the House should express its opinion that the settlement of 1853 of the right honourable gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford should in spirit be adhered to." If these resolutions were carried, it would be a significant expression of the opinion that England should not be a military nation; and it would give an impetus to a salutary economy. He was not afraid to say that he was jealous of a standing army, and of the new mysterious military policy; and he would rather see the army in the hands of the Queen than under the control of the Parliament of England.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, declining to follow Mr. Disraeli into the wide field of our foreign policy, replied very briefly to his remarks on the state of the

public finances. As to the future year, he said it was his anxious wish to lay his statement of the probable expenditure, and of the means of meeting it, before the House at the earliest possible opportunity; but the estimates must first be submitted to their consideration before the financial statement could be made.

Mr. Gladstone expressed his surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have noticed and replied to the allegations made by Mr. Disraeli on the subject of our foreign policy, some of which were definite enough, and which, if correct, bore materially upon the advice given to the Crown by its Ministers. He thought there was justice in the statement of Mr. Disraeli, that, although we had accepted peace, and wished it to be real, its fruits had been but partially realised. He noticed the absence in the Royal Speech of any promise of information respecting

matters of importance-the question which arose respecting the treaty of Paris, the settlement of the Central American dispute, and the Persian war. He should have been glad, he said, if the unhappy events in China had been noticed in the Speech in terms somewhat different; and, with regard to Persia, he wished to know by whose authority that war had been waged, whether the expedition and its policy had been approved by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, or whether that body was only the nominal authority. He wanted likewise to know at whose charge the war was to be carried on. If this country was to bear the charge, or any part of it, then it was the duty of the Government to have called Parliament together at an earlier period. Leaving questions of foreign policy, Mr. Gladstone adverted to the paragraph in the Royal Speech relating to the Bank of England, protesting against its being understood to import any foregone conclusion as to the precise terms of the renewal of the Act of 1844, considering it to be completely open to Parliament to determine if that Act be not capable of improvement. With reference to the income tax, and to the agitation against the tax, he earnestly desired, he said, to bring the minds of the people of this country to a consideration of the question-which must be first disposed of— as to what was the just and reasonable scale of expenditure. If the 9d. tax were given up without an equivalent reduction of the estimates there must be either new taxation or a loan. He would not be a party to either; he felt it to be his bounden duty to lay hold first of the expenditure, and to

battle with the estimates. Passing from the estimates to the income tax, Mr. Gladstone denied that there was anything in the nature of a "compact" with parties in the House of Commons in the arrangement of 1853. Of such a compact he knew nothing. He explained the circumstances under which the arrangement was come to, regarding the acceptance of his plan as an act of generous confidence extended from the Parliament to the Government. This settlement it was incumbent to maintain-" the pledge of the Government was given in 1853, and we received value for it. It referred mainly to something that was to take place in 1860. Four years of the seven have passed away. It is to my mind reasonable and just that the right hon. gentleman on behalf of his friends, and that every man on his own behalf and on behalf of his constituents, should acknowledge the duty of the House of Commons to say now, in 1857, whether the pledges of 1853 are or are not to be fulfilled. I deprecate all schemes-except in debating societies-of comparison between direct and indirect taxation, so far as they stand between the House of Commons and its practical duty. I deprecate those inquiries about a uniform and a varying rate. What is the use of voting a perpetual income tax because you think the rate should be varying, and then all your life long finding that you are supporting a uniform rate? Now, that has been the case practically up to the present time. The question as to a varying rate is a question between the air and the clouds; it has never become practical. No Minister sitting on that bench has ever been able to devise such a rate. The

