The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY -EVENING, JULY" 27, 1860.

perly, and that they did not aid the most needy and the
most urgent cases.
Sir G. LEWIS opposed the clause, on the ground that it
would make no difference in the present state of things.
Mr. DEEDES defended the commissioners, who, he
said, had done all they could to augment small livings
throughout the country. lyith regard to the increase of
the stipend of the Dean of York, he might say that per-
sonally he was of opinion that Parliament ought to have
been consulted in the matter, but a majority of the com
raissioners thought otherwise.
Mr. SPOONER thought the grant to the Dean of York
was not justifiable, while incumbents with families were
starving upon £BO a year. (Hear, hear.)
_ _

Sir J. GRAHAM said that there had been a considerable
augmentation of livings in the diocese of Carlisle, in conse-
quence of the e ertions of Dr. Villiers, the late bishop. He
altogether disapproved of the augmentation of the income
of the Dean of York under the circumstances, and was of
opinion that it ought to have been brought before Parlia-
ment.

Mr. HENLEY thought that the augmentation of the
Falary of the Dean of York would shake public confidence
in the commission. (Hear, hear.)
After some remarks from Mr. WESTHEAD and Mr.
GRIFFITH, the committee divided—

For the clause
Against it
Majority

The clause was lost,
One or two clauses having been added, the bill passe
through committee, and was ordered to be reported to the
house.

The sitting was suspended at a quarter to four.

