The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, IVIA'T 10, 1861.

restrictions: Those restrictions operated injuriously, and

that their hands were unfettered. If the Government were
to lay a duty of £9 a ton on the export of manufactured
geods, or on the import of the raw material they would not
be in that position. They would have to enter into compe-
tition under great disadvantages, and in the case of the
papermakers, who were placed by foreign legislation in this
position, he said it was not acting upon the principles of
free trade, as he understood them to expose them to such
unfair and irregular competition. (Opposition cheers.)
Colonel DUNNE supported the motion that the chairman
report progress, and ask leave to sit again. It was impos-
sible for the house to proceed further in the question with-
out instituting the inquiry asked for by the hon. member
for Dungarvan. It had been shown that the papermakers
of Ireland had been all but ruined by the legislation of last
year, and that the benefit of any further changes would, in
fact, only go to the Manchester manufacturers. He should
therefore oppose the proposals of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer at every stage.
Mr. F. CROSSLEY said he would like to know exactly
how they stood. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Manchester (Mr. Turner) said it would be wrong for the
Government to lay a duty of £9 a ton on the export of ma-
nufactures. (Hear, hear.) So said he—but then they could
not interfere with the legislation and the taxation of foreign
countries. They made their own laws to suit themselves,
and we must take things as we find them. (Hear, hear, from
the Opposition.) Well, he would endeavour to meet that
cheer. He would remind the house that paper was not
made from rags alone. It was made &cm cotton waste, from
old ropes, from straw, and from many other materials re-
cently introduced. It was true that some foreign countries
could produce cheaper paper, but was that any reason why
we should pay one penny a pound to the home manufac-
turers on all the paper we consumed more than it was
worth ? But then it was said that the workpeople employed
in the paper-mills would be thrown out of work if the trade
went abroad. Did the papermakers suppose that they would
not get work elsewhere ? Why, in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, large quantities of machinery had been standing idle
for want of hands to work it, and he said jt would be far
cheaper for this country to take the income-tax papers of
the papermakers and pension them, rather than to pay a
penny a pound more than it was worth for all the paper that
was wanted. (Oh.) It would be far cheaper to do so. For
his own part, if he was going into the papermaking trade,
he should prefer this country to all others, for its many na-
tural advantages ; but if the papermakers found they could
not compete with foreign makers, they had better give it up.
It would be a great mistake to put an import duty on paper
coming from countries in which there was a prohibition on
the export of rags. It would be only the revival of the sys-
tem of differential duties on free and slave-grown sugar;
and the attempt would break down as signally as it did in
that, case. Ho hoped the house would not stultify itself by
entering upon such a retrograde course as that advocated by
hon. members in this case. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NORRIS, on behalf of the papermakers of this
country, repudiated any desire for the restoration of pro-
tection. All that they asked for was an inquiry into the
operation of•the Customs duties on paper before any deci-
sion was come to by the house ut.on the question. Those
engaged in the trade saw ruin before them, and all they
asked to avert that ruin was a clear stage and no favour.
The hon. member for the West Riding talked of paper
being made out of other materials than rags; but, in fact,
every one must admit that the paper trade must be taken
out of the category of all other trades with respect to the
supply of raw material. An extension of the demand in
other trades gave a stimulus to the supply of the raw mate-
rial, but the papermaker could not stimulate the supply of
rags, no matter how great the demand for paper might be.
He was limited as to the command of the raw material in
his own country, and met by a prohibition on their export
in foreign countries. He hoped that the right hon. gentle-
man would not refuse the inquiry that was asked by the
paper manufacturers of this country.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER desired
this question should be fully understood. There was no
idea on the part of the Government of opposing themselves
to an inquiry on the part of the papermakers. If they
thought that they suffered from legislation abroad, that
would be a matter for representation in the proper quarter
—a course which was preferable to the appointment of a
committee, which would cause great jealousy in foreign
countries. Further, the hon. member for Dungarvan said
be did not propose to maintain the existing Customs duties
upon paper ; but, if that were so, what was his object in
.moving for the appointment of a committee ? If that com-
mittee were to do anything at all, as he understood the
matter, it was to inquire into the operation of the Customs
duties on paper, and to report their opinion thereon to the
house, in order that it might take some action in the mat-
ter. What were the facts ? The committee had already
agreed to the resolution abolishing the Excise duty of 14s.
Bd. on paper. There remained a Customs duty on the import
of foreign paper, and the proposal was, in fact, that the Cus-
toms duty should be maintained until the committee to be
appointed had inquired and reported, and until the house
had come to some decision upon the subject. And on what
principle was this asked ? Why, on a principle which had
been excluded from our whole legislation for the last 20
years. (Cheers.) If that principle were admitted, we should
never be able to remit a single tax or reduce a burden until
we had inquired into the way they would be affected by the
state of things in foreign countries. The principle laid down
by the hon. member was, that the house was to be guided
in legislation by the legislation of foreign countries. If that
legislation happened to be good, they were to follow it, and
if it happened to be bad, they were to follow it also, accord-
ing to the doctrine laid down by the hOn. member. But he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) contended that their
duty was to frame their laws according to the principles of
justice, and to endeavour to induce other nations to follow
their example, but their first duty was to do justice to their
own people. 1: he paper-m..v..QrA at present laboured under
the oppression of the Excise regulations, the pounua
certainty with reference to the continuance of the duty, and
also foreign competition. It was admitted that of the paper
produced on this country, the greater number of the manu-
facturers did not fear competition. The whole importation
of paper at present did not amount to more than 4 per cent.
Mr. MAGUIRE said it was 10 per cent. on the kind of
paper to which he had alluded.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes, but
the hon. member did not wish to limit himself to that par-
ticular kind of paper. (Hear.) As regarded Belgium they
were at present importers of foreign rags, and that being the
case how, he would ask, could they drive the British
manufacturers out of the market? For twenty years they
had acted upon the principle of adopting their legislation
according to circumstances, and he called upon them not
to reverse the principle which had hitherto guided them.
As to science being exhausted as regarded the manufac-
ture of paper, as had been stated, he denied that
such was the case; for that very night these had been
communicated to him an American invention for the
manufacture of paper, by the combination of straw with
cotton rags, and which produced admirable paper. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman having concluded,
Mr. BUXTON expressed a hope that the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Maguire) would be satisfied with the discussion which
had taken place, and would not press the question to a divi-
sion.

