The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

e

. . •
, ")); .1 , 0010-4 iv , 4 ~c,1%(::-. 4
1';',1.--VI -,.,,,,,T''..•
tlik,
_. . . ..
.... 4 ~..., . ~..„
4.
...Ai..., .lii:‘, -....
_
. 7/..,
,s • •
4, ....$).
b) `;*. i ,wi :;', f. 0 ~, ._- , , ,
,:;.,:,:,
... . • . _ ~,:. ''',--'4'4
,_ -'V, et --eaMf., • s.
' a''"" vi ...A.:-... ,_ --------,,,,- -1 ....
1. • -1,,..1.,;4.. ge
c&n...,'- ,e,,,/,',/,`Ats ' , ~ 9? , ~•;,',; x ",-. --,,epp,,,,, -- ii.,r, 7
'',. ' • ,:. 441. c 9., _._. - , .4, '') I,: ~ • N ~..
,
~5 , , 2:4. ', oii:. - ,'"•-- '-------N'' )
/ii.i. ) d.'`.: ) ".•:74
“..
~ „,- ---. ...
...74..01), al, '-'s' -"" 11. '' ' iiir-E ' ~ ' it,,,4,...,,, ,i;
~,,liqi.,Tolt, .0)74 .• (4,,,,, ~ _
sv , 0,6_
~ _ /
',,
C ..• 4,1,'Yr.!7, '' , i.1.A...e.:e., '-‘4o' -r- *
.. -
g
..............—.

LIFE ASSURANCE.—Mr, JONES (of the firm
of Davies and Co.) will deliver a Lecture on LIFE AS-
SURANCE : "What it is, what it ought to be, and how to
make it so," at Exeter-Hall, Strand, on Wednesday, May 16,
at half-past Six o'clock p.m. Gentlemen connected with ex-
isting companies, parents, guardians, and young people are
invited. Tickets (tree) at the Advice Office for Life Assurers,
1, Finch-lane, Coruhill. Ladies arc invited to attend.

whether he had received the report of Sir Roderick Mur-
chison and Professor Faraday on the processes for preserv-
ing the external stonework of the Houses of Parliament,
and whether ho had any objection to lay the same before
the house, together with copies of the instructions or
minutes of reference to those gentlemen, and any corres-
pondence, not already befure.th.e house, which had passed
between the Board of Works and the respective patentees,'
the referees, or Sir Charles Barry.
Mr. CO WPER said ho had received the reports of Sir
Roderick Murchison and Professor Faraday relative to the
external stonework of the Hou,,es of Parliament. He did
not, however, feel at liberty to lay the same on the table,
as they were not intended for,Publicity, but merely for his
information. He was quite prepared to take on himself the
responsibility of acting on these reports. Ho would readily
lay on the table the papers respecting the patentees and
referees.