The

right honourable gentleman, Mr. Disraeli, announced his intention

rashly, I thought-of proposing such a rate; but he had not an opportunity of bringing it forward. But there are other matters before us that are of a practical character. As far as my duty is concerned, it will be my effort and labour to secure a fulfilment of the pledges given in 1853. I understood those pledges as the right honourable gentleman understands them. I have not forgotten them. I never can forget to the latest day of my life, and I shall always remember with gratitude the conduct of the House of Commons at the period when those measures were adopted, and the generosity of the sentiments which they evinced. I must endeavour to answer that conduct, at least so far as depends on me; and I shall endeavour to answer that conduct by striving to bring the expenditure of the country and its fiscal arrangements into such a shape as will allow the extinction of the income tax in 1860." With regard to the resolutions announced, Mr. Gladstone said, he felt that the precise time and mode of bringing them forward must have some reference to the estimates. whenever they were brought forward, at a proper time and in a proper form, they would find in him one of their warmest and most determined supporters.

But

Lord Palmerston, observing that Mr. Disraeli had displayed remarkable talents in the composition of works of imagination, pronounced the greater part of his speech an entire romance. He detailed the course of proceeding which resulted in the treaty of peace, and the history of the boundary line, contending that the

misunderstanding as to this line had originated in no want of geographical knowledge on the part of the British Plenipotentiaries. It was not desirable, he thought, that the papers relating to these differences, which had been arranged, should be laid before Parliament. He explained and vindicated the course pursued by the Government regarding the Neuchâtel question, denying that they had given the advice to the Swiss alleged by Mr. Disraeli. As to any treaty guaranteeing to Austria her Italian possessions, he was totally ignorant of the existence of such a treaty; and, so far from advising such a stipulation, had this Government been consulted as to such a treaty, their advice would have been adverse to it. With regard to the operations against Persia, they were undoubtedly taken on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, the circumstances of the case, in their opinion, calling for and justifying them, in conformity with a policy founded upon a right conception of the interests of our Indian empire. Within the last few days he had been informed that the Persian Ambassador at Paris had solicited an interview with Lord Cowley, and had expressed his readiness to enter into negotiations for the settlement of the question. It would not, therefore, pending this negotiation, be expedient to produce the papers. The operations against China had been the result of a violation by the Chinese of the treaty of Nankin. He hoped that this dispute, too, would be speedily adjusted. Having replied to other objections put forward by Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone, he expressed his concurrence in the principles laid down by the

latter. "I quite concur in the principle that Parliament ought first to decide upon what amount of establishments the interest and safety of the country require, and, having settled that, then to find the means by which the expense of such establishments, whether large or small, may be defrayed. Therefore I think the discussions which have been announced as to the levying of a particular tax are premature until the House of Commons shall have decided what ought to be the expenditure of the country; and I must say this is the first time I remember to have heard elaborate discussions of estimates which have not yet been laid upon the table of the House. My right hon. friend says, 'Figures, after all, are what you should go by.' But wait until you get the figures, for, if the figures are only imagined upon which you base your argument, you are very likely to find yourself in error. We all agree with the right hon. gentleman that it is not for this country to have an army of 500,000 men. I do not think any one dreamt of any such thing. It was a mere figure of speech. He meant that we ought not to have a large army, like those on the continent -an army disproportioned to the wants of the country. I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman. I think that it would be a great mistake in any Government which proposed, and in any House of Commons which agreed to, an inordinate amount of military establishments beyond the requirements of the country. But the House must recollect that our army cannot be considered in the light of a mere police force at home; that we have possessions abroad in which certain garrisons must be

maintained; and although my right hon. friend says very truly that the colonies to which free institutions are given ought to contribute largely to their own expenses, yet it must be borne in mind that in those countries, which are thinly peopled, where labour is dear, and where every man is occupied in some industrial pursuit, you cannot get recruits with the same facility as in a settled country; and although you may call on those colonies to contribute largely to their civil establishments, and to form militias for their defence, yet forces of that kind will not be sufficient if you have not the nucleus of regular forces on which these volunteer corps may support themselves in the hour of need. Then you must remember that you have a certain number of possessions abroad which require a certain amount of military force; that that military force cannot be kept permanently; that there must be troops at home periodically to relieve them, and therefore that, besides troops on foreign stations, there must be always a certain number on the passage out to relieve, or on their passage home, having been relieved. All this must be taken into account in fixing the amount of your military establishments, and you must also bear in mind that peace, however long it may continue, is not merely dependent on ourselves, but on the conduct of other Powers, and you must look forward to having a force sufficient at least to protect you in the outset from insult or attack. Depend upon it, for a country great and rich to leave itself without the means of defence is not a method to preserve peace in the long run. That is why it is important to utilize the experience which we have

