The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-03 00:00:00

The Secretary for Ireland.] Yes, there was the Secretary
for :Ireland. No one knew what the Secretary for Ireland
received. It appeared that there was a great amount of
dining and hospitality, a thing very well understood in Ire-
land—(a laugh)—which was said to be necessary for that
official, and the committee were told that a high salary was
necessary. However, the salary was reduced by £2,000,
and these reductions, which did not amount to one-tenth
part of what the committee recommended almost unani •
mously, were all that had been carried into effect by the
Government. (Hear, hear.) Then there were the Scotch
judges. Every one knew that if the work were equally
divided between them there would be no persons with so
little to do as the Scotch judges. The committee recom-
mended that a reduction in the number of Scotch and

judges should be made when a vacancy occurred. Very
soon afterwards a Chief Justice died in Ireland. Ho put it
to the noble lord (J. Russell) who was then Prime Mini-
ster whether it would not be proper for the Government to
carry into effect the recommendations of the committee, and
reduce the number of the Irish judges. The noble lord
made answer that he had consulted—whom did the house

think? Why, the profession, every manof whom had entered
it with the honourable ambition of becoming ono of these

judges, and who, of course, saw that his chance would be
very much diminished if the vacancy were not filled. The
noble lord said he had consulted gentlemen of the profes-
sion, and he did not think that there were too many judges.
The noble lord, therefore, entirely disregarding the opinion
of the committee upon which he himself sat, made the ap-
pAntment and filled up the vacancy. (Hear.) Unless
Ministers took a different course from this, and adopted the
recommendation of a committee, and the changes they
thought necessary, how could any reduction be made in our
present growing and extravagant expenditure ? (Hear,
hear.) Take the education vote, for example. Was there
ever anything in any country so monstrous and absurd as
the proceeding in regard to this educational vote ? (Hear.)
The house voted money, they handed it over to some one
to distribute it, and he ventured to say there were not five
men in the house who knew into whose hands it went for
distribution. The head of this department was a great lord
in another place, and this great lord having nothing tO do,
of course required some ens to help him. (A laugh.) ..&c-
-cordingly, a vice-president was appointed, and he had a
salary. The appointment was made to relieve some one who
had a salary from the necessity of doing anything for it.
(A laugh.) So another appointment was made of a Tice-
President of the Council of Education. Another piece of
patronage was made, and another salary was paid. (Hear,
hear.) This education vote was expended for the most part
upen one particular class and sect of the community—it
went towards the education supposed to be given by the
Established Church of this country. It was not, for reasolic
well known to many hon. members, distributed in fair pro-
portion among the various classes of the community. He
confessed he tought it a monstrous thing to vote a sum
which his hon. friend quoted at something like £1,500,000,
and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was
getting up to £2,000,000, without any sort of a report be.
lug made that enabled the house to examine the vote
minutely or control it at all. (Hear, hear.) The Govern-
ment ought to aid the house as the house ought to aid
the country, in checking and controlling such an expendi-
ture. To do this would be the office of such a committee as
was now proposed—not a committee packed withfoxr gentle-
men on one side of the house and four on the other, all mixed
up in the matter, and all hoping to enjoy the distribution of
tnis expenditure, but a fair committee, not influenced by the
Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken
imploringly to the house in favour of economy, and consi-
dered the hon. gentleman who made this motion as an ally.
If so, a committee composed of 12 or 15 gentlemen chosen
from both sides of the house must be of use, if they could
help the house to scrutinise these votes. It would be much
better to leave the money to fructify in the pockets of the
people than to allow it to be expended, as at present for 50
unnecessary objects, some of which were positively perni-
cious. He trusted that the house would agree to the ap-
pointment of a committee, and he had no doubt that it would
be of great service. He warned the house, however, that
while £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 were squandered in this and
other directions the time would come when the subject
must receive the most serious attention. Ho would say no
more now, as other occasions would present themselves.
But if there were any ono of a truly Conservative spirit,
who wished to see the institutions of the country founded
upon an unquestionable and stable basis, so that they would
last his time and his children's who came after him, he
could not show this Conservative spirit better than in help-
ing any Chancellor of the Exchequer to lessen the vast ex-
penditure and taxation of the country. (Cheers.) There
might come a time when we might not have two or three
good successive harvests, two or three good cotton crops,
and seasons of abundance and prosperity. There might be
a time of cloud and storm, when these matters might be
called in question in a spirit they would all be loth to see.
(Hear, hear.) Those who were sitting in that house
were the guardians of the public purse of this country,
and ought to warn their countrymen against the per-
nicious folly that had distinguished the public, the l'ar-
liament, and the Cabinets of this country for years
past. It was their duty to warn them that if they
did 'not change their policy it would lead to disaster and
confusion. (Cheers.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that the only grave argu-
ment brought against the appointment of a committee was
that it would break in upon the responsibility of the execu-
tive. (Hear.) In his opinion, however, it would have no
such effect. It would leave the responsibility of the Execu-
tive just where it was, with this difference, that officials
would know they were acting under the vigilant supervision
of Parliament. He could not conceive a more effectual mode
of doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was so
desirable—influencing public opinion out of the house, than
by the appointment of an annual committee of their own
body to examine the expenditure of the preceding year, and
bring its salient features under the notice of the house and
of the country. (Hear.) It was not enough for the house
merely to pass the votes—it was their duty to see, further,
how the money had been spent. The inquiry now proposed
might appear alarmingly comprehensive, but it would rest
with the committee to determine how many points they
ought to deal with in the expenditure of any given period.
Since the disjunction of the Board of Works and the Woods
and Forests Department the latter had been unrepresented
in the house ; and, in a constitutional point of view, there
did not appear to be any more entirely irresponsible officials
than the two gentlemen who acted as Commissioners of
Woods and Forests. The expenditure of that department
was £90,000 a year, but all tho account of it set before the
house was two totals of £47,000 and £48,000 put down as
" money spent." Surely, some more detailed and explicit
statement was required ; and that it would be the business
of the committee, if agreed to, to procure. If it was true, as
the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to admit, that the
money for educational purposes was spent, and might be
spent, to any extent, without his authority, it was clearly
high time that some system of inspection such as was now
proposed should be adopted without delay. (Hear, hear.)
The House then divided, when the numbers were :--
For the motion
Against
Majority for the motion —2B
The announcement of the result of the division was re-
ceived with cheers.

