The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YEsTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at five o'clock.

CHURCH RATES.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE presented petitions
against the abolition of church rates.
THE NEW TREATY.
Lord EBURY presented a petition from Spitalfields
against any alteration in the duty on silk.
SPAIN AND MOROCCO.
The Earl of CARNARVON drew the attention of their
lordships to statements that had appeared inthe newspapers
this day, relative to the terms of peace stated to have been
offered by Marshal O'Donnell to the Moors. (The de-
spatch will be found in another part of The Sun.)
The noble earl quoted from a correspondence between the
noble lord at the head of the Foreign-cffice and the British
ambassador at Madrid, in which a distinct declaration
was said to have that been received from the Spanish
Government to the effect it had no intention
of increasing its territory in Africa. This declaration was
precisely in opposition to the proposed arrangement. The
importance of preventing any European Power preponde-
rating on the coast of Africa could not be overrated. He
should very much like to know whether any intelligence
had been received by the Government ; and, if so, whether
there would be any objection to its production ?
Lord WODEHOUSE said the Government had received
information similar to that which had appeared in the pa-
pers ; but as the noble lord had given no intimation that
he intended to ask the question, ho was unable at that time
to go into the details.
DIVINE SERVICE IN THEATRES.
Viscount DUNGANNON called attention to the per-
formance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells and other
theatres by clergymen of the Church of England on Sun-
day evenings; and moved a resolution to the effect that
such services, being irregular and inconsistent with order,
are calculated to injure rather than advance the progress
of sound religious principles throughout the country.
The noble lord took the opportunity of entering at length
into the question, and said that there was not a peer in the
house would point to a case of a clergyman ever
preaching the word of God on the boar
where ds of
comedy,
thea-
,
tre. He thought that a place
farce, and pantomime had been a few hours before
performed was not a place fitted for the public worship of
the Almighty At Sadler's Wells, it was said the curtain
rose and the clergyman was discovered in a pulpit sur-
rounded by a garden scene, and many of the au-
dience in the front boxes wore their white kid
gloves, and, instead of divine worship, any one would
have imagined before the curtain rose a pantomime was
to be performed, rather than the Word of God preached.
He could not understand how it was thought desirable to
secure the public theatres for such a purpose when there
were other places quite as commodious and as easy of ac-
cess. Under all the circumstances he thought the effect of
such religious services would detract from, rather than
benefit the Church of England.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was understood to
say that had he been consulted in the first instance he would
have advised against holding religious services in theatres ;
but as the matter now stood, he thought the best course wa
to leave the people who followed the movement to thems••
selves.
After some conversation, the motion was withd
dra
the.
The Indictable Offences (Metropolis) Bill anwn En-
dowed Schools Bill were read a third time and passed.
Their lordships then adjourned.

The absolute repeal of the paper duty would take place
within a month or two after the Ist July.
COLONIAL CHAPLAINS.
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Under Secretary of
State for the Colonies, whether her Majesty's Government
had decided to advise the Queen to withhold the royal
assent from the bill lately passed by the Legislature of
Tasmania, for reducing the salaries of the colonial chap-
lains.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that the Crown would take
the steps necessary in reference to the matter.
PRISONS' ACT (SCOTLAND).
Mr. E. CRAUFURD asked the Lord Advocate what
course he intends to pursue with regard to the Prisons' Act
(Scotland) Continuance Bill ; and whether he would under-
' take to introduce a general bill to abolish the Prison Board,
and to amend the present system of prison assessments in
Scotland, at a period sufficiently early to ensure its being
dealt with during the present session ?
The LORD ADVOCATE said that he intended to pro-
ceed with the Prisons Act (Scotland) Continuance Bill,
and also._with the Prisons Assessments Bill at an early
period.

ciples ; and if they would call a meeting in any county and
put the question to the farmers, a resolution to that effect
would be carried. (Hear, hear.) He believed the advan-
tages to the agricultural classes would not be inconsiderable.
