The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

~.. ~ ---

HOUSE OF LORDS,—(YESTERDAY.)
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The royal assent was given to the following bills by corn-

mission :

The Consolidated Fund (X 10,000,000).
Smoke Nuisance (Scotland).
Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland),
Haslingden Union Gas. ,
Northern Assurance Company.
Swansea Gas.
Neath Water.
Dartmouth and Torbay Railway.
Northampton Water.
Bazgymoor Drainage.
Kilkenny Markets.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Branches to Shaw-
forth).

Lltintrissant and Taff Vale Junction Railway.
Ryde Water.
Liverpool Improvement.
Newcastle-under-Lyme Marsh Lands.
Nantwich and Market Drayton Roads.
Uxbridge Gas.
West Cornwall Railway.
Berwick, Norham, and lslandshire Roads.
Huddersfield Gas.
Midland Railway (new lines).
Newgate and Metropolitan Meat Market.
Isle of Wight Water.
Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction Railway.
Universal Private Telegraph.
Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway.
The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
Earl St. Germans, and Lord Sydney.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
__

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Atkinson's Trust Estate, Manchester and Welmslow
Road, Cheshire Midland Railway, Midland Railway (Ex-
tension), Henley-in-Arden Railway, East India Irrigation
and Canal Company, Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Rail-
way bills were read a second time.
The Birmingham Canal Navigation, Stockton and Dar-
lington Railway (new lines), Sneyds Branch Railway,
Thorne Moor Drainage (Amendment), Sowerby Gas, and
Tyne Improvements Bills were read a third time and passed.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition in
ayottr of this bill.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL-

