was drunk, he did not intend the slightest diminution of respect or loyalty to the Queen, explaining, as I have done, that it was not a political act, but an act of faith to a spiritual sovereign, and not interfering with any political allegiance. Colonel Greville, I understand, is a Protestant himself, but the large majority of the meeting were Roman Catholics; and he positively declares that, so far from sharing in any of the sentiments of the speech quoted by the noble Marquess, he utterly disclaims that he entertains any sort of sympathy in the slightest degree for such opinions. Well, having received this positive disclaimer from Colonel Greville, both with respect to the spirit in which he was present when the Pope's health was drunk before that of the Queen, and with respect to the sentiments which the noble Marquess says are seditious, and which I call very improper, but do not know if they amount to sedition-Colonel Greville having utterly disclaimed all participation in such sentiments-the Lord Chancellor did not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter by dismissing him from the magistracy. I have not the honour of Colonel Greville's acquaintance. He is a Member of the other House of Parliament, and one certainly not friendly to the present Government, but quite the contrary; but I am authorised by him to express before your Lordships this disclaimer in his behalf. The noble Marquess says that the communication with the Lord Chancellor was a close communication, and he wishes for a public disclaimer; so far as my assertion can answer the purpose, I have authority to repeat, on the part of Colonel Greville, that disclaimer which he addressed to the Lord Chancellor. That being the case, I am, as I said before, not at all concerned to justify the conduct of Colonel Greville, and still less to justify many of the speeches delivered on the occasion referred to. I am concerned only in justifying the refusal of the Lord Chancellor to dismiss Colonel Greville from the magistracy. In that course I think his Lordship was perfectly right; and he has said that these inquiries were made for his own satisfaction, and not in order to meet the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess may easily conceive that the correspondence between Colonel Greville and the Lord Chancellor might involve matters which it would not be at all desirable to lay before the public, and I must decline to give my sanction to its publication.

The Earl of Aberdeen

THE EARL OF DESART said, that the utmost importance was attached in Ireland to a show of promptitude and vigour on the part of the Executive in repressing the utterance of treasonable speeches by gentlemen holding Her Majesty's commission of the peace. It had long been the practice in Ireland, by means of speeches and pamphlets circulated among the people, to inculcate in their minds the spirit of that treasonable axiom, that "England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity;" and when such speeches were sanctioned by the presence of any servant of the Crown, or person holding the commission of the peace, a great want of confidence and trust in the vigour and firmness of the Government was produced on the part of the people, unless they perceived that the Executive was ready to suppress any show of treasonable sufferance on the part of those who were employed under the Crown, and especially those who were in the commission of the peace. Prior to the ridiculous attempt of Smith O'Brien and his party in 1849 the same course was adopted both by the publication of pamphlets and the making of speeches. He remembered well how utterly futile they proved to be, and he knew also how futile they were at this moment. At the same time, he must say that it was most dangerous to allow a practice of the sort to continue amongst an excitable and impressible people like the Irish-a people who were bred up in hostility to England and the English Government, and which feeling of hostility was fostered by agitators, and backed up by the priests of Ireland, who had, by dint of the most extravagant superstition, established their au thority over the minds of the people, and he had almost said over their souls and their bodies. If the people were now, as he had good grounds for believing they were, anxious to shake off these fettersanxious to emancipate themselves from the slavery in which they had so long been held-their Lordships might rely upon it that that feeling would be very much weakened by every show of indecision or want of firmness on the part of the Executive in dealing with the cases that might be brought before them of treasonable conduct on the part of those who were in the service of the Crown. When the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) was in Ireland, a magistrate of the county of Kilkenny was indicted for holding treasonable language at a public meeting in that county, and, being convicted, was impri

soned for the offence. He did not refer to that particular instance as a precedent. But he could not help saying that he thought such conduct on the part of magistrates was most reprehensible. They ought to bear in mind that forgetfulness of their duty was fatal to their own character; and that, by so acting, they did a great deal of mischief in weakening the desire of the people to emancipate themselves from the influence of political agitators and the spiritual tyranny of the clergy.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH said, that the disclaimer which he had gained from the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) of any concurrence in the sentiments and language held at the meeting on the part of Colonel Greville was most gratifying. He regretted that it had not been accompanied by an expression of regret on the part of Colonel Greville that he had been present when the healths of the Pope and the Queen were drunk in the order and in the manner in which they were. He could not make so light of the matter as the noble Earl had done; but he had no doubt that the noble Earl conscientiously thought that this matter was not so serious as he (the Marquess of Westmeath) believed it to be. While he was thankful that the Government had not disgraced a man who was a relative of his own, he did not think that the circumstances warranted the aspect which the noble Earl had put upon the Motion. Provided this matter brought home to the mind of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the conviction that the public eye was upon him, and that hereafter, so long as he remained there, he must not blow hot and cold, having one measure for one person, and another for another, he (the Marquess of Westmeath) should be satisfied with the disclaimer he had obtained, and would withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn. House adjourned till To-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, May 15, 1854. MINUTES.] NEW MEMBERS SWORN.-For Devonport, Sir Thomas Erskine Perry; for Lichfield, Lord Waterpark; for Hastings, Frederick North, Esq. PUBLIC BILLS. -1° Hospitals and Infirmaries (Ireland).