The house resumed at six o'clock.
HINDOO GRIEVANCES.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Native As
sociation of Calcutta, complaining of the Indian Legislative
Council, which they said did not represent the views, the
wishes, or the wants of the people; was numerically too small
to get through its work, and was composed exclusively of
officials. They prayed that no court where English law
was administered might remain without a professionally
educated judge or assessor. They pointed nut that notwith-
standing the royal proclamation they could find no entrance
into the civil service, if they were required to come to Eng-
land to be educated and pass their examination. They com-
plained of the land tenure ; and while approving of Lord
Canning's restoration of the talookdaree system in Oude,
they expressed their belief that much good would be done
by the extension of a permanent tenure. They concluded
by praying that their earnest petition might not be laid
aside as needless or unworthy of attention.
DOCKYARD LABOURERS.
Sir F. BARING gave notice that on the motion for the
adjournment to-morrow he would call attention to the case
cf the established dockyard labourers, and ask the Secre-
tary of the Admiralty a question as to the course which the
Government intended to pursue with regard to the super-
annuation of these persons.
THE INDIA-OFFICE AND THE WAR-OFFICE.
In reference to a question by Sir DE L. EVAI,IS,
Sir C. WOOD said the hon. and gallant general had
made an inquiry with regard to some military stores which
had been sent out without the sanction of the India-office.
A letter was written on the subject to the War-office on
the 12th of May, to which the India-office had as yet re-
ceived no reply. (A laugh.) His right hon. friend (Mr.
S. Herbert) had stated the other night that he had
addressed a letter to the India-office in November last
to which he had received no answer—(laughter)—and
the hon. member for Birmingham took notice of the
fact, remarking that it was in the usual fashion of the
India-house. (Mr. Bright, " Hear, hear.") Taken literally,
the statement of his right hon. friend was quite correct.
INo answer was sent, and the reason was a committee had
been appointed to inquire into the mode of supplying stores
to India. The letter was laid before the commissioners ;
the whole stil!ject was fully investigated, and a report was
made to the effect that colonels of regiments ought to make
their requisitions to the local authorities instead of home.
(Hear, hear.) The subject having been considered and put
upon a proper footing there was no need to reply to the com-
munication of his right hon. friend ; and the inference
which had been drawn from the right hon. gentleman's
statement, namely, that there had been eonse neglect at the
India-office, was quite unfounded.
THE FORTIFICATION VOTE.
Mr. BRIGHT—I beg to give notice that on Monday
next, when the house goes into committee on the resolu-
tion which has been proposed by the noble lord on the sub-
ject of fortifications, I shall move as an amendment the fol-
lowing resolution :—" That the estimates for military and
naval services which have been laid before this house during
the present session amount to the sum of 29,700,000,
which sum the house has voted, or is prepared substantially
to vote, and a further sum of £3,800,000 has been voted on
account of military and naval expenditure of China. That
having regard to these large sums, this house resolves to
postpone the consideration of the report of the Defence
Commissioners till a future period."
THE PAPER DUTY.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I beg to
give notice with respect to the customs duty on paper, that
her Majesty's Government will make the proposal which
they have placed upon the books on Monday a eek. (Loud
cries of " Oh, oh.")
Mr. BRIGHT—May I ask a question of the right hon.
gentleman with regard to the proposed duty on spirits ? Is
it his intention to ask the house to enact that duty perma-
nently, or only for a year ? Having reference to recent
transactions, that is an important consideration. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The pro-
posal of the Government was for a permanent addition to
the spirit duty. Of course it will be quite competent to
any hon. gentleman who may think fit, to move in commit-
tee that it be only for a year.
Mr. BRIGHT—The right hon. gentleman does not un-
derstand my question. I do not mean that the addition
shall not be a permanent one, that is so long as spirit duties
exist ; but what I want to know is whether in the bill the
tax will be made an annual one so as to come under the re-
view of the house next session ? (Hoar.) I presume that
that is the course which the house will take in future with
regard to new taxes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The
question is more extensive than I though. The bill is
without any limit, and would have the effect of imposing
the tax permanently. (Opposition cheers.)
TERMINABLE ANNUITIES.
Sir F. KELLY asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether, in the event of a loan being effected upon Termi-
nable Annuities, it was the intention of the Government to
introduce a provision in the bill to modify the scale of charge
in respect of the income tax upon any annuities so granted.
Lord PALMERSTON did not quite understand the point
on which the hon. gentleman required information. He
apprehended that they could only take into consideration
the market value of the securities at the time.
Mr. HUBBARD asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, what were the rates at which he esti-
mated the interest attaching severally to the Three per Cent.
Consolidated Annuities and to the Thirty Years Annuities,
given in consideration for the loan of 16 millions which he
made as Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1855.
Sir G. C. LEWIS was not prepared to give the hon. gen-
tleman a perfectly direct answer to his question, on account
of the manner in which the loan was contracted, but he
would give him the best in his power. He assumed that
the loan of £16,000,000 made in April, 1855, might have
been raised at £BB ; and as the price of Consols was £9O,
that only allowed £2 for risk, which was a very moderate
allowance in time of war. The interest payable on the
money so raised would thus have been about £3 Bs. per £lOO
sterling. The remaining £l2 (the difference between £BB
and £100) would represent an annuity of 11s. 6d. for thirty
years, or of Os. in perpetuity. The interest payable on that
portion of the loan which was contracted in annuities might
therefore be taken at about £3 15s. per cent. ; and therefore
the difference of interest between the two proportions of the
loan was the difference between £3 Bs. and £3 15s. All this,
however, in consequence of the manner in which the bid-
dings were received, was a matter of calculation, and not of
statement ; but the present prices of the two descriptions of
security was a matter of fact. The present price of the an-
nuity was £l6ll. There were 25 years unexpired, and this
gave an interest on the annuity of £5 18s. 6d., which in-
cluded £2 10s. of sinking fund ; in other words, the net in-
terest was £3 Bs. 6d. per £lOO sterling. That was a fact
which the hon. gentleman could not dispute. The present
interest on Consols was £3 65., and thus the difference was
not more than 2s. 6d.
Mr. HUBBARD gave notice that he would to-morrow
(this day) again call attention to the subject.
SICILY.
Mr. GRI FFITH asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, whether any proposition had been made to her Ma-
jesty's Government by the Special Envoy of the Neapolitan
Government lately arrived here, that the English Govern-
ment should join with the other powers in imposing and en-
forcing, by the means at their command, an armistice for
six months between the Neapolitan Government and the
Sicilian Government under General Garibaldi, and whether
her Majesty's Government had any intention of entertain-
ing any such proposition.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Before I answer this question I must
complete an answer which I gave the hon. gentleman the
other day. The hon. gentleman asked me whether an envoy
had been sent by the King of Sardinia to Garibaldi; and
what was the purport of the message which he carried ? I
said that an aide-de-camp had been sent, but I could not
then tell the hon. gentleman what was the nature of his
message. I have since been informed from Turin that the
message which was sent was from the King of Sar-
dinia to Garibaldi, proposing to him to make a truce with
the Neapolitan forces, and that he should engage not to
make any expedition against the territory of the King of
the Two Sicilies on the mainland. That message is en-
tirely in conformity with the opinion which her Majesty's
Government has expressed before. With regard to the
present question of the hon. member, I have to state that
it is true a special envoy has arrived from the Neapolitan
G.overnment; and they have proposed to her Majesty's
Government that her Majesty's Government mediate be-
tween the King of the Two Sicilies and Garibaldi; and
that if that mediation for the purpose of an armistice, and
for preventing a further attack upon the terpttorica of the
King of Naples should not be received by Garibeliif,
force should be sent from Great Britain and France with $

view to impose the armistice upon Garibaldi. To that
proposition her Majesty's Government have declined to
consent. (Loud cheers.)
THE CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