the sooner they were removed the better.
WAYS AND MEANS.
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into Committee of Ways and Means.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had been asked whether the Goverament would consent

to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into
the operation of the export daty on foreign rags. If it
was meant by that that the Government should not alter
the existing law until such a committee had made their

report, the Government certainly could not give its con-
sent. An hon. gentleman had proposed that the excise duty
should be abolished, but that a duty more than equal to
that should be retained. He thought it was not to be ex-
pected that the House of Commons would set up a new
protective duty whichwould, ineffect, be a prohibitory duty.
The average value of paper was 6d. a lb. The hon. gentle-
man proposed to retain a duty of 16s. a cwt. on an article
of 40s. in value. This would be constituting a new duty of
about 40 per cent. on foreign paper. lie (Mr. Gladstone)
could not suppose that the House of Commons would agree
to that. France was soon likely to conclude arrangements
which would open Belgian and German markets to herself
and England, and to remove existing restraints on the raw
material. He thought, under those circumstances, it would
be a very bad thing to set the example of a retrogressive
movement in our free trade policy by doubling the duty on
foreign paper. As to the French treaty, that was never made
as a concession to France. England, in negotiating that
treaty, was merely carrying out her own principles. He
hoped the house would not consent to the demand of the

hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
Mr, MAGUIRE said the observation he made was not
ambiguous. The excise duty and the customs duty on
paper were very different. He would produce such reliable
facts as he hoped would induce the house to pause before
they remitted the duty on paper. He implored the right
hon. gentleman by every motive of patriotism and humanity

not to carry out this resolution with respect to the paper

duties in opposition to the views of a large portion of the

house. He (Mr Maguire) supported the budget of last year,

but then he was not aware that Mr. Cobden had committed

a great practical blunder with regard to the paper manu.
factnrers of the country. What he wanted the right hon,

gentleman to do was, to delay this proposition, to stop legis-
lation on this point, to have a committee appointed and

witnesses examined in order to ascertain the efteet of the

proposed change on those engaged in this department of
industry. He had ascertained that the home manufacturer
was not able to enter into competition with the foreigner.
The result of existing competition was such that two Dub-
lin manufacturers, one of whom sent six tons and another

nine tons of papar tn London every week, representing a
trade of £47,000 a year, now did not send a single pound.

The Manchester Guardian now consumed one two-hun•

dredth part of all the paper manufactured in the kingdom.
The result would be that, as regarded the manufacture of
paper for that journal alone, no less than 80 hands would
be thrown out of employment in this country. But the
supply of foreign paper did not apply to English news-
papers alone ; it extended to the colonies, for the paper for
the Melbourne Argus was supplied by the Belgium manu-
facturers. The effect of this proposal of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would throw at least 20 paper mills in this
country out of employment, and thus cast a large number
of the working classes upon the poor rates of the country.
If they were to have free trade, let it be such a free trade as
would give equal advantages to both parties to the contract.
Let not the hands of one of the parties be tied, and his feet
manacled, while the other was free to crush and oppress his
opponent. What he asked for the English and Irish paper
manufacturers was fair play. (Hear, hear.) If they gave
the foreigner the benefit of free trade in respect to the in-
troduction of paper into this country, let the British manu-

