The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-14 00:00:00

our finances, and the prices of the funds at this moment,
and having confidence in the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he believed the present measure was not
likely, in the slightest degree, to lead to the disastrous
consequences which the noble lord seemed to anticipate.
The Earl of DERBY—I must say the noble earl has
not given the slightest answer to the objections to this
measure raised by my noble friend. My noble friend
made no attack upon the Government, nor did he allude
to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer having, without
qualification or reserve, mail down such a doctrine that,
under all circumstances, upon all occasions the exigen-
cies of the public service should be provided for by taxa-
tion. (Hear.) But the charge he made was not with
regard to the future, but with regard to the past, and
with regard to the declaration of the late Chancellor of
the Exchequer that it had been distinctly falsified. Now
to those objections of my noble friend the only answer
given by the noble earl is, that he is not prepared to
say what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer may
bring forward, and the noble earl says the amount of
Exchequer bills now proposed is not larger by about
100,000/. than was proposed in former years. Now, the
amount of Exchequer-bills has nothing to do with it ; the
question is, whether in this bill you are not studiously
confounding two descriptions of Exchequer-hills, and
so practically falsifying the declaration of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer last year ? With regard to Exchequer-
bonds, you might just as well say, when a young gen-
tleman spends about double his income, and he has to
raise money by bills, that he has a right to put himself
forward as a model of prudence and frugality. He thought
the noble lord and the country had a right to ask whe-
ther the Government adhered, or pretended to have
hitherto adhered, to the principle laid down, that the
expenses of the war should be paid out of the revenue of
the year, or whether they would be obliged to have re-
course—under a great national exigency, and during an
enormous expenditure to be incurred fora great national
object—to the same system and take the same course
which all previous Governments had taken—to throw a
portion, not the whole, of the expenses upon posterity,
or to follow the impracticable measure of providing for
the expenses of the war out of the revenue of the year ?
—whether they would deal with it in the shape of a
permanent debt, or make it a debt spreading over a great
number of years, say 20, 30, or 40 years ; or so deal
with the expenses as to overwhelm the people of this
country ! His noble friend had 'complained that the
Government bad departed from the principle laid down
last year, and had endeavoured to conceal that departure
from Parliament ; and, at the same time, he called
upon the Government to say whether they intended to
depart from that principle, and to act frankly and hon-
estly, and to avow and state to the country that they
intended to depart from that principle—a principle which
he had always considered to be impracticable.
The Duke of ARGYLL said—The great question to
determine was this—whether the Governingqt, laid down
last year a great principle in -conducting the war from
which they would not depart..,,',,HOLdriDied that that was
so. What Mr. Gladstone said was, that it was wrong
to rush into the system of loans at the commencement
of the war. He said it would be unworthy of the re-
sources of the country to resort at once to a system of
loans at the outset, and in compliance and in fulfilment
of that principle, he asked tke Houses of Parliament to
consent to a large increase in the taxation. That con-
sent was given. The dispute which had arisen seemed
to him to be a ridiculous and a trivial one—it was as
to whether a million or a million and a half borrowed
was a loan or not. He maintained that, if they suc-
ceeded in proving that this addition of a million and a
half to the funded or unfunded debt acquired the cha-
racter of a loan, it formed no reason for charging the
right hon. gentleman with departing froin the principle
laid down—of raising the amount required by taxation
and not a loan. But these speeches, he considered,
were anticipatory in their character, and had been
made with the intention of extracting from the Go-
vernment some information respecting the forth-
coming budget. (Earl Derby dissented.) The no-
ble earl certainly wished to know if the principle
which had been adopted would be departed from
during the war. He considered that there had been
no departure which could justify the language which
had been used—that the policy of the Government was
tortuous, or that the Government could be accused of
not pursuing the principle laid down last year.
After a few words from Earl GREY,
The bill was read a third time and passed..
Their lordships adjourned at ten minutes to seven.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock,

NEW MEMBER.

Lord DUNCAN took the oaths and his seat on his
re-election for Forfarshire.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills wire considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Cambridge University and Town
Water ; Lands Improvement Company ; Over Darwen
Gas; Pudsey Gas; Taunton Gas; Woolwich Consumers
Protective Gas.

On the motion for the second reading of the Torquay
District Church Bill,
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE moved that the bill be
read a second time that day six months, urging that
there were existing public acts which could amply pro-
vide for the deficiencies complained of in this bill. The
preamble stated no ground whatever why this peculiar
species of private legislation should be applied to the Tor-
quay di stri.ct,and he hoped the house would not sanction the
second reeding, especially as it would give enormous
privileges: to the trustees nominated in the bill. Beside-,
the 16th 'section of the bill gave power to levy church rates
in respe,it to the churches to be erected under the bill, and
that he thrught was a fatal objection to the passing of this
bill, If Lb ere was not the additional objection that the e:t-
penses of the bill were to be paid out of the pew rents
of the proposed new churches. The bill savoured
strongly of a private job ; the new things which it cur.-
tained were not hue, and the true things were not new.
Mn. HADFIELD seconded the amendment, believ-
ing thaat the bill was perfectly unnecessary, as was fully
deom,nstrated by the fact that eleven of its causes were
copi ed from existing acts.
BOUVERIE proposed that the consideration
of the bill should be postponed until Thursday,
as -the hon. baronet who had charge of the bill was un-
aiile to be present to-day. (No, no,) The object of
tb e bill was to enable Sir Lawrence Palk and his son,
v rho was a member of the house, to erect new churches
'in Torquay, where they were very much wanted.
These gentlemen would create a rent charge of 150/. for
the purpose of endowing the churches. It was asked,
why do not the promoters proceed under the Church
Building Act ? For this simple reason—the Church
Building Act provided that the pew rents should
be applied, in the first instance, to the pay-
ment of the clergyman's stipend, but here the
stipend was otherwise provided for, and the real object
of this bill was to sanction the appropriation of the pew
rents, in the first instance, to meet the claims of the
mortgagees who might be disposed to lend money for the
purpose of building the churches. He moved that the
debate be adjourned until Thursday.
Sir J. VILLIERS, being the owner of property in
the neighbourhood of Torquay, could speak from experi-
ence of the necessity that existed in the district for ad.
ditional church accommodation.

After a few words from Mr. T. BUNCOMBE, the
house divided on the motion for adjournment, when
there appeared—
For the adjournment ll9
Against it
Majority —64
The debate was accordingly adjourned until Thursday
next.