There were a variety of articles in the treaty which they
were in the habit of consuming. He had been in correspon-
dence with persons engaged in Essex in raising coriander
and caraway seeds, and being alive to their own interests
they said if these seeds were admitted duty free they would
be injured, and therefore they disapproved of the whole
scheme of the Government. (Laughter.) No doubt that
was the cause which urged the hon. member for Essex .to
object to the budget altogether. (Laughter.) Now, what
were the agricultural interests more concerned in than in
obtaining a diminution of the poor-rate ? Land and houses
were, as it was well lin )wn, heavily taxed to pay local rates
for the support of the destitute poor of the country. (Hear,
hear.) Now, what could be more adapted to lessen the
poor-rates than an increase of employment for the poorer
classes of the country, and what had been the effect of the
commercial policy since 1842 ? Why, if the poor. rates had
gone on increasing in proportion to the population from
1842 to 1860, they would now be upwards of a million more
than they were at this moment ; so that though the income-
tax had been complained of, he contended that the agricul-
tural classes had saved it in indirect taxation by a diminu-
tion of the poor-rates. (Hear, hear.) Now, let them take
the reduction of the wine duties. Would anything give
more employment to the people ? It was stated before a
committee of the house that there was no article of com-
merce the increase of which would give so much employment
to labour-as an increased importation of wine. (Hear, hear.)
It was a balky article, and, being brought in casks, would
require a great number of them. Then it required a great
deal of labour to land it, to place it in the cellars of the
wine merchants, to fine it and bottle it, and, when bottled,
to convey it to the houses of the respective consumers. It
would apse a great increase in the manufacture of bottles.
(La fen) This was all true. It might appear trivial—
eal cheers)—but it was most important for the agri-
cultu4l interest. (Oh, oh.) He lived in a parish where
the resident population had not increased for a great num-
ber of years. He supposed nevertheless there had been a
natural increase. But where had it gone to ? Why, to
other districts to find employment ; and if it had not found
employment they would have had an excess of labour in that

paitichlar locality, and no doubt the result would have been
an increase of the poor-rates. He said there was no class
in this country that had so direct an interest in everything
that would extend the field of employment as the owners of
land and houses had, and that it was their best policy to en-
courage every measure of commercial freedom—every mea-
sure that would unite the springs of industry—if from no
other motive than from their own interest. Well, now,
there was a great feeling against the income tax. They
called it a war tax. And why was it a war tax ? Because
it was imposed when they had a large expenditure for mili-
tary and naval armaments. Well, they had got a large ex-
penditure for those purposes now. When they had an ex-
penditure of 30 millions for military and naval purposes it
was obviously necessary that they should have an income
tax. The total expenditure was 70 millions, and he asked
if a temporary income tax was too large a proportion of di-
rect taxation towards such an amount ? Hon. gentlemen
opposite said 10d. was too much, but that 9d. would be just
the thing. The hon. member for Stamford desired aseven-
penny income tax. He thought the hon. member was a
great deal too sanguine, but he would not have his seven-
penny income tax at the price of rejecting the French
alliance. (Cheers.) What was the per centage on a tem-
porary income tax on the expenditure for naval and mili-
tary purpose ? That expenditure, excluding the cost of the
packet service, was £29,200,000, and the tenpenny income
tax was no more than three per cent. on that, and yet the
great Conservative party opposed the income tax which was
necessary to maintain their establishments. He hoped
that hon. members would consider they had before them
not a mere question of a penny in the pound, but a question
of a broad and enlightened policy. It was frequently argued
in that house that no consideration actuated a Government
but the simple one of how they were to get money. He said
there was somtehing more to be considered than the mere
question of the amount to be raised. There was the broad
question of a fiscal policy, which, with a growing population
like that of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
bound to have in view just as much as the raising of a par-
ticular sum. He should not say a word on the question
of the paper duty, because hole members were well aware
of his opinion on the subject. The motion of the hon.
