The Express. — London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

in ,...n o r tee was churls Again, machisery did not lag 1" , deer. Attu r yews wear, us ichinery was seldom wor.s 'ban the metal of which it was compoied, yet go s it...fie , was made. Then, as to bee debts, It was gimeset it n o t impuesthle to &stain any allowance on that w eed. And turnstile again to ineurancs, the charge for „, „ d ing s rang° of cotton from New Orleans to Liverpool I isaet ailowed as •deduction in estimating the profit for thee n se cm tas. Them were all cases as regarded trade I amen to those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had Kt forth in reference to land when he endeavoured to show eb it the w i eners/Ts pay sal. instead of Id. in the postal • r tear ) Ile (Mr. Bright) had neves been one of . , 111:*0.he had endued about the necessity of diecriminatieg borers the different clawed of income ; but with reg iril to the co mmercial classes he load always been of opiaion that tee ,mart grievance was in the disputes and irritation conse nt spun the mode in whiea the returns were made and fixed. It the tea was now to be continued her seven years longer he thought the Chancellor of the Ex cl. i usr might coed, make arrangements by which the ae ...meet might be made much less irritating than it was at ge ,cnt. Ila . t anks especially of the neighbourhood in ;the he bard when he said that nobody was satisfied with the- local commissieners of income tax, and he was satisfied threatens tied locality the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad are.eed more compl dots upon that ground than as to the tie • g ot otter tax. The arrtnetern• nt he would propose was d n .. 'I here was, ho believed, a surveyor of taxes "never( dis•riet. Ile would suggest that this surveyor o,..aldinake a list of all the pettier.' who had paid income US is hm district during the previous three years—and 5e...a..1 heel round this list printed to the parties liable to ttee tee-0c they should be required to make their initials as etnet Lit or 2.'s of them names, and that from the names tad in this way had the greatest number of vetes a com erioioner dwelt' be chosen. Such au arrangement would give cuali.lerice in the tax payers, and obviate much of the annoyance that now existed. Ile should of course vote for the preposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and artannt the ami ailment of the hon. member for &As, 'hob, it carried, would entail upon him the necessity of „e m oting another amendment having reference to trades— and it thiy went on in this way deducting something arm I Inds, something from trades, and smelting from ali etior ...Juices of income the loss to the revenue would soon render it necessary to h avea a ninepeany instead of a seveapeney tax throughout. w, hear.) Sir T. U. ACLAND argued that it they were to go on the principle of taking a little from one and a little from & wittier, they would never be able - to maintain any principle lie thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer s proposal emelered fairly all chews; and as it was necessary to re tied the taste Ireland, and up m incomes of 1001. a year, becoehl not, as being connected with lan I, le for any eseerem. (Hear, bear.) With regard to the legacy tax, s poil which he did not now wish to pronounce any opinion, he would observe that a large and liberal allow ance must be made in awning it. They most I m e s esi7d. or 'AI., but strict value. It must be remem bered that land when it came into possession was very moon least able to bear any burden—and while the sue cereor to a sum of money in the funds brought en irame dia•e income, he had known a case:when a person succeed- Mg to an estate hail not touched rent for twelve months. Then, again, the transfer of land wee subjected to heavy stamp duties which the transfer of money was mot. Again land was subjected to a separate tax of its own from which it could not be relieved inasmuch as it had been bought in. With regard to local taxation he thought that the land was entitled to more consideration than it had received; and as the landed proprietors had, in this question, a common in terest with the tithe-owner and the railway companies—in fact, with sill those the exact amount of whose income was tangihle and could be at once ascertained—• review of their case ought tin longer to be delayed. But, taking the budget as a whole, and as a step towards the comprehensive sym m, trio iti in. he thought it the best which any Chancellor of the Exchequer bad proposed during the whole of his par liamentary experience, which extended over 40 years. Sir W. JOLLIFFE could see nothing in this budget but s proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the expense of the land, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted would be subjected to a legacy duty of two mil lions sterling, various other classes were to be relieved; and he thought the least the house was bound to do was to consent to such a modification of schedule A as had been proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXC 11EQUER--Sir, before the committee proceeds to a division upon this most im portant question, I am very anxious to state the views which I and my colleagues entertain in regard to it. Tlie hoe. gentleman who made the motion which is now Wise us, commenced his very temperate speech by disclaiming his own part everything like factious or party motives. I give the hoe. gentleman entire credit for that disclaimer. I am convinced there is no man less likely to make a motion of such a character ; and, above all, I ma convinced there iv no man in this house less likely, if he did make such a motion, to fix on that motion any other character than the true one. But, with respect to the importance of this motino, the hon. gentleman, I think, greatly undervalues it. I shall not endeavour to entangle the hon. gentleman in the discussion of details. It would be very easy for me to enter on many matters of that description, and to show that by the adoption of this motion you would be involved in very great anomalies ; and that you would introduce difficulty emounting to con fusion into the whole