of the Exchequer that it was intended to resume the debate
to-night. Considering the bearing which the estimates of
the year have on this question and that we have not yet had
an opportunity of discussing them, I certainly did think
that we should, before proceeding with this measure, have
been allowed to make ourselves acquainted with the finan-
cial condition of the country, and to ascertain whether we
are now in exactly the same position as when the Budget
was brought forward. We have this year departed very
widely from the ordinary routine of financial business, be-
cause usually some progress is made in the estimates before
the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his statement to
the house. That course, no doubt, is sometimes departed
from, but seldom, if ever, has there been a year in which
such important business has been brought forward before
any progress had been made in the estimates ; and it appears;
to me that this is not a year that should be chosen for de-
viating from tho usual practice in such matters, because the
financial measures of the Government are very important
and the annual estim des are of a very peculiar character.
Since the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we
have had a good many of the estimates laid on the table.
and, to my great surprise--I can hardly now believe lam
not under some mistake—l find a considerable difference in
one class between the statement of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the statement which appears in the esti-
mates. (Hear.) I was unable to give earlier notice of my
motion because, until last night, I never thought this bill
would be brought forward before we had made some pro-
gress in those estimates. With regard to the form of the
motion, it is not my wish to dispute the third reading. I do
not maintain that the paper duty is a good duty, nor do I
in any way dispute the case which the right hon. gentle-
man has made against it. But it appears to me that this is
not the right time for going on with it, and in making this
motion I think I am acting in the spirit of the resolution
which was passed two years ago. (Hear.) I feel bound to
protest against its being considered that we are in any way
bound by a resolution passed in a former Parliament, and
especially by a loose resolution of the sort which was passed in 1858. (Hear, hear.) It is not held that we' re practi-
cally and absolutely bound by it, but itis said that the ques-
tion is, to a certain extent, prejudged by that resolution—
the more so because it was adopted, after full deliberation,
with the assent of the then responsible Minister, without a
division. If we look, however, to the terms of that resolu-
tion, and to what took place in the debate upon it, I think
the case for the repeal of. the paper duty in the present year
is not at all strengthened'. (Hear, hear.) The President
of the Board of Trade moved a resolution of two parts, the
first containing the abstract proposition that the paper
duty was not a good permanent source of revenue, and the
second declaring that measures ought to be taken to put
an end to it. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer did
not deny the first part of thO resolution, that it was not
desirable to maintain the paper duty as a permanent
source of revenue, but he demurred to the second part,
that the house ought at an early period to abolish the
duty, because he said other things ought to be taken into
consideration. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member
for the city of London, assenting to the general proposition
that the tax was not a good one, used strong language as to
other things which ought first to be done, and said that the
faith of Parliament was almost pledged to make remission
first of the war duties on tea 'and sugar. (Cheers.) The
present Home Secretary reminded the house that they were
pledged on the first favourable opportunity to repeal the
income-tax, and he said he did not like the second part of
the resolution, because it interfered with the redemption of
that pledge. The latter part of the resolution was struck
out, and it was generally understood that, although the ab-
stract resolution was adopted, it was not intended to give
effect to it. , It may not be a wise thing for the house to
adopt an abstract resolution of that sort ; but when it is
adopted with the express and distinct refusal to attach words
which would give it a practical operation, I cannot find any
argument that the house is pledged, much less that the re-
solution pledges a Parliament which is not the same as that
in which the vote was taken. (Hear, hear.) I think it,
therefore, a most undesirable precedent for the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to refer to an abstract resolution as one
which commits the house to a certain policy ; and if abstract
propositions are so taken up I think serious mischief may
fellow. (Cheers.) Not denying that the repeal of the paper
duty is a good thing if we can afford it, I say the present is
not a good time to take such a step; and if it wasnot thought
a good time in 1858, when the expenditure was £63,500,000,
still less can it be a good time now, when the extendituro is
£70,000,100. (Cheers.) Although there may be a reason-
able probability of an opportunity at a future time to
dispense 'with the tax, the case is very different now,
with largo expenditure and greater difficulty of meeting,
it. I admit that my objections aro, to the whole finan-
cial scheme of the Government. One of the main ob-
jections is, that I think we are now sacrificing a large
and important portion of indirect taxation without having
previously settled the principles upon which the direct
taxation to be substituted °is to be placed. (Hear,
hear.) Ido not wish to be understood as saying that I ob-
ject to the substitution in a proper way of direct for indirect
taxation. What I mean is this—that wo ought to take very
good care to make direct taxation as free as possible from
objection, and to put it in such a shape that when we strike
away indirect taxation we may be in a position to fall back
on direct taxation, with the certainty that it will not fail us
from the objections which it will engender. This is the
point in which the scheme of the Government fails. It is
very easy and pleasant to strike away indirect taxation, but
is it prudent to do so when we have only in its place,the in
come-tax, which high authorities tell us is unsuitable as a
permanent source of revenue, and no one can assure us that
it can in any way be altered or improved ? The other objec-
tion which I have is, that for the purpose of change we are
forestalling and using up all our resources, calling in credits
and taking other temporary aids, and accumulating for next
year a deficit, which, to say the least, is most undesirable.
(Cheers.) I think those two objections have become stronger
since the financial statement than they were at that time.
I venture to call the attention of the house to the discre-
pancy between the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the estimates now laid on the table. My right
hon. friend estimated the charges for the current year—in-
cluding the debt, the consolidated fund, the army, nave
civil service, and revenue estimates, together with a vote of
credit of £500,000 for the China expedition—al £70,100,000.
The items for the debt, the consolidated fund, and the army
and navy amounted to £57,400,000; the vote of credit to
£500,000: the miscellaneous estimates to £7,500,000; and
the estimates for the collection of therevenue to 54,700,000.
To the estimates for the collection of the revenue I must re-
quest the right hon. gentleman's particular attention, be-
cause he told us they showed an apparent increase of £225,000
which would probably be to a great extent recovered by the
superior yield of the Post-office to £BO,OOO. Since then the
estimates for the collection of the revenue have been laid
upon the table, and instead of £4,700,000 they amount to
£4,932,432 (hear, hoar), showing a difference of no less than
£232,342. Considering that the estimated surplus was only
£464,000, this makes a most serious difference in the calcu-
lations upon which the budget was founded, because it at
once does away with something like one-half of that surplus.
I have looked at that once or twice, thinking that I must
be mistaken, but on referring to the printed report of my
right hon. friend's speech I find that I have not misrepre-
sented him in supposing that he took the amount at
£4,700,000, and I am sure that I have taken that of the esti-
mates upon the table correctly at 4,932,432. Had we gone
on with the discussion of these estimates we might have re-
ceived some explanation of this discrepancy, which would
so far have mitigated the objection which I feel to this part
of the financial scheme ; but it is unreasonable to ask us to
grant remissions of taxation before we know what our reve-
nue is to be. (Hear, hear.) And therefore I think lam jus-
tified in saying that, so far as we can judge, the financial
state of the country does not admit of our proceeding with
this measure at present. (Hear, hear.) The miscellaneous
estimates my right hon. friend took at £7,500,000, including
I presume the £lOO,OOO which is usually taken for civil con-
tingencies. As yet but six classes of these estimates have
been laid upon the table, but they amount to £6,644,328.
Class 7, at the amount at which it stood last year, and the
£lOO,OOO for civil contingencies making up £1,128,236,
• raising the amount of the miscellaneous estimates to
£7,772,564, which would be an excess over the estimate of
the right hon. gentleman of £272,564. Now, lam aware
that there will be a reduction in the amount of Class 7 ;
but is it reasonable to suppose that you can obtain a dimi-
nution of no less than £270,000 upon a single class of esti-
mates, the total amount under which is only £988,000 ? I do
not say that it may not be done, but it would have been
more satisfactory that we should have had these estimates
fully before the house, in order that we might see whether
it was a real saving or only a postponement of votes which
will come upon us in a future year. (Hear, hear.) I know
that my right hon. friend is most anxious to reduce these
estimates, but except in Class 1, which I suppose is in the
nature of a postponement of works, and in Class 4, a reduc-
tion of £22,000, which has been balanced by an increase of
£20,000 in Class 3, he has, been able to make no diminution.
On the contrary, taking the estimates for the collection of
the revenue together with the other classes, I find that there
is an actual increase of no less than £85,000 in the present
year. I know that lam apparently going out of the record,
but it is a course which is forced upon me, because I can-
not state my objections to the course which we are pursuing
without pointing out in some detail the difficulty which I
experience in going on with,this legislation before I can as-
certain what is the real state in which the estimates will
ultimately stand. (Hear.) I must also call attention to what
has happened with regard to the Army Estimates. It is
true that their amount is now pretty much that which my
right hon. friend stated. He said that the charge for the
army and the militia would be' about £15,300,000. I find
that the estimates upon, the table amount to £14,842,000,
which, taking the charge for the militia at £460,000, as last
year, would give almost that amount, pig a very re-

