because he always assumes that newspapers are public opinion. I believe, however, that when the appeal, from which he expects certain results, is made to the new constituencies, the hon. Gen tleman will find that he has been entirely misled by trusting to the calculations and representations of newspapers. So far as the Government are concerned, I hope that in future, when the hon. Gentleman imputes to us the communication of articles which he describes as the manifestoes of our opinions-I hope that he will not make his quotations from journals which habitually oppose Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, in a speech which he made to-night, and which was characterized by all that amenity of manner and suavity of demeanour which render him such a favourite with the House, seemed to throw some new light upon certain events in this House; for he told us that the vote on the Resolutions on the Irish Church was not, as it has been described by the hon. Member for Birmingham and other Gentlemen, the expression of a profound conviction and statesmanlike opinion on a most important subject, but that it was in reality a vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. Now I say that if you wish to pass a vote of Want of Confidence in the Government, it would be more satisfactory to the country, and I believe, also, to the majority of this House, that it should be a straightforward vote. For what happens when we have these sinister votes of Want of Confidence—if, indeed, this be a vote of Want of Confidence? When the Government are beaten by a considerable majority, then, according to the right hon. Member for Calne, it it is a vote of Want of Confidence; but, speaking from my own personal experience alone-and I dare say my Colleagues and friends could testify to many other instances-I may say that I have received a variety of communications from Gentle men who voted, no doubt, from conscience aud conviction on the Irish Church question, and who gave that large majority to the right. hon Gentleman opposite, and those communications state that they did not thereby intend in any way whatever to imply a general want of confidence in the Government. Therefore, there ought to be no mistake or misunderstanding on such a subject. If you wish to pass a vote of Want of Confidence, propose a vote of Want of Confidence. Let the case be fairly law and thoroughly experienced in matters of the kind; and though I shall not at this moment question the correctness of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down-and I will make a note of his observations-I must say I feel confident, on account of the quarter from which I received my information, that that result can be attained. This, I think, is all it is necessary for me to say at present, though, of course, I shall take an early opportunity of laying before the House fuller information respecting the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) was very severe in his comments on the position of the Government, but I am totally at a loss to understand what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. Does he want an immediate dissolution of Parliament, and, if he does, is he prepared to support Her Majesty's Government in endeavouring to obtain it? I shall be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions are upon that point. With a view to an early dissolution in connection with the new constituencies, it is of the utmost importance that we should pass the Boundary Bill. Until it is passed it will be impossible for me to introduce, as I am recommended to do, a short Bill to alter the days at present arranged for the Registration. Unless we get the Boundary Bill passed early in June it will be impossible to take steps which will, as I am informed, secure an early dissolution. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) has made a speech framed upon a system which he first introduced into the House of Commons-which, however, has not yet been followed by any other Member, and which I trust will be a solitary precedent. The plan of the hon. Gentleman, when he wishes to cast odium on his opponents, is always to make quotations from some newspaper which habitually opposes the Government; and, having done that, to insinuate that they have been written by members of the Government. I must say that the first time the hon. Gentleman had recourse to that device I was amused by its airy gaiety and happy audacity of invention. But it has become so habitual to him that he seems to be always thinking of newspapers, and to believe that the world is governed by newspapers-which is the real cause of all the mistakes of his career, argued, let the House give a deliberate | hon. Gentleman should certainly have opinion on the subject, and let the country Thursday if an earlier day cannot be judge. But if votes like those which obtained. have lately been given in this House, and which I believe are conscientious votes, on a subject of the greatest importance, are to be suddenly transformed and metamorphosed into votes of Want of Confidence, we shall be getting into a habit which cannot increase the reputation of the House for candour, or enable us to carry on our affairs in that manner which I think has been on the whole satisfactory. MR. AYRTON inquired what would be the course of the business of the evening? MR. DISRAELI: After the Committee of Ways and Means we shall go on with the Representation of the People (Ireland) Bill. With regard to the Boundary Bill, representations have been made to me by hon. Members opposite. I believe it would be very inconvenient to them to have the Boundary Bill to-night. Therefore I will not press that; but I hope we shall go on with the representation of the People (Ireland) Bill. MR. BRIGHT: At what hour? MR. DISRAELI: Not after eleven o'clock. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. WAYS AND MEANS-COMMITTEE. MR. CARDWELL: I rise Sir, for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman to state with perfect clearness a point on which I am not sure we have entirely understood him. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he has been in formed by some person of legal knowledge and great acquaintance with electioneering matters that it would be impossible, if the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills and the Boundary Bill were proceeded with, to take measures for a dissolution in Novem-mittee. ber. In answer to that an objection was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir Robert Collier), which he believes to be a difficulty in the way of proceeding in that matter. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that on this point he will consult either the Law Officers of the Crown or, at any rate, legal gentlemen on whose opinion he can positively rely, and that, on an early occasion, he will state to the House the precise course which it is the intention of the Government to take. MR. DISRAELI: Yes. SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he was unable to see the great importance of what was termed an early dissolution. It implied that business would be slurred over. There would be an untimely "massacre of innocents," and the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills would be hurried through. Of course the question of the Irish Church must go before the new constituencies; but that was no reason why the present House of Commons should not dispassionately and thoroughly settle the other important questions now under the consideration of Parliament. MR. GLADSTONE remarked that nothing had been said about the Order for the resumption of the Committee on the Resolutions on the Irish Church, and expressed a hope that they might be proceeded with on Thursday. MR. DISRAELI replied that the right (In the Committee.) 1. Moved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April 1868, for and in respect of scribed as chargeable in the Act passed in the all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or de16th and 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices, the following Rates and Duties (that is to say): For every Twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of all such Property, Profits, and Gains (except those chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the Rate or Duty of Six pence. And for and in respect of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Ilereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act, for every Twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, In England, the Rate or Duty of Three pence, and In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Rate or Duty of Two pence farthing. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act 26th Victoria, chapter 22, for the exemption of persons whose whole Income from every source is under £100 a-year, and relief of those whose Income is under £200 a-year. MR. GLADSTONE said, this is the most proper opportunity for those who are so disposed to offer any remarks on the finances of the country. I should have been desirous, in the circumstances of the present Session, to have dispensed, if it had been possible, with the remarks I am about to offer; but it is not, and I am the more absolutely compelled to make them in consequence of a conversation the other night after I had left the Committee, when opinions appear to have been expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which appear to me to be entirely at variance with the practice and with the understand ing of the House as to the relations between the Executive Government and Independent Members. I wish to explain what some of my Friends have done with respect to the expenditure proposed by the present Government since it assumed Office, and to state why I have not carried further the objections I have made to their system. Upon various occasions I have objected to the expenditure proposed by the Government, during the last Session of Parliament in particular. When the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and other hon. Members highly competent to examine the question, were desirous of challenging upon an important point the Naval Estimates, we found-conformably with my Parliamentary experience upon other occasions-that the circumstances of last year were such as made it scarcely possible to question, in an effective manner, the system of expenditure which the Government proposed. When they, upon their own responsibility, state that certain establishments are necessary for the defence of the country-when, for instance, they propose rapid and wholesale armament, and large additions to the pay of the Army, upon the ground that, in their judgment was responsible for expenditure they ment, the increase is necessary to efficiency -it is quite obvious that such expenditure can be effectually challenged only by those who are prepared to bear the responsibility of the construction that will be put upon their resistance to the measures of the Government; and that construction is, that they propose a Vote of Want of Confidence. No Government could be worthy of its place, if it permitted its Estimates to be seriously resisted by the Opposition; and important changes can be made only under circumstances which permit of the raising of the question of a change of Government. Last year it was impossible to raise that question; so absorbing was the inte. rest attaching to the question of Parliamentary Reform that it was quite impracticable to raise any second issue; and, therefore, we had no choice but to leave the Government to its course, or else to incur the responsibility of doing that which we admitted, after the downfall of the previous Government, could not and ought not to be done-namely, to take out of the hands of the Government the settlement of the question of Reform. Further, although it may have the appearance of a paradox, 1 believe it will be found by experience that when the attention of the House is absorbed by one great question