of the tax, which, unless you kept its details within certain bounds, would become absolutely un manageable. (Cheers.) There is much that might be said on suhjects like that; but there is a more important matter before us—stronger, or at any rate higher and broader, grounds on which it is my dut7 to object to the motion of the boa. gentleman. It is not because the motion of the hon. gentleman is devoid of plausibility, or even that it is devoid of equity , if it stood as a asked abstract proposition. It is when we view it in conjunction with other provisieas of the tea of which it forms a part—when we view it in conjunction with the present state of the circurn staaces that bear on the renewal and operation of this tax, and in Conjunction with the pledges that have been given nt former periods and on recent occasions—that her Ma jesty's government feel that they would be deserting the very tat principle of their duty, were they either to con sent to the motion of the hon. gentleman or to give it any thing less than the most resolute and unqualified opposi tion. (Cheers.) For these reasons—because lam anxious to make a statement on the broadest grounds—l will not dwell on many details with respect to the remarks that have been made in the course of the debate. For instance, the hon. member for Devon (Mr. Buck) appears to have a very warm sympathy on behalf of the small freeholders of that county. \Vali, we are proposing an income tax that will leave every freeholder under 1001. per annum scot free. (Cheers.) And he, in December Int, supported a budget that taxed every 40s. freeholder. (Cheers and laughter.) That budget, if I collected its purport rightly, taxed all real property irrespective of the amount of the possessor (no, no) at any rate went down to the lowest dividend [Lord John Russell here cor rected the right honourable gentleman]—well, I beg pardon, from 1501. to 601. But I will not point out inconsistencies like these ; we have more important matters to discuss. In order to uderstand the just expectations of the country we must travel a little backwards. What was the state of affairs in December last ? At that time the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), then Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and the chosen champion of a large portion at least of those whose interests are connected with land, proposed his financial plan. What were the characteristics of that plan ? I was asked to-night why it was that I had said nothing on behalf of the land in regard to local taxation, and why it was that I had proposed no reduction of its burdens. Why, air, among others, for this versa—that if I had I should have been not only met and eacoMelend, but overwhelmed by quotations from the at tba right hon. gentleman. (Loud cheers Le your hearing [Mr. Gladstone here ad d▪ ressed dm iseneley gentlemen], as your leader, and as you son wUlk your assent and support, that right enosigaed those claims to perpetual oblivion. Cbsomosad impeder.) Strange, then, that after the Mom of flow somelhe you should come forward and make it an assomeion @Oast me that I am not prepared to relieve you Ikea local taxation. (Cheers and laughter.) Bat we. that ell that was does in December last? Not at all.* You had then, too, a proposal about the income tax, you had these resolu tions laid upon the table under which the income tax was to be levied, and the resolution laid upon the table with respect to schedule A, corresponded precise) y with that which I ask you now to adopt. (Cheers and laughter.) I know not what course the right hon. gentleman is 1101A t to take on this occasion ; I won't speculate as to the bility of his adhering to the course which he in December last—an hour or two will dissolve dna lUng mystery. (Laughter.) But this I know, diellObe slifht bon. gentleman can only oppose me'isow onINIIIMODIK 11110 luting himself in December last. (Chao* sod lesigkitae.) Was that all? There was an unmitigated schedule 111) and what sort of a schedule D - was there ? As I have sail I won't go into details, but I may say that the land at die moment—including other dividends, as from manufacturing Premises and real and visible prope rty generally—is paying 91. in the pound—at all events at a higher rate than other property. It was so in December, and that inequality — for it is an inequality—was left unmitigated ; and on the back of that you set another inequalit ; for schedule D was to be reduced to hid. in the pound, and with your approbation, and with your support. (Cheers arid laughter.) "Lb, but,' says the hon. member (Mr. Palmer). conceiving that he has used a conclusive armament, " all that was bearable, for then there was to be no legacy duty." (Hear, hear.) Was there really to be no legacy duty ? (Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from Mr. W. Williams.) No: there was to be no legacy duty in the present tease, but undoubtedly there was to be a legacy duty—in the future tense. (Chests.) The hen. gentleman (Mr. Palmer) cannot have forgotten thin pregnant words, which w re used by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)—" At the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties "—certainly the term legacy duty does not here occur, but there can be no doabt as to the meaning—" and we think it not impossible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on MONO. lions "—(cheers and i nA gitter)—" that will remise& contending interesta, and terminate the system new so much complained of." (Cheers aced laughter.) (Cheers.) But you, gentlem‘ss you who complain of the income tax in conjunction with the euccerairso tax—you who ay that the prospect of parting with the income tax is not so clear I ask you to remember what was the prospect in December last ? (Cheers ) The proposal, then, was to renew the income tax for three rem What did that mean? You knew very well what it ..neszt ; it meant its perpetuity. (" Oh, ob.") I don't mean to :ay that there was a foregone coact:lion of that fact in the oinds of three who were parties to the Proposal ; bet I my this, OM he who proposes the income tax for THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING. MAY 10, 1853. *mien