11TEDDING STATIONERY, including every
and and elegant desins yDE LA
RUE and Co. A sample packet and price list ant free. No
charge for carriage on orders over 20s. The London Depot
for lie La Rue and Co.'s manufactures—HENßY GOOD'S,
60, Moorgate-street, E.C.
Card plates and crest dies engraved in the first style, and
note papers beautifully embossed in colouredrelief, or if plain,
stamped without charge. An illustrated catalogue will be
forwarded free on application.

DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND.
Lord A. CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of
State for the Colonies whether any authentic intelligence
had been received with respect to the disturbances reported
to have occurred between certain native tribes in the pro-
vince of Taranaki, in New Zealand, through a disputed
land claim connected with the movement in favour of a na-
tive King, and in consequence of which Capt. Murray, com-
manding a detachment of the 65th Foot, had proclaimed
martial law, and that her Majesty's ship Niger had left
Auckland for the scene of action with considerable rein-
forcements ; and whether there was reason to believe that
these disturbances would not spread beyond the province ?
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said the governor of the colony
had gone to New Plymouth with a strong detachment of
troops, and was acting vigorously in respect to the diffi-
culties that had arisen, but there was every reason to be-
lieve that tranquillity would be shortly re-established.
REMOVAL OF BRIGADIER INNES.
'Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary of State for India,
what were the grounds for the removal of Brigadier Innes
from his command as Brigadier at Ferozepore in May,
1857, after the perfect approbation of the Commander-in-
Chief had been conveyed, in the Adjutant-General's letter
of the 19th of the same month, to that officer, for the judg-
ment, vigour, and decision with which he had acted at the
commencement of the mutiny in Bengal ?

Sir C. WOOD said he did not consider the question a
proper one to be put in that house ; but he would state that
the Indian Government had removed the officers in ques-
tion, because they thought it was desirable at the time to
do so.

GRAVES OF BRITISII OFFICERS AND MEN IN

_ --
THE CRIMEA.
Lord BURGHLEY asked, the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs, whether, in consequence of the remonstrance
of her Majesty's Government, any promise or security had
b en givan.by the Russian Government that the graves of
the officers and men of the British army, who are interred
n the Crimea, shall be protected and held sacred in future ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Government of Russia
had been remonstrated with in respect to the matter in
January, March, and April, and had promised full enquiry
into the subject. They stated that they had every desire
to maintain those graves in a decent manner, but there
were some difficulties in dealing with the matter in conse -

quence of the graves being scattered. The Government of
this country had instructed the British Consul at Odessa to

attend to those graves, and had granted him £lOO a-year for
that purpose.

