But I say that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to do is to make sufficient allowance in the Estimates for the ordinary variations of the seasons. He must take into consideration whether there has been a good harvest or a bad one, and also the sudden demands that may arise under circumstances of a character altogether unknown beyond what can be anticipated from common experience, and for which extraordinary emergencies he could not be expected to provide in his Budget. I own it was to me a matter of surprise when I found that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified his mode of procedure this year by stating that in the year 1860 there had been a proposal in making the financial arrangements of the year to take £1,300,000 out of the balances that is to say, to fall short of equalizing income and expenditure by £1,300,000. Her Majesty's Government must know that that was a case in which, long after the financial arrangements of the year were made, a demand which could not have been provided for previously to the extent of £5,000,000, came upon the country, and that for such a demand as that it was quite right to lay new taxes, and, as a matter of fact, they were laid. It was quite right to provide for such a charge either by taking money out of the balances, or even by a resort to the principle of borrowing, and it is to ordinary principles alone that general rules must apply. But I contend, Sir, most firmly that there are certain principles that ought to be observed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer while, at the same time, I predict that he will never find it difficult to obtain the cheers of his Friendsindeed, it will be considered 'a merciful and humane actif he relaxes them. He will find this to be an exceedingly pleasant proceeding, and one that will get him over many difficulties and enable him to avoid much annoyance and I know no office of State that entails so much annoyance as that held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-but it will only get him over these difficulties until the time when the bill has to be paid and his accounts have to undergo the rigid scrutiny of this House-the time when matters are found to have gone wrong and when those who have cheered him in the first instance will flatter themselves that at that very time they mistrusted his proceedings. although they did not say so. What I hold, Sir, is that it is the duty of the Government to present to the House at the period of the year when the Budget is proposed an effective surplus of income over expenditure, and it is also their duty to include in that surplus, provided for at that time, all the extra expenditure of the year which is within what I may term their reasonable expectation. But here I regret to perceive that I am at variance with the principle held by the present Government. They hold that until the expenditure of the country is exactly defined, until they know exactly what it is-until, in fact, they know what addition is to be made to the charge for Irish education-they are not bound to take it into account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to reflect in this way-"I may at a later period of the Session bring forward a separate proposition, or be able to show that I have an adequate provision owing to the flourishing state of the Revenue in order to meet this or that charge." Speaking from no inconsiderable experience-for it has been my duty to frame the Budgets of this country on 10 occasions, although the 10th came to grief before it was presented to the House-I will venture to say that such principles as I have enunciated, except in the very worst times, have for the last 34 years been, as far as I know, invariably followed by the Finance Minister. I think, therefore, that I shall not be at fault if I warn the House against allowing the finance of the country to be brought up, first of all in one great Budget, and then in certain little Budgets, as certain Supplementary Estimates are presented to the House. Is it not obvious to the House how the Government may in this way avoid all its difficulties-how, by throwing into Supplementary Estimates certain of its charges, they may avoid the necessity of imposing new taxes? The great object they have is, of course, to avoid the imposition of new taxes; but I hold that it is the duty of the Government, or rather of a Minister of Finance, to take a manly view of the subject, and never to shrink from proposing a new tax, if circumstances should render it necessary to make more ample provision for the service of the country. I say that an ample provision for the whole probable expenditure of the year it is reasonable to expect should be estimated at the time the Budget is presented. And I am also bound to say that it appears to me that if there is one practice more dangerous than another it is that of establishing an exceptional character in the Estimates of the Revenue submitted by the Minister of Finance. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no right to present Estimates of Revenue but those which he expects to realize, and then, when he is charged with having proposed too large an expenditure, and with having offered insufficient Estimates to meet it, to fall back on "moderation." That is virtually making two Budgets. One is a Budget which is to go to the House and which is to be put before the country as an authentic public document, and the other is a Budget in the mind of the Minister to be fallen back upon when the day of challenge comes, and when it is shown that the provision made in what was put before the public as an authentic Budget is insufficient to meet the expenditure of the year. I know very well that these are not popular opinions at all. I know that they are entirely out of date and are entirely out of countenance. I will not say that I am at all indifferent to this circumstance, for I lament it deeply. It is in a general way recognized by the House, and probably by every hon. Member who hears me, and I may say it will be recognized by nearly every hon. Gentleman when he goes to his constituents and tells them that it is very desirable to reduce the National Debt. We have seen the effort the Government have made this year in this direction, when it had not to make a provision for the reduction of the National Debt, but to profess to make such a provision. The Government professed to expect a surplus of income over expenditure on the average surpluses every year, and at the same time it made no provision for the extraordinary occurrences of the year. With regard to the next 30 or 40 years, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that we were to expect an average surplus of £500,000, but with respect to the present year he makes no special provision. He admits that at this moment there is, according to his figures, a deficit of £300,000, and against this he falls back on the improved state Mr. Gladstone of the Revenue. In doing that the right hon. Gentleman's Friends cheer him. ["Hear, hear!"] But I hold, Sir, that it is not by this means that the National Debt is to be acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman has proceeded upon these three principlesand they seem to be not his alone, but principles that are at present in favour that the proper mode in which to govern