The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-16 00:00:00

THE BUDGET.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Frst Lord of the Treasury
whether, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exone-
rated the officers of the civil service from having divulged
his intention as to the budget on a late occasion, such in-
formation might not have been supplied from some higher
source, and if so whether the noble lord could afford any
indication of the quarter from which such a communica-
tion had proceeded.
Lord PALMERSTON said he begged to disclaim all
responsibility with respect to newspaper prophecies. They
lived upon the future as well as the past. If they made
guesses which turned out right, why they 'got all the
credit, but when they were wrong, they were
soon forgotten. (Laughter.) When the time came round
for his right hon. friend to make his financial statement
the contents of it were as freely known by the world at
large as his
Wright hon. friend. (Laughter.) Any
ono of natural sagacity would at once see that with re-
spect to the fire insurance the Government would have to

attend to the determination of the house in this matter. They
would also know that, with such a surplus, some portion
of it would be devoted to the reduction of direct and in-
direct taxation, and ho did not think much of the sagacity
of the Times newspaper in coming to such a con-
clusion. (Laughter.) There could not be any very
great credit in anticipating that which was very generally
known, as it was quite obvious that the income tax and
tea duty would be dealt with. (Hear, and laughter.) Ile
was quite sure no person in the Government had committed
a breach of trust.
. THE UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

The adjourned debate on this bill was resumed by

Mr. HENLEY, who indignantly repudiated the charge
brought against the Opposition by the President of the
Poor-law Board, on Thursday, of throwing unnecessary
obstructions in the way of the bill. In the teeth of the
fact that the report of the commissioner upon which the
right hon. gentleman relied for arguments in support of his
proposal, was not at the time in the hands of members,
this was a most monstrous assertion. He argued that if
the power with which the Poor-law Board asked to be in-
vested for altering the limits of the unions was absolutely
necessary, it ought to be so fenced about and guarded by
just provisions as to prevent the Ministerfrom being forced
into the perpetration of jobs. It should be observed,
moreover, that the motion for referring the bill to a select
committee did not emanate with his side of the house, but
with a follower of the Government themselves ; and the
various cases which had been mentioned in the course of

the debate were, he contended,. legitimate subjects for in.
quiry. He admitted that no man could go among the
habitations of the poor, whether in towns or villages,
without seeing much that he could wish to have mended ;
an enormous amount of distress which he was unable to
relieve, and many things which, if put upon paper, would
shock every humane feeling. But the question was whether
that regretful state of things was in any way caused or
aggravated, not by the omission to build cottages, but
their unsparing demolition by the landed proprietors.
Passing, then, to the consideration of the report of Dr.
Hunter, the Royal commissioner, the right hon. gentleman
criticised its statements as to the condition of cottage ac-
commodation at considerable length, and described it as
resting upon assertions that were either unsupported or
untrue. In short, if the report had been prepared to order
with the sole object of bolstering up this Government bill,
it could not have been more highly coloured. It was argued
that the measure would be advantageous to the poor ; but
he had read through the report with the greatest care, and
he came to a totally opposite conclusion. Without inquiry
and the collection of additional information on the sub-
ject, the bill ought not to pass into a law. He should
therefore give his vote for referring it to a select committee.
Mr. H. BRUCE remarked that the bill was brought for-
ward upon the recommendation of a committee as fairly
constituted as any committee that had ever been appointed
by the house. But its principle did not rest upon their
recommendation alone ; for it was well known that it had
been recommended by nearly every thoughtful writer and
statesman during the last hundred years. The bill was
supported not only by a majority of the house, but its pass-
ing was looked for with great interest by the country.
Mr. PEACOCKE enumerated several inaccuracies in Dr.
Hunter's report relative to the cottage accommodation in
Berks, Cambridge, and Cornwall. In the first two pages
only there were no less than 29 errors, and at the same rate
for the whole 22 pages there must be a total of 319. Such
a fact as this was the strongest argument in favour of the
amendment.
Mr. WATKIN spoke in support of the bill, as a measure
of justice to the labourers, and as calculated to give great
satisfaction to the country.
Mr. PACKE condemned the bill as the most thoroughly
unjust, dishonest, and tyrannical measure towards the
agricultural interest that had ever been introduced into
Parliament. It was legislation for the towns at the expense
of the country ; the towns being the wolves, the rural
parishes the lambs.
Lord HENLEY regarded the motion for further inquiry
as absolutely hostile to the bill. To every such motion,
therefore, he should give a negative. The bill was a very
good one, and he was anxious to see it pass into law with
as little delay as possible. When that had been done,
however, the question of a redistribution of the unions
would present itself, raid he hoped the poor-law authorities
would take it into their consideration. They must either
make towns above a certain size unions in themselves, or
so constitute the unions to which they belonged that all the
circumjacent parishes should bear their share of the gene-
ral burden.
Sir B. LEIGHTON did not believe that the bill would
make the slightest difference to the poor, or that any land-
lord would build a single cottage more or pull down one
less in consequence of its becoming law, whilst it most
certainly would inflict great hardship upon the ratepayers
in the rural districts. •
Mr. WHALLEY opposed the amendment.
Mr. LIDDELL did not look upon the question as one
between town and country, but rather as a question be-
tween real and other descriptions of property. That lay
at the root of the matter. It was that which had given
rise to the impression that there was a feeling on the part
of the borough members antagonistic to the country; and
twranhesnfear
of measureburd
en tsuch o r
raeso
tthis i
inequality
aproposed
ratingto
iteffectm us at
create serious dissatisfaction. The arguments against the
bill were, however, exaggerated, and, thinking that the
tendency of the amendment was to hang up the measure
for the remainder of the session, he should vote for the
house going into committee; but he hoped the Govern..