In answer to Mr. HADFIELD,
Lord PALMERSTON said there were two courses which
might be adopted with reference to the bills that had come

down from the Lords for the consolidation of the criminal

law. They might on the one hand consider them clause by

clause ; in which case it would be hopeless ever to arrive at

any consolidation at all. On the other hand, the house
might be disposed to take upon trust the accuracy of the
consolidation, and pass the bills in confidence. If it should
afterwards be found on examination that they required
amendment they might take them up separately in a future
session. Probably in the course of a week he should ask
the house which course they intended to pursue.

might smile and shake his head, but even he would agree
that such was the case, If the Government postponed the
discussion for a moment longer than was necessary it would
look very much as if they preferred passing the measure
through an empty house rather than a full one.
Mr. MALINS also hoped the Government would dis-
' tinctly state what bills they intended to pass this session.
Sir G. GREY said that the question as to what bills
should be passed this session had been practically answered
by the discharge of several orders last week, namely, the
Bankruptcy Bill, the London Corporation Reform Bill,
the Highway Bill, the Scotch Wine Licenses Bill. (Here
a MS. list of bills was handed to the right hon. gentleman,
who commenced reading,—Saving Banks Bill, Corruption
Practices Act Amendment. Bill, Irish Poor-law Continu-

ante Bill; but the mention of the last named was received
with much laughter, and convinced the right hon. gentle-
man that there was some mistake.) however, continued
the right hon. baronet, the reason why the Companies Bill
was deferred was, that this was the last day on which bills,
except money bills, and others of urgent importance, could
be sent up to the Lords, and this measure had come down
from the Lords. With regard to the measure of the hon.
member for Dundalk, he would suggest that private mem-
bers generally looked to Wednesday's paper, and on Wed-
nesday next he found there was nothing on the paper but
the Attorneys Bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the house had reason to com-
plain of the conduct of the Government in reference to the
business on the paper. The noble lord had promised to
come down and state what bills would be proceeded with,
and what would not. It was extremely inconvenient to have
a long list of orders before them every night, and not know
which would be proceeded with. But he still more com-
plained of the conduct of the noble lord in reference to the
discussion on the paper duty. Repeated promises had been
made by the noble lord, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
and by Lord J. Russell, that a day should be named fo.
this discussion; but this had not been done until now. He
suspected there was some truth in the allegation that the
Government were desirous to postpone the discussion until
the house was as thin as possible. (Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the Savings Bank Bill was virtually disposed of, except with
regard to one point. It was said that it was impossible to
have a good attendance on the 6th of August. This was not
so ; he had seen an excellent attendance on the 3d of Sep-
tember. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not respon-
sible for the delay of the paper duty question ;•every mem-
ber of a Government was anxious to bring on his own mea-
sures first. This was a question which had attracted so much
public attention that it could not be disposed of in an hour
or two; it would require an entire evening; and the Go-
vernment had selected the earliest unbroken evening they
could reckon on. There was no earlier day at liberty. On
Monday the subject of fortifications came on ; the discussion
might extend to Thursday ; and Friday, with the experience
they had recently had—(a laugh)—could not be considered
an unbroken evening. Believing that the house would be
anxious to come to a decision on the fortification question
next week, the Government proposed to keep open Monday
and Thursday for that purpose. Tuesday was not at their
disposal ; and therefore Tuesday week was the earliest day
which could with certainty be fixed for the discussion of the
paper duty. (Hear, hear.)
Sir H. CAIRNS thought it desirable that the fortifica-
tion debate, if not concluded on Monday, should be re-
sumed on Tuesday. He believed that those members who
had notices on the paper for Tuesday would give way.
To prove their sincerity let the Government put down the
paper duty conditionally for Thursday. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT believed there was much difficulty in
arranging these matters at the end of a session ; he had
always found it to be the case. (Hear, hear.) He hoped
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not postpone
the paper duty question beyond the 6th of August. It was
a question between three-quarters and seven-eighths of a
penny : and it was most important that the question should
be settled, because at this moment paper -hangings were
coming in, under the treaty, at the low rate of duty, and
competing with our own heavily taxed paper. (Hear, hear.)
It was most essential that the house should carry out the
terms of the treaty to which they had already agreed, and
addressed the Queen in its favour. (Hear, hear.)
Sir L. PALK considered that the Government had
treated the house very unfairly. (Oh, oh.) The house was
willing to concede all the noble lord required ; they only
asked that the earliest possible day should be fixed for the
discussion of the paper duty. The session had begun much
earlier than usual, and it was likely to be more barren of
result than any former session.
Mr. lIORSMAN thought the Government ought to have
adhered to their original proposition—of making next Tues-
day a Government day. He would suggest the adjournment
of this debate till next day. What surprised him was that
the question of the paper duty should be treated so dif-
ferently at the beginning and at the end of the session.
The Government were first in favour of a free trade in
paper ; now their views were different. This was a question
in which one and a half million of revenue were concerned ;
it ought not to be delayed until the 6th of August without
very sufficient reason. (Hear, hear.) They had now
arrived at the 26th of July. They had seen one important
measure after another defeated, and the Government sub-
mitting to those defeats with an insensibility which was
most extraordinary. (Cheers from the Opposition.) The
only question was, how long the House of Commons would
suffer these irregularities to continue, which were most de-
grading to all parties, and damaging to the house.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the charge brought by the
hon. member was a most singular one. He would call the
attention of the house to a few facts. The hon. member for
Buckingham had given notice of a question with respect to
the loan of 1855, when he (Sir George) was Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Had he declined to answer that question,
he presumed either that his refusal would have been consi-
dered discourteous or churlish, or it would have been said
that ho was ignorant of the matter to which it related.
(Hear.) He had, therefore, thought it his duty—the ques-
tion relating to a matter of fact of which he had sufficient
cognisance—to answer that question. What there was ir-
regular, improper, or unconstitutional in that he could not
see. (Hear.) If he had not answered the question he
though he might then be exposed to the censure of the
house.