INCOME TAX.
Mr. POLLARD. URQUHART moved for a Select
Committee to inquire whether it be not possible to adopt
some mode of assessing the income tax, whereby the injus-
tice and vexations now generally complained of may be
wholly or partially obviated.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that the motion anticipated one of the most important ques-
tions connected with the finances of the year—whether the
income tax should be continued, and whether or not it
should be a permanent tax. He hoped Mr. Urquhart would
not persist in his motion.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. CO BBETT moved a resolution, "That, ia pursuance
of the recommendation of the select committee appointed
to try the petitions against the return for the borough of
Beverley, her Majesty's Attorney-General be ordered by
the house to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for
bribery committed by them at the last election for the said
borough." He stated the reasons why the committee (of
which he was chairman) had concurred unanimously in this
recommendation.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR moved, as an amendment, a
resolution, " That the inquiries before committees of this
house, and under the recent commissions which have sat
in various places, having clearly demonstrated that many
persons of higher social rank have been involved in grave
criminality, it would not be expedient to limit the direction
to her Majesty's Attorney-General to the prosecution of
Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for bribery sommitted by
them at the last Beverley election." He did not impugn
the judgment of the committee, but he put it to the house
whether it would consult its own dignity in limiting the
prosecution to these two persons, others having been proved
to be Nattily guilty in the same borough, and guilty of acts
of graver criminality elsewhere.
Mr. SELWYN, as a member of tho committee, defended
their recommendation. No other persons were, found by
them guilty of such open, systematic, and unblushing bri-
bery as Boyce and Taylor.
Mr. COLLIER said he should support the original me-
lion. The committee, in his opinion, were quite right in
making the selection they did.
Sir G. LEWIS questioned proprietysthemeur. f athned
housethe p
vasollicy
of the course proposed by Mr. Seymour.
in earnest in its desire to prosecute cases of bribery, it must
adopt the recommendation of the committee, and it was no
reason for refusing assent that there were other guilty
parties
Mr. SEYMOUR having withdrawn his amendment, the
original motion was agreed to.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. HUBBARD moved for leave to bring in a bill to
make provision for the maintenance of the Church by a mo-
dified form of the existing law. The hon. gentleman said
that the bill he proposed to introduce took a middle course
between the extreme opinions now held on the subject of
church rates, tut it was not a compromise, though it would
offer a common meeting ground on which all cent:lading
parties could assemble. The bill conceded nothing that jus-
tice required should not be given up, and retained nothing
that ought to be conceded. He proposed that any Dissenter
who should declare his unwillingness to pay the rates should
be relieved from their payment, but in that case he would of
course have no share in the managementof the money con-
tributed for church purposes by others. He proposed also,
that the rates should be levied in the same manner as poor
rates, and that the Ecclesiastical Courts should have no
further cognisance of such cases.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
ANCIIORS, &e. (MERCHANT SERVICE).
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE, according to notice moved for
a select committee to inquire into the manufacture of an-
chors and chain cables for the merchant service. The ne-
cessity for such an inquiry had, he thought, been amply
shown by recent events. A test had been established in
the case of chain cables and anchors for her Majesty's ser-
vice, which had been most satisfactory, but no such test-
ing house existed for the mercantile marine, with the
exception of ono at Liverpool, established in 1840, and
another subsequently established at Sunderland. Mr.
M'Donald, the superintendent of the Liverpool Testing-
house had made reports to the corporation, from which it
appeared that more than 82 per cent. of the chain cables
sent to be tested broke down under the testing machine. A
petition, signed by Mr. Chas. Blake, on behalf of the opera-
tive chainmakers of England andi Wales, which had
appeared in the journals, showed that the great bulk of
ierain cables were never proved at all; while, at the same
time, there had been a great increase in the amount of chain
cables manufactured in this country. The petitioners stated
their c ,nviction, as practical workmen, that the cables, in
material and workmanship, were incapable of bearing the
strain to which they ought to be subjected, and pointed out
that the evil was not confined to this country alone, betas
these cables were supplied to foreign ships also, the mischief
extended all over the wcrld. He would not detain the
house by going into details, but the case of the Great Bri-
tain, driven on shore at Dundrum Bay from want of a
properly-tested cable ; of the Prince, lost at Balaklava from
the same cause ; and 1 ist, and worst of all, the Royal
Charter, lost in a hurricane which the great Eastern rode
out safely, in consequence of her cables and anchors being
properly tested, were he hoped, sufficient to induce the
Government to agree to his motion.
Mr. M. GIBSO N said that although the motion of the
11011. gentleman was somewhat unusual, because it was not