The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-07 00:00:00

PAPER MILLS.

Mr. M‘MATION moved for a return of the number of
paper mills at work in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ire-
land respectively, in each year from 1838 to 1856 (in con.
tinnation, to the present day, of Parliamentary paper, No.
109, of setsbion 1, 1857).—Ordered.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL•
EWART gave notice that when the Attorney-
General biougbt on habillfor the amendment of the crimi-
nal law, he would reeve a reeolut ion for the commutation of
punishment by death.

LANDED PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT
(IRELAND)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE brought in a bill on this sub-
ject, which was read a first time.

ADDITIONAL MAILS TO CHINA.,
Mr. LONGFIELD asked the Secretary to the Treasury
whether (having regard to the estimate for the Post-office
packet service for the year 1861-2) it wes the intention of
her Majesty's Government to discontinue the additional mail
monthly, to and from China; and whether any notice had
been given to her Majesty's Postmaster-General to that
effect ; and, if so, to state what has been the expense to the
public of this fortnightly mail, giving credit for the sums
received for post ige of letters thereby?
Mr. PEEL said that the carriage of the second monthly
mail, on application to Government last year, was renewed
for a period of cix months, a subsidy being imposed at the
rate of £24,000 a-year.
TIIi ENGRAVERS TO THE ROYAL MINT.
Mr. POTTS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it
was intended to adopt tho principle of competitive exami-
tion for the office of Engraver to the Royal Mint, now
vacant by the superannuation of,Mr. James Wyon, with a
view to the combination of mechanical knowledge with the
engraver's art, in the appointment, and to the general im-
provement of the British coinage?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not in a condition to answer the question at present.
The oftice in question was vacant, but bef9Xe taking any

steps in reference to it hos would Fait until the Master of
the Mint had made his report on all subject,

C.iNON 2J.]

Mr. 11. SEYMOUR asked the Secretary of Safe for the
Home Department, if that portion of Cann 29, which for-
bids a parent from being admitted to answer as godfather
for his own child be altered or repealed by the Convoca-
tion of Canterbury, according to the Royal licence granted
to them under the advice of ;her Majesty's Government,
whether such alteration or repeal will have the effect of re-
lieving the members of the Church in the province of Can-
terbury from the obligation now lying upon them in refe-
rence to sponsors.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the Convocation of the Pro-
vince of Canterbury had received a license from her Majesty
to amend or 'repeal that canon, but they had not yet availed
themselves of that privilege. He understood there was an
ancient canon of tl e Church which had the same effect.
AMERICA.

Mr. GREGORY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether any
attempt on the part of the Govern-
ment of the United States to levy Federal dues off
foreign vessels outside the ports of the Southern Confede-
racy, befo:e such vessels break bulk, would not be an in-
fringement of international law; and, if so, whether in-
structions would be issued to our cruisers to that effect.
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very indistinctly heard,
said he had consulted the Queen's advocate, who stated
that the matter must entirely depend on circumstances.
No such instructions as those alluded to had been issued.
With regard to any blockade that might be attempted it
would not be recognised unless it were effective. The
Southern States must be considered as belligerent,
and as related to the belligerent rights of certain portions
of the States, they had the precedent of 1825 in respect to
Greece, when the belligerent rights of the provisional Go-
vernment of that country were allowed, notwithstanding
the remonstrance of the Government of Turkey. When
the question with regard to the American States arose, the
attention of the Crown officers had been directed to the
subject. The questions involved were of a very intricate
character, and until they had been decided no communica-
tion could be made with other States on the subject. (Hear.)
MARRIAGE OF H.R.H. PRINCESS ALICE—
ROYAL MESAGE.

Lord PALMER TON moved that the two orders of the
day which had precedence of the third and fourth orders,
be postponed until the latter orders had been disposed of.
This was the course adopted by the house when questions
relating to the Royal Family were to be brought before the
house, as in the case of the Princess Royal.
The mot Ton was agreed to, and the orders for going into
committee of ways and means, and for considering the re-
port of supply were postponed.
_ .

_
The house then went into committee on the Queen's mes-
sage announcing the approaching marriage of H.R.H. the
Princess Alice; and the Speaker having read the Royal
message,

Lord PALMERSTON said the people of this country
were proud, and justly proud, of the Royal family which
they had the happiness to possess. (Hear, hear.) They
considered that it would not be consistent with re-

spect to the Royal family or to the dignity of the
country, to allow members of that family to be
without an adequate provision, in order to maintain them
in a condition consistent with the position they held.
(Rear, hear.) At the commencement of the reign the So-
vereign resigned the Crown property to the house, which
undertook to make an adequate provision for her in return.
Havingreferred to the provision made for George 111., the
noble lord said that her Majesty, notwithstanding her large
family had not applied to the house for any of those addi-
tional large demands which had been the case in previous
reigns. With respect to the Princess Royal, the house had
granted to her Royal Highness a dower of £40,000, and an
annuity during her life of £B,OOO, but it was now proposed
to apply only for £30,000 for a dower, and an
annuity of £6,000 a year for Her Royal High-
ness the Princess Alice. It was essential to
the interests and dignity of this country that members of
the Royal Family should not go abroad as paupers. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord concluded by moving a resolution
voting the dower, which, as well as the annuity of £6,000
a year to H.R.H. Princess Alice, was agreed.to in Com
mittee of Supply.
The house then resumed.
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that

,the estimates respecting China were made on his official
authority, and he believed they would be found correct.
From the difference of the financial years in this
country. and India, it would be impossible to
speak with certainty relative to the finances of the latter.