facturer be enabled to have foreign rags free of duty ; for
the duty on foreign rags ruled, in fact, the whole of the
paper market. Neither Belgium nor France allowed rags
to be imported into this country, and Germany laid on a
duty of £9 a ton upon rags exported from that country ;
so that the manufacturer here was deprived of the raw
material for the manufacture of paper. And thus, while
we allowed foreign paper to come in free of duty, the
foreigner put a protecting duty on our paper. Now, was
this fair or just towards the British manufacturers ? If
the foreigner was to have this advantage as regarded
paper, let us have an equivalent as regarded rags. (Hear,
hear.) What were the facts of the case as regarded the
introduction of foreign paper into this country ? Why,
that last year the importation of foreign paper was about
800,0001bs. or 1,000,0001 ts , while for the seven months
and a half of the present financial year the quantity of
foreign paper entered here amounted to 5,000,0001b5., and it
was confidently expected that the increase in the quantity
of foreign paper into this country would be equal to a mil-
lion lbs. a month. But if it only amounted to 10,000,0001b5.,
the effect would be to deprive 1,000 persons of employment.
(Hear.) Was not this a matter deserving of serious conside-
ration by the house ? It was utterly impossible to allow such
a state of things to go on, by which the trade of the home
manufacturer of paper would be wholly destroyed. Such
then being the state of the case, he did not think he was
asking the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer tco
much when he requested him to pause before he took off the
custom duty on foreign paper. He thought it was the duty
of the Government to represent it to the Emperor of the
French that there should be a real reciprocity in this mat-
ter, and that he should allow us to have rags free of duty
while we allowed foreign paper into this country without
imposing a duty upon it. It might be very true, or indeed
was the fact, that France did not compete with us in re-
spect to the article of paper. But under the terms of the
treaty made between this country and France, Belgium
was competing with us—(hear)—and he heard it was the
intention of some .ungusu papv• .........C...tv.rers to go to Bel-
gium to eatablish paper mills there. They would not, how-
ever, take English workmen with them, but would employ
Belgian workmen, whom they could get at a lower rate of
wages, and the consequence would be that the ratepayers of
England would be required to support the poor people who
would thus be thrown out of employment by our policy in
carrying out free trade, which was only beneficial to the fo-
reigner. He had great admiration for the energy and enter
prise of that hive of industry—Manchester, but suppose
the Americans were to say that England should not have
cotton except by paying a revenue to America in the aha?e
of duty, suppose they were to put a five par cent, export
duty on cotton to obtain a revenue, and to protect the ma-
nufacturers of the North, would there not soon be a tre-
mendous clamour in that house? He would venture to
say the sufferers would march to London Ito compel the
Legislature to take soma step in the matter, and they would
be unable to resist that clamorous and starving multitude.
He therefore said that he was not asking too much in call-
ing upon the right hon. gentleman to appoint a committee
to inquire into this subject, to hear a few witnesses, and
report the result to the house. By this means the house
would be put in possession of the facts, and it could then
legislate with the assurance that they fully understood the
whole merits of the question. (Hear.) the was exceedingly
anxious on the subject, especially as it seriously affected
Ireland, and as the interests of the only remaining manu-
facture in that country were affected by the policy proposed
to be pursued by the right hon. gentleman. He made this
appeal to the right hon. gentleman on the ground of justice
and fairness, and with the view of enabling the house to
come to an opinion on the subject. He moved theresolution
be not adopted, and that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. LIDDELL wished to remind the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we had altered
the Navigation Laws, and yet we had no reciprocity on
the part of France in this particular. The same would be
the case as regarded the paper. It was really too much that
we should give away every advantage to the foreigner, and
get nothing in return.
Mr. BUXTON said that those who were in favour of the
appointment of the proposed committee repudiated any no-
tion of protection for the paper makers. All that was re-
quired was that the English manufacturer should be placed
on the same footing as the foreigner, and what was asked
for by the appointment of a committee was to inquire into
the means of effecting that end. He believed it would not
be necessary that such a committee should sit more than
ten days or a fortnight, and this would not materially in-
terfere with legislation on the subject. (Hear.)
Mr. PULLER appealed to the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to grant this committee. The ,paper makers did not
ask for a re-establishment of the Excise duty on paper, but
that the Custom duty on foreign paper should not be taken
off, which would be some sort of an equivalent for
the free importation of foreign paper into this country.
He submitted that, in the present state of things, the
papermakers of this country were entitled to the inquiry
asked for by the hon. member for Dungarvan. It was ad-
mitted that the change made in the trade last year had
.done.them much injury, and that was made without any
11?rY, and now, when it was sought to make still further
cl
ul
changes, they oughte
etohanhaeveellosiomofe
tidheea
Eofxehtheequerresulhatds
likely
said that there would
of paper in this be a great increase in the manufac-
turecountry when the Excise duty was
abolished. That might be true of these qualities in which
ai
there was a large or an unlimited
supply.
rt.
but in the best description...4n of raw math ,
printing papers and sta-
tionery—no increase whatever in the demand could increase
the supply in this country, because the amount of raw
material was limited, and the prohibition or high duties
on the export of foreign rags must throw that trade into
the hands of foreign manufacturers. The increased supply
would, therefore, come from abroad. (Hear, hear.) He
did, therefore, most earnestly hope that the right hon.
gentleman would concede this inquiry. The abolition of
\
the Excise duty on paper was not to take place until Oct°,
her. The amount of Customs duty was only about ten or
twelve thousand pounds a year,:a mere trifle in the revenue,
and, therefore, there was really no necessity for haste in
the matter, or for precluding the
papermakers of this coun-
try from having the inquiry they
final decision of the house. (Hear.)
AI
r. A. 91asked for previous to any
TURNER said the hon. member for Dungarvan
had asked what Manchester or the Manchester men would
say if the United States
posed a duty of five per Bent. on raw cotton, and at the
same (time a heavy import
before they were disunited had jai-
duty on Manchester manufac-
tured cotton. In such a case he imagined that the view the
11fanchester manufacturers would :have taken would have
been this, "So long as our hands are unfettered we will
defy competition, and if we fail in doing se we must and
But that was
ought to give it up." elz the supposition