THE BUDGET.
Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said—My lords, I rise to move the second reading of
this important bill, the successor of that one which was
moved last year under circumstances of a somewhat diffe-
rent character. At that time an amendment was moved by
a noble lord, whose former connection with the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as his present connec-
tion with the Treasury, gave great weight to any motion of
his on a bill like the present. On that occasion your lord-
ships' house was crowded and great excitement prevailed,
and therefore I felt it to be necessary, even at the risk of
seeming tedious to your lordships, to go at length into all
the details of the bill, to meet by anticipation every objec-
tion which I thought it probable might be made, and to
make every appeal that I humbly could to your lordships
to take that course which I thought most expedient and
prudent with respect to so important a bill. And I cannot
help believing that the arguments I then used' must have
had some effect, for we find ourselves this year met to dis-
cuss the same bill under somewhat different circumstances.
Until this morning no notice whatever was given of any
motion adverse to the bill. A statement, if I might be allowed
to mention it, has been made in another place to the effect
that it was not likely any opposition would in this house be
offered to the bill, and if I am not mistaken the noble earl
the leader of the party opposite stated at a City entertain-
ment that it was not his intention, should the bill pass the
Commons, to offer it any further opposition in this house.
For these reasons I do not now, certainly, anticipate the re-
jection of the bill. A noble duke has, it is true, given notice
of rejection, but I can hardly believe him tp be serious in so
suddenly adopting what your lordships must feel would be a
most serious step for this house to take, thus placing your-
self in opposition to the other House of Parliament, and on
grounds which, until I hear them again stated and strength-
ened, I can hardly believe to be tenable. The notice of the
noble duke has already excited great alarm among the mer-
cantile community, but I cannot believe that alarm to be
well founded. I am rather inclined to assume that the noble
duke put his notice on the paper merely for the purpose of
giving spirit to the debate, or possibly with a view of show-
ing that his confidence was not quite unlimited in the noble
earl who is generally considered. to be the leader of the pa-Ay.
The noble duke perhaps wishes to show that he can take
his own course with respect to a great question, but I can
hardly imagine that he means to press his amendment to a
division. With this conviction I shall confine myself to a
simple statement of the objects of the bill, and of the prin-
cipal reasons which have induced the Government to re-
commend it to the other house of Parliament, reserving to
myself the right of replying at greater length should any
arguments be put forth in the debate requiring, in my ju.dg,
ment, more detailed observation. I beg to say, however,
that I do not take this course w ith any view of deprecating
discussion; on the contrary, I think it desirable that the
measure should be most fully debated, but I think, in the
first instance, the course I have indicated will be the most
convenient t) the house. It is not my intention to go over
every point of the bill in detail, but will merely recall a few
circumstances connected with the budget of last year. The
deficiency then was £850,003, and if you added £850,000
loss, which would have occurred from the repeal of the
paper auttesrthere would have beeu a total deficiency of
£1,700,000. Now. the best way to show the comparative
importance of this 'deficiency will be to mention one fact. It
was Mr. Huskisson who stated that the consequences of a
bad harvest were equivalent to a loss of 7 per cent. on a re-
venue of 60 millions, so that according to that calculation
we should last year, instead of a deficiency of £1,700,000,
with so bad a harvest as we had, have had a deficiency of
seven millions. I think the comparison is very satisfactory,
for it will not be necessary to go farther than to state that
we paid 24 millions for foreign corn to show how deficient
was last year's harvest. I might also, however, quote
the opinions of the persons most conversant with agri-
culture, that seldom has there been seen a greater de -
ciency of food, both for man and beast. I think
it, therefore, a satisfactory proof of the beneficial
effects of our commercial legislation during later years
that a sufficient supply of food should have been ensured
under such very unfavourable circumstances. lam also
satisfied that the actual amount of deficiency shows that if
we had not a good but even an average harvest, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would not have over-estimated but
considerably under-estimated his resources. With regard
to the present bill, the calculations of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were made afte7 the mode adopted by all previ-
ous Chancellors of the Exchequer, and which I suppose
will be continued by all his successors—namely, that of
making careful comparisons of the opinions of heads of de-
partments, and of all persons conversant with the facts ; and
it appears to me the most sensible way of approaching the
question. The calculations of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer gave in round numbers a surplus of about two millions,
and I apprehend that the amount of that surplus is not now
to be called in question. As a general rule, so long as a
Minister is permitted to retain his office his calculations are
accepted as correct ; and in addition, I have to mention that
a right hon. gentlemaD who lately held the office frankly
admitted the Governrnrert calculations to be correct, and has
proposed to reduce the surplus by an amount much greater
than the reduction submitted by the Government. Having,
then, this surplus to dispose of, the Government have de-
termined to distribute it in the following manner. In the
first place, it is proposed to reduce the income tax from 10d.
to 9d. in the pound. I am happy to propose that reduction,
and I am sure my satisfaction will be shared by your lord-
lords—(hear)—my only regret being that a still further re-
duction cannot be conveniently made. (Hear.) It would
have been no doubt agreeable to many, both in and out of
Parliament, if we could have proposed a reduction in the
duty on tea, an article in which the community is so gene-
rally interested. Some attempts have been made to show
that the duties on tea and sugar press more heavily on the
poorer than on the richer classes ; but my answer to this is
that four years ago, Sir G. Lewis, who was then Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, made a statement to the effect
that 60 per cent. of the tea and sugar duties were paid by
the richer classes, leaving only 40 per cent. to fall on the
poor, and that statement was adopted by the leader of the
Opposition. lam inclined, therefore, to rely on that state-
ment. The reasons why we do not propose any reduction in
the tea and sugar duties I shall now briefly explain. In the
first place, your lordships are aware that a very small ream
duction of duty does not produce a proportionate reduction
in pi ice, and very small would be the amount which we
could have spared under any circumstances, besides which
the cost of collection would remain the same. We did not
think, therefore, there was any urgency for such a reduction
of the tea duty as we could have made ; and with respect to
that on sugar, I do not believe that any proposal came from
any quarter for its removal. There is another small item
in this bill which it will not be necessary to dilate on. The
only object in re-arranging the duty is to protecttherevenue,
and prevent the adulteration which has become so general in
an article of almost universal consumption. I now come to
the question of the abolition of the excise duty on paper.
Last year I detained your lordships for nearly an hour in
describing the disadvantages of that tax, and I cannot help
thinking the statement must have had some effect, for no
answer tending to show that the tax was not injurious to
the manufacturer, that it did not prevent competition, or to
deny thatit was a tax which entered into the price of every
article that was wrapped in paper, has been attempted
since. I showed also how injurious was its operation with
regard to the diffusion of cheap literature among the people.
I showed conclusively that it increased a hundredfold the
price of educational and useful books, whilst it did not in
the slightest degree stop the circulation of those deleterious
works which are only too widely circulated among
the people. I do not intend to go over all that
ground again. The arguments for and against re-
peal have been long. before the public. Nearly 30
years ago, a commission presided over by one of
the ablest of our financiers condemned the tax. Since then
an abstract resolution recommending its abolition passed
the House of Commons, which resolution was supported by
many of our leading public men, including Lord Stanley and
Sir E. B. Lytton, who, in spite of all the considerations of
party, has so nobly supported his previously expressed con-
victions. On that occasion nothing was expressed but con-
demnation of the tax—expressed, too, in the strongest and
most decisive language. The bill came to this house and was
rejected—upon what grounds I will shortly state to your
lordships. It was said that subsequently to the introduc-
tion of the budget there had happened events which made
the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer impro-
vident, and that there was in fact no surplus revenue to
deal with, consequently that it would not be wise to get rid
of money which ought to be kept in the exchequer, and
therefore the House of Commons should have another op-
portunity of making the financial arrangement for the year,
Those were some of the arguments used last year, but they
were not used by the Government. This year, however, the
Government has a sufficient surplus to enable us to propose
the abolition of the paper duties, and there will be no risk
in doing so. Your lordships might have objected to the
repeal of this tax—not upon its merits, but upon differiali
grounds. This question was now the only bone of ooF.tre!2..
tion between the two Houses of Parliament. and therefore
think it will be wise, instead of dealing with anY S2g witli
that we should take the earliest opportunity of 41 to which
it. (Hear, hear.)
There is only one otherPZ obatinCEl
A Rill new refer. I hayi) Whom, copiderm t