for seven years it ought to be a temporary tax. If the tax on sueeewtods was to be a eompensaeion to the possemors of precarious incomes, it was unjust if it was nut provided that the tax on successions should end in seven years, and iu the terms on which the right bon. gentleman had proposed the lacunae tax ;it it was only to last sew' n years, the tax on successions should be equally (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought that the motion of to-uight was the natural consequence of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman and me policy of the govern ' moot ; and so also it would be a consequence that when the house came to consider the tax on successions, it would be necessary that a motion should be made that it should con tinue only for seven years. (Hear, hear.) That would be a question for the committee to consider at a future relied. He would now come to the vote of Monday last. The right honourable gen tleman said that this debate could not close without the house knowing the meaning of the vote of Monday. In deference to the feelings of the great body of the supporters of the right hon. gentleman, he (Mr. Disraeli) wished that he could avoid that subject. (Cheers and laughter). He thought that there was something unnecessarily cruel in the way In which the right hon. gentleman had put it. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) He should have thought, as regarded the vote of Monday, the right hon. gen•leman would have spared the feelings of those who he (Mr. Dis raeli) trusted looked back at it with:a satisfaction which he thought did not await them. (Hear.) The vote of Mon day was an attempt to establish the principle that they (the opposition) had asserted, when they were on the other side of the table. That w.es the object of his hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire. They had attempted it, and had been defeated by those whose interests the right hon. gentleman said were opposed to it. The right bon. gentleman said, how could they reconcile that vote with a vote for the motion of to night. The fact that the motion on Monday had been ne gatived, and that they (the Opposition) had been defeated, was not only the excuse, but the necessity, for considering the measures before the house on their merits. (Hear, hear.) He could understand that boo. gentlemen, es pecially those who were in favour of the di ff erence in the schedules of the income tax, might now triumph is a ma jority which did not vindicate their conduct, though it had established their government. But was there anything novel, or anomalous, or unjustifiable, in the motion of his honourable friend the member for Berkshire? If the policy they (the Opposition) proposed had been re leeted by gentlemen opposite, they bad a right to try the policy of the government on its merits. Was there scything new in the policy that they (the Opposition) were recommending ? The right hon. gen Leman said it was new, startling, and dangerous; and be said that the motion in tilted the house to tamper with the income tax, and who 'could stop at Schedule A ? He (Mr. Disraeli) knew some persons who had invited the house to tamper with the tax, end thought that they might atop at Schedule A without danger. Ile could quote opinions, but be would not refer to Hansard for the purpose of annoyance—that period was past. (Hear.) If he had Hansard before him it was sot to enable him to go back fifteen, ten, five, or three years, but the only reason he had it before him was that he did not choose to trust his memory, although his recollection was strong and precise on the matter to which he was about to allude. On the lest motion which be (Mr. Disraeli) brought forward, and which was said to have destroyed the government, although he was unconscious of having performed such a feat, fur he thought it was done by the noble lord, thp Rome Secre tary at the head of the Militia—(" Hear, hear," and laugh ter) ; on that motion in which he called the attention of the house to the question of local taxation, a subject which was now under the influential treatment of the hon. mem ber for Devonshire ; on that occasion, a member of the present government, he would not be so invidious as to say I the most distinguished member ; but at least the most dis tinguished of the country gentlemen in the government ; —an extreme free trader, who was frightened at his (Mr. Disraeli's) dangerous policy, which he said would bring revolution on the country, that policy being the consideration of the local taxation of the eountry ; the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty made a powerful speech in opposition to the I motion, and he said that that was not the way to deal whh the subject if the landed interest was distressed (and he ad mitted that there was distress). He said that you should toosider the question of local taxation, which would Moe the effect of upsetting our whole financial system ; Ihsh Is that he saw revolution in the distance, and that the Seggiquence of our triumph would be the destruction et the empire. (Hear, hear.) But, said he, there ate means which, if toed, would afford reasons to justify the policy recommended, which would have force in the country, and cane parliament with them, and that they would enjoy a glorious opportunity when the income tax again was under consideration. The country would require from the government a distinct explanation as to why there was these variations of opinion, and would require to know if anyone could bring forward a valid reason why the landed inte rest should be unjustly assessed under the income tax. They had plated before their constituents and friends the motives on which their policy was founded. Right or wrong, their friends were satisfied with those motives, and they would support that policy, and no taunts would pre soot them from doing their duty to the farmers and pro prietors of the soil, who founded their claims upon the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the - --"osdations of the First Lord of the Admiralty. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL described Mr. Disraeli as maintain ing the principle of relieving precarious incomes at the expense of real property, at the same time that he proposed to lighten the tax upon real property, leaving precarious incomes as they were. Examining Mr. Disraeli's other arguments, he reminded him that he had proposed the remission of the malt tax only on the ground of benefit to the consumer. He accused him of treating the great inte rests of the country with levity and caprice—so much so, that it was impossible that the country, could place any con fidence in his future financial propositions. One week be au all for trades and professions. the next all for the land; and Lord John asked " under which thimble was the He besought the house to reject such counsel, and to accept the great measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and gain the admiration of the country. Lord J. MANNERS made a defence of Mr. Disraeli to a noisy and impatient house, clamouring for a division. The committee then divided, when there appeared— ' For Mr. Palmer's amendment Against it 2Ol 276-75 The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read the remaining part of the first revolution, en which no amendment was made. On his proceeding to read the second resolution, which has reference to the farmers' schedule, and on which Mr. Vansittart has an amendment to the effect, that the farmers be assessed at one-third instead of one-half of their rents. Mr. DISRAELI said be hoped the noble lord would have no objection that the Chairman should report progress as it was not possible at that hour properly to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Berkshire (Mr. Van sittart). Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the hon. gentleman would proceed with his amendment as it was of importance to the Wade and revenue of the country that they should proceed se speedily with the legacy duty and the Customs duties part of the bill. (Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said that the amendment contained matters of detail which would require a long discussion. Lord J. RUSSELL said the amendment might be post posed till the committee on the bill. Mr. VANSITTART could not consent to that comes 110 accommodate the noble lord. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said awes not a question of the accommodation of the noble lord, bet a question In which the trade and ue of the country were concerned. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen could have se conception of the inconvenience to the whole mertmetibe body of England which was caused by Mule protracted discussions; and with regard te dis revenue, the entries for the charge of customs dello reached a figure which he was afraid to mention. Mem, bear.) With regard to the amendment of the hon. endu e for Seeks, the whole answer of the government was com prised in a single sentence, that if the farmers did not like the assessment in schedule B they had the option of being assessed in schedule D. Mr. DISRAELI.—WouId the government leave out schedule B altogether ? Surely the right hon. gentleman did not mean to stop all discussion of the question. Sir C. WOOD said it would equally 'wirer the purpose of discussion if the discussion took place on the bill. Mr. DISRAELI said that if he stood alone he would press the r stp r ement of the discussion. They had been all night discussing the case of the landlords, and he could not have it said that they refused to discuss the case of the farmers. (Hear, hear.) He would therefore move that the chairman report progress. Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the interest of the trade and revenue of the country, he could not take upon him self the responsibility of postponement. (Hear, hear.) He must therefore divide against the motion for reporting progress. Colonel SIBTHORP heard such gross and unbe coming conduct as that of the government in not consent ing to the chairman's reporting progress. (Hear.) He supposed they relied on a majority which did them little ciudit. (Laughter. Mr. BIIIGIIT suggested that there would be no use in opposing the motion for reporting progress, as it would be consented to afterwards. Besides, he thought the progosi -1 tion for reporting progress a reasonable one, as the right hon. gentleman thlr. Disraeli) made a proposal similar to the amendment, which he had not an opportunity of stating his reasons for—a circumstance which he (Mr. Bright) thought was fortunate for the right hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) With regard to the inconvenience to trade he thought the government might assume the budget to be se cure, and might proceed with the customs duties and set trade free. (Hear) The CHAIRMAN then reported progress. SALES OF BULLION BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. HACKNEY CARRIAGES BILL. The house went into committee pro forma on this bill, for the purpose of having it reprinted and amendments in troduced. LONDON AND EDINBURGH GAZETTE BILL. Mr. COWAN asked whether it was the intention of the government to proceed with this bill. Mr. WILSON said that it was, unless some other mode ithan that proposed by the government was suggested fur cioing away with the indefensible manner in which they were published at present. 1 TAXING OFFICER COMMON LAW BUSINESS (IRELAND) BILL. I On the order of the dey for going into committee on this bill Mr. I. BUTT objected to its bring proceeded with at Slat bony (quarter to 1), on the ground that he had an three years, and makes r o provision is the meantime for its terniiaation, might as well make up his mind to its per petuity. (Cheers.) For you c.n't part with six millions of taxation at a moment's notice. (Hear, hear.) Ile who proposes an income tax fur three years is rot ib earnest in the uoderstendiog that it shell tertainete at the end of that time, taxless die lays the ground for • substitutive system. (Hear, hear.) That is what we have done The tax may be continued beyond 1860, but at any rate we have laid the ground fur parliament if itso pleases dealing with it in IPSO. (Cheers.) These, then, were the eircuinstancet in Dexmlier last with your own budget —an unmitigated schedule A ; the principle of differentiation against you in schedule 1); prima ally the per. petuity of the iuceitne tax; and a promise of a leg :cduty again -t the land. Such was the situation last Decem ber; what was the situation this night week? The amendment then before us, that the continuance of the income tag for seven years and its extension to classes here• tofore exempt from its operation without any modification Bits inequalities or of its assessment+, would be alike an unjust and impolitic measure. To that motion 253 members of this house gave their assent ; end it will be a matter of no smell interest to the cenotry to see how those 252 mem bers will dispose of their votes this evening. (Laughter.) 