The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-08 00:00:00

TO IRELAND.

General UPTON asked the Lord Advocate if he would
fix a time for laying on the table of the house the bill he
was about to introduce relating to the removal of Irish poor
from Scotland to Ireland ?

The LORD ADVOCATE said that he Would be able to
lay the bill in question on the table very shortly before
Easter.

THE REVISED CODE.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE asked the Vice-President of the
Committee of Cluncil for Education whether he would be
able to lay on the table of the house before the adjournment

means,

Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to make a few observa-
tions before the house went into committee on the financial
position of the country, which he considered was one that
was calculated to excite anxiety in the public mind. They
had heard from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer the startling statement that they commenced
the financial year without any surplus whatever.
There might be circumstances when such a state of things
might be a source of gratification, as for instance when
there was a remission of taxation, or when thole was great
prosperity at home and great tranquil' ty abroad. But such
was not the case at present, for they had distress in the
manufacturing districts, and they had disturbances in
America, and they had to look forward to an additional
increase of distress in the manufacturing districts. He
contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been
entirely deceived in the estimate he had formed of the result
of the abolition of the duty on paper, and fac;s proved that
he had entirely failed in his calculation. He denied that
there was any real reduction in the national debt, vs
stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but
there was a real deficiency, and he entered into
statistics to prove his position. He alluded next to the in-
demnity fund received from China, and said that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had been deceived in this respect
also, and instead of receiving COO,OOO from that
source the Government had not received £400,000. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial state-
ment, in order to make out his case, described
the last two years as exceptional years, in con•
sequence of the China war; but since he (Mr. Disraeli)
had the honour of a seat in that house, they were al-
ways engaged in hostilities of one description or the
other, and he contended that the Chancellor of the EYche-
quer should, from the experience of the past, have included
the• contingency of the same in his calculations. The
right honourable gentleman went in detail through
the different items of the Budget, end argued that these did
not justify the glowing colours of the favourable financial
position of the country drawn by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. He denounced in strong terms the remarks of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the income tax, and
contended that that tax should not be considered as a per-
manent tax in a time of pea _e. Ho denied‘that the Chan-
calor of the Exchequer was entitled to be called an economist.
The income tax had been treated as a permanent impost
which in its'present form it could not remain. The minister
had no right to fritter away the revenue of the country and
leave that tax untouched. One of the most profuse finance
ministers was constantly insinuating that he objected to the
expenditure for which he was providirg, and was burning
to denounce it—a position at least not consistent with that
political morality of which he was once the foremost adl
vocate.

Mr. BASS then rose to object to the proposal for the
commutation of the hop duty, and the imposition of brewers'
licenses.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, referring
to the latter topic fiat, said that a modification of the plan
as to the license would be necessary. The minimum rate
payable by private brewers would be 55., and the charge
would rise to 405., according to rent of houses, and in the
case of farms to 20s. Turning to what he termed the finan-
cial history, delivered with the judicial impartiality of the
historian by Mr. Disraeli, he said that the fallacy of his
speech was that which ran through his policy and that of
his party, a want of dependence on the principles of free-
trade, which had given such elasticity to the resources of
the country. With considerable minuteness the right hon.
gentleman proceeded to dissect and answer the arguments
and criticisms of Mr. Disraeli, denying his premises and
showing that his inferences were incorrect, especially as re-
garded the assertion that the last two years were not ex -
ceptional years; and there was not a topic on which his
critic had dwelt, in order to prove the financial gravity
of the situation, that he himself had not, to the best of
his ability, laid before the house on Thursday last. He
had never changed his language as to the :income tax, or
treated it as one' which ought to be a permanent tax.
Touching onMr. Disraeli's financial calculations, he showed
that estimates of his had failed largely in the result—his
two sole attempts at clever imposition of taxes, in the case
of stamps on cheques and a tax on Irish spirits, producing
only a third of the calculated yield in each case. As to the
repeal of the paper duty, which caused a loss of £600,000,
now complained of, the opponents of that measure pro-
posed to part with £950,000 of tea duty, which would have
been so much addition to the alleged deficiency. As to the
vituperation and censure of Mr. Disraeli it was not difficult
for him to bear them, for he was sustained by the recollec-
tion that far better men than he had been visited with the
like. But he should be still more content if the effect of
the right hon. gentleman's speech was to bring the house
and the country to a due sense of the gravity of the finan-
cial situation and the necessity for reduction of expenditure.
As to the income tax, he was still of opinion that an in-
crease of the rate of that tax was a financial danger, and the
rate at which it lately stood was caused by the necessity of
meeting large military expenditure in 1859. He did not
desire that that tax should be permanent, and if the coun-
try could be governed for something about £60,000,000 it
could be done without ; but it could not be done with an
expenditure of £70,000,000. Looking to the re-construc-
tion of the navy, and other exceptional causes, he did net
yet despair of reduction and retrenchment in the expendi-
ture of the country, although he did not speak of large and
sudden reductions.

