The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-04 00:00:00

REVENUE

After a few words from Mr. Alderman THOMPSON,
the motion was agreed to.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the charges of collec-
tion of the public revenue of the United Kingdom for the
year ending sth Jan. 1886, spewing under separate gene-
ral heads the sums paid for the same out of the money re-
ceived on account of duties and taxes by the Customs, Ex-
cise, Stamps, Taxes, and Post-Office departments ; also a
return, showing the several Acts of Parliament and clauses
of the same, or other legal sanctions, (if any) under which
the said departments, or the Commissioners of the Trea-
sury are employed to empower the money received on ac-
count of duties and taxes in making payments for charges
of collection on the public revenue ; also a return, show-
ing the new buildings which have been erected by the
said departments, and paid for out of the duties and
taxes since the year 1820, on any of which buildings
a greater sum than 5,0001. has been expended since
the year 1815. The Honourable Member observed
that three or four millions of money was expended
annually in defraying the charges of collection, which never
came under the vote of the House. He was of opinion
that every farthing expended should be, under the sanction
of Parliament. The whole amount collected should be
paid into the Exchequer, and then the necessary expenses
of collection should be paid afterwards. Until this was
done, they never could have an efficient control over this
large amount of money. If the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had no objection, he should also like to know what
amount had been expended on buildings for the revenue
departments, and by what authority public money on its
way to the Exchequer was stopped and devoted to such
objects.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no
objection to the motion. He agreed with his Hon. Friend
that it was not right to lay out large sums on public build-
ings without the sanction of Parliament, but this bad not
been done since 1830. The second part of the motion had
reference to the collection of the revenue, which had always
been considered as a part of the prerogative of the Crown.
After a few observations from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Dr.
BOWRING, and Mr. THONELY, the motion was agreed to.

SLAVES COMPENSATION BILL.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, this Bill was read a third time and passed.

IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill went into Com-
mittee, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 were agreed to,.with some verbal amend-
ments. _ _

Dr. LUSHINGTON remarked, upon the 10th clause
being proposed, that the Society of Friends had a very great
objection to the declaration contained in this Bill, which
they regarded as amounting to an oath, although no form
of adjuration was contained in it. In an amended Bill, he
felt, however, that the objection could not be removed, as
some might suppose that there was a security in having
such a declaration. If a Bill were introduced for the repeal
of such declarations, it should be supported by him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL should feel, he said,
great pleasure in supporting any Bill repealing that portion
of the 9th George IV. which created the difficulty.
Upon the 11th clause being proposed,
Mr. LAWSON should object to the multiplying of too
many petty jurisdictions. He should divide the House upon
the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The House then divided :
For the clause
Against it
Majority
The remaininr, portion of the Bill was then agreed to.
Mr. SANFORD moved the insertion of a clause for the
purpose of giving to the borough of Yeovil the benefit of
the Bill. _ _

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his own
opinion was entirely in favour of the claims of the borough
of Yeovil to participate in the benefits of the Municipal
Reform Act. He thought, however, it would be inexpe-
dient, after the opposition which had been made against
those claims elsewhere, to press them on an occasion like
the present.
The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Mr. DIVETT moved e second reading of this Bill.
Captain CHETWYND said, as the representative of
that old, and populous, and respectable corporation, whose
liberties it was now sought, without any colour of justice,
to take away, be should oppose the motion. There were
1,300 electors in the town, out of a population of 8,000.
For 600 years they had returned Members to that house,
and amongst :them some of the most brilliant lights that
ever shone in Parliament. (The Hon. Member here made
a very flattering reference to Mr. Sheridan.) Until the last
accusation the integrity of the electors was never impeached.
The alleged crime was of so old a date as four years and a
half, and he contended that if the criminality were then suf-
ficiently established, the punishment would have followed
sooner. It was monstrous, and contrary to all equity and
law, to visit the present electors of Stafford with the punish-
ment said, but not proved, to be due to the delinquencies of
about five years' standing. He should be the last to defend
corruption, but lie had ample means of proving that the
allegations in the report laid before the House were many
of them utterly false, and some of them impossible. (The
Hon. Member entered into a few details of the perfidious
conduct of some individuals, who, he said, betrayed their
party, and gave false evidence.) The purity of election was
fully established at the last election. A committee was ap-
pointed in the town to detect or expose any species of cor-
ruption or bribery, either on the part of the candidate or
electors. He asked for investigation into the state of the
constituency at the last election, and it was refused him.
He would resist the Bill to the last, as a great injury and
injustice ,to the electors of Stafford. The Hon. Member
moved an amendment, that the Bill be read that day six
months.
Mr. DIVETT said the good conduct of the electors of
Stafford at the last election was only a deathbed repentance.
—(A laugh.) Ample proof had been given to the House
that four-fifths of the constituency were corrupt.
Mr. HOWARD was understood to support the ori-
ginal motion.
Mr. LAW said so important a question ought not to be
disposed of at that late hour and in such a thin House.
He then moved an adjournment. •
Air. F. BARING opposed the motion-of adjournment.
Mr. COPELAND said he would support the motion of