LEAVE 01? ABSENCE.
Leave of absence was granted to Mr. JOHN H. GURNEY,
for a week, from ill health; and to Mr. HUTT, for a fort-
night, on the ground of domestic affliction.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c., IRELAND.
Lord NAAS, in moving for\ leave to bring in a bill for
securing the registration of births, deaths, and marriages
in Ireland, drew attention to the very anomalous state of
Ireland in reference to registration. That country, Turkey,
Greece, Spain, and Hungary were the only countries
where adequate arrangements for registration were
not provided by law. He proposed to extend
the registration of marriages in Ireland to persons
married according to the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic
Church, and he proposed to make the constabulary
a principal agent in carrying out the general
registration. The noble lord then proceeded to
discuss the details of this 1111, which were
identical with the measure which the noble lord had intro-
duced in a previous session.
Mr. CARDWELL expressed great pleasure at the noble
lord having resumed his efforts to place this subject on a
satisfactorY footing. He entirely concurred with the noble
lord as to the great importance of a proper system of regis-
tration in Ireland, from the absence of which much hard-
ship was inflicted on persons of the poorer class in that
country, who were unable to prove their title to pro -
perty,of wealthy relatives who might have died abroad.
He hoped the present session would not pass without a bill
on that subject being passed. The matter had been care-
fully considered in Ireland, and there were other plans
proposed which differed in some points from that of the noble
lord, and it was thought advisable by some persons whose
attention had been directed to the subject, that the same
system which prevailed in Scotland should be introduced
into Ireland, and he would ask permission of the house
to lay on the table a bill on the subject, which,
with the measure of the noble lord, would be submitted
to the consideration of the house. He would be happy to
afford all the assistance to the passing of a bill.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
PORTPATRICK AND DONAGHADEE HAR-
BOURS.

Gezeral UPTON moved for a select committee to in-
quire into the truth of the allegations contained
in the petition of the Ayr and Maybele Junction Rail-
way Company, presented in August last, and printed in
the eleventh report of the Select Committee on Public Peti-
tions, Appendix 202, relative to the application of the grant
for Portpatrick and Donaghadee Harbours.
Mr. LAING entered into some explanation relative to
the steps which had been previously adopted in regard to
Portpatrick and Drogheda harbours, and said that he felt
bound to oppose this motion. The hon, gentleman de-
fended the conduct of Mr. Wilson in reference to this
matter.

After a few words from Colonel Durrics,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said diet he considered Go-
vernment had not acted properly in respect to this subject.
Originally in 1856 there were two lines of railway to be con-
structed, but in 1857 that contract was altered, and only
ono line of railway was to be made. The parties interested
in the Northern line felt themselves aggrieved, and he
suggested that further money should be withheld until the
original contract was carried out.
Mr. DUNLOP thought that the whole question had been.
concluded by the vote of last year. He considered also
that the country had not
to from the money granted.
The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was negatived
got the benefit they were entitled
without a division.
FACTORY 'BOY APPOINTMENTS EXAMINA-
TION (PORTSMOUTH).
Mr. BENTINCIC moved for copies of the examination
papers and answers thereto by the candidates for the ap-
pointment of factory boys before the Civil Service Commis-
sioners at Portsmouth, in January. The hon. member
founded his motion on a case in which he considered much
injustice had been inflicted on one of the candidates.
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion on the twofold ground that the particular can-
didates referred to had not come up to the minimum stan-
dard applicable to all in certain common requirements, and
that if agreed to, such motions would interfere with that in..
dependence which was absolutely essential to the proper
discharge of their duties by the Civil Service Commis-
sioners.

Mr. BENTINCK having replied, the house divided
when the numbers were—

For the motion ........................ 60
Against it ............................ 80
Majority against the motion —3O
Mr. GARNETT obtained leave to bring in a bill for re-
gulating the use of locomotives on turnpike and otherroads.
THE EAST INDIA BUDGET.
Colonel SYKES moved an address for copies of minutes
of council in Madras, and other documents with reference
to the imposition of the income-tax in India.
Sir C. WOOD opposed the motion.
After a few words from Mr. KINNAIRD the motion was
withdrawn.

STOCK-JOBBING BILL.
Mr. BOVILL moved the second reading of this bill.
The great object of the bill was to legalise every bona fide
transaction, leaving, as at present, all wages and gambling
speculations subject to the restrictions and penalties of the
law. He thought that course was preferable to that pro-
posed by the Government in repealing Sir.J. Barnard's
Act.

Mr. COLLINS opposed the second reading of the bill,
and moved that the bill bo read a second time that day six
months.

Mr MALINS and Mr MELLOR supported:theamendment.
Mr. BOVILL replied, but did not divide, and the amend-
ment was agreed to.

REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY.
The adjourned debate on the third reading of the Paper
Duty Repeal Bill was resumed by

Sir S. STORTHCOTE, who rose to move,—"That the
present state of the finances of the country renders it un-
desirable to proceed further with the repeal of the Excise
duty on paper." He said,—l feel I ought to explain my
reason for putting this notice on the paper, instead of the
usual amendment that the bill be read a third time this day
six months. I have for some time been of opinion that
there was no probability that this bill could be proceeded
with at present. I thought there was other business which
must take precedence of it; and it was, therefore, with
gr'At girPrin tiAt OW 039 Ait9DICAt 9: t 49 cluwellyr

markable operation has been performed upon these esti-
mates. After they had been laid upon the table and the
number a men e 443,000 some odd hundreds—they were
withdrawn upon the groned that the Governor-General
of India had sent home more treope than was expected,
or something of that sort. They were withdrawn and
revised, and in the revised eetiintetes I observe that the
number of men, instead of being 143,000, ie 145,000 the
actual addition being about 1,900 men, lent notwithstanding
this there has been no increttee of (be estimates. There he's
been an increase in some votes, but the:, Ilea been balanced
by a decrease in others, and among these latter Ore the
votes for clothing, provisions, and warlike stores. Those
who' have objected to votes for clothing and provisions after
the number of men had been voted have often been told,
and it is an argument which bas been delivered ex eatheltg,
that they ought to have objected to the number of men,
because after that has been passed the votes for clothing
and provisions must surely folio*. That to uninitiaten
persons seems an argument of great weight, and has, I
know, closed the mouths of many persons who were.' dis-
posed to- raise objections; but it can never be used again,
because in this instance, although the number of men has
been increased, the vote for clothing has decreased by,
£lB,OOO, and that for provisions, including forage, by
£2,700. The presumption which is raised by these facts is
either that the estimates were originally negligently framed
and the house was asked to vote an unnecessarily large
amount, or that they have now been improperly reduced,
and we shall at a future period be asked for a supplemen-
tary, vote to supply deficiencies, as has occasionally been
the case before. I have had the curiosity to look at the
supplementary estimate of £1,050,000 which was voted last
year, and I find that of that sum £290,000 was voted for
clothing, and £350,000 for provisions. Ido not wish to!
question the accuracy of these estimates. The circum
stances which I have mentioned may be susceptible of a
complete and satisfaotory explanation, but we ought to
have our minds set at rest upon these matters before
we proceed. with the financial scheme. (Hear, hear.).
If we abolish the paper duty, and the Govern-
ment is afterwards obliged to ask for more money,
there will be no means of raising it except by adding
a penny to the income-tax, or something of that' sort, and
therefore we ought to have an •opportunity of going into
these estimates, and sifting them very carefully, before we
agree to the abolition of that tax. These are not the onlei, votes upon which I would remark. In the item of warlike
stores the revised estimates show a reduction of not less
than £BO,OOO, which is a very curious feature, and lets us into
something more. The original estimate for warlike stores
was £743,000, of which £250,000 was to be deducted for
sums chargeable to the Indian Government. In the revised
estimates the Itidian Government is charged, not with
£20,000, but with £300,000, and the amount to be voted
for miscellaneous stores is reduced from £734,000 to £713,000.
Does this mean that India requires at one time one sum and
another at another, or that the whole system of the ac-
counts between the Indian Government and the Home Go-
vernment is one incomprehensible labyrinth and mess, and
that you may really make use of it as a matter of account to
state things very much as you please ? That is a matter
on which I want information. We ought to have an account
current between this Government and the Indian Govern-
ment. I don't say anything is wrong, but all this is matter
of inquiry. Of course, we shall have that inquiry sooneror
later; it cannot be prevented, but we should have it with
much more profit to ourselves if we had not decided all our
financial arrangements before we set about it. (Hear, hear.)
I might go into other details, but, in truth, I think I have
stated quite enough to prove the case I was anxious to sub-
mit to the house, that it is really necessary, before we pro-
ceed any further in the way of reducing taxation and throw-
ing away fer ever these duties on paper, that we should go
into our estimates and ascertain how the country really
stands. (Hear, hear.) I have not touched on other matters
which are very important, indeed, and which I have in
vain endeavoured to extract from Government some infor-
mation. There is the vote for fortifications for instance,
which stands in the estimates of £649,000. Do you, or do
you not, mean to make any further proposal on that subject ?
I formerly asked that question, to which no reply was given.
I repeated the inquiry, and the answer of the noble lord
was that a commission had reported on the subject; filth
report was under consideration, and when the Government
had made up their minds what to do he would inform the
house. But there the matter rests. I don't blame the
Government for letting the matter rest there; but in the
meantime they must not be surprised if rumour was busy
spreading reports that they were going to have a large loan
on the subject. If the sum of £10,000,000 was to be borrowed
the interest of it would pretty nearly absorb the amount
of the paper duties. Perhaps you mean to deal with it
in another way. Perhaps the loan is to be raised in Exche-
quer bonds, which are to be paid off from year to year; but
if you are to spread the repayment of £10,000,000, or
£5,000,000, or £6,000,000, over so many years, you will have
a million a year or more to provide for that purpose, which
might be got perhaps from the paper duty better than in
any other way. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, this fortifica-
tion vote is-in a very anomalous state; there is this pecu-
liarity about it, that no details whatever are given. In
former years these details were always supplied, but here
we have only the bare sum put down of £649,000. Under
these circumstances, I think I am not making an unreason-
able proposal when I ask the house to affirm my proposition.
(Hear, hear.) I wish inquiry; I call for no expression of
opinion as to the policy or impolicy of repealing the paper
duties, if the finances of the country were in a position to
admit of their repeal. I don't wish to raise the question on
the merits. All I say is, that you are not now in a position
to part with this important tax. (Hear, hear.) I really do
feel that this question of the estimates and the expenditure
deserves much more consideration from the house than it
has yet received, because the whole case of the Chaneellor of
the Exchequer seems to rest on the hope that in future years
there will be a considerable reduction of our expenditure.
It hangs very much on this, that he looks forward to a time
when we shall not have to spend so large an amount
on our military and naval establishments. I, too, hope with
the right hon. gentleman that this may be so ; but I do not
see in these estimates anything that leads me to believe that
this anticipation is at all likely to be realised at an early
period. A great many gentlemen, therefore, who were dis-
posed to accept the Chaneellor of the Exchequer's propo-
sals with confidence and joy, trusting to the reduction of
expenditure, are very likely to change their opinions on
this subject, and come more nearly to the views we on this
side of the house have adopted, because, however anxious to
concur in the reduction of expenditure, we have not seen
our way to such reductions. (Hear, hear.) When the budget
was brought forward we were told that, in consequence of
the measure proposed with regard to our commercial rela-
tions with France, and especially arising out of the new
treaty, wo should find ourselves in such relations with our
neighbours over the water that it would soon be unneces-
sary to maintain these great warlike establishments, and
that on the other hard the prosperity of the country would
increase so much, owing to the growth of our trade with
France, that the elasticity of our resources would soon reco-
ver, notwithstanding the reductions which had been made.
I ventured to doubt that-proposition at the time. But I
must say that looking at what has since taken place, look-
ing at the sort of feeling which has been engendered, the

