ought to have firmness enough to do its duty and provide some moderate surplus for the discharge of the debt without binding itself by such a provision as this. He believed that it was sound policy always to take care in time of peace to have a surplus available for the gradual reduction of debt, and that policy he desired to see carried out. By the clause as it stood there was nothing in the world, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer miscalculated as to the probable surplus of the country in bringing in his Budget, or as to the expenditure of income, to prevent him from issuing Exchequer bills for the purpose of carrying on the public service, and, indeed, he must of necessity do so. That principle was one which was opposed to common THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, sense, and its absurdity having been ex- he agreed in every word which had fallen posed by the Committee of 1828, it was from the noble Earl. He could not underabandoned; and since that time the prin- stand the reason why the Government had ciple acted on was this: every quarter a imposed this measure upon Parliament, calculation was made of the actual, not the unless it were to enable Baron Rothschild anticipated, surplus of the revenue over to make a better bargain for his capital, the payments, and if they had a surplus, to for certainly Baron Rothschild would be apply it to the reduction of the debt, either the only person benefited by it. Someunfunded or funded, as might be most con- thing had very justly been said as to venient. It often happened that it was making future loans upon a new system, more advisable to reduce the unfunded and he thought that in raising the loan the than the funded debt, whereas by this Government might have pursued the princlause they bound themselves to reduce ciple adopted by the French Government the funded debt alone, departing, in short, recently, in offering it to the public geneentirely from the principle laid down in the rally, whereby they had raised 20,000,0002. report of the Committee of 1828. Now, in a week, and he had heard that they could what distinction, he asked, could they as easily have raised 80,000,000l., and he make between this 16,000,000l. of debt firmly believed that they might certainly and any other? If the revenue were have raised 60,000,000l. Now, doubtless, prosperous, they ought to pay off more this country was not in the same situation, than 1,000,000l., and he believed had financially speaking, as France. No doubt done so in two or three years succeeding in France, a great deal of money was the Irish famine; but, whether it was hoarded, there being no savings' banks, prosperous or not, by this clause they and not such abundant means of investbound themselves to purchase Consols at ment as in this country. Still these conwhatever rate they might be to the extent siderations were insufficient to satisfy him of 1,000,000l. annually. If the House that the same mode could not be resorted really believed that by such a clause they to successfully for the purpose of raising a could tie up the hands of another Parlia- loan in this country. However wide the ment, they laboured under a complete de- difference might be between the habits of lusion, for the arrangement might at any the French and the English as to money time be virtually set aside, even without matters, he could not think there was such the ceremony of an Act of Parliament. a difference that, looking to the enormous Undoubtedly the noble Lord (Lord Mont- wealth of this country, if the French could eagle) was right when he termed this a raise 60,000,000l. in a week or two, we provision for a sinking fund in another could not raise 16,000,0007. in the same shape. The system of terminable annui- way. He did not know if the Government ties made it a little more, and only a little had formed a decided opinion on the submore, difficult to depart from the principle ject, and if so whether they could state of paying off a debt in time of peace. the reasons on which it was founded. Too much importance was attached to the system of terminable annuities, and he believed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Stradbroke) that it would be preferable to give a higher nominal rate of interest, with a view to reduce it in time of prosperity. This system of terminable annuities seemed to imply that Parliament distrusted its own firmness, and was not very creditable to it, for surely it LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, the subject had been very much considered, and the noble Earl had alluded to that which constituted the reason for not adopting the means he had suggestednamely, the difference between the habits of the French and English people as to money. The habit of the French people was to hoard their money, not having the same means as the English people had of State Papers relative to the late unsuccessful negotiations for peace at Vienna. The House is aware that whatever might have been the result of those negotiations disposing of it in trade or in savings' banks; and if the mode suggested had been resorted to, the result would have been that the money would have been withdrawn from savings' banks and other safe and whether successful or the reverse-whegood investments; and, after all, they would not, in all probability, have obtained the loan on more favourable terms than those on which it had been raised from the great capitalists of the country. Motion agreed to; Bill passed accordingly. House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, May 4, 1855. ther the preliminaries for peace had been signed, or whether the result had