A discussion of much length ensued, in which the Bud-
get and the whole of our revenue policy were reviewed, Mr.
Bentinck, Sir H. Willoughby, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Vance,
Mr. Lindsay, Lord R. Cecil, and Mr. Ball taking part in
the discussion.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE, in the course of an elaborate criti-
cism of the Budget, urged upon the house that during the
last eight years, since 1954, there had been large deficien-
cies of revenue; in six of these years the deficiency had
been £6,144,000, and in two years there was a surplus of
£2,400,000, leaving a net deficiency of £3,744,000. The
cinesticn was, he observed, whether this exceptional stat 9 of
things was going to end, and whether we should not retain
any resources we had in hand. Unless the house made
prudent provision for the year, either by an increase of the
revenue or a reduction of the expenditure, it would not,
he thought, do its duty to the country.

The house then went into a committee of ways and
means, when certain resolutions were agreed to, authoriz-
ing the issue of £1,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds, the con-
tinuance of the income-tax and of the tea and sugar duties,
the charging of an excise duty upon occasional licenses to
sell beer, &c., a stamp duty and a customs' duty upon
playing cards, and a stamp duty upon foreign loan bonds.
THAMES EMBANKMENT.

On the order for the second reading of the Thames Em.
bankment Bill,

Sir J. SHELLEY said, as this embankment was to cost
£1,500,000, to be paid out of the coal-tax, he asked the
house to look a little into the matter. He approved the
project of an embankment, but he objected, for various rea-
sons, to the plan adopted, and ho called for explanations
and a detailed statement, that it might be seen whether the
scheme was founded in justice towards those who were to
pay for it. He moved to defer the second reading till the
estimate of the cost of the work was laid on the table.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. W. WILLIAMS.
Mr. COWPER stated the details of the estimate, the
length of the streets and of the embankment, and other
particulars, which, he observed, had been before a se-
lect committee. The object had been to combine economy
with efficiency, and he described the steps he had taken
.to
obtain a plan that would secure that object. The house, in
.t
assent to
affirming the second reading of the bill, would not commit
itself to the details of the plan, but would merely
to
the general principle of applying the coal dutiesthe cost
of the embankment.
Mr. AYRTON said,bextforre.
Cowperthis
to was
so proceededa know
thath
ath ht the
he
withhad
the inhabitants of the metropolis ought t
scheme was, and to have an authentic statement of the
ex-
pense, and he challenged
such authentic statement,
and the mod
Remarks upon thee of carrying it out
; and, upon a divi-
sion, the amendment was negatived by 116
Mr. Loot:and Mr. Cox
were made by
to 9.
The bill was then read a second ti me and, it being a
hybrid bill, it was ordered to be referred to a select cola-

eAndywaneneet),ilofter
Some
- -.
mittee.
South
uth
Bridge
th(
The -°- committee upon the Hull
objections by Mr.
Z. SALITH, when a resolution moved by Mr. PEEL was
agreed to.
Certain bills were forwarded a stage, and leave was
given to intioduce bills,
and the house adjourned at twenty
minutes to 0120 O'CIOCii.

Thus this glorious event, which excites the zeal
and the enthusiasm of the Archbishop of Toulouse,
this event, for which he returns thanks to " the
goodness of God," this event in honour of which he
announces a jubilee, solemn processions, and plenery
indulgence, was a St. Bartholomew of which the
city of Toulouse was the theatre ten years before
that which ensanguined the streets of Paris on the
fatal day of the 24th August, 1572. It is thus that
the Archbishop of Toulouse wishes " to reunite the
chain of the past."

The celebration of such a fete is a thought 'or-
thy of the age which beheld those abominable tra-
gedies, worily of the times which the Archbishop
of Toulouse admires, and which he dares to propose
as an example to modern generations. In truth, we
know not which should most astonish and afflict
us, the intolerance and the superannuated passions
which have inspired this resolution, or the Impru-
dence and temerity which characterise it. Certainly
after all that has taken place for soma time past,
one can scarcely be surprised to see a member of
the episcopate thus violently set at nought the prin-
ciples of tolerance and religious liberty which have
become the law of modern society, but what is asto-
nishing is to see this member of the episcopacy
wanting in the most simple and ordinary prudence..
How is it that the Archbishop of Toulouse, who
lives in the midst of our southern population,
who knows the ardour and intensity of their reli-
gious passions, has not seen the danger of this ap-
peal made to such ill-ornered recollections ? How
is it that he has not feared to revive the discords
and the hatreds scarcely yet extinct? How is it
that he has not recoiled before the responsibility of
the misfortunes which might result from such re-
newed struggles ? In speaking thus we believill we
are expressing the sentiments which are manifested
at Toulouse, where this untoward project has pro-
duced a sensation which is too well justified.
We would still hope that the Archbishop will
abandon his intention, and not put into action
this project, which has the double objection of
being a deplorable anachronism, and a danger to
the public peace.