Mr. MAGUIRE, however, declined to accede to the Bug•

gestion.

The committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For reporting progress 54
Against
Majority —46
The resolution was then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer
to a question by Mr. Hennessy, said the usual course was
that the resolution should be reported to the house, and
then it would be competent for him (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) to insert it in the bill.
The resolution was then reported to the house.
SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
The house then went into committee of Apply.
Mr. T. G. BARING said it was not his intention to take
the vote with reference to the volunteer force that night.
On the vote of £210,833 being proposed for the depart-
ments of the Secretary of State for War and that of the
Commander-in-Chief,
Colonel DUNNE said he did not wish to divide the de-
partments of War, but when they came to the details of
the large departments under the Ordnance he felt confi-
dent it would be found that no nation was so badly off
with reference to these details as this country was. As
regarded their foreign defences, he knew that they were
in a very unsatisfactory state, and such would continue to
be the case until a competent person was placed at the
head of the department. He complained of the number
of extra clerks employed in the War-office, and that all
their establishments were in a very disorganised condi-
tion. There should be somebody placed over the engi-
neering department, because, at present, there was no
unity of action whatever. Another arrangement he com-
plained of was the system of registration which made the
correspondence in the different offices much slower than it
ought to be.
An Hon. MEMBER here moved that the house be
counted, but 40 members being present,
Col. DUNNE continued—They had more than a suffi-
cient number of officers to carry on the business of the
army, but they wanted a proper system. He wished to be
informed whether the recom nendations of the committee
that sat last year were to be carried into execution with
respect to the army, and whether it was intended to have
the Under-Secretary of War always a military man. They
were sadly in want of organisation, the more especially
when compared with France, where the system of manag-
ing military affairs was carried to perfection. He had heard
it stated in another place that great difficulties presented
themselves in effecting the improvements which were so
much required, but they could be easily surmounted. He
ventured to say that if a number of experienced officers as-
sisted him in going through the present estimates, they
would be able to strike out at least a million of money
charged for articles utterly useless, or if they did not strike i
it out they would be able to apply it to more useful pur-
poses.
Mr. WILLIAMS saw great difference between the
amount of the vote this year, and that of last year. He
should like to know from the noble lord whether it was in-
tended to go on with the fortifications. The hon gentleman
then proceeded to criticise the various heads comprised in
1 the vote, and showed under each head a large increase,
I which he was at a loss inkentaad, Hs fella that all

those items showed an increase of £5,600. He wished, then,
to know whether he was precluded, by the new arrange-
ments respecting the estimates, from moving that increase

be omitted.
Mr. MASSEY said if the hon. gentleman moved an
amendment in relation to the gross sum, the effect would
be to preclude other hon. members from moving amend-
ments in the details. - .

Mr. CHILDERS, referring to the War Department,
said in 1856 they were employing 246,000 men, and they
were now employing only 146,000 ; and while in 1856 the
year of the war with Russia—they expended, when they
had 246,000 men, £35,000,000 ; they were now, with
100,000 men less, expending more in proportion than in
that year which was a year of war. Then with respect to
the War Department, they were asked in 1856, when they
were at war, for £175,000, and for the Horse Guards
£25,000 ; but in this year, in a time of peace, they were
asked for the War Department £169,000, and for the Horse
Guards £22,000. Now, he wanted to know how, seeing
that they had such a vastly-decreased number of men, that
could be explained.