it is impossible to secure the adequate consideration of another question of first-rate importance. Under these circumstances it is obvious the responsibility of the Government for expenditure was raised to the highest point; but to my astonishment, the doctrine seems to have been laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, when once the Estimates have been accepted by Independent Members, the House is responsible for them in the same degree as the Ministers of the Crown. It is impossible too emphatically to pronounce against that opinion; it is entirely contrary to the relation in which he stands to the House. The doctrine is monstrous, and is unsupported by the authority of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, whose good sense will convince him that it cannot be maintained. The Government have unlimited opportunities of investigating the Estimates for the expenditure through Departments under the supposed control of the Treasury, and how is it possible that those who have no such power, even if they agree to the Estimates, can be responsible in the same degree as the Government? If ever there were circumstances under which a Govern are the circumstances before us, partly because of the Reform Bill, and above all, because the Opposition did not press expenditure upon the Government. When we were in Office incessant attacks were made upon us to promote expenditure, and our proposals for reduction—for instance, in the Vote for the Yeomanry-were resisted. Ou the other hand, the present Administration has experienced no such general pressure, and no impediments have been placed in the way of its reducing the expenditure. I say this advisedly and deliberately, and challenge reference to the Motions, Questions, and Divisions of the last ten years. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), referring to a statement I made on the night when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted his Financial Statement, appeared to think that in some manner I had overstated my case. My proposition was that, if it had not been for the increase in the Estimates introduced by the present Government, the right hon. Gen- | Well, now, you shall have it. In the first tleman need not have been placed in the place, I say I claim no credit for the dimipainful position of asking us to add 2d.nution of the expenditure which we effected. to the Income Tax. That statement, II am not proud of it. I do not think we think, is strictly and literally correct; in did much. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, point of fact it is rather an under-state- hear!] The right hon. Baronet jeers when I ment than an over-statement. There has say that. I repeat that I claim no praise or been added to the Estimates £2,750,000, credit for what we effected in that respect, of which £1,930,000 was required, ac- but I will set up a standard by which cording to the figures of the right hon. what we accomplished may be tried, and Gentleman, for the Abyssinian War. The then the right hon. Gentleman may judge gross amount required for the Abyssinian whether or not dispraise and discredit do not War was £3,000,000, and £1,070,000 attach to those who sit opposite to me for aug. having been provided in November, menting the expenditure, instead of adopt£1,930,000 constitutes the amount now ing the principle we had followed of gradually required for the purposes of the Abyssinian and progressively diminishing the expendiWar. That being so, it appears to me ture. We came into office in 1859, when perfectly plain that if, instead of increasing we found that the Estimates involved a the Estimates for other purposes than those vast increase in the expenditure. For that of the Abyssinian War by, in round num- the Government which then preceded us bers, £1,000,000, the Government had so were not to blame; the Estimates had been reduced them as to bring them only half-in a manner prepared for them, and were way towards the amount of our Estimates, adopted by Parliament and the whole counthe sum required for the Abyssinian War try. The Estimates of that year were might have been provided without any in- increased by a large sum, which was recrease in the total Estimates. In truth, I quired for the China War, which began have under-stated the case, because I have either a few days before, or a few days taken for my standard of comparison the after, we succeeded to Office. The expenEstimates for the year 1866, whereas the diture for the official year ending March House is entitled to assume that the Esti- 31st, 1860, was £69,523,000; for the mates subsequent to that year should have year 1861, £72,792,000, that being the undergone still further reduction in place largest expenditure for the year we have of being increased. When a general move- had, and of which £4 000,000, was due ment for economy was made under the to the China War; for 1862, £71,374,000, auspices of the hon. Member for Montrose including £1,000,000 incurred for the (Mr. Baxter) and others, the right hon. expedition to Canada and British North Gentleman and his Friends were ready to America after the affair of the Trent; pledge themselves to the principle that for 1863, £69,302,000; for 1864, there ought to be a progressive and gra- £67,056,000; for 1865, £66,462,000; dual reduction in the Estimates from year and for 1866, £65,914,000. That is the to year, and, indeed, boasted that they had last year of expenditure under our control, forced that principle upon us; but the mo- and I ask the right hon. Baronet opposite ment they get the control over the public whether I have not made out my statement purse that control seems perfectly worth that we left to our successors a gradually less, and a systematic increase of expendi- and progressively diminishing expenditure is made with regard to the naval, the ture? We may have been but poor permilitary, and the civil Departments of the formers, but it seems that there are still country. I repeat that that increase