been such as it appears to have been-the papers which have been exchanged during the negotiations might have been prepared for the House, so that when the negotiations had terminated there might be only a protocol or two or the last despatch to print. And the papers might have been laid upon the table of the House on the same night that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies returned and took his seat. If you find that this has been the usual course, I think that I may ask from the Government why the usual course has not been followed on the (Ire-present occasion, and why there has been MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Religious Wor- EVICTIONS-POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) an apparent unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to place Parliament as soon as possible in possession of that information which on so grave a subMR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews) said, ject it has certainly a right to possess, as that in consequence of a wish that had soon as it is in the power of the Governbeen expressed by his right hon. Friend the ment to produce it. I have searched the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Bail- Journals which should guide us on this lie) he wished to say a few words in expla- subject, and as I wish at present to confine nation of something that fell from him last myself strictly within the technical limits night. A near relative of his hon. Friend of a Parliamentary question, I will state had a considerable estate in the parish of what I find in the Journals to direct us at Glenelg, which went by the name of that this crisis, and then I will ask the Governparish, although, in fact, it formed only a ment to explain to the House why upon this part of it. He was desirous of saying important occasion they have not followed that the disgraceful state of the poor to the precedents which have always governed which he had last night called the atten- the conduct of Ministers under similar cirtion of the House existed in a totally diffe- cumstances. The precedent which I take rent district to that of the property of the to govern us does not vary from others to relative of the hon. Member for Inverness-which I might refer, but I select it beshire, although it was situate in the same parish. So far from intending in any way to reflect upon the management of the property now in question, he was aware that a system of gradual emigration had been for some years conducted there with much liberality by the proprietor, and he believed the result of that emigration, which was entirely voluntary, was quite as satisfactory to the people as it was beneficial to the proprietor himself. THE VIENNA CONFERENCES. MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government of the unusual delay which has taken place in laying before the House the cause it is one of modern date, and of the highest importance, and because its circumstances are apposite to the present conjuncture. I take, Sir, the precedent of the rupture of negotiations in 1796. The House will remember that on October 18, 1796, the country was informed that the King had sent the Earl of Malmesbury as his Plenipotentiary to France to negotiate for peace. That was on the 18th of October, and on the 20th of December it was known to the country that the negotiations had terminated. The Earl of Malmesbury returned to this country on the 29th of December, but three days before his return--namely, on Monday, the 26th of December-the Minister came down to the House of Commons with a Messag| opportunity possible for making the statefrom the Crown-a Message from which will now read an extract to the House. MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to conclude with a Motion? ment which he wished to submit to the House; but he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman, in entering into all these particulars, was transgressing the rules of the House with respect to the manner in which questions should be put. The right hon. Gentleman should make a Motion. MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention of concluding with a Motion, and is, therefore, perfectly in order. MR. DISRAELI: Yes, I will conclude with a Motion, if you should find that I am not strictly within the limits of a question; but I apprehend that you will probably be of opinion that I am strictly within those limits. I wish first to state MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am sorry that what, under similar circumstances, was the course pursued by the Ministry on the oc- any misconception on the part of the hon. casion to which I am referring, and then Member of a statement which it is for the to inquire why that course has not been public interest that I should make, and adopted on the present occasion. But if which nothing but the state of the public you, Sir, should be of opinion that I am service, and a regard for the honour and trespassing on the rules of the House, I advantage of the country, should have inwill conclude with a Motion which will not duced me to make, should have subjected Still, however, be inconvenient to the Government, inas- me to this interruption. much as it is one which they would have I do not despair of bringing the matter to make themselves at some period during clearly before the House, and I will atthe evening. I may remind the House, tempt to regather the broken strings of that on the 20th December it was known this narrative. The House will see that that negotiations had terminated. On the the moment it was shown that the negoti29th December the Plenipotentiary (Lord ations