- - - -
Captain JERVIS said it would be well if the house
would pay particular attention to one point. He found
that there was at the War-office a Secretary for Military

Correspondence, and he wanted to know what was meant
by that. When he was receiving Hs military education at
Woolwich he found that every item was military cor-
respondence. He thought much of the fault of the defec-
tive system in that matter was attributable to the country
refusing to recognise the army as a profession, and that led

to expense.
Colonel SYKES said the task of any independent mem-
ber of that house to attempt to reduce the military estimates
in their details was utterly hopaess. He might have a
dozen or so of supporters; but tie Government, with the
forces at their command, would overwhelm him. He wished
to know why there was a Director of Ordnance this year at
an expense of £l,OOO a-year, and an additional expenditure
of £1,200 a -year in the Accountant-General's department.
Colonel LINDSAY hoped the Under-Secretary for War
would explain fully and frankly what were the intentions
of the Government with respect to the organisation of the
War Department.
Mr. MELLOR said that he principally rose in conse-
quence of insinuations made by bon. members, who did not
find some one always ready to support their crotchets, that
those who placed their hands to a document calling upon
the noble lord at the head of the Government to enforce

retrenchment in the expenditure, and who called themselves
financial reformers, did not attend in their places when the
estimates were discussed. As one of those who had at-
tached their names to the document in question, he ex-
plained that he thought it better to make a representation
to the hoods of departments, instead of discussing the esti-
mates in all cases, for his experience showed tetra that little
was effected by those discussions. He had signed the do-
cument to Lord Palmerston because he thought the Go-
vernment, having better information as to the'necessities of
the services than independent members could have, that the
result he desired to produce would be better served by a re-
presentation to the heads of departments than by empty
discussions in the house.
Mr. DISRAELI considered nothing more dangerous, or
nothing that the House of Commons ought to show in a
significant manner its disappprobation of, than the princi-
ple upon which the observations of the lion. member wbo
had just spoken rested, namely, that the control of the
House of Commons was a mere delusion. Nothing, pos-
sibly, could be more injurious or more destructive of the
constitutional influence of the house than the opinions of
the hon. gentleman if they were founded in fact. That
they were not to bring the expenditure of the country be-
fore the tribunal appointed by the country for the pur-
pose, but that they should lurk in the anti-chambers of
ministers in order that they might make their peace with
their constituents,---that was one of the most dangerous
doctrines that could possibly be expressed, and he should
be sorry that any hon. gentleman opposite, to whom
he gave credit for feelings as pure as those by which
they were actuated on that side of the house, could for one
moment, upon reflection, give it their sanction. The House
of Commons was the proper place where the expenditure of
the country ought to be brought forward by the Govern-
ment, criticised by the representatives of the people, and
adopted according to the balance of opinion in the house.
Totally principle and fatal in practice as were the
the hon. gentleman, he entirely contradicted
t of fact, lie denied that it was an idle and
the opinions
m in falsep point
if in
n
barren ceremony that members should criticise with care
the estimates of expenditure submitted by the Government
to the house. He also denied that there had ever been a
fair appeal for reduction brought forward that had proved
fruitless. The doctrine laid down by the hon. member was
one against which he protested, and he trusted it would be
utterly disregarded by the house. (Hear.)
Mr. MELLOR said the right hon. gentleman had im-
puted to him sentiments which he never uttered, and he
utterly denied having ever said anything which could be
construed into a disparagement of discussions in that house
on the estimates, although he freely confessed that expe-
rience led him to believe that discussions on small items
lc ere of very little use.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) was justified in the observations he had
made, and regretted that one who seemed to know so little
of the subject should have detained the house so long in
saying nothing.
After a few words from Mr. CRAUFURD,
Colonel DUNNE said he felt himself justified in calling
the attention of the committee to the expenditure in the
War Department, and was surprised to find a professed
financial reformer objecting to him for doing so. (Hear.)
Mr. T. G. BARING said the appointments referred to
by the hon. member were not new appointments, and