member for Essex said they must not diminish their ordi-
nary revenue. Now, the house had solemnly voted that
the paper duty was no longer to be a part of the ordinary
revenue. By ordinary revenue he meant a permanent
source of income, and that house had deliberately said that
the paper duty shouid not form a source of permanent in-
come. Hon. members might talk of a definite resolution
meaning nothing. If they meant nothing when the resolu-
tion passed, he meant something. (Cheers.) He felt that
the great body of the members of that house would never
consent to the doctrine that a deliberate resolution of Par-
liament was to be treated as waste paper. If the Govern-
ment had taken no heed of the resolution, the right hon.
member for Bucks, who voted for it and had uniformly sup-
ported the repeal of the paper duty, might fairly have com-
plained.
Mr. WALPOLE said he would not trespass on the at-
tention of the house long, though the magnitude of the sub-
jects which had been. brought before them would justify
him in so doing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would
pardon him for saying that they were placed in considerable
embarrassment in having brought before them at one time
and in one debate upon a financial scheme, so many ques-
tions, that it was hardly possible to have a distinct and de-
finite issue upon any of them. His right hon. friend had
broken through an old custom twice, in 1853 and again in
1860. In 1853, instead of simply meeting the engagements
of the year, he based his arrangements upon future expec-
tations which no human foresight could fully anticipate,
and no human wisdom could provide for. In. 1860 he pur-
sued a similar course, and had mixed up with the financial
question the treaty with France, instead of bringing for.
ward these questions at distinct times and upon distinct
considerations. He thought his hon. friend the member
for Essex deserved the thanks of the house for bringing
this matter to a definite issue. But that did not seem te
be the opinion of many gentlemen who had spoken in this
debate. The hon. member for Birmingham said that mo-
tion meant increased expenditure ; but he should have re-
membered that it only related to the expenditure of a
single year, and even he did not venture to say that this
year we could have any reduction. The right hon. Secre-
tary for Ireland treated the motion as a stationary policy
in finance ; but it only meant that, so far as that when you
had a great deficit lying before you, it was better to re-
main stationary than to lay the foundation of a greater
deficit hereafter. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. mem.•
ber for Liverpool said that if the motion bore simply
on the reimposition of the income tax he should have
voted for it, but he objected to it simply on the ground
that it was intended to defeat the budget. When he
(Mr. Walpole) was asked his opinion as to the budget his
answer was that he believed the main provisions to be right
—(cheers)—that to part of them exception might be taken,
as also to the mode in which they were to be carried out.
Since then he had listened to the debate, ancrnow he be-
lieved the main provisions to be right, end he should be
sorry to see them defeated ; but still he thought that excep
tion might be taken to the time and to the mode in which it
was proposed to bring them into speration. The right hon.
gentleman who had just sat down treated his hon. friend's
motion as an attack on the French treaty. Were that its ob-
ject he (Mr. Walpole) would not vote for it. (Loud cheers )
It might then be asked why he was going to support the
motion. (Hear, hear.) He asked the house to follow him for
a few moments, and, if they treated him as candidly as he
had been treating them, he thought they could not resist
supporting—in their heart, at least, however their votes
might go—(a laugh)—the motion of his hon. friend. The
motion recognised, as every one must recognise, the fact
that the expenditure of the year must be taken at 510,000,000,
and it went on to ask whether, with an enormous deficiency
staring you in the face, it was wise to increase that defl-
ciencyy trenching on the ordinary revenue of the country,
and to meet it by reimposing the income tax ix the very
year you had proposed to take it off, and also in a time of
profound peace. Part of the revenue about to be yielded up
would come from the customs duties affected by the treaty,
part from duties independent of the treaty, and part from
the remission of the excise duty on paper. These were the
three sources of revenue which the French treaty would
affect. Now, with regard to the duties affected by the treaty,
he believed they must remit them ; but to it he thought
that an exception might be taken in point of time, because
in point of fact a more deliberate negotiation of the treaty
would have led to better provisions in some of its articles,
whilst he thought it would have been better to have made
it it more concurrent in point of time and more liberal with
regard to reciprocity as between the two contractingaothe
par-
ties. But a stronger reason he had for objecting t
gpoelaiechy
treaty was that he could not understEanndotahned
of two great nations like France and
did
thisn ot
particulars e e wh at
jealouskeepign
mutually
exclusively possessed might be made so
__ profitable
other at arm's length, when the advantages which each
'de of the house from by afrank and liberal exchange..
