The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-18 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Sir W. JOLLIFFE, a writ was ordered
for the election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the
borough of Leamington, in the room of Sir J. Carnac, who
had accepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord PALMERSTON rose pursuant to notice to move
that the house at its rising should adjourn until Monday,
in consequence of her Majesty's birth-day being celebrated
to-morrow. He would move, notwithstanding such ad-
journment, that the committees should have leave to
sit to-morrow. He took that opportunity of stating
that he proposed that the house should adjourn for the
Whitsuntide holidays on next Friday week until the fol-
lowing Thursday. He might state also that the present
arrangement relative to Thursdays and Fridays was'to con-
tinue for the remainder of this session. (Laughter.)

FOREIGN PAPER.
Mr. STANSFELD asked the right hon, gentleman the
Chaicellor of the Exchequer, for some information relative
to the arrangements that had been entered into by the
Government with the Emperor of the French as regarded
the duty on foreign paper. They were aware that
the house had passed the bill for taking the
duty off paper, but it was a question whether
the bill would not be defeated in the House of Lords. Sup-
pose that result took place, what course would the Govern-
ment be prepared to take ?

Mr. PEACOCKE wished to ask the right hon. gentle-
man the question of which he had given notice—whether
the horse duty would be allowed to the yeomanry this
year? (A laugh.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I be-
lieve it is customary with most men, when they have to
deal with two points, to begin with the easier. (A laugh.)
I will, therefore, answer the hon. member for Maldon by
informing him that although the yeomanry are not to be
called out this year, according to the intention of the Go-
vernment, the regular directions have been given for allow-
ing them the exemption from the duty on yeomanry horses
which is I think in accordance with obvious justice. With
respect to the question of the hon. member for Halifax, as
it refers to a matter which of curse had been under the
consideration of the Government at the time the treaty of
commerce with France was being negotiated, and as I
learnt a few hours ago that the question was to be put, I
sent for a copy of the treaty with France, and I have no
difficulty in giving an answer to the hon. member whichlem-
bodies the opinion of the Government upon the effect of
that article. I, of course, take no notice of those portions
of the hon. gentleman's questions which appear to antici-
pate that the bill for the repeal of the duty will probably be
lost in another place, since that is an occurrence which it is
not for me to anticipate. (Hear, hear.) The seventh article
of the trebly commences thus :

" Her Britannic Majesty promises to recommend to Par-
liament to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise
imported from France at a rate of duty equal to the excise
duty which is or shall be imposed upon articles of the same
description in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the
duties chargeable on the importation of such merchandise
may be augmented by such a sum as shall bean equivalent
for the expenses which the system of excise may entail upon
the British producer."

Sir, I do not understand the hon. member to ask me what
might be or might not be the obligations of England, ac-
cording to the opinion of her Majesty's Government, in the
event of the repeal of the excise duty upon paper, and,
therefore, that matter I leave for the present altogether
aside. But the hon. gentleman asks me-the opinion of the
Government upon the obligations of England under the
treaty with France, and under the terms of the address by
which each House of Parliament has bound itself to give
effect to the treaty, in case the excise duty on paper should
not be repealed. 'Well, sir, I apprehend that is a question
upon which no person who has examined the article I have
quoted can possibly entertain at moment's doubt. A any
rate her Majesty's Government consider it to be a matter
beyond all doubt, and beyond all argument or necessity for
construction or interpretation, inasmuch as the words appear
to be as plain as possible and directly applicable to the case.
If there be a duty of excise on paper, then, subject to a
single condition, it is the obvious duty of England towards
France, and of the Houses of Parliament under the terms of
their address, to reduce the Customs' duty on foreign paper
to the precise levelof the excise dutyon paper made athome.
The single condition to which I refer is that contained in
the latter portion of the clause, which specifies that the duty
chargeable on the import of such merchandise may be aug-
mented by such a sum as shall be equivalent for the expense
which the system of excise may entail upon the British pro-
ducer. And that principle has been applied, in the course
of the present session, in conformity with the general spirit
and express terms of the treaty, to the case of spirits, which
the regulations of the excise are so restrictive in various par-
ticulars that they entail disadvantages upon the producer
that are capable of being stated in money. And a compensa-
tion for this advantage, in the shape of what the French call
a surtaxe, has been added to the import duty chargeable
on foreign spirits. But with respect to the duty on paper,
whatever may be the effect in restricting trade—which is not
now a matter of discussion—no one has ever alleged that it
imposes disadvantages on the manufacture of paper of such a
definite nature or such an amount as to be capable of being
stated in the form of a certain rate of money. No claim
of such a character has ever been made or could be made.
The inconveniencies, whatever they are, to the actual manu-
facturer of the article which we call paper are not so appre-
ciable or palpable as to be capable of being reduced to such
a form. There will therefore be no case for a surtaxe like
that imposed in the case of spirits, and therefore I presume
that in such a contingency as that to which the hon. gen-
tleman has adverted—and which again I decline to accept
or to suppose possible—my hon. friend the member for
Herts (Mr. Puller) will withdraw or cease to persevere wit h
the motion of which he has given notice.

IRISH BILLS.
In reply to Mr. MAountE,

Mr. CARDWELL said it was not proposed to proceed
with the Irish bills until after the Whitsuntide holidays.

ASSISTANCE TO INSURGENTS IN SICILY.

Mr. HENNESSY called the attention of the house to
the statement by the Solicitor .General, with reference to
an advertisement in the Times newspaper for raising
money to assist the insurgents in Sicily ; and also called
attention to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas
as to the illegality of such a proceeding. The hon.
member having denounced the conduct of Gari-
baldi and his compatriots, as well as the principles and
practices of the secret societies, quoted the autho-
rity of Dr. Phillimore, the Attorney-General,
and Lord Lyndhurst to show that enlistment for a foreign
state was illegal. He contended that England had de-
parted from her former position, and instead of upholding
ancient and constitutional dynasties had encouraged revo-
lution,hoesuaesindegtvhhetantm.t
epgr
stateo. baTbhlreh
report
eeeprfeooarrlet
et hper re ," Oh
and assisted insurrection. (Hear, hear, and
oh.")
thepurport The
eSOLICITOR-GENERALudiscussion
ihosn p
answerroeee
d eoproceeded
tu
he held in his hand, and with which he found no fault gave
his observations as he meant they should be given, in the
most precise manner. He thought it was desirable he should
be as careful and precise as possible, and he could not say
that the report, if read dispassionately was calculated to de-
ceive anybody. With the permission of the house, he would
now refer to the question put by the hon. member, and of
which he gave notice. To the question, whether a person
subscribing money for the object alluded to—and approv-
ing of it in his own view—was or was not liable to an in-
dictment, his answer was, that he was not. He was not
prepared to say that in that opinion every lawyer, either in
that house or out of it, would concur, but that was the an-
swer he gave. Now, he would state why he entertained that
opinion, but before he did so he would say he hoped the hon.
member, who had very properly brought this question be-
fore the house, would excuse him if he declined to follow
him into some of the topics he had thought it right to ad-
vert to inbringing onthequestion. It was not for him to de.
fend Garibaldi, or any person acting with him, or any per-
son who might have been concerned in fomenting insurrec-
tion in Italy, but what he had to deal with was the answer
he had given and the propriety of it. (Hear, hear.) He
would take the opportunity of repeating what he had already
stated, on what he considered a pure question of law. It was
that an individual acting by himself, and of his own will,
could not by the mere and single act of paying qubscriptions