were broken off-even before the Malmesbury) returned to this country; but Plenipotentiary had returned, there came three days before his return-namely, on a Message from the Crown to the House the 26th-Mr. Secretary Dundas came of Commons, and the Minister at the same down with a Message from the Crown, ex-time stated that all the papers relating to pressed in these words "It is with the utmost concern that His Ma jesty acquaints the House of Commons that his earnest endeavours to effect the restoration of peace have been unhappily frustrated; and that the negotiation in which he has been engaged has been abruptly broken off by the peremptory refusal of the French Government to treat, except upon a basis evidently inadmissible. His Majesty has directed the several memorials and papers which have been exchanged in the course of the late discussion, and the account transmitted to His Majesty of its final result, to be laid before the House."-[Hansard, Parl. History, xxxij.] On referring to the Journals of this House, hon. Members will find that the State Papers alluded to in this Royal Message were of a very voluminous description. They will find there the schedule of the papers laid upon the table of the House, and they will perceive that neither in importance nor yet in number were the documents so submitted, inferior to those which are now so anxiously expected. But the House will observe that two days before MR. RICH said, he rose to order. He was most unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, and most desirous that he should have the fullest On Wednesday, Mr. those transactions should be laid before tiation, as was the case in 1796, so that when the negotiations were announced to have terminated, Parliament might have been immediately made aware of the circumstances, and an anxious and deeply agitated country have been placed in possession of such information as might enable it to form an opinion on the state of our national affairs? Again, I ask, why has there not been a Royal Message? Why have not the papers been placed more promptly on the table of the House? Why has there not been a Royal declaration? And why has not the Minister come forward with that frankness that befits a British statesman, and, laying the papers on the table, fixed a day for the House to take them into consideration? I thought, Sir, I should have been permitted to ask these questions without being obliged to trench upon a privilege which I wished other Members to enjoy, of moving that this House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. I will, however, make that Motion, because I wish to be strictly within the rules of the House. Having now done so, I await with interest the answer of the Minister to the questions I have addressed to him. those with whom we were then in treaty | Royal Message? Why were not the paappear to have conducted themselves very pers prepared during the intervals of negomuch in the same spirit as that described by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) the other night, in his brief account of his negotiations having terminated with "a peremptory refusal to treat, except on a basis evidently inadmissible"-the House, I repeat, will perceive that upon that occasion, under circumstances not only similar to, but I may say even identical with, the present-we had a Message to Parliament from the Crown-we had laid on the table, even before the negotiator had returned, the whole of the papers connected with the unsuccessful negotiations. we had, for the use of the Members, a Royal declaration containing the whole pith and marrow of these same negotiations; and, more than this, on the very day that he laid the papers on the table, which was on Tuesday, the Minister gave notice, for the following Thursday, of a Motion to take them into consideration. Now, Sir, as I have more free warrant than I had expect ed to speak upon this subject, I shall briefly ask the House to contrast the situation of Parliament in 1796, under similar circumstances to the present, with the condition in which the House of Commons now finds itself in 1855? How have we been treated? Has there been the same anxiety on the part of the Government to impart to Parliament all necessary information at a moment so pregnant with events bearing upon the fate of the country? Has there been not only the same promptitude, but the same cordial and wise ceremony in conducting the communications between the Throne and the Parliament? So far as the proceedings of Parliament are concerned, I am not sure that we have any authentic information that any negotiations whatever have been carrying on; and most assuredly we have not the slightest authentic information of what the basis of those negotiations was, and what the points of controversy were. Now, Sir, I think that this House has a right to inquire why there has been this singular difference between the modes in which Parliament has been treated under circumstances of so much importance and of so much similarity by the Government of that day and the Government in the present instance? Why was not Her Majesty advised to deign to communicate with Her Parliament when the negotiations for peace were found to have failed? Why has there not been a VISCOUNT PALMERSTON : I think, Sir, the answer which I shall have to give will have been anticipated by almost all who heard the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, who are at all acquainted with the circumstances to which he has adverted and the circumstances connected with the negotiations recently conducted by my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a case in which, in a war