therefore no additional expense was incurred. With regard
to the of
fcla this yearthmilit- inns atinnlied from
the naval amounted to nearly a mil-
stores
stores, mu.cwh h
mil-
lion of money. The new Accountant-General did not occa-
sion expenses, because the salary had been reduced from
£1,500 to £l,OOO. The salary attached to the office of Trea-
sury writer was only £6OO, the former salary being £l,OOO.
The duties which this officer (Mr. Marsham) had to per-
form were very considerable and the remuneration com-
paratively small. The reason why there had been an
increase in the number of temporary clerks was that there
was an increase in the business, but as there would be a
diminution in the number of the higher class of clerks the
expenses on the whole would not be much greater than
usual. With respect to the provision for defences of the
country, the country would find that they were in a supe-
rior condition, and that the condition of our fortifications
would fully justify the Government as to the amount ex-
pended on them. The committee which sat last year on mili-
tary organisation recommended the appointment of an officer
to be designated the Director-General of Ordnance. That
officer had been appointed, and experience had justified the
recommendation of the committee in that particular.
(Hear, hear.) As to the officer whose duty it was to super-
intendn would be more conducive to
the clothing department the committee could not fail
atondpetrhcseitvehitshaetproictmenth an officer was absolutely necessary,
economy than to extravagance. With respect to the obser-
vation of the hon. member for Pontefract, he (Mr. T. G.
Baring) did not undertake to show that any particular
item in the estimates was less than it was in former years,
but he was prepared to show that the estimate was framed
with a due regard to economy and efficiency. The expen-
diture of the War Office this year was less than it was
in 1858-9. In that year the expenditure was £179,000,
while this year it was less by some hundreds of pounds.
and it was to be recollected that the volunteer system had
caused an increase in the expenses of the year. He did not
agree that the organisation of the War Office was defective.
The recommendation of the committee of the house on this
subject had been carefully attended to by the Government.
Colonel DICKSON thought the time had come when
some stop should be put to the monstrous extravagance of
the War Office. There had been an addition within late
years of 40,000 men to the army, while the cost of clerks had.
increased by the sum of £BO,OOO. In fact, there were so
many clerks in the office that they were tumbling over each
other, and he would therefore move that this vote be re-
duced by the sum of £50,000. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. BARING said he was glad of the admission of
the hon. and gallant officer that the work in the War
Office was done well. Indeed, no one in his position could
stand before the house to explain unless he was assisted by
men of the greig ability, industry, and zeal, of those who
filled positions in that office. With respect to supernumerary
clerks, he had already explained the causes which bad
led to the increase in their number, and also that it
would lead to a reduction in the higher paid offices. As
to the contrast drawn between the Bank of England and
the War Office, there was this difference, that only a small
I ortion of the clerks were required for accounts, while
there were many clerks required to attend to correspond-
ence which involved higher acquirements on the part of
those so occupied. With respect to the pledge the hon.
baronet the member for Evesham had asked him to give,
that this vote if granted would not be exceeded, he was
prepared to say that the best efforts of the Government
would be given to prevent any excess, and he believed it
would be found amply sufficient. He denied the state-
ment that the cost of the civil list had increased in a greater
proportion than was warranted by the increase of the army.
Col. DICKSON said, if the hon. gentleman could explain
why the vote should be so large he would be satisfied. He
see why so many clerks should be employ
in the War Office.
ed
LL said the hon. and gallant member was
hd iedmbelieved
wins however,Ee
error in his statements as to expenditure in
this department in former years.
Mr. WYLD thought the number of clerks in the War
Department might be considerably reduced.
Mr. CONINGHAM said the scale of remuneration paid
to those clerks might be greatly reduced. He considered
£l,OOO a-year to the precis writer in the War Office too
'touch. There were many well qualified literary men who
would be glad to do the duty for £5OO a-year.
After a few words from Mr. T. G. BARING, the committee
divided, when the numbers were—
For the vote
Against ........................
Majority in favour of the vote
Mr. CHILDERS next moved that the sum of £95,840,
ior titlark!) of clerks its th War cgicoln rodlacsd by a alga