11. Without any modification of the inequalities of its assess ments ;" what was the meaning of these words ? to what inequalities did they refer ? You know the meaning they bore in the public mind, did you entertain the same, or did you not ? (Hear, hear.) Observe, that there arc two different inequalities in the income tax. The bulk of the property under schedule A does actually pay a somewhat higher rate than under the rest of the schedules. Was that the inequality pointed out for correction by the amend ment of the hon. baronet (Sir E. Lytton) ? lam most anxious, the committee must be moat anxious, for • distinct answer upon that point. (Cheers.) Or were you going to relieve schedule A, and impose new burdens upon the trading and professional classes, in comparison with the owners of land ? If that was your idea, I must say it was extremely unfortunate that you adopted that form of words which conveyed to the understanding of mankind at large, an interpretation totally opposite and contradictory ; and it was also infelicitous that you should have chosen, as your exponent on the occasion, an hon. member, undoubtedly of great ability, but one who, in the speech in which he introduced the motion to the house, expended all his aloes of rhetoric in setting forth the hardship. What ? Of the land, because no deduction was made for insurances and repairs? No; but the hardship of those in whose enterprise, intelligence, and skill consists, as he well ob served, their only property, their health being the only guarantee for the continuance of their property. (Loud cheers.) Well, then, I say there is confusion on this point as to the views of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do trust that we shall not close this discussion without having some light thrown upon the exact meaning of the vote of Monday night last. (Cheery.) Let us, however, take the amendment. If we were to look at the immediate e fleet of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Palmer's) plan, we should and that it would deprive the ;Exchequer of about 450,0001. But who imagines that we could stop at schedule A ? Adopt the hon. gentleman's principle at s:hedule A, and he must catty it through the tax. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Manchester pointed this out, and suggested that we must go on repairing the inequa lities of the tax throughout all the schedules, and hon. gentlemen opposite cheered him as much as to say, " Yes, that is what we want." It is therefore • question of the loss of 16 per cent. on the whole tax. (Cheers.) Take schedule A and admit this principle, and you must do the same with schedule B and all the other schedules; and when you came to cast up the whole of the deductions, you will find the tax deficient by a million, and then what becomes of the whole financial measure and the remission of duties which we propose? You will begin by reducing the tax oar land from 9tl. to i'd., and by taking a similar course with the other sehedules you will hare to begin to recon struct the tax, and return again to the assessment of Id. on land. lam not prepared to begin that process. By the vote :of to-night you would introduce a principle which would render the management of the income tax hopeless. Yoe yourselves have admitted • principle which must be extended to other schedules, for after that will schedule Dbe contented with 16 per cent.? Do you suppose that when you begin breaking up the income tax that you can put any limit to your reconstruction? We cannot afford to enter on such a process of reconstruction as is proposed by this motion, either at regards our arithmetical calculi aces or the principle on which we proceed. It will break up the imams tax, and with it the whole financial measure at the pverament; and it is impossible for us to attempt to resessernet the tax, and at the same time to persevere in the peopled for an extensive reduction if duties which has received and is receiving the approbation of the country. We do not pretend to interfere with the right of honourable ormbers to propose amend ments, but we trust the house will pause before it gives a vote which will deprive the country of the benefits which,we believe,will flow from the plans we have proposed. I believe that gentlemen who voted last Monday for a motion which would have relieved skill and intelligence, will pause before they vote for the present motion. Here are words which arc not unworthy the attention of those who considered how they then voted. "Nothing in life, and in public life especially, is so important as to have a principle to guide you. (Opposition cheers and coaster sheers.) Whatever may be the perplexity, :it principle wfifi implify 1 everything." Those aro words used by the right km. pap tleman, the member for Buckinghamshire, in on Mahe= 61 his constituents. I believe that the motion of Nana" brit a principle, although an erroneous one, but 1 MS who voted for that motion to say that the ESRI eI of to-night contains any such principle. The 1 nation of Monday night proposed to relieve cranes and pro- fessions, as well as land, but the motion of to-night would relieve the land at the expense of skill and industry. (Hear, bear.) This is not what is desired by the country. We say that taking the income tax as • whole it produces banefits in a proportion far above the pressure of its ine qualities, and to contest that principle we are prepared, and whatever may be burdens on property which we propose, it is strange that within seven days we should be assailed by two hostile motions, each supported by strong party combinations so opposed in principle to each other. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said that the question they had now to decide was, no doubt, one of great importance, mad could not be settled by the assertion of general propositions. The right bon. gentleman had entered on a criticism on the financial statement of last December, and he (Mr. Disraeli) would not shriek from vindicating the policy he then laid down, although he hoped that the house would not think that it was any egotism which caused him to introduce that subject. The right hon. gentleman had criticised the plan of the late government for the reconstruction of the income tax. The right hon. gentleman stated that there was a difference made in that plan between precarious incomes and realised property, but that there was a proposition by which real property of the value of 501. a year was WIMod to the income tax ; and asked if that was more beneficial to the landed interest than the proposition of the present budget. The right hon. gentleman aW said that a proposition was made for • future measure, which would equalise the tax on conveyances with the legacy duties, and he asked if that was not dealing with the legacy duties, he did not know what dealing with them was. But the right hon. gentleman forgot the stamp duties on conveyances and the probate duties, which he had not brought before the notice of the house. He (Mr. Disraeli) had said that he hoped it would be in his power to introduce • measure which would termi nate the controversy on that question, and he protested =the conclusion of the right hon. gentleman that if as not dealing with the legacy duties he knew not When wee dealing with them. But in all his criticism ate this Ihmacial plan of December last, and in his argu mania to prove that his plan was not more hostile to real propeety and the land than that of the late government the right bon. gentleman had the candour and ingenuous ness to forget that the measure he (Mr. Disraeli) brought forward was intended to revise the whole system of taxation is order to relieve landed property, and that at the same tine be proposed to reduce iadirect taxation on the land by NM aillions. If the right hon. gentleman felt justified in MO circumstance because he disapproved of the Fe& Moe SO excuse for the hon. gi ntleman - shareaftillge far the county of the Isle of Wight. nee tigas plefillMes who was so careful of his political lemstigt @Sea ...: F . . the house on Monday last that Am was so so grievous on the land as the MO tax, and t • principal fault he found with OW late government was that they did not propose the total repeal of the malt tax. Perhaps when the hon. gentleman fills the place of the Chancellor of the Exche quer, the total repeal of the tax may be proposed. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) Having called attention to the criti• clam of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the proposition of the late government, reminding the house that he had omitted the proposition of a reduction of indirect taxation I on landed property, and reminding them that one-fourth of I the revenue was raised on • single crop of the English farmer, let him refer to the scheme of the income tax as proposed by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman would not sanction any change in the arrange meats of rates in the different schedules. That was the policy to which, as he said, every member of the govero meat was so bigoted. The right hon. gentleman had con vinced the house that real property was enamel twopence in the pound more than property in any other of the sthedules ; and having established I that point, one not of novelty, but probably neser brought before the house in so popular and con vincing • form—(hear, hear)—the right hon. gentlemen, I with strange incontistency, having shown that real pro -1 petty was more heavily assessed than any other kind of ' income, proposed another tax of considerable amount en Iland. (Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. Disraeli) would say, that when two millions more was imposed on land, who would deny that the greater portion of taxation was paid by real I property. There was great inconsistency in the course per sued by the right hon. gentleman, in showing to the house I that real property was assessed at a higher rate than was equitable, and yet while that was does on grave consider ations of state, a now tax was to be imposed which would fall entirely on that interest. But was that ell? Let him sail the attention of the house to an important point which had not been adverted to in lobate. The right hon. gentle man said that one of the inducements for the house to agree to the budget of the government, was that there was every prospect of the income tax coming to an end Unseen years. Though some persons might be incredulous IS to NM wank, yet the basis of ell the arguments which had been used was that it was to be considered that the income tax would ter minate in seven years. What did the right hon. gentleman then do? Haying shown that real property was more heavily assessed , than say other property under the in come tax, he said, "as you have a weakness in favour of incomes derived from precarious sources end mom skill and industry, although I have shown yen that real property pays more than any other to the income tax, in order to compensate the possessors of precarious in comes, I will propose a tax on successions—a tax of cam. penistion." (Hear, bear.) If it was a tax of corapen- amendment to propose in the third clause, upon which he desired to raise a diacuss.on, Sir J. YOUNG said he would take care that the hen. ' Nand learned m• mbar should have an opportunity of ear- I l tying out his object on the bringing up of the report. 1 Mr. I. BUTT said on that understanding he would with draw his opposition. Mr. MURROUGn protested against the apooiotment of incompetent young barristers to the ofEce of taxing master, 1 i and declared that the selections made by the Court of El icit, quer bad proved very unsatisfactory to the attornics. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL believed that the evil existed only in the bon. end learned member's imagination. The Chief Bantu of the Court of Exchequer had certainly given the appointments at his disposal to members of the bar, but he believed that all whom he had selected fur the of f ice were fully competent to the discharge of its duties. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MURROUGII said thaton such a point he would not yield even to the Attorney-Ger eral. In reply to a question Irons Mr. Wityritainu, Mr. KEOGH stated that the salary of the taxing officer to be appointed under the bill was fixed at 6001. Mr. WHITESIDE would take the sense of the com mittee against such a salary, seeing that it would be in the power of the officer to make the suitor pay 2001., more or less. _ The clauses were then gone through, and the house re sumed. ELECTION EXPENSES. Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY obtained leave to bring in a bill for further diminishing the expenses of elections of members to serve in parliament. TYNEMOUTII ELECTION. Sir B. HALL moved for an address for a commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at the late election for the borough of Tynemouth. Mr. MOFFATT objected that there was no cue of bribery made out. There was treating, but the house had never gone to the extent of withholding the writ when treating only was proved, nor of addressing the crown for a commission. The motion was then agreed to, and a conference to com municate the address to the Loris was agreed to. On the motion of Sir B. Ham. it was then ordered that no new writ should issue for the borough of Tynemouth be fore the 2nd June next. Mr. MITCHELL moved for a select committee to in quire into the circumstances attending the prosecution of the petition against the late return for the borough of Ber wick. Tho hon. member stated the circumstances under which the late member, Mr. Forster, was unseated. Be fore the trial of the petition an offer of compromise was made by Mr. Hodgson Hinde, and in this respect the statement made by the late Attorney-General was in correct, that the proposal came from Mr. Forster. The proposal was made by a third person, formerly a member of that house, from whom the hon. member read a letter, confirming his statement. There was a direct admission front the petitioner's brother, Mr. Hodgson Ilinde, to the labe sitting member, that he would withdraw the pe tition on payment of 2,0001., and that before any expenses fir witnesses or otherwise had been incurred. And he held that this was a strong parliamentary ground for the appointment of a com mittee to devise means to put a stop to a system by which petitions were brought, not for the purpose of prosecuting inquiry, but to obtain money as e bribe to withdraw them. It was due to Mr. Forster to soy he utterly repudiated the proposal. The motion was agreed to, and the house adjournd at 10 minutes to 2 o'clock. PAIII.-Mr. Pugh paired in favour of Mr. Palmer's motion, with Sir John M'Taggart against. Mr. Charles Forster was accidentally shut out of the divi sion on the issuing of the Harwich writ ; he in•ended to vote with the majority in favour of its postponement. ,be ra3reols. TO CORKISFONDRNTS. 4 dueorid Mice of" The Eames," ecintaisinp eM lame eeentew. I. published every Tuesday and Friday eight, in non :or pone k ieeturecarde Intended tor " The Esprera,.inndon nvening he nu :. Ire -it the ordee, 10, boaserkeurtrad, by Two o'clock on the hay of publication, NIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. T w DAT —Mnruirtir. 74.19" Afternoon, 3b. 35m. T ribosibc.w—alorning, 3b. SO a Aftaresos. 4b. Sm. LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 10. Tue Annual Meeting yesterday of the British and Foreign School Society offers many features of interest. This Society, it is well known,hu for a great number of years past taken a very active part in the education of large masses of the poor of the kingdom. If its labours have not been on so extensive a scale as those of the National Society, this has simply been the effect of the field of its operations being more contracted. Tho National Society invites the co-operation of the members of the largest and the most wealthy corporation in the world, the Church of England. The British and Foreign School Society opens its doors to the children of those who are not included in the organisation of well defined, exclu sive denominations. The Weeleyans, for instance, and the Roman Catholics, as a rule, eschew their teaching. Nevertheless, as a proof of the energy with which the managers of this Society , have con ducted the business entrusted to their charge, it may be noticed that in the list of certificated teachers employed in schools assisted by grants from the Committee of Council on Education the female teachers of the British and Foreign Schools are equal in number to those of the Wesleyan' and the Roman Catholics united, whilst the whole number, both of male and female teachers, is not far below the total of those sent out by the two aforesaid deno minations. The statistics of the certificated teachers at Christmas last were as follows: Males. Females. Total. Church Schools 1,196 668 1,8.54 British and Foreign 103 38 141 Wesleyan Boman Catholic 4l 22 63 Total 1,429 734 2,133 These numbers will show that the Society in ques tion is doing no small share of work in the education of the people of England. It is a great sign of the times that this fact is re cognised in quarters where, twenty years ago, we might vainly have expected a recognition. The ap pearance of the Bishop of MANCHESTER and the Rev. Mr. CLOSE of Cheltenham on the platform shows clearly enough that we are drifting towards a period when all differences of opinion as to the ,node of communicating education will be merged in the grand determination to accomplish the thing. GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON, the Archdeacon of Taunton, may scold to his heart's content at the thought of severing the multiplication table from the Catechism; the " Lion of Judah," Jous, Arch bishop of noun, may howl, with a volubility that Maniocs himself might envy, all those who re fuse to believe that