gained in the last war, to maintain the scientific establishments, and to keep up those portions of the army which cannot be so easily raised as the recruits who perform the ordinary operations of a campaign. In the same way, with regard to the navy, it was stated, I think, by the right hon. gentleman that great expense had been incurred of late years by this country (and he might have said by other countries-by France and Russia) in adapting their naval forces to the modern improvements of science, substituting propulsion by the screw for simple dependence on the power of sails. But such adaptation is expensive. The cost of construction of a line-of-battle ship moved by steam is one-third greater than that of the same ship without that power, and the expense of maintaining it is onethird greater. But if other countries-if France, Russia, and the United States-all adopt the system of steam propulsion, it will be impossible for this country to remain behind the progress of the age, and have a navy not capable by its efficiency to cope with any navy with which it might come into conflict. I say, then, I trust the House will suspend its judgment on these matters of estimates and finance until they have before them the elements upon which their judgment may be formed. We have no interest in proposing to the House establishments greater than we really think necessary for the public service. We can have no desire to create difficulties for our own Administration. There is every temptation to a Government to introduce proposals most likely to be adopted by the House; but, on the other hand, it is the duty of a responsible

Government, having determined - the amount of army and navy which is essential for the safety and interest of the country, to present to Parliament the result of the conclusions at which they have arrived."

Mr. Baillie strongly condemned the expedition to the Persian Gulf, which, he observed, had been determined on while Parliament was sitting.

Lord John Russell, observing that the explanations given by Lord Palmerston upon several points had been full and satisfactory, expressed his regret that so much asperity had been manifested respecting the misunderstanding on the subject of the article of the treaty defining the boundary line. After a few remarks upon the Neuchâtel question, he said he had heard with satisfaction the announcement that negotiations had commenced for terminating the Persian quarrel, fearing that the expedition to Bushire meant more than it appeared to mean, and might lead to serious consequences. He was of opinion that it was the constitutional duty of the Government, when the expedition was determined upon, to call Parliament together. With regard to Italy, he confessed that he was not satisfied with what had taken place. If the King of Naples had been informed that certain terms had been agreed upon between France and Great Britain, and had been required to assent to them on pain of compulsion, he believed the King would at once have assented. The course actually pursued had been abortive, and had made things worse than before. He described the deplorable condition of the Papal States under foreign occupation, and asked why this state of

things should continue for years without remonstrance. He had no doubt, he said, if a day were fixed when the occupation of the Roman Legations by Austrian troops should cease, there would be some chance of an independent State, while a danger to Europe would be removed. The noble Lord concluded with some reflections upon the subject of the finances. He spoke disapprovingly of Mr. Disraeli's proposed resolutions; but he advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring the state of the finances forward at a very early period. He quite agreed with what Lord Palmerston had said respecting our peace establishments. "And perhaps, if I might venture to recall old times and refer to what he said the first time I made a motion in this Housewhich was in 1816, when I asked the Ministry to withdraw the estimates and propose reduced ones, and my noble friend, then Secretary for War, stated the grounds why considerable estimates were necessary-I might observe that the reasons he then gave were not very dissimilar from those which he offered to-night, and I have no doubt were perfectly well-grounded. All I should wish to prevent, as far as my vote lies, would be the adoption of any new system with regard to our naval and military estimates." Lord John Russell expressed himself in favour of good but moderate establishments. "We have seen in France I believe almost ever since the accession of Charles the Tenth, and certainly since the accession of Louis Philippe that that country has been maintaining an immense army and a considerable navy, and every year increasing its debt. We, on the other hand,