the finances of the country is, first, steadily to increase the expenditure; secondly, to vote sums of money for the reduction of the National Debt; and, thirdly, never to propose a new tax, no matter what deficit may exist in the Revenue of the Kingdom. This is the three-fold cord in the financial reputation of the present Government, and, as I have said, the principles on which they proceed do not seem to be disapproved by this House, and apparently not by the country. Let them derive whatever comfort, credit, and satisfaction they may be able to extract from this circumstance, and I have no doubt it will-at any rate, for the time beingbring the cheers of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends. But I say, Sir, that these are not the means by which the Debt of the country has been reduced in the past, and that they are not the means by which it will be reduced in the future. THE TICHBORNE TRIAL. MR. WHALLEY rose to call attention to the refusal of the Government to furnish a Return of the expenditure in the Tichborne Prosecution, or to inform the House whether, in the Returns already made, the expenses of and expenditure by the detective officers employed in relation thereto were included. He said that would perhaps be the last occasion on which he would have the opportunity of calling attention to the circumstances of this portentous and monstrous trial, and of asking again for information which had been persistently denied to him by the Treasury and the Home Office. That great dissatisfaction existed throughout the country was notorious. He had himself presented Petitions signed by over 500,000 persons, who declared themselves to be so, and demanded justice; but there had been a deliberate action on the part of MR. WHALLEY said, he fully accepted the responsibility of his statement. He hoped that this was the last time during the present Session he would have to call attention to the subject. the House and a conspiracy to maintain | bound, however, to state that the hon. silence on the part of the Press which Member has reiterated his opinion on had prevented the facts from becoming the Tichborne Case several times, and known, and justified him in saying there that the House has shown great forbearhad been a portentous and atrocious ance. While I cannot say that the hon. conspiracy, for the purpose of depriving Member is out of Order, I would remind this man of his estates, that inquiry had him that he has repeated his statement been evaded, suppressed, and crushed, more than once. and that the existence of the atrocious conspiracy of which he spoke was known to persons who held responsible positions. No doubt the Judges and the jury who tried the case had discharged what they considered to be their duty, but they were condemned by all who knew the real facts. He had in vain endeavoured to get from the Government what the trial had cost. At an early period of the Session the Secretary to the Treasury stated it would be £55,000, and intimated that though some matters were not settled that amount would not be exceeded. He (Mr. Whalley) and others were surprised at that statement, and he believed that he did not exaggerate when he said that the cost was at least £500,000. If he was wrong let the Government correct him. He asked also whether the detectives who had been employed in the case had been paid by the Treasury or by the Home Office; and if the latter were the case, how much they had cost? There was scarcely a Rule of the House which had not been more or less strained and violated. The Secretary for the Treasury had promised to give Returns in connection with the case, but he had failed to carry out that promise, and as the Returns presented were in many points deficient, he thought the House was entitled to have fuller particulars of the costs which had been incurred. Those Returns had been withheld deliberately, and in violation of an express promise. Perhaps he would not be more fortunate on that occasion, but he felt bound to call attention to the subject and again to reiterate his conviction that there had been a failure of justice in the case. MR. FORSYTH rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member had a right to state that a conviction which was arrived at after a regular trial in open Court was the result of an atrocious conspiracy? MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply. On a Question of that kind great latitude is allowed. I am MR. W. H. SMITH said, he did not know if the House desired him to follow the hon. Member-["No, no!"]-but as he had referred to what he considered an engagement upon his part, he must say he was not conscious of having made any such engagement as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. The Return to which the hon. Member referred was laid upon the Table on May 11, 1874, and in answer to a Question early this Session, he said the total cost of the Tichborne trial was about £60,000. The actual amount paid up to the present time was £60,074 198. 4d. He acknowledged he refused to give further Returns, because he believed they were not required by the House. The cost to them would be heavy, and he hoped the House would agree with him that unnecessary Returns should not be published. As to the trial itself, he left the hon. Member's remarks to be considered by those who were better able to judge than he was, but he believed in the course he had taken he had the general support of the House. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to. SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. SUPPLY-considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) (1.) £505, to complete the sum for Commissioners of Education, Ireland. (2.) £1,739, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, Ireland, &c. (3.) £1,550, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy. (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,648, be | factory footing. The money which had granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum from time to time been voted had not necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Queen's University in Ireland." MR. ERRINGTON, in moving to reduce the Vote by a sum of £1,261, said, he had no desire to do anything which would tend to prevent the advance of learning and education in Ireland, or indeed in any part of the United Kingdom; but he was afraid there was a general feeling in passing the Vote that they were doing all they could to promote higher education. This was, however, not the case, for the system of education adopted in the Queen's University was entirely opposed to the religious principles of the mass of the Irish people, and they, feeling that facilities proper were not given to all classes, would not avail themselves of the present system of public education. It was admitted that some persons obtained an excellent secular education in the Queen's College; but the class of the Irish people who stood most in need of it did not. He did not pretend to say whether they were wise or not in the course they adopted, but that great difficulties existed would not be denied, and he hoped next year some step would be taken to remove them. He gave Notice that unless someone more qualified than himself took the initiative he should at the earliest possible moment next call attention to the subject of University education in Ireland in the most thorough and complete way in which he could raise the question. year Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,387, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Queen's University in Ireland."