sort of distrust, I will not say that has sprung up, but in-
creased from time to time as to the position and conduct of
the Emperor of France—looking, at the same time, to the
dissatisfaction entertain d by many of our merchants and
manufacturers at the arrangements which have been made
—(hear)—the extension of trade and the prosperity which
were promised us are not altogether so sure as we were led
to expect. (Hear.) Having thus stated the object I have in
view, I would just say one word as to the example and pre-
cedent set by Sir R. Peel, so frequently referred to. When
Sir Robert Peel put on the income-tax it was because our
system of indirect taxation being then in a very unsa-
tisfactory condition, it was necessary to effect a reform
in that system of indirect taxation, and he
put on an income-tax to cover the experiment
on indirect taxation. Now, we cannot say that our indirect
taxation is in the same unsatisfactory state as in 1812 ; but,
on the other hand, our direct taxation is in a state which
requires the most careful and attentive consideration, the
most tender and delicate treatment ; because, if you are to
improve and render it permanent, you will require time
both to mature your plans and to bring them into operation.
I therefore urge you, if you really wish to follow the example
of Sir R. Peel, to take the converse of his course and keep
your indirect taxation, so as to enable you cautiously to put
your direct taxation on a sound basis. When my right
hon. friend opposite imposed the succession duty he had
indirect taxes to fall upon while waiting the result of his
experiment. Next year we shall have to grapple seriously
with the income-tax to see what can be made of it—whe-
ther it can be altered or made more palatable, or whether it
can be replaced by any other system or collection of taxes,
direct or indirect. That will be a matter of time and pa-

tience ; probably it will take years to bring about, and if
my own wish could prevail I should be glad to see this
paper duty maintained until we have brought our direct
taxes into such a state that we can repeal it, as Sir Robert
Peel proposed to deal with the income-tax when the indi-
rect taxes had sufficiently recovered. All I ask at present
is, that, looking to our present condition and our prospect
for the next year, the house, without Pronouncing any
opinion condemnatory of its principle, will refuse its assent
to the bill for the present. (Hear, hear.)

