The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-04-30 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

- -
On the sirder for going into Committee upon the
University Elections Bill, moved by Mr. Dodson,
Bar G. Lewis stated his view of the geueral character
of the Bill, and the reasons which occurred to him for
and against its object, which was to sanction the voting
of the electors of the Universities by voting papers
which might be sent through the post. The Universi-
ties, he remarked, were in a peculiar position, iii mord
to the election of their representatives. The electors
were not united by any local ties. except so far as they
were resident members of the Universities. and it could
not be said that they bad any common character.
There were obvious objections to tusking the rule iali-
versel, which did not apply to the Universities ; but ate
effect woold give their constituencies a much more
clerical character than at present.
Mr. Warner entertained objections to the Bill which,
he thought, would create a new constituency for the
C n iversities.
Br. Denman approved the Bill, and the suggestion to
refer it to a Select Committee.
Sir W. Boathook* thought the reasons offered
for referring the Bill to • Select Committee mum-

smersido.
Lord Enfield supported the Bill, whirl Ist. Lrfroy
!bought would require great alterations to adopt it to
. .

_
Mr. Dodoes replied to objections, assenting to the
esitgeetiou to refer the Bill to a Select Coennittes.
Mr. S. fatcourt did not think the weds of voting
by i.rezies woeld have the egad of increseing the clerical
element in the ounatitnency.
HMI*, observed that the Dill would lay $ foun-
dation for tbe 01141011i011 al the peiseipie ;. the dotage,
**Woes, Amid be very eirelelly taloa

After further discussion, in which Mr. Be-later Booth,
Mr. Hunt, Mr. Hope, and Mr. Ayrton took part, the
Bill was referred to a Select Committee,
Sir 11. Polo moved the second reading of the Noncon-
formists' Burial Bill, in support of which he explained
the grievances under which Nonconformists laboured
through the strict application of the existing law,
stating cases which showed that these grievances were
not sentimental, but practical.
Sir W. Heathcote said the question was whether this
Bill would not create greater evils than were complained
of. The Bill, he contended, had an aggressive character
throughout. Ile pointed out evil consequences that
would result from passing each • measure, which he re-
garded as one of a aeries of attacks upon the church,
and lie moved, as an amendment, to defer the second
reading for six months.
Lord Henley observed that he bad at first regarded
the Bill in the same light as Sir W. Heathcote ; but
upon looking at its provisions and inquiring into the
circumstances he had been led to support it.
Mr. Hubbard opposed the Bill as sanctioning the in-
vasion of freeholds, the encroachusext upon corporate
rights, and an interference with rubrics. The Bill
would authorise ceremonials in church burialgrounds
offetriive, not only to the religious feelings of Church-
men, but to the feelings of the community.
Sir G. Lewis observed that since the passing of the
Irish Act it could not be said that there WU any con-
stitutional or fundamental objection to the second read-
ing of this Bill. The precise nature of the grievance
complained of could only be understood by attending to
the state of the law, which gave to parishioners
common right to be buried in the parish churchyard,
and the clergynion was lmund to i.erfunn the services of
the Church ussr the body, with three exceptions, one
of which well in the cave of person. unhaptised.
Lord It. Cecil opposed the Bill, considering the griev-
ance to lie confined to Baptista and Quakers, and that
the proposed remedy would unction the desecration of
churchyards.
Mr. Bright said he had no objection to give the
Church of England and its clergy all the authorities in
this matter given by the Irish Act, and he thought the
House should not refuse to read the Bill • second time
for the purlieu of making the committee 1111/r0 like the
Irish Act. . . .

Ur. Buxton insisted that a practical grievance existed
which ought to be removed, and that the evils which
might possibly arise from the proposed remody could
be provided against in the committee.
Mr. Walpole obeervcd that it was a etiansast of
grievanoe sought to be remedied, which did not affect
Dissenters only, and the remedy required two sorts of
provisions, unless the Act of Uniformity were repealed.
The grievance, such as it was, was disappearing daily
by the establishment of cemeteries. The Hones was
'eked to go into committee to cut out every one of the
clauses of the Bill and introduce another Bill.
_ _ . .

Mr. Baines recommended Sir M. Peto to withdraw
the Bill, and prepare another not open to the same
objections.
Sir M. Pete, in his reply, offered to withdraw his Bill
if Sir W. Heathoote would withdraw his amendment;
but the proposal was declined, and after • further dia.
mission, the House divided, when the amendment vu
carried by 7.36 to 156; an the Bill is lost.
The Common Law Procedure Act (1854) Extension
Bill was withdrawn. .

Certain Bills were forwarded, and, the other orders
baying been disposed of, the House adjourned at a
quarter past 5 o'clock.

THURSDAY.

