The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-13 00:00:00

THE PAPER DUTY.

Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to move " that this house, in
consequence of the House of Lords having interfered with
the arrangement of supplies for the year, recommended by
her Majesty's advisers, and by such interference assumed
responsibility for the conduct of finance, postpones the con-
sideration of further proposals bythe Ministers of the Crown
towards meeting public expenses until the period when the
authority of the House of Commons shall have been as.
serted, and the bill for the repeal of the Excise on Paper
shall have become law," but he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who stated that, one amendment upon
the motion for going into committee of supply having been
put and negatived, it would be contrary to the rules of the
house to propose another.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said that, nevertheless, he wish to
take that opportunity to make a statement on the subject to
which his motion related. It seemed to him that the course
pursued by that house on the question of privilege was not
worthy of the occasion. He had refused to have anything
to do with the three resolutions recommended by the Go-
vernment, because he thought the house ought to have
taken some active step, and not to have been satisfied with
mere words. The house was now in a degraded and dis-
creditable position. It was lowered in the eyes of the
people, and its authority for the future was weakened.
The very fact that Ministers had deemed it to be their duty
to propose resolutions, proved that something had oc-
curred which was deserving of censure ; but he con-
tended that abstract resolutions were not sufficient to
the case. It might be said that the Lords had done
well to arrest the Lova.] of the paper duties, and he faankly
admitted that, in his opinion, a reduction of the tea and
sugar duties would have given more satisfaction to the
people ; but the House of Commons had decided otherwise,
and the Lords, unless they were prepared to become re-
sponsible for the finances of tho country, wore not entltlea
to interfere in the matter. Their conduct in rejecting the
Paper Duties Repeal Bill might have the effect of raising a
cry of " privilege" and "primogeniture," and it might be-
come an important question whether we should not do well
to substitute an elective for an hereditary peerage.
THE CHINA VOTE.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY observed, that as ho could not
bring forward the motion he placed on the paper he would
briefly state his objects. He complained of the manner:in
which the vote for China was brought forward, and that
the expenditure of the year, instead of being £70,000,000,
would be £73,800,000. He saw an item set down of
1440,000, and wished to be informed what that was for.
Was it for the settlement of an account, or what wore its
objects? The house should know how it was expended.
Unless they interfered and chocked the expenditure now
going on for China they would have no further control
over it probably for two years.
Gen. PEEL reminded the house that he made a state-
ment in March last, and certainly he did not expect it
would be so soon verified. Ile said, that so far from
£550,000, then calculated for China, being sufficient, it
would take ten times that amount. The whole of the na-
tive troops employed in China were paid out of the re-
♦enues of India, and the cost was chargeable on the
vote of credit of £OOO,OOO. Not a single shilling was
taken for it in the estimates of last year, and the
outlay for the transport of the troops from India to
China was quite equal to that which would have been
incurred in bringing them home to this country. It
was impossible to separate the army estimates from the
budget. The budget professed to set forth the whole ex-
penses of the year, and if it did not, to use the expression of
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
it was a gigantic delusion, and the repeal of the paper duty
was obtained under false pretences. (Hear.) He did not
make any charge against the Government for having failed
to provide for contingent future expenditure, but he did say
it was their duty to have provided for the liabilities he kad
mentioned. After all allowances made for the laxity of
accounts between the Imperial and the Indian Govern-
ments, it could not be believed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer did not know that the expenses of the first Chi,
nese war, amounting to £400,000 odd, were charged to the
estimates of the present year, and that observation did not
apply to the Chinese war alone, but to the general estimates
of the year. On Feb. 27 he (Gen. Peel) pointed out that
93,500 men were inadequate for the service of the year, and
that it was absurd to suppose that the Indian Government
would pay for any deficiency in the service. That remark,
too, was made independently of the men going to China.
The fact, however, spoke for itself. Within a month after
that estimate was laid on the table a revised estimate was
introduced, in which it was absolutely necessary to take an
additional sum for the men thus thrown on the British
establishment, which was to be met by a reduction in other
estimates. The reduction was not a reduction in reality,
however, but merely a postponement of charges which had
better have been borne this year. Thus there was a post-
ponement of the vote of £60,000 for the carriage depart-
ment at Woolwich, in consequence of which it had been
impossible to issue the guns, their carriages not being ready
for them. He still said that by thus producing the budget
before the estimates they had given the country a delusive
idea of the sum necessary for the public service during the

year.
Mr. B. COCHRANE explained that after what had
taken place he was unable to make the motion of which be
had given notice, but if an adjoin ned debate should arise
on the vote of credit, he would move it on the next supply
night.

Mr. WARNER said he did not rise to oppose the motion
for going into committee. Now that we were at war, that
war ought to be provided for. No House of Commons
would dispute that position, but still the vote was one which
ought not to pass without remark. It was net a vote in
which the house could take an interest, for the war had
been entered upon by the Crown in opposition to the deli-
berate opinion of the house, which had never been reversed.
They had heard a great deal of the recent aggression of the
Lords, but this was, in his opinion, an aggression much
more dangerous; and it was the duty of the house to put on
record the circumstances under which it had occurred.
The SPEAKER then put the question that he leave the
chair, upon which
Sir J. TRELAWNY persisted in dividing the house.

...,... _ . _ _
The house accordingly divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion l9B

Against it
Majority —lBs
The house then went into committee.
THE CHINA VOTE.
Mr. S. HERBERT, in moving a vote of credit for the
expenses of the war in China, said—At this late hour (halt-
past 10), I will endeavour to make the statement which it is
my duty to lay before the house as concise as I can consis-
tently with the explanation which I have to give of the vote
of credit which has been laid on the table of the house. But
before I do so perhaps I may be allowed to take some notice
of the observations which have been made by my gallant
friend opposite. The gallant general says he prophesied
that five times £500,000 would be requisite to make up the
deficiency between the estimates and the expenditure for
last year, and for the China war generally, and he asks me