The house then went into committee, when the bill passed
thr3ugh pro forma.
CORK INFIRMARY BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Mr.
LONGFORD opposed the second reading, and moved that
it be read a second time that day six months.
The house then divided on the second reading, when the
numbers were—
For the second reading ..
Against it
Majority —l9
Captain CLIVE brought in a bill to amend the law
relating to the drainage of land for agricultural purposes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
in.the bill embodying the resolutions on income-tax ; for
the renewal of the tea and sugar duty ; and the repeal of
the paper duty, which was read a first time and ordered to
be read a second time on Monday next.
The house adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

LA "IF IZ' TELLIGENCE.—May 9.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

READE V. CONQUEST—DRAMATIC COPYRIGHT.
This was an action to recover penalties for an in-
fringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the drama
of " Gold ;" and the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Coryton appeared for the
plaintiff and Mr. Lush and Mr. T. Chitty for the
defendant.
It was stated in the opening speech that the
plaintiff, Mr. Charles Reade, was the author of
several plaintiff,-
and popular dramas, and also of
the novel " Never Too Late to Mend ;" and Mr.
Conquest was the proprietor of the Grecian Theatre.
In 1853 Mr. Reade produced the drama of " Gold"
at Drury-lane, and afterwards founded upon it the
novel " Never Too Late to Mend." In October,
1858, Mr. Conquest brought out the play of
" Never Too Late to Mend," which purported to be
written from the novel, but which it was contended
was so like the play of " Gold" as to be an infringe-
ment of the plaintiff's copyright. The Dramatic
Copyright Act said that if any person should repre-
sent a drama without the consent of the author or
proprietor he should be liable to a penalty of 40s. a
night, or pay the amount of profit realised by the
performance. The present action was to recover
the 40s penalty.
His Lordship inquired what question there was
for the jury.
Mr. Lush said his ease was, that the gentleman,
who wrote their play had done so by dramatising
the novel, and that he at that time had never seen
" Gold."
Mr. Hawkins contended that whether this was
or not the statute had given Mr Reade a copyright
in " Gold," and that even if by accident any other
person who wrote another play which was in sub-
stance the same, the performance of this would be
an infringement of copyright.
Mr. Lush—That was the question of law, and
not one of fact.
Mr. Hawkins read various passages from the two
dramas to show the similiarity between them.
Mr. George Augustus Conquest, the son of the
defendant said—l was the author of the dr ma
" Never Too Late to Mend," which I compiled from
the novel of that name. I had never heard when I
wrote it of the play of " Gold." There are some
characters and scenes which are in " Gold," but
which are not in my play.
It was admitted that the piece had been per-
formed 80 nights, and his lordship directed a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for £l6O, subject to the opi-
nion of the court upon a special case.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

CUMBERLAND V. COPELAND.-A DRAMA IN COURT

This was an action for the recovery of penalties
for using dramatic copyright without license, to
which the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Charles Pollock were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Murray for the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in stating the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. John Cumberland, said he was the proprietor
of a large number of dramatic copyrights, and the
defendant was the lessee of two theatres—the
Theatre Royal and the Royal Amphitheatre, at
Liverpool. By the 3d and 4th William IV., c. 315,
passed in 1833, the sole right in the representation
of dramatic pieces was secured to the author, or
his assignee, for 28 years, and this action was
brought against the defendant for having acted at
his theatres a burletta by Mr. Fitzball, called " The
Pilot," assigned to the plaintiff in September, 1828,
and also another piece, written by Mr. Buckstone.
entitled "The Happiest Day of my Life." The two
pieces had been performed at the defendant's
theatre, the one for eight and the other for five
nights, making thirteen representations, and under
the act the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of 40s.
for each representation, and that sum he now
claimed.
The following evidence was then adduced
Mr. John Cumberland examined—l was formerly
a bookseller and publisher at Ludgate-hill. I bought
the copyright of " The Pilot" in 1828, with other
pieces, for £l9. I purchased " The Happiest Day
of my Life," and other pieces, eight in all, from Mr.
Buckstone, for £37 18s.

Mr. Pollock—We will put in the assignment, my
lord.

Mr. Baron Martin—lt is not stamped.
Mr. Pollock—We will pay the penalty.
The Associate said the penalty was £ll 2s. 6d.,
which was paid, and the assignment received in
evidence.
Examination continued—An application was
made by my agent to Mr. Copeland for the amount
duo for play mg my pieces some years ago, but be

