relation to the negotiations or the war, notwithstanding
the affirmative vote he should give to the resolutions
then proposed.—Sir FITZROY KELLY complained that
the loan borrowed on the proposed scheme could not be
paid off except at a loss to the country of £1,600,000.
Had the right hon. gentleman proposed a loan with a
power of being paid off at six or twelve months, he
might have obtained all he required at a rate of not
more than 31/4 per cent., which would have been much
more to the public advantage. He would not, however,
oppose the resolution; but he hoped, if they were again
obliged to have recourse to the money market, it would
be on very different terms.—Mr. WILLIAMS objected
to the increase of the three per cent. stock.—The
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to Mr.
Gladstone, declined to withdraw the clause in the
loan at present, but said it would be in the power
of the house to withdraw it, if it thought fit, on
the second reading of the bill. He denied that this
loan was a losing bargain for the government since they
gained £100 for every £100 stock.—Mr. J. HEYWORTH
objected to the increase of indirect taxation.—Mr.
BAILLIE opposed and Mr. WILKINSON supported the
resolution.—Mr. M'GREGOR objected to the loan, and to
every part of the budget. He considered this budget the
worst that had ever been submitted to the country; and
he believed that his intelligence and his knowledge were
appreciated by the country at large, notwithstanding the
self-complacent sneers of the treasury benches.—Mr.
MUNTZ justified the propriety of calling upon posterity
to pay their portion of the expenses of this war, because
it was a war expressly for the benefit of posterity; but
he objected to the terms on which the loan was
contracted, and to the public inconvenience arising from
the increase of indirect taxation.—In answer to Mr.
Hildyard, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
meant the increase of 2d. in the pound on the income-
tax to apply to incomes both above and below £150—
Mr. MASTERMAN warmly supported the terms of the
loan, and he was only surprised that the public had got
so good a bargain.—After a few words from Mr. Thornley
and Mr. Malins, the resolution was agreed to, as were
the other resolutions, and the house resumed.

Mr. BENTINCK, remarking that one of the members of
the Sebastopol Inquiry Committee, Mr. J. Ball, had
taken office under government, moved that Captain
Scobell should be nominated in his place on the
committee.—Mr. ROEBUCK observed that as Mr. Ball had
originally been appointed as a representative of the
government on that committee, it should be left with
the government also to name its successor. The hon.
member for Limerick (Mr. De Vere) had already been
selected for that purpose.—A lively discussion followed
involving the personal and professional qualifications of
the respective hon. members who were proposed for the
vacancy in the committee of inquiry. The motion that
the name of Mr. Ball should be discharged from the list
was agreed to, and a division finally took place on the
resolution moved by Mr. Bentinck for inserting the name
of Captain Scobell. There appeared for the resolution
68; against it, 81: majority against the appointment of
Captain Scobell, 13.

On Monday, April 23, Lord PALMERSTON, in answer
to questions put by Mr. Bright respecting the result of
the Negotiations at Vienna, said that, it was well
known that the English and French governments, in
concert with the government of Austria, had determined
that the proper development of the principle of the
third point was the cessation of the preponderance of
Russia in the Black Sea, and that principle had been
acceded to by the Russian plenipotentiary. At the
conference on Thursday last it had been proposed to
Russia, as a mode of making the preponderance of
Russia in the Black Sea to cease, either that the amount
of the Russian naval force in that sea should be limited
by treaty, or that the Black Sea should be declared
neutral and all ships of war be excluded. The Russian
plenipotentiary required 48 hours for considering
this proposition; that term elapsed on Saturday, when,
at another conference, he absolutely refused to accept
either of the alternatives which had been unanimously
pressed upon him by the other four plenipotentiaries,
making no counter proposition on the part of the
government of Russia. The conferences were thereupon
adjourned sine die.

On the report of the Committee of Ways and Means,
a debate took place on the subject of the Loan. Mr.
GOULBURN said, he did not mean to offer any objection
to the contract for the loan, which appeared in its terms
fair to the contractors, and not unfair to the public;
but he was anxious to point out what he considered to
be a defect in the principle of the loan. The objection
to a loan was, that it was throwing a burden upon
posterity; but in this case the burden was increased by
an obligation to redeem the principal by a million
a-year. Was it in the least degree probable that
parliament would consent to raise this sum for sixteen
years for the repayment of this loan? In former cases
it had not adhered to its resolution to maintain a sinking
fund, and the proposed clause would only make the
house ridiculous in the eyes of the country. He was
bound, therefore, to take the loan as an irredeemable
annuity, and he thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would have acted a wiser part if he had
made an offer for the loan in the New Three per Cent.
Annuities which were redeemable in 1874, instead of in
consols. As it was likely, in his opinion, that the
interest of money would fall, care should have been
taken not to preclude the country from this advantage.
He doubted whether the public would derive ultimately
advantage from the other part of the loan in
terminable annuities. Annuities were now obtainable
with more facility than heretofore, and this new
class of terminable annuities being brought into
the general market the advantage gained by the
government on one side would be lost on the other.
—Mr. T. BARING expressed his surprise that Mr.
Goulbourn should oppose a resolution providing for the
repayment, in time of peace, of money borrowed in time
of war, which was built upon the sound rule that it was
the duty of parliament and the country to discharge an
obligation incurred in a season of exigency. As to the
suggestion that the loan would have been borrowed
better in the New Three per Cents., the amount of that
stock was £250,000,000, and the minister of the day would
have enough to do in dealing with that amount. The
principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan was,
he thought, an honest one, and he hoped he would persist
in his resolution that £1,000,000 annually should be set
apart after the war to redeem the loan, as at least a
record of the intention of parliament.—Mr. GLADSTONE
agreed that it was not possible for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to have contracted for so large a sum in the
form of terminable annuities. Mr. Baring, he thought,
had not been just to Mr. Goulburn, who concurred with
him in the necessity of maintaining a surplus revenue
applicable to the reduction of debt. The question
between them was, whether this clause would practically
assist in effecting that object. Future parliaments might
question the right of the present to fetter their
discretion by prescribing the particular amount and form
of investment, although it might be prudent to lay out
the money in another manner.—Mr. LAING repeated
his objection to contracting a loan in the ordinary Three
per Cent. consols, because it sacrificed the opportunity
of reducing the interest, and because the present price
of the ordinary Three per Cent. consols stock was
artificial.—Mr. James M'Gregor, Mr. Hankey, and
Mr. Wilkinson, made some brief observations, and Mr.
Cardwell explained and defended what had been
suggested by Mr. Goulburn.—The CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, with reference to the remarks of Mr.
GLADSTONE, repeated what he had said on Friday, that
the question as to the appropriation of an annual
million to the redemption of the debt was open to the
discretion of the house. The proposition had been
deliberately considered by the government, who intended
to adhere to it. The house could not make an irrevocable
law binding upon future parliaments; but the
effect of this clause was to create a permanent charge
upon the consolidated fund, and it would be the duty of
every government to make provision for the payment of
this sum out of the ways and means of the year, until
parliament, which could provide for any emergency, saw
fit to unbind its hands. To the objection of Mr.
Goulburn, that the loan should have been contracted in