—(Mr. Errington.) MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY regretted that an attempt should be made to raise a debate upon the question at that stage of it, and at that late period of the Session. He, however, took it that his hon. Friend the Member for Longford was simply entering a protest against the existing state of affairs. The present condition of the subject could not be regarded as one which could be allowed to rest, because University education in Ireland was upon anything but a satis fulfilled the objects for which it had been granted, and, instead of giving University education to the entire middle class, practically the Catholics had been. debarred from participating in it. A certain duty had been discharged under the system admirably, so far as providing education for professional men-so far as turning out competent doctors, competent engineers, and competent lawyers. The system so far had been a success, and it had also brought into a position of respectability and independence, by giving them Government and Civil Service employment, men who belonged to Catholic families, but a wider question than this was involved. The intention originally was not that the money should be devoted to training that class of people, but that education should be open to the great body of the population, and in that respect the system had not been a success. This was a most interesting matter for Ireland, because every day the people of Ireland were beginning to see more clearly that they were intellectually, commercially, politically, and to a certain extent morally deteriorating for the want of education. The people would be able to govern themselves better and be able to manage their own affairs if they were better eduIt was a cated than they now were. foolish idea to suppose that this was merely a clerical question, and that none but the clergy took any interest in it. There never was a greater mistake. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, but rest content with having entered his protest against the supposition that the system for which the Vote was intended in any way satisfied either the wants or the wishes of the people of Ireland. MR. WARD was of opinion that the system adopted of having as many scholarships and exhibitions as there were students in the College had the effect of deteriorating higher class education in Ireland. He wished to point out that, although three Queen's Colleges were kept up in Ireland, the result of their working for the past year showed only 131 art students, and this arose from the fact that the Catholics were unjustly treated, the Professors miserably underpaid, and the system itself almost incredibly defective. The schools. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH thought that it should be remembered that very few persons in the country desired an Art education. grammar schools were going down, ex- | tained that they were mere professional cept perhaps in Belfast, and that arose because Queen's Colleges had enticed away the scholars, and turned mere school boys into University students. The standard of University education in Ireland had been considerably lowered, and it was about the coolest proposition he ever heard to ask Parliament to contribute to the support of such a system as that carried on at the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges-a system which the people of Ireland did not want, and which, if they had the power, they would reject to-morrow. He did not, however, object to the increase of the Vote, which was simply for the increase of the pay of the Professors. SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH said, he understood the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) not seriously to wish that the Vote should be reduced, but merely to desire to record his protest against the existing system of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He would not, on that occasion, enter into the important question of University education in Ireland, for it would be better if any objection to that system were brought under the notice of the House in the form of a distinct Resolution rather than that of a mere Motion to reduce the amount of a Vote. The remarks of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) were characterized by his usual moderation and good sense. He understood the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Ward) to complain that the regulations as to the Arts Faculty at that College were not satisfactory in any way; He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would admit that the Faculty was not largely attended, but the arts were taught, and those who did attend really devoted themselves heartily to the work. Therefore, he could not agree with the hon. Member, because in his opinion, taking into consideration the strong opposition it had to encounter, the Queen's University in Ireland did fulfil a great and an important work with reference to the education of the Irish people, and, in proportion to its annual expenditure, the work it did was perhaps greater than that of the older Universities of England. The fact was that the Queen's University did for Ireland very much what the Scotch Universities did for Scotland. MR. WARD said, he agreed that a good education was given; but he main MR. RONAYNE said, that the Cork Queen's College was conducted in a manner which fully justified the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Ward). The people of Ireland would not have the system of education which was being forced upon them, because it was against their traditions and their religious principles. The students were not educated in general literature or in any degree beyond the speciality for which they went there, to be, as it were, veneered. There was no active ecclesiastical antagonism to these Colleges; but it was contrary to the feelings of the people to attend schools or Colleges where there was no religious teaching. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. (5.) £4,926, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland. CLASS V-COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES. (6.) £144,742, to complete the sum for Diplomatic Services. (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £186,139, be necessary to defray the Charge which will come granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Consular Establishments Abroad, and for other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote." MR. J. HOLMS, in moving the reduction of the Vote by £3,565, said, a Select Committee had sat upon the question, and it was understood that where the increase of expense was rendered necessary in certain cases, an endeavour should be made to reduce the expense on useless Consulates. He thought the time had come when a reduction might be shown. He would instance the cases of Alicante, Mogador-where there were very few, if any, English at all-and Elsinore, and also those of Buenos Ayres, Monte Video, Callao, Valparaiso, Odessa, and Tiflis, respecting which he hoped to hear some explanation. |