2° Excise Duties; Customs Duties.

EXCISE DUTIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

MR. CAYLEY said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. It was always a painful thing to resist a financial proposition made by the Government, and more especially was it so at a critical moment like the present. Impelled, however, by a sense of public duty, he was under the necessity of interrupting the harmony which had hitherto distinguished the proceedings and votes of the House in respect to the supplies which the Ministers had asked for to enable them to carry on the war in which we were now unfortunately engaged. The proposed increase of the malt tax was not only a measure unjust in itself, but inconsistent with the principles of commercial policy which Ministers had insisted on being recognised, and which the Opposition had assented to. In taking that course, however, he and those who supported him were actuated solely by a sense of public duty; and it was upon that ground that they based their opposition to what they regarded as an oppressive, an unjust, and an unequal tax. So indisposed had he been to undertake the office, that he had waited anxiously for several days in the hope of seeing some other Member notify his intention to oppose the proposition of the Government with reference to the malt tax: but no one having done so, he had undertaken the office, painful as it was. With regard to the war for which they were asked to vote supplies, he thought it was as inevitable now as it had been unnecessary in the first instance; for no one who had read the blue books which had been laid on the table could come to any other conclusion than that it had been brought about by obsequious and vacillating negotiations, and that the means which had been intended to preserve peace had caused us to bump against war. He did not make the charge of vacillation against the whole of the prevent Government, because previously to the commencement of 1853 the negotiations had, in his opinion, been carried on with prudence and magnanimity by the noble Lords the Members for Tiverton (Visct. Palmerston) and London (Lord J. Russell), and by the Earl of Malmesbury. If, indeed, England had at that time chosen to adopt a selfish instead of a magnanimous policy, it would have been easy to allow Russia and France to battle out their differences together; for what was meant by the large forces which had been raised throughout Europe during the last fifty years? They

meant the dread of the claw of the Eagle on the one hand, and of the paw of the Bear on the other. England, however, had the magnanimity to interpose its friendly offices between France and Russia in 1851, and France wisely and gracefully retired from the fatal course which she had been pursuing. He could not, however, quite exonerate the noble Lord the Member for London, because in the secret correspondence he appeared inadvertently to consider Russia's claim to a protectorate over the Greek subjects of the Porte as tenable, and had thereby indirectly given the Emperor a right to assume that that part, at all events, of his policy would not be opposed by Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, But Lord Clarendon, immediately on succeeding to the noble Lord in the Foreign Office, had distinctly accepted the Emperor of Russia's policy throughout, and the conclusion of those secret negotiations was a memorandum of Russia, virtually clenching the English Government to the compact. If Lord Clarendon's language had been as firm during those secret negotiations and when Prince Menchikoff was at Constantinople as it had been in the present year -if Russia had been told in confidence in those secret negotiations, as she treated us so confidentially, that if her forces entered the Principalities we must at once enter the Black Sea and put an end for ever to the status quo-the Principalities would not have been entered, and no war would have taken place. It was clear to his (Mr. Cayley's) mind, that the language of the English Government at the beginning of 1853 had misled the Emperor of Russia-that no one intended or desired war less than the Emperor of Russiaand that if it had not been for the language and conduct of the Government of this country, and especially if Lord Aberdeen had not been Prime Minister, there would have been no war. This was conspicuous from the papers laid before us. But the Government, having bungled us into this war, now asked us to pay the expenses of it, and the House had voted Estimates for that purpose, believing that the money would be raised in an equal and just manner; instead of which, the policy that the Government had adopted was unequal and unjust, and totally opposed to those principles which it had itself laid down as politic. The House had cheerfully granted an income tax, although it was paid principally by real property, while incomes from trade and professions were notoriously to a great