Mr. B. JOHNSTONE thought that long speeches were
the cause of the backwardness of public business. (Hear.)
Any private member might state what he had to say in 20
minutes, and if he went beyond that he ought not to have
the ear of the house. (Hear.) Ministers and ex-ministers
might be unlimited in the time they occupied. (Laughter,
and cries of " Oh, oh.")
Mr. TIORSMAN said he intended to move the adjourn-
ment of the debate. (Cries of " Too late.")
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood that what the
members of that house particularly wished with regard to
the paper duty question, to which they attached extreme
importance, was that there should be certainty as to the
time at which it would be brought on. (Hear, hear.) His
noble friend naturally considered how that certainty could
be obtained, and he was certain that on Monday, the Gth of
August, this question could be brought on. The lion. and
learned member for Belfast proposed a mode which was full
of uncertainties and contingencies, namely, the adjourn-
ment of the question from day to day. Suppose the debate
on the fortifications took up more than Monday night they
could not calculate upon those members who had motions
for Tuesday giving way to the Government so as to con-
tinue the debate. The hon. and learned member thought
that they would not persist, but those members might attach
great importance to those motions and might persist in
bringing them on. If then there was uncertainty on Mon.
day night and uncertainty about Tuesday night, to fix the
question of the paper duties for Thursday on the chance
that they might come on on that day, would, in his opinion,
be putting the members of the house to greater inconveni-
ence than if they fixed a day when that subject could be
brought on with certainty. (Hear, hear.) Some weeks ago
it had been said that the postponement of the civil service
estimates was unprecedented, but now there seemed to be
no care about votes in committee of supply, or about the
civil service estimates; and all their attention ought to be
given to the paper duties. Last year the right hon. gentle-
man the member for Stroud was quite impatient on the sub-
ject of fortifications, but he now seemed indifferent on the
matter, and blamed the Government because they did not
make the expenditure one of the usual votes in supply.
(No, no.) But his noble friend having adopted the prin-
ciple of the scheme for which the right hon. gentleman was
so anxious last year, he now gave up all care about that
subject; his whole attention was given to the paper duties,
and to lecturing the Ministry for the way in which they
conducted the public business. (Hear, hear.) It might
be that the official career of the right hon. gentleman was
so brilliant—(laugh`er)—that ho was entitled to
look down upon all others from a great distance, but other-
wise no member of the house could give lectures to the Mi.
nisters. (Hear.) If hon. gentlemen gave up the motions
they had for Tuesday night the Government had no objec-
tion to fix the paper duty question for that day.'
Sir W. MILES was astonished the Prime Minister had
not fixed the earliest possible day for the discussion of the
paper duty question. If an appeal was made to those mem-
bers who had motions for Tuesday he felt confident they
would give way.
Sir G. GREY—WI.y not say so ? (Hear.)
Sir W. MlLES—Because they had not been asked.
(Hear.) He believed that there was plenty of time between
this and Tuesday to come to an arrangement with those
members, and therefore begged leave to move that the de-
bate be adjourned.
Mr. MI LNES said that an hon. friend of his had an im-
portant motion for Tuesday, and he did not think he was at
all likely to give way, especially as Tuesday was the last
night on which private members could make motions.
After a few words from Sir H. Cairns and Mr. Horsman
in explanation, and also from Sir J. Elphinstone,
Mr. DISRAELI said he did not think it would be expe-
dient to adjourn the debate, and ho therefore would recom-
' mend his hon. friend not to press his motion, although he
believed Thursday would be a more convenient day for the
discussion of the paper duties than Monday.
Sir W, MILES having withdrawn his amendment, the
motion was agreed to.

EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) B,ILL.
On the motion for going into cararaittee on the European
Forces (India) Bill,

figNN.gssy =eyed that it be au instruction to the
•