respectfully demanded.. They wanted, for instance,
money for drill and musketry instruction, thereby reliev-
ing the Volunteers from the necessity of resorting to balls,
and bazaars for the purpose of raising the amount they'
required to render themselves fully equipped. The
noble lord referred to the expense of various corps, the
result of which' was to show that they were at the rate of
about 15s. per annum. Something had been said about re-
questing to have from the Government £1 a year, but that
sum was agreed upon at a meeting held a short time since
at the Thatched House, and it was there shown that the ex-
penses to which he referred were about 155., and the re-
maining ss. was put down for travelling expenses; but it
was never proposed that anything so foolish was expected
as that the Government would give the men £1 a-head.
What was wanted was, that the Government should give
them a drill-sergeant, an armourer, and a certain allowance
for ammunition, &c., besides other charges for rifle practice.
The Volunteers already received from Government a sum
of £40,000, which was about ss. per man. In addition to
this, there was a cost of £4,000 for the staff at the War
Office. Now, if the Government gave the assistance which
was asked, the whole expense to the country would not be,
at the outside, more than 20s. or 255. per man. There were,
no doubt, some persons who thought that the 1 olunteer
force would admit of a reduction of the regular army.
There were no persons among the Volunteers who enter-
tained such opinions, for no matter how largo or well
trained the Volunteer force might be, it would never do to
diminish the regular army. But if a soldier in the regular
army cost £B3 a year a Volunteer was not dear at 255.
Those who had seen the reviews at Hyde Park, Edinburgh,
or Knowsley, or wherever else they had appeared, must ad-
mit that they were an efficient body. Colonel M'Murdo had
said that he had never seen a regiment equal to the Inns of
Court Volunteers, except, perhaps, the 60th Rifles at the
time of its arrival in India. The Volunteer movement had
effected an immense amount of social good by bringing men
and classes together, and binding them in a patriotism and
holy brotherhood of arms. In addition to this, the health-
ful exercise and good habits which were engendered had
produced great physical benefits. The political results had
not been less important. A short time since we had an
untrained population; were unable to bring more than
30,000 infantry into the field, and were, consequently,
subjected to periodical panics ; but this had been all
changed. The spirits of the volunteers of 1803 had re-
vived, and produced the result at which they now all re-
joiced. The consequence of the state of things which had
existed up to a recent period, had threatened seriously to
affect the position of England in the Courts of Europe
But if they would learn what had been the effect of this
volunteer movement, they should ask the opinion of the
Prime Minister, of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—
would he could ask Count Cavour. (Hear, hear.) Let
them ask the Emperor Napoleon. The Englisu Govern--
Merit had been able to write, to think, and to speak, in con-
sequence of the Volunteer movement, in such a way as to do
greater service to the cause of Italy, by its moral influence,
than had been accomplished by the active exertions of
France. The cause of peace was now greatly strengthened,
because, in the words of a distinguished diplomatist, we
were strong enough to be able to make concessions when it
was thought necessary to do so. (Hear, hear.) He hoped
that the answer of the Government would be favourable to
the proposal which he had submitted, and that they, the
Government, would be prepared to support and maintain
that which had been characterised as the noblest present
ever made to a Sovereign ; but if they should refuse to
accede to it, they would incur the responsibility of having
• caused the Volunteer forces to disappear from the country.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord VA.LLE FORT thought that the Volunteers had
not much cause to complain of the assistance which had
been accorded to them already by the Government; but
considering that a sum of at least £1,500,000 had been ex-
pended from private sources in the promotion of the Volun-
teer movement, he believed that the force had established
a claim for some further assistance from the Government.
He thought that the permanent expenses of the corps
should be borne by the Government, and these would in-
clude instruction, care of arms and armour and facilities
for rifle practice.
Sir H. VERNEY considered that the noble lord who
had brought forward the subject, had asked nothing ex-
cessive from the Government in the shape of assistance to
the Volunteers, and that opinion was, he had no doubt,
shared by the majority of members present.
Mr. A. EGERTON supported the motion, on the
ground, among others, that if drill-sergeants were supplied
by the Government to the country corps, a greater unifor-
mity of drill would be secured than was at present attained.
Lord ENFIELD complimented the Government on the
aid which they had rendered to the Volunteer corps, and
while he deprecated money grants to the men, thought that
valuable assistance might be rendered by the Government
in giving drill-sergeants to the corps, especially if these in-
structors were attached as supernumerary members to the
regiments in the regular service, as it would be more easy
in such cases to exercise an efficient control over their con-
duct. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY concurred in opinion with the
noble lord the member for Haddington. He believed it
was impossible to overrate the importance of the4Volunteer
movement, and that the Volunteers were entitled to the gra-
titude of their country for the sacrifices of time and money
they had made in perfecting themselves at drill. He should
have been delighted to sea £lOO,OOO given to such an admi-
rable body. The Volunteers had supplanted the yeomanry,
and were the most efficient supporters the constabulary
could possess. He had known an instance in which the
yeomanry had laid down their arms to an unarmed mob,
and he defied any man to show him any case in which the
yeomanry had been successful against a mob. He drew a
line of distinction between a disciplined and an undisciplined
corps of yeomanry, and related instances in which the dis-
ciplined corps had rendered essential service to their country,
while the undisciplined had turned their backs to the enemy.