The adjourned debate on going into a Committee of
Ways and Means wax resumed.
W. B. Fitzgerald, after noticing the silence main-
tained by the Government during this debate upon
topics which required and demanded explanation, pro-
ceeded to discuss the financial statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who, he contended, had not
dealt fairly and candidly with the House. He pointed
out examples of what he considered to be unfair and
deceptive statements, and questioned the accuracy of
Mr. Gladstone's estimates of the expenditure for the
current year. and hieanticipatioue of the revenue.
Mr. M. Gibson said the calculations of the revenue in
the Budget had been honestly made, founded upon
estimates of the probable yield of the revenue by men
of experience and judgment. He complained that none
of the opponents of the Budget had iuggested any sub-
stitute. The Government had done what they bad been
told it was their duty to do ; they had provided ade-
quately for the public service, they had been alive to
the necessity of upholding the public credit, and they
had proposed a remission of taxation that would, in
their opinion, be nivat beneficial to the general interests
of the country. With respect to the £710,000 expected
from China, Lord Elgin and Baron Otos had told the
Government that a sum of about A:1,000,000 would be
paid during the financial year, which would be paid
rateably to the Government and to the merchant% and,
basing their opinion upon the statements of the only
pertain who were fit to guide them, the Government
considered that at least £750,000 would be
received by the Itritiali Exchequer. He con-
tended that, if there was • remission of taxation,
it would be impossible to overlook the paper duty, and
that the Government had taken a bold, consistent, and
honourable course. It had been said that the repeal of
this duty would benefit only cheap newspapers; but he
insisted that it was • landed as well as • commercial
question—that the agricultural interest would experience
a relief by the removal of a tax which checked the ex-
pansion of the manufacture of paper.
Mr. Ball argued that if there was to be any remission
of duty, it ought not to be that on piper. A real
benefit would have been conferred upon the community
by the reduction of the duties upon tea and sugar, or
malt, which would have been reproductive, and, in the
case of the last article, the remission would be likewise
• relief to tie agricultural interest.
Mr. Marsh showed from celoalstione that taking off
the duty upon paper would be • greater relief to the
working clauses than the removal of the war duties upon
tea and sugar, while it got rid of restrictions which
hampered trade.
Mr. Beach thought that, in the present aspect of
affairs, it was scarcely prudent to remove a tux of • per-
manent nature, which praised so Lightly on the coin-
usunity as the paper duty.
- -

Dutton said if there was any tax the repeal of
which he should irrefer to that of the paper duty it
was the malt-tax, the reduction of which would be a
great boon to the agricultural interest. He thought,
however, that it would be better to accept the Budget
as a whole. . _ . .

....
Mr Pease believed that the time had come for the
repeal of the paper duty, which, as the House had
admitted, interfered with the education of the people.
Mr. Vansittart, gave his adhesion to the sound prin-
ciples of finance laid down by Mr. T. Baring.
Mr. Baxley believed that the repeal of the paper
duty would be s great benefit to the industrious classes,
and that the Budget gave entire satisfaction to the
nation at Urge.
Major Hamilton said the majority of the people
of Scotland desired that the duties on tea and sugar
should be taken off in roeference to the paper duty.
Mr. Caird made some remarks upon the effects of
the last deficient harvest, the prospects of the country
as to supply of corn before the next harvest, and its
probable influence upon the calculations in the
Budget.
Mr. Parker advocated, in the interests of the labourer,
the repeal of the malt-tax.
Mr. Moffat had very great doubts as to the accuracy
of the estimates in the Budget, and whether there was a
surplus of revenue. Of .the £760,000 expected from
China he believed, if justice was dose, not £lOO,OOO
would find its w, into the Exchequer. If taxation
was to be remitted, it was, he said, the duty of the
Government to prove that there was • simples.
Mr. Whiteside, after noticing the ingenuity dis-
played in the Budget in the contrivance of a machinery
to get rid of the paper duty, and to exhibit an imaginary
surplus, urged the injury which the Irish distillers bad
sustained by what he tenned the rash • project of the
Chancellor of the Exchminer regarding the spirit
duties. He adopted the character of the Budget given
by Mr. Baring, that it was not an honest Budget; be
trusted that this sentence would be acted up.on by the
Howie, and he was confident that the decision would be
app roved by the country.
Mr. Haliburton denounced in very strong language the
manner in which the poor were imposed upon by delu-
sions and falsehoods on the subject of the expenditure
' necessary for the defence of the country. He asked
whether any person could imagine that the tea and
sugar duties end the paper duty awed on the lame
footing. To call this duty a tax upon knowledge, lie
said, was cant.
Mr. (Nkomo remarked that the Budget, Bk. all
Budgets, dealt in soh:Motions. Did the House believe
the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or
thoee of persons who had not hie means of inf. nuatioa.
He believed there was • smoke of £1,923,000. Then,
onght there to he any remission of taxation ? No Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would be able aith such • sur-
plus not to remit any taxes. Then what isles? The
first ought to be the Luanne tax. What next? Let
the Honer look at the position into which the queseion
of the paper duty bad got. The hooonr of the Housed
Comomnoun wae, in I.is opinion. pledged mon this qses-
tion ; he should take the first oms.rtunity to settle it,
and should give hia support to the Government in their
proposal to repo .1 the paper duty.
Mr. Maguire said he should confire himself to the
subject of the paper duty. The Cancellor of the
Exchequer had stated, on his responsibility, that there
was • surplus, and tlie question was whether this was •
time for the repeal of that duty. The paper manu-
facture was a most iuiportant one; it was in an
embarrassed condition, and be contended that the
House WWI bound by the promise made to the trade.
He allowed the pleasure of the duty upon the manu•
facture of paper, which was almost crushed by it is
Ireland. The abolition of the Excise duty upon paper
would be one of the greatest boons conferred upon the
country, and the obligation upon Parliament to repeal
it was strong.
On the motion of Mr. Rottman, the debate was again
adjourned till Monday.
Alter some further business, the House adjourned at
a quarter to 1 o'clock.