Sir S. NORTHCOTE—I don't think I was in the coun-
try at the time.- T certainly was neither in the he nee nor
a member of the Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GIBSON--Well, it's not material to the argument.
A t all events, he has not correctly represented what passed.
A resolution was moved to the effect that the paper duty
ought not to be part of the permanent revenue of the coun-
t ree end a second resolution to tb., effect thatmeasures
ought to be taken to enable Parliaceent to dispense with it.
The right hon. gentleman then Chancellor of the:Exchequer
elecc'cd to the second reeolulion, but agreed to the first,
cendemning the tax es a permanent source of ±venue, and
the house rmanimettsly supported him in the view which he
ook. The righthon. gen tle 171 all said then; not what the,Ron.
baronet has related, but this—" Although he was not pre-
pared to saythat the tax should be immediaf.ely repealed, he
theuglrt It ought to be taken into early consideration." Tiro
ycars have elepeed since t1:-ft period. It was repeatedly stated
that in the present year opportunity ought to be tat en of the
falling in of . the annuities to reduce the war duties on tea.
and sugar, or something of that kind. (Opposition cheers.)
Why had not.that been done? (Cheers.) The hon. baronet
came forward on behalf of the revenue ; but I understand
those cheers as being raised favour of a proposition for
substituting a reduction cf the lea and sugar duties for a
repeal cf the paper duty. (Ire:r.) The third reading of
tt
hhies billso rt issh
ocuelrdt a
be
nel ysunhoint
tttheed tt iomteh
em a proposition of
rouse. The bill was
read a second time after full discussion
eand a division; it
_passed through committee with no material , position ; the
drawbacks to be allowed have all been settled, are'l nowethe
.hen. baronet conies down with a motion of teizie hie'd, and
the cheers of his friends announce to the house' nose
now want the repeal of the paper duty abandoned, =eta.
reduction of duties on tea and sugar substituted. (No, no.).
My hon. friend is very anxious about the army estimates;:
he does not understand the votes for clothing and provi-
sions. Well, I can't explain them to him. (A laugh.) lam
not bound to explain them. If the 'War Department send in,
estimates to Government which they think necessary, I am
tiound to believe them. It is not for me to dispute with the:
War Department as to the exact sane necessary for the-so,
services. Nor is it for me to go into the question of the ex-
penses of collecting the revenue—a vote which, lam told,
is never taken till the end of JulyLa period, of course, at
which it would be idle to propose to deal with a financial
measure of this kind. (Hear.) Thehon. baronet says he did
not expect that this bill would be proceeded with, or he
would have given longer notice of his motion ; .but I don't
see how that can be. This is an adjourned debate, the third
reading was moved 10 days ago, and the objection to pro-
ceeding with it then was one merely .of time; it was said
to be too late at night to go on with it. I ask the house
whether it is fair to deaVevith questions of this magnitude
in the spirit of the hon. baronet's proposal. (Hear, hear.)
Isno consideration due to the important interests affected
by this tax? (Hear, hear!) Can you say it is nothing to
keep an industry in which £10,000,000 of capital is em-
ployed in a perpetual state of suspense as to whether you
are going to repeal the tax or not ? (Hear, hear.) Many
contracts, I believer have already been entered into on the
faith that the House of Commons would not retrace its
steps. After the bill had been read a second time and
passed through committee there was a complete conviction
throughout the country that this measure would be passed
into law. But if we wait until the hon. baronet has settled
the principles of direct taxation, and ha's made himself
thoroughly acquainted with a variety of minute details in
the estimates which he does not understand at present, we
shall be acting with great injustice to VT paper trade, and *-
we shall be striking at the root of that confidence which
has always been reposed in the first preliminary and decided
step of the House of Commons in matters affecting taxation .
We have heard a great deal of anxiety about the public re-
venue. It is nothing but a desire to take care that we do
not part with too much of our income that has actuated the
hon. member for Stafford in proposing his motion. I want
to know whether that desire is shared in by the right hon.
member for Droitwich, who voted the other night for re-
pealing, or at least materially reducing the duty on fire in-
surance. (Hear, hear.) And where was the right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire on the same occasion ? He
may indeed have paired. But, if there be this excessive
apprehension about creating a deficit for future years, it is
remarkable that he was not in his place to protest against a
motion so dangerous to the revenue of 1861. Let me recall
to the recollection of the house the position in which we
stand with respect to this bill. On the second reading the
whole question was raised in connection with the income
tax. The hon. member for Somersetshire then moved a
resolution in these words :—" That, as it appears the repeal
of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of ld, in
the pound to the property and income tax, it is the opinion
of this house that-such repeal is, under such circumstances,
at the present moment inexpedient." The hon. member
for Stamford voted for that .resolution; he voted against
the repeal of the paper duty because it would necessitate
an addition to the income tax. (Hear, hear, from the Op-
position.) But the house, by a decisive majority, over-
ruled that proposition, and the ld. is now added to the
income tax. (An Hon. Member—" For one year.") Yet,
contrary to the Spirit of that resolution, you now turn
round and say you won't give us the repeal of the paper
duty, but that the country shall bear the increased
income tax and the paper ditty into the bargain. (Hear,
hear.) The speech of the hon. member' for Stamford was an
attack on the whole principle of the the Budget. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) He would take the finance of
the couatry out of the hands of the Government, and lay
down a totally new scheme utterly at variance with that of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Renewed cheers from
the Opposition.) One of the leading features of my right
hou. friend's Budget was that there should be in the pre-
sent year a remission of indirect taxes for the benefit of the
trade of the country, together with a certain augmentation
of direct taxation. That leading feature the hon. member
for Stamford now seeks to get rid of. But, supposing he
succeeded in maintaining the paper duty, what is the hon.
member going to do with the law on the subject ? Is the
deliberate report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
declaring this tax no longer tenable in its present 'state—
(no, no)—to go for nothing? .The commissioners, of their
own free will, have reported that if the tax is to be retained
as a source of revenue, it is absolutely necessary to change
the mode of levying it. Are hon. gentlemen, then, prepared
to legislate so that the paper duty may be applied with jus-
tice towards the different. interests affected ? I protest em-
phatically against leaving the law in a condition of uncer-
tainty and unfairness. If you mean to maintain this duty,
say so boldly, and extend it impartially to all the compet-
ing branches of industry which ought equally to be subject
to it. But don't by your halting course leave the trade of
the country exposed to a system which for its anomalies, its
vexation, and injustice is wholly without precedent in the
history of your legislation. I deny altogether that the ques-
tion of the repeal of this duty stands on mere financial
grounds. The right hon. member for Buckinghamshire
himself told us emphatically that he advocated its repeal
for moral, literary, and educational considerations. Its
financial bearings are of insignificant importance com-
pared 'with its bearing :on the diffusion of knowledge
among the people. No measure could be more accordant
with the policy of our age than one for untaxing tho
press. You vote large sums yearly for public instruc-
tion. You are beset with all kinds of religious difficulties
in endeavouring to promote national education. I say, then,
do what in -you lies to allow the people to educate them-
selves, by removing those fiscal burdens which tend to dete-
riorate the quality and to check the dissemination of your
cheap literature. In your Reform debates you have com-
plained of the ignorance of the masses, and of their inability
to exercise the franchise from their unacquaintance with poli-
tical affairs. I say that you can take no more logical or more
direct course towards the spread of that information which
you say the people needthanby repealing a tax whiehpresses
so heavily on the books and periodicals which circulate
among the working classes. The hon. member r Stamford