between England and France, negotiations were entered into directly between the two countries-a case in which it was perfectly clear in the course of the negotiations, before they were concluded, that peace was hopeless, and, peace being hopeless, it became the duty of the Government of the day to appeal to Parliament for more vigorous exertions for the prosecution of the war. If my noble Friend had gone to St. Petersburg without any previous negotiation with any other Power, and if the result of a fortnight's or a month's negotiations at St. Petersburg had proved similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the cases would certainly have been much more parallel than they are in point of fact. It is well known that the negotia the proper course to adopt. But that, Sir, is not the position in which we are placed. We have failed in the attempt we made, but I am not prepared to say that there are no other means open by which, through the intervention of the friendly offices of Austria, propositions may be made which it may become the duty of Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider, with the view of determining whether it is still possible to bring the existing differences with Russia to a close. Allow me to say, Sir, that, even upon the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, the present case and that to which he refers are not parallel cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that, in the case of France, the basis of negotiations was peremptorily refused by France; but in this instance the basis of negotiation has been accepted by Russia. The four points upon which England and France agreed to negotiate have been accepted by Russia, and, to a certain extent, even the interpretation which England and France tion which my noble Friend undertook | end, and declaring that peace was, under was conducted through the intervention of the circumstances, impossible, would be the friendly Government of Austria. It is also well known that from the commencement of the war-and, I may say, even before the commencement of the warAustria, as maintaining friendly relations towards all parties, has been incessant in her endeavours to bring about a reconciliation of the differences existing between England and France on the one hand and Russia on the other, and it was only a continuance of those efforts which led to the Conferences in which my noble Friend took part. Although, however, these Conferences did not terminate in a successful issue, they were not broken off. They were adjourned without any specific time being appointed for their renewal; but after my noble Friend left Vienna, and after the Conferences had been adjourned sine die, there took place, at the request of Austria, another Conference. [Lord J. RUSSELL of Russia.] Yes, the application for a renewal of the Conferences did come from Russia, but through Austria, and not directly communicated either to Eng-placed upon those four points has also land or France. At the request of the Russian Minister, who said that he had another proposal to make, the Conference was re-assembled, and-without being perfectly certain on the subject-I believe that up to this moment the detailed protocols or records of that Conference have not been received by Her Majesty's Government; at all events, if they have been received, it is within the last few hours. Well, Sir, the Conferences were adjourned, and my noble Friend returned to this country; but there still exist at Vienna the elements of a Conference-representatives of England, of France, of Russia, and of Austria. The course the right hon. Gentleman sug-lost all hopes of the possibility of an acgests might certainly be a very proper course to adopt, if it was the determination of Her Majesty's Government to shut the door against every possible means of settling those differences which have led to the war. If Her Majesty's Government had fully determined that, under no circumstances, would they listen to any further overture that may be made, either by Russia through Austria, or by Austria with the view of suggesting means of accommodation between the belligerent parties, then, undoubtedly, the course the right hon. Gentleman recommends Her Majesty's Government to pursue, of coming down with a Message to Parliament, stating that all possibility of accommodation was at an been accepted by Russia as a foundation upon which to negotiate. The difficulties have been as to the mode in which the fair meaning of these points was to be carried out in detailed articles of agreement. I think, therefore, Sir, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the analogy of the two cases, that they are essentially different in their fundamental elements; and I consider that Her Majesty's Government would not have been properly performing their duty if, following out the fanciful analogy of former cases, they had taken steps which would have proclaimed to the world that we had commodation. Sir, I should, at the same time, be equally neglecting my duty if I were to hold out false hopes which might not be realised; but, while saying that I feel that the Government would entirely violate their duty if they stated that all hopes of accommodation were at an end, I wish to leave the question in the state in which it is. I wish to leave the door of negotiation open. I would not shut the door to any possible negotiation by such measures as those into which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to drive Her Majesty's Government. We said, Sir, that we would produce the protocols relating to the Conferences at Vienna. Those protocols shall be produced, and when they |