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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. JOHN H. GURNEY,
for a week, from ill health; and to Mr. HUTT, for a iort-
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 registratifm. 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 bill, which were
identical with the measure which the noble lord had intro-
duced in a previous session.
Mr. CARD WELL 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. Hs 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.

General UPTON moved fora select committee to in-
quire into the truth of the allegations contained
in the petition of the Ayr and Maybole 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 DUNNE,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that 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 beet
concluded by the vote of last year. He considered also
that the country had not got the benefit they were entitled
to from the money granted.

The SrEAxEnrthen put the motion, which was negatived
without a division.

FACTORY BOY APPOINTMENTS EXAMINA-
TION (PORTSMOUTH).
Mr. BENTINCK 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.

The 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
Against it
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 pf the income-taxin 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,
mad moved that the bill be read a second time that day six
months.

Mr MALIN s and Mr MELLOR support ed:the'amendment.
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. NORTHCOTE, 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 otter business which
must take precedence of it; and it was, therefore, with
great surprise that I heard the statement of the Chancellor

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 progreis 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 the usual practice in such matters, because the
financial measures of the Government are very impartant
and the annual estim rtes are of a very peculiar charicter.
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 I am
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 tight 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 are practi-
cally and absolutely bound by it, but itis said that the ques-
tion is, to a certain extent, prejudged by that resolution—
the niore 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 Beard 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 the 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 net like the second part of
the resolution, because,it interfered with the redemption of
that pledge. The latter part of the resolution was struck
cut, 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 expenditure 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 large expenditure and greater difficulty of meeting
it. I 'admit that my objections are 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.) I do not wish to bo 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 we ought to take very
good care to make direct taxation as free as possible front
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, navy,
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
£500,001: the miscellaneous estimates to £7,500,000; and
the estimates for the collection of the revenue to £1,700,000.
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, hear), 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 ho 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 I am 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
4772,564, which would be an excess over the estimate of
the right hon. gentleman of £272,564. Now, I am 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 iu Class 4, a reduc-
tion of £22,000, which has been balanced by au 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 iu the present
year. I know that I am 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, Put a very re-

markable opention has been performed upon these esti-
mates. After they had been laid upon the table and the
number of men-L-143,000 some odd hundreds—they were
withdrawn upon the ground that: the Governor-General
of India, had sent homo more troops than was expected,
or something of that sort. They were withdrawn and
revised, and in the revised estimates I oleerve that the
number of men, instead, of being 143,000, is 145,000 the
actual addition being about 1,905 Inen,leut notwithstanding
this there has been no increase of the estimates. There has
been an increase in some votes, but that has been balanced
by a decrease in others, and among these latter are the
votes for clothing, provisions, and warlike stores. Those
who have objected to votes for clothing and provisions after
the nninber of men had been voted have often been told,
and it is an argument which has been delivered cx cathedra,
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 follow. That to uninitiatca
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 £290,00q was voted for
clothing, and £350,000 for provisions. rdo riot wish'iO
question the accuracy of these estimates. The circum-
stances which I have mentioned may be susceptible of a
complete and satisfactory explanation, but wo 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 only
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 Indian Government is charged, not with
£250,000, but with £300,000, and the amount to be voted
for miscellaneous stores is reduced from X 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
un 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-
ingnway for 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 infer.
mation. There is the vote for fortifications for instance,
which stands in the estimates of £619,000. 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; their
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 largo 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 hero
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 Chancellor of the Exchequer's propo-
sals with confidence and joy, trusting to the reduction of
expenditure, are very likely to change their epinions 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, we 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 hand 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 tsar one word as to the example and pre-
cedent Baby 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, 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 It. 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, arcd 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; tho house, without pronouncing any
opinion condemnatory of its principle, will refuse its assent
to the bill for the present. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. M. GIBSON—UntiI the close of the hon. 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
meaning 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 income-
tax, or some other portions of our direct taxes, in order to
make them satisfactory to the taxpayers of the country.
Dgt I must submit that that is sot a practical proposi-