as made out no case for calling upon us to retrace our steps
and to upset the financial proposals of the Government. He
asks us to admit that in the measures we have introduced we
-have made a grave and grievous error. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.) Yes, but we cannot admit that. (A laugh.)
Neither, after the divisions that have recently taken place,
do I believe the House of Commons will admit it. Nothing
has transpired since those measures were brought forward
to induce us to adopt a total change in our policy. I en-
treat hon. gentlemen, then, on all sides to support this bill.
For myself I take an interest in it far beyond any ordinary
party question, and although I should rcgro- to see any one
of the excellent financial measures of the Government in-
terfered with, I should doubly deplore the rejection of this
particular bill, because I believe it contains within itself the
germs of great moral benefit to the great mass of the com-
munity. (Hear, hear.)
llr. E. BALL, having made extensive inquiries into this
subjec4 had not met with a single individual connected with
the manufacture of paper who had not declared that if the
proposal of the Government werecarried out it would almost
ruin all engaged in that trade. The right hon. gentleman
had made a statement as to £10,000,000 sterling being em-
ployed in the manufacture of paper.
Mr. GIBSON—What I said was, that it was very pro
bable £10,000,000 of capital were engaged in the manufa
turn of paper and the subsidiary trades in this country.
Mr. BALL continuod.—He should beg the right;
gentleman to excuse him if he contradicted him and main-
tained that it was not probable—(hear)—and that a person
occupying the position of the right hon. gentleman ought
not to be contented with simply speculating on the matter
(Hear, hear.) But, although the right hon. gentleman
seemed to be somewhat uninformed on the subject, there
was another right hon, gentleman near him who would, h%
MOWN 41 941- 1.91104 MP.)

Mr. M. GIBSON—UntiI the close of the lion. baronet's
speech I was at a loss to understand what it was he wished
the house to do; but if I have correctly apprehended his
malting it is that we should not maintain the paper duty
as a permanent source of taxation, but hold it in suspense
until certain operations had been performed on the incone.
tax, or some other portions of our direct taxes, in order to
make them satisfactory to the taxpayers of the country.
~Rt; izipt tlcAt Oat ifs PA a practicg propoi.

//~ G
_._ _ C