in the poorer performers than ourselves. We had expenditure is a systematic one-and do thus brought the expenditure down from not let the House think that the increase £72,000,000 to a little under £66,000,000; we see now shows the real extent of that but the real reduction in the expenditure increase. My experience has taught me. was even greater than is apparent from the that these rapid augmentations of the ex- figures, in consequence of an alteration we penditure contain the seeds of further effected in the accounts, bringing into them augmentations. If the present Government sums of money on both which had not remain long in Office they will bequeath to previously appeared in them on either side. their successors a progressive augmenting But what has been the result of the opeexpenditure. We left to our successors a ration of the present Government? progressively diminishing expenditure. [Sir left them in 1866 with a diminishing exJOHN PAKINGTON: That is not correct.] penditure of £65,914,000. In 1867, we We find that the expenditure has risen to £66.780,000, and in 1868 to £69,242,000. exclusive of the expenditure incurred in respect of the Abyssinian War. I be lieve. I am accurate in saying that the £2,000,000 Vote of Credit includes the whole Abyssinian expenditure for that year. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I believe that is correct.] Perhaps there may turn out to be some small accounts for supplies sent from this country which are not included in that sum, but they cannot amount to much. On the 31st of March, 1868, Her Majesty's Government had been twenty months in Office, and in that time they had raised the expenditure from £65,914,000 in 1866 to what it was in 1863 namely, to something over £69,000,000 — that is to say, they had contrived to throw back the expenditure of the country three years during a tenure of Office of twenty months. Let me ask, does anyone in this House believe that that increase is due to mere casual expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the additional expenditure was all required to secure the efficiency of the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Services. It is not the increase in the efficiency of the Army that has carried off the palm in this great, rapid, and menacing expenditure. If those in office do not mend their ways a "financial crisis" will take place in this House, which will render it impossible for the Public Business to be carried on by them in the face of this large and increasing expenditure. But how do the Estimates stand for the ensuing year? They amount to £70,428,000, exclusive of £3,000,000 for Abyssinia. When I held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer I found that the Revenue of the country increased at the rate of about £1,500,000 per annum, some part of which depended upon a consistent endeavour to open up new sources of receipts, and another portion upon what I may call minor reforms. Even during the past year, as the right hon. Gentleman has informed us, the Revenue of the country has increased to a certain extent. Now, as £1,500,000 per annum amounts in two years to £3,000,000, which is the exact amount of the increase on the expenditure which Her Majesty's Government have effected, being, I suppose, just about what they believe they can safely spend in respect of the augmentation of the Revenue of the country. [Ironical Cheers.] Sarcastic cheers may be all very well, but the figures speak for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman. will say that the expenditure has been rendered necessary in order to secure the efficiency of the services. [Cheers.] Yes, that cry has cost the country a great deal of money, and it may cost it a good deal more. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: The expenditure in my Department will be more than it is now. The right hon. Baronet has just made an important announcement, for he has informed us that this efficiency of the services will cost us much more. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I will explain my statement by-and-by.] I shall be glad if the explanation of the right hon. Baronet will destroy the effect of the words I have, I believe fairly, quoted. The state of the expenditure is such as we should deeply deplore; and I do not hesitate to tell the right hon. Gentleman that irrespective of party and of support I should have been ready distinctly to challenge the Government on the system that is now being carried on of increasing the expenditure on the naval, military, and civil services, had it not been for the great absorbing question relating to the state of Ireland. Upon that subject I will not now dwell. When we came into Office last we had to contend with and check the fever of expenditure which had seized upon the country, and which had induced Parliament to spend £6,000,000 or £8.000.000 upon harbours of refuge. We did thisthe Liberal party did this - while, as we think, we perfectly maintained the efficiency of the public service, at the same time regularly effecting great reductions through five or six years, which we had the prospect of continuing-a policy which was much better than absorbing by additions to the expenditure all the natural growth of the Revenue of the country. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am sure the Committee will allow me to offer some few remarks in answer to the speech of the right hou. Gentleman, and in doing so I feel deeply sensible how efficient an advocate the right hon. Gentleman is for economy in the public service; and I can assure him I give him full credit for the efforts he has constantly made for reducing the national expenditure, except so far as I think those efforts have not been consistent with that support of our national armaments which he will himself admit to be one of the first duties of every Administration. The right hon. Gentleman charged the present Administration in no measured terms with systematic extravagance. That |