of £3,000. They had more permanent and extra clerks has never paid me a shiL
employed now than when the country was at war. dispute as to my charge with anyone else.
Col. LINDSAY rt minded the hon. gentleman that the Cross-examined—Mrs. Frances Anne Davidson,
number of clerks must always increase in proportion to the the attesting witness to this assignment, is my
number of men in the army, because the correspondence was daughter. A list of my plays was sent to the de-
necessarily greater. Indeed, on the subject of clothing there fen dant by my authority.
were more letters written now to the Horse Guards than Mr. Murray—When ?
had ever been known at any former period. Witness—How can I recollect. You might as
Mr. T. G. BARING explained that the increase in well ask me to recollect all the hand-bills in Lon-
the number of clerks was owing principally to the cor• don. (Laughter.) The list was sent when needful
respondence with the Indian Government since the —whenever we found a slippery customer.
amalgamation of the two armies, and the large (Laughter.)
number of troops employed in India. Mr. Murray—Have you a printed copy of these
The amendment was then put that the item of £95,485 be plays ?
reduced by a sum of £3,000 Witness—l don't carry plays about with me.
idd—. Mr. Murray—l ask you, have you printed copies
The committee dive
For the amendment
Against
Majority
The amendment was accordingly lost. (Laughter.)
Mr. AYRTON said it was most unfortunate that they Mr. Murray—Did your daughter write this
were not successful in reducing the items of the vote, which letter, sending the defendant a list of plays, and re
hon. members considered unnecesarily high. It was, how- qiiesting a settlement of your account for three
ever, the duty of the committee to take care that while there years ?
was no increase of the army for the present year, there Witness (looking at the letter)—She did.
should be no additional expenditure for the administrative Mr. Buckstone examined—l am the lessee of the
military department. He should, therefore, propose to re- Haymarket Theatre. lam the author of the comedy
duce the vote before the committee to the amount at which " The Happiest Day of my Life," which I sold to
it stood last year, namely, £196,000, a sum which he con- Mr. Cumberland.
aidered quite sufficient for administrating the affairs of the Cross-examined—Before the passing of the D ra-
army. matic Authors Act I told Mr. Copeland he might
Col. DICKSON supported the reduction. He regretted, act my piurraeces gratuitously.
tell him that before the
however, that the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had Mr. My—Did you ,
not proposed even a greater diminution of the vote, as he Act passed?
believed that, without in the slightest degree affecting the Witness—There was no necessity, for he could
public service, no lessthan £50,000 could be knocked off that play them without asking.
vote. The appointment of the precis writer and compiler Mrs. Frances Anne Davidson, the plaintiff's
of statistics he considered altogether unnecessary. daughter, proved that she had applied to the
Mr. BARING pointed out that the expenditure of the defendant for the money for acting the pieces in
higher appointments in the War Office in the present which the copyright is vested in her father.
year was considerably less than in the year 1856. The The defendant's reply was put in, in which he
higher appointments in 1356 in the War Office cost the stated that if the plaintiff desired litigation in place
country £36,024 ; whereas in 1860-61 they only cost of waiting the defendant's leisure he might adopt it.
£33,070. The increase was in the item for the junior This closed the case for the plaintiff.
clerks, and arose from the increase of business caused by Mr. Murray, for the defendant, admitted that the
the additional troops serving in India. There had also piece called " The Pilot" had been acted, but con-
been an increase of the comforts of the soldiers, which oc- tended, as regarded " The Happiest Day of my
Life," that the assignment having been attested by
casioned an increase of work in keeping the accounts and
only one witness, was invalid in law, and that the
in correspondence. The amount of the present vote was
plaintiff could not recover on that.
not more than was absolutely necessary for the service of
the year. His lordship said he would reserve that point,
committee then divided,:and ther® appeared— and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for £26,
The
For amendment
Agatheinst
attested.
Majority
The amendment was therefore lost.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the chairman report pro-
gress.
The motion was agreed to and the house resumed.
EDINBURGH ASSESSMENTS BILL.
Mr. MUIR moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. DUNLOP said he had presented three petitions
against this bill, but the petitions did not object to a bill
which would effectually meet the evil of assessment to
which this bill referred, and which they did not think this
bill would accomplish. He begged to move a resolution to
the effect that no alteration of the annuity tax act of last
session would be satisfactory that would extend the assess-
ment in question beyond the area of the burgh of Edin-
burgh.
Mr. BLACK said he was sorry that his hon. friend had
deemed it necessary to move this resolution, as this bill was
merely to get rid of a grio ante which the citizens of Edin-
burgh complained of.
Mr. HADFIELD moved the adjournment of the debate,
and the house was cleared for a division, but the hon.
member did not press his motion.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority against the amendment-84
The bill was then read a second time.
ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and was ordered to be
referred to a select committee.
HARBOURS BILL.
On the motion that this bill be committed pro forma,
Sir J. FERGUSON expressed a hope that a proper op-
portunity would be given to consider the provisions of the
bill.

ling. I never had any

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SMITH AND SMITH v. PRICKETT—(MORRELL CITED
TO SEE PROCEEDINGS).
The case on behalf of the respondents was again
resumed.
Further evidence having been given to disprove
the handwriting of the alleged attesting wit-
nesses, Mr. Austin, a solicitor at Oxford, and for-
merly clerk to the late Mr. Morrell, produced the bill
books of that gentleman to show that no special court
was held at the time referred to in the bill of costs,
said to have been found with the will. The fees of
the court were always paid for at the time, and
were never mixed up with charges for general busi-
ness, as had been done in the bill of costs. There
was no entry in Mr. Morrell's books of a charge for
drawing a will in May, 1835, which formed one of
the items in the bill. There was nothing in Mr.
Morrell's books of anything done for the testator at
all in the month of May, 1835.
Mr. Birch, deputy steward of the manor of Bin-
sey, produced the court rolls. There was no special
court on the 17th of November, 1834. The pre-
sentment of the death of Mr. Edward Cawser,
which was the business stated in the bill of costs
to have been transacted at the special court of Nov.,
1834, really took place in 1832.
Mr. Sergeant Shee having addressed the court at
great length in reply,
Sir C. Cresswell asked the jury if they wished to
hear any remarks from him upon the evidence ?
The Foreman said it was quite unnecessary.
They were unanimously of opinion that the will
propounded by the plaintiffs was a forgery, and
that a more shameful case had never been brought
before a court of justice.
Sir C. Cresswell entirely concurred with the jury;
and if he were sitting there in a criminal court, he
should not have the slightest hesitation in commit-
ting the parties.
The jury then found a verdict for the defendant.