He did not anticipate any increase in the navy estimates
would be rendered necessary by the events that had oc-
curred in America.

THE PAPER PUTY.

The house then went into committee of ways and means.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved a
resolution respecting the duties of excise on paper and mill-
board, and paper of every description, from and after the
Ist day of October next.
Lord R. CECIL said he thought the small discussion
which they had had this evening showed that the right
hon. gentleman had resolved to foresee nothing. (Hear.)
Last year, when hostilities with China had really commenced
—at any rate when violende had been committed—the right
hon. gentleman could foresee nothing but a peaceful mission
to the mouth of the Peiho. That was so in 1853, when the
Turkish question assumed a warlike form. Then the right
hen, gentleman proposed a budget founded upon the as-
sumption that there would be a long durat;on of peace.
Even when the war was actually impending he was resolved
not to see any Russian war. Last year there was the China
Wf• r, and this year there was the American war, and he (Lord
R. Cecil) did not think the house would do its duty if they

limited their foresight to the narrow horizon of the right
hon. gentleman. (Hear.) By the resolution before them
they were not merely sacrificing a present but a future re-
venue, for they knew perfectly well when the excise duty
was swept away they could not impose it again. (Cheers.)
Was that a wasteful proceeding or not ? He was anxious to

apply more carefully the grounds upon which the doctrine
as to remission of taxes rested, and he wanted the house to
examine into the facts and figures upon which this policy
was based. (Hear.) The excise duties upon glass and soap
were swept away, and he desired to Know whether it had
been successful. Ho would first take soap. It was said that
this was an article upon which the excise had acted with
great severity, and that it prevented the productive power
of the manufacturer and crip led trade in such a manner as
to prevent the manufacturer competing with foreigners.
Were the expectations of the right hon. gentleman correct,
and ought the house to have abolished that tax ? He found
that in 1849 the value of the exports was £159,000, and in
1853, £290,000, while six years after the removal of the tax,
in 1859, the value of the exports had sunk to £225,000.
Then let them take the case of glass. When it was pro-
posed to abolish the duty, it was said that it interfered
with the manufacture, and that persons in this country
could not compete with those of Belgium, France, and other
countries, and it was assumed that the removal of the tax
would give enormous development to trade. In 1844 the
value of exported glass was £380,000 ; in 1850, £307,000 ;
and in 1859 it recovered to £606,000. (Hear.) But then the
general increase of exports from 1844 is 1859 was 123 per
cent., whilst on glass it was only 57 per cent. (Hear, hear.)
Again it was hoped that the trade in window glass would
have been -sery much stimulated, but what were the facts ?
In 1841 we exported 27,899 cwt., and in 1859 only 27,607
cwt. (Hear.) True, there was an increase in the manufac-
ture of bottles, but that only benefited the consumers of
alcoholic liquors. Another of the promises made by the late
Sir It. Peel was that we should have a range of articles
varying from the balance spring of a chronometer to drain-
age pipes all made of glass, but 15 years had now elapsed,
and he appealed to all who heard him to say whether one or
the other promise had been fulfilled. (Hear, hear.) A meat
deal had been said of the increase of national wealth under
an improved system of fiscal 'legislation, but the question
was whether the legislation and the wealth stood in the re-
lation of cause and effect. The general increase of wealth
was admitted, but the question was, what had created it ?
It might have been produced by their remission of taxation,
by the influx of gold, or the enormous development of the
railway system. If we wanted to see whether it was caused
by any one of those three causes, we must compare our ad-
vance with that of a country in which that cause did not
exist, and if in that country the increase was as great or
greater than our own, then the reasonable conclusion was
that the alleged cause had had nothing to do with the effect
produced. Now inFrance there had been no remission of in-
diraet ect taxation, and he would see how the increase of trade in
that country stood as compared with our own. In 1817 the
imports of England amounted
in 1856 to £172,000,000,
•
being rann viantastoe£9oof,o9ooop,oeoroc,
eanntd.
alas° of France were, in 1817, 955 millions of francs, and
in 1856, 1,872 millions of francs, b
cent. (Hear.) But the exports ewereng aanstiinacrease of 96 per
stronger
In 1847 the exports of England were £sB,ooo,oocase.odin
1856, £115,000,000, being an increase of 96 per cent.an In
France they were, in 1847, 719 millions of francs ; in 1856,
e removal all the theories
of indirect
1,856 millions, being an increase of 159 per cent. (Hear.)
He submitted .ohnantothtieosne factsbetw between
neptbt
away
respecting
taxation and the increasing prosperity of the country. (or_
position cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer now ridi-
culed the idea of contemplating the affairs of a future year in
allY Present arrangement of finance, but in 1855 he cen-
sured the then Chancellor of the Exchequer for thinking
only of the present and leaving future years destitute. With
respect
to the constitutional question, he looked upon the
scheme of the right hon. gentleman for fettering the action
of the House of Lords as an exceedingly vain expedient.
The right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Birming-
ham did net seem to recollect that behind the House of
Lords last year was the whole of the educated public opinion
of the country, of which both hat house aryl the other house
were merely the vehicles and instruments. If an occasion
should happen again, if that house (the Commons) should
act as madly as it did last year, the House of Lords would
not be deterred from its duty by any such expedient as that
of the right Jinn. gentleman. What would the House of
Lords do supposing that the House of Commons were to do
as it had done in the previous year, viz., leave the finances
with an enormous deficiency ? The House of Lords would
simply alter the bill, and strike out the clause removing the
`duty in commit. What would the Howe of Commons do