was to prevent statesmen on any
break-
ing down this barrier; but with
iwhich
articles he saw much ist(hlireeagr )r
di lie
eo
to
treaty, there were two
object—namely, the third and the 11th, both
of which, in
his opinion, required reconsideration. He thought it most
impolitic to tie up the Crown from treating coal as a muni-
tion of war, and also to deprive ourselves of the reciprocity
clauses. We had seen the mistake, when repealing the na-
vigationof not allowing the first offer
laws, to come from
without. The Americans said if we gave all they would
give all • but we had given all, and they had held back
noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had • ;
and the _ ) himself said that
this was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He ob-
jected to the second million of customs remitted wh he
remembered the little obstruction to trade •en
and industry
which its collection caused, and he thought
thing they should have done to bit was the last
abolish duties which
had caused the slightest possible
obstruction to trade and
industry. But he now came to an objection which he
thought was unanswerable. On what principle could you
give up a million of duty when ou knew that the only
effect of remitting it must be the increase of a penny in the
income tax ? (Hear, hear.) T
Exche-
quer had made him all he Chancellor of the nost smile when he came to talk of
the remission of the excise
duty on paper. The right hon.
gentleman, forgetting all h
two millions of •he had said in 1853, said, with the
long annuities falling
in, lie would with one
million effect the commercial treaty with France, and with
the other greatly r l-
tr T • e 'eve Many branches of trade and indus-
y. he right hon. gentleman foreot that that was the
source out of which he hadrid them of the promise toin-
come tax. What
were the reasons for this remission on
paper? He had enumerated four—the pledge y t given b• h
o
house,
,the obstruction to skill and invention arising out of
the present system, the , untenable character of the tax, and
the inequality of its •
pressure as between the rich and the
poor Man's literature. He would venture to say that every
one of these reasons might be adduced with tenfold force
against the income tax. (Opposition cheers.) First, as
to the pledge. The President of the Board of Trade had
appealed to his right bon. friend Mr. Disraeli to support
this part ef the budget on the ground of that pledge. But
the pledge as to the paper duty was simply general and
conditional upon the 3 state of the exchequer, but the pledge
as to the income tax was specifics Nor was that all. The
pledge in refer:m.o to the excise on paper was contained in
a resolution of that house, whereas the pledge as to the re-
duotien and ultimate abolition of the income tax was em-
bodied in an Act of Parliament, to which not only that
house but the House of Lords awl the Queen were pariies.
(Hear, hear.) Again, the pledge in regard to the paper
duty was accompanied by no other obligation of any sort or
kind ; but the pledge as to the revision and progressive
ithelitiou of the income tax was accompanied
by circumstances which enabled the (loyernment to impose
other taxes on the people, and lie held that they were not
justified—at least he could not as being a party to that pledge
—ho could not feel justified in laying one penny more of
income tax in la6o, or any year afterwards, especially when
the oltiect of doing so was merely to get rid of a pat t of the
ordinary revenue, which might very well stand over until
we were in a better position to deal with it, The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) lied dwelt upon tbe obstacles
to
paper skill
duty and io csnd ca sicmust ando
ry iu the) tt'a
thud de of paper-
-4e seeking which the
d,,
Icollection, as
. ty of
ZeftoWs iCtr las Ventoyadthe
A ' - - sax, Now, he had in his Winds