Mr. Cayley

But then the

extent allowed to escape. Government said that the limit of direct taxation had been reached, and it was necessary to fall back upon the policy of the last war-to tax the consumer. Circumstances had changed since that period; we had then a restrictive commercial policy and an unrestricted paper currency, which enabled the producer to charge the tax upon the price, and so repay himself; but he could not now do so. By the duties upon spirits and upon malt they obtained from the single article of British agricultural produce, barley, 12,000,000%. out of 15,000,000l. of Excise duties. And they now had the modesty-he said nothing of the insult, for insult it was-to propose that this 12,000,000l. should be increased to 15,000,000l. Do not let hon. Members suppose that the malt tax was a farmer's or an English question only. He (Mr. Cayley) could show that it was a tax upon every acre of cultivated land in this country, of from 20s. to 25s. an acre, from the Land's End to John O'Groat's. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have obtained 1,000,000l. of additional revenue by staying the falling duty on tea, which he had it in his power to do. But, instead of that, he was now adopting a protective policy in staying the falling duty on sugar, the effect of which was to operate protectively towards the West Indian interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bore a high character for moral integrity, notwithstanding the failure of his financial schemes, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be actuated by no undue motives; but it was a curious circumstance that, while he had it in his power to stay the fall of the duty on tea, he had preferred to stay the fall of the duty on sugar. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was not now connected with the West India interest, but he remembered having heard in that House from the right hon. Gentleman, exactly twenty years ago, one of the most eloquent, convincing, and impressive speeches he had ever heard, and one which was then understood to have been delivered on behalf of that interest. His present plan would certainly act protectively towards the West India interest, which had, no doubt, been much injured, and therefore was entitled to any consideration it could obtain. But he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ingenuity, had selected malt for taxation instead of choosing something more novel. There could not be a greater interference with in

been so.

dustry than the malt tax. He should like to see the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) or the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) amenable to those civil attentions which were now paid by the exciseman to the maltster, and see how they would bear the interruptions, penalties, and annoyances which encumbered the dealing with that article of produce. What the Government had promised them was freedom of trade, and surely freedom of trade meant an unrestricted trade. One of the great grievances, however, of which the agriculturists had had to complain ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws was, that the Government had not given them an unrestricted trade. They had begged of the Government to be true to their own principles, but they had never They had contended that the malt tax and the hop duties were a violation of those principles, and now the Government not only did not relieve them, but actually aggravated them to the extent of a third or nearly a half. Was there no other commodity which they might have found to operate upon of equally extensive consumption? They said that they were about to tax the consumer; but they would not by this measure tax all the consumers. The mercantile classes would to a great extent escape, while the tax would fall the poor man, by whom this national beverage was considered as a staff of life. If they desired to lay a tax upon the consumer, they should lay it candidly, openly, and equally. There was but one efficient method of doing this under the existing system of finance; and that method would not be nearly so great a violation of their own principles as was involved in the present proposition. We now imported 100,000,000l. worth of goods into this country annually, and a tax of 5 per cent upon this would yield 5,000,000l. That sum would have sufficed for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wants. This would have been general and equal, and would have fallen upon the trading classes as well as on the labourer, the farmer, and the landowner, without interfering with the industrial processes of the country. If 10,000,000l. even had been required, it might easily have been procured by a tax of 10 per cent upon imports, with little variation on the price, for the burden of such a tax would not have been borne exelusively by this country, but would have been shared by those countries from whence the importations come. He did not sup

upon

pose that the Government would adopt any suggestion of his; but he told them what they might have done by a system which would have been more in conformity with their principles as well as more in consistence with equality and justice than that which they had adopted. Barley was to the agriculturists of this country what cotton was to the manufacturers. Barley was the pivot upon which improved and scientific agriculture turned, and it was the grain with which the foreigner could least interfere. He wanted to know, then, what greater interference it would be with the industry of the country to lay a tax upon cotton yarn than it was to lay it upon agricultural malt? One single reason, and only one, was given why malt should be taxed, and that was that it was an ancient tax, and a tax on the consumer. He (Mr. Cayley) would show how it was a much greater tax upon the producer. But, if that tax fell on the consumer, why did they make an outcry against the tax upon cotton yarn? Cotton yarn went equally into consumption with malt, and so a tax upon it would only be a tax on the consumer. But when a tax on yarn existed it was soon clamoured off. And why was it not now revived?-because they found it would hit the manufacturers, and the manufacturers were a body not to be trifled with. The repeal of the Corn Laws operated in favour of the consumer, and to the detriment of the producer. The effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws had been to introduce 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 quarters of foreign corn, and the result of that was to lower the price. The Government had told them that they could not have a Parliamentary price for wheat; but he objected to their present policy that they forced a Parliamentary price upon barley; for by their interference with malt they made beer four times dearer than it would otherwise be. If beer could be manufactured perfectly free, if there were no licences and none of that monopoly which this tax and the licensing system had engendered, beer which now cost 4d. per quart might be brewed for 1d. The effect, then, if this tax were repealed, would be an increased demand for barley, and, if it followed the course of other articles of general consumption, after a reduction or repeal of duties, the increase would be at least threefold. From this it was evident that this was not merely a barley question, but that it was a wheat and oats question also, because, the present consumption of barley in malting