He quoted the opinion of his Royal Highness the Duke of
Cambridge that the Volunteers should be auxiliaries to the
regular troops of the line, and that without drill they never
could hope to make themselves efficient soldiers. The hon.
member read itngthened extracts from the evidence given
before a committee of the house relative to the drill and
general equipment of the Volunteers, some of which excited
much laughter. He concluded by proposing a reduction of
the vote from £91,000 to £32 000. _ _ _

Sir W. MILES hoped the Government would take the
proposition of the noble lord (Elcho) into their serious con-
sideration, because, if not, he feared that when the novelty
of the Volunteer movement had worn off, the force would
gradually diminish in point of numbers. He should be
glad to see the Volunteers increased by 50,01)0 men, and
he did not see why this increase should not immediately
take place, provided Government held out a helping hand
to the c,,rps.
Mr. BUXTON urged upon the Government the neces-
sity of giving what assistance they grant in kind and not
in money, as receiving money would tend to lower the
prestige of the force in the eyes of the country and of
Europe. (Hear, hear.)
Major EDWARDS considered that the country had just
cause to be proud of the Volunteer force, which formed so
noble a contingent to the regular army,
Sir W. RUSSELL approved of the proposal that the
Government should provide the rifle corps with instructors
who should be attached to the regular army for the purpose
of ensuring more perfect discipline.
Sir J. PAX VON said he entirely concurred in most of
the remarks made by the noble lord the member for Had-
dington, believing that there was great difficulty in gather-
ing together the rifle companies in the country districts.
He wished to see the Volunteer movement universal, and
believed that that could not be effected unless it embraced
the counties of England. The question wag not, whether
20s. or 255. was a sufficient payment for a rifleman, because
each of these men had paid upwards of £lO. The corps
numbered 150,000 men, and according to the regulations of
the War-office, they had to undergo 24 days' drill per annum
each. This loss of time occasioned an immense loss of
money. Lieut.-Colonel Capper, who commanded the Ad-
ministrative Essex Rifles, was of opinion that each man
ought to be allowed £2 per annum. Ho (Sir J. Paxton)
though willing to give a certainamount in kind, was never-
theless disposed to think that compensation money was
the most desirable mode of rewarding the services of
the men. He had been requested by a great number
of officers and men to advocate their general views.
He believed the movement was national, that it had put an
end to panics, and that its services would ever be found
most valuable in a military point of view.
Sir J. PAKINGTON regretted that in consequence of
the way in which this vote was unavoidably drawn, it
should have Ted to comparisons between the new volunteer
infantry and the mounted yeomanry. No doubt the move-
ment had been a great rlational one, carried on with great
spirit, and if any enieluney arose he was sure the numbers
would be trebled; htat ;i• the Government could in any way
aid the volunteers in,4 pecuniary way he should gladly
support a vote for that effect. With respect to the annual
exhibition of thehon. member for Bristol on the subject of
the yeomanry they were accustomed ; but he would say that
the gentlemen of England regarded the report which had
been made on the subject with unanimous disapproval. if
the Government thought there was no further necessity for
the yeomanry let them say so frankly and part in a friendly
way. He had reason to know that a large body of loyal
men in the north of England had been alienated by the
treatment they had received, and he hoped Government
would seriously consider the subject.
Mr. T. G. BARING said ho would not repeat the obser-
vations as to the importance and the value of the volunteer
force. Government had already shown their sense of the
importance of the volunteer movement by the advantages
they had already made to aid in the efficiency of the volun-
teers. After alluding to the interest felt by the Commander-
in-Chief in the volunteer force, he said the actual expense
this year of the volunteers amounted to no less a sum, than
£117,000, but other allowances made the entire sum Xl6O
and next year it would be increased by the sum of £20,000
for for the pay of 'adjutants. Government did not grudge
would
amount in the estimates, but, if necessary,ready to increase the amount if that
were needed
to their efficiency. He consideredthe independence thee ey
d be
to add
of
the volunteers was a main ingredient in their value,
and he thought it would be sarong to hold out any
hopes of any money payments whatever. (Hear, hear.)
he thought With respect to the repairs of small arms, that
greater accommodation should be afforded in that respect
to the volunteers, and believing that the matter of drill in-
struction was ono of very great importance, he would state
that the subject was at present under the consideration of
the Government. As to the volunteer movement itself; he
entertained no fear whatever that any failure would attend
it. The sporting element of rifle shooting was, in hi 4
opinion, one of the best chances of giving permanence to
the movement. No doubt great differences of opin:oa pre-
vailed throughout the country on the subject of the volun •
teem. As about £2 per man would be sufficient, alter th-
first outlay, to keep up the volunteer force, he did nct thit k
v thatd iag
an.
syuycholunantaeenriocuonrtr would have hhaisveknaonwy
ldediffigecuolftythienpaptrirol
ptihrietrethawtapsranevayilerdeatshornoutogheaosutt
athedocoaubt pnturyo,nhethde periolno
nithtnny of the movement. As to the amendment moved
eaiienn eke
4 the ja"' member BriatO4 Which weld prevent the