reading, writing, and arith metic are gifts of the devil, unless connected with the Holy Roman Catholic Church—nevertheless, in spite of the ravings of the bigots on both sides, the meeting of yesterday is sufficient to prove that between the " childish treble" of the English high Churchmen, and the senile impotency of the Irish Catholic, there is a vast interval in which the good and the wise of all denominations may labour for the advancement of the education of the poor without interference. Much, however, as we are inclined to lay great stress upon the important fact of the simultaneous appearance of Bishops and Clergymen of the Estab lishment, Peers of the Realm, and Dissenting Minis ters upon the same platform advocating general edu cation, we cannot but lament that the majority of the speakers concurred in clinging to mere shadows of outworn formulae, after having long abandoned the reality. Lord JOHN must be cited as the most promi nent example of this tendency." Some question," said his lordship, "has been raised to-day as to the best mode of promoting education. Now, we (the British and Foreign School Society) have always endeavoured to promote it in connexion with religion. That was from the commencement our principle, and will, I trust, continue to be so. But, at the same time, as many reflections have been thrown out against those who promote secular education, I may, perhaps, say, without being an advocate of ' opinions from which I differ, or of a scheme from which I entirely dissent, that in some instances the mode in which religious education has been given has given some advantages to the arguments and some plausibility to the scheme of those who promote merely secular education." Lord Jouti then gives his opinion as to the faulty mode to which he alludes—consisting, as be states it, in a neglect of the purely secular elements of education and an undue direction of the mind to the discussion of dogmatic differences in religion. How ever, after admitting the justice of the ob jections of the secular educationists to this mode of proceeding, he continues I think that we who belong to the British and Foreign School Society have always dune our best to avoid that error, and I believe that in the future education of the people of this country it will ho much more avoided than has hitherto been the case." There is not the slightest doubt that, in so far as mory from certain imputations coutalbed, as M. Lord JOHN and his friends have " done their best to Komierowski conceives, in the Bth volume of M. avoid that error," they have acted ;nicely in accord- -Lamartine's " History of the Restoration,"just out. ance with the views of the secular education:sta. In The statement complained of is, that before so far as they abaudou dogmatic teaching, leaving Paris for Algiers, Marshal Bourruout they drift away from the dogmatists. An gave to Maruiont, with his can hands, a immense portion of the English clergy, the splendid gratification, and that Casimir l'erier whole of the Roman Catholics, vast numbers of said on one occasion that tour millions would the Dissenters, consider that Lord JOIIN, by avoid- not be badly spent in negotiating with Marmot. l ing their dogmatism, is equally guilty with the dog- The aide-de-camp says the character of his deceased statists /alto differ from themselves. They see no patron gives tho lie to these assertions. M. Lamar difference between the man who refuses to under- tine explains them away. Ile says Casimir Pericr's take all theological teaching in a school, and him expression might have been mere idle words thrown who teaches a different theology from their own. to the wind, and that its true meaning is moreover Archdeacon DENISON and Archbishop HALE see doubtful; that a large sum of money was actually nothing to choose between a school where no reli- given to Marmont, is, he says, notorious, and proved gious subjects at all enter into discussiun, and ono by the journal of an ex-minister, whose name he is where what they style heretical doctrines not at liberty to mention. But M. Lamartine says are openly taught. The refusal to teach he never meant to insinuate, nor does he believe the a peculiar theology is with them a species of heresy. author of the journal thought that a military grad- The assertion that the distinctive differences of sects tication given to a Marshal of France by a King or may be left out in school teaching is with them the an Emperor had any affinity with corruption. most heretical of all dogmas. With what face, then, There was considerable nedvity at the Bourse to can Lord JOHN pretend to separate himself from the day : prices were steadily maintained, and closed secular educationists? What right has he, who has with a general advance. The final quotation of tho really given up what bigoted theologians contend Three per Cents. for the account, however, showed a for, to claim a position far above those who would decline of 13c.; the Four-and-a-Half per Cents. ad separate theological from secular teaching, vanced 40c. A rise of 30e. occurred in the Three per simply because until this is done you must Cents. for cash, and of 10e. in the Four-and-a-Half split up your schools into infinitely small per Cents. There was an improvement of 51. in fractions, and render National Education impossible? Bank shares. Closing prices—For money : Three " I say that this is a most unhappy and a most per Cents., 82f. ; Four-and-a-Half per Cent., 10-If. 10e. unwise division," says his Lordship, " and that For the end of the month : Three per Cents., 81f.90c.; neither in respect of time or subject is it the educe- Four-and•a-Half per Cents., 1011. 50e. Bank Stock, tion which the future people of England ought to 2,700. receive. I say, then, that these questions of secular and religious education ought to be mixed together ; that instruction should be imparted so as to educate at once body, mind, and soul ; and when that is ac complished you may be proud of your work." But tho tables at the commencement of this article show that the large masses of the people cannot have body, mind, and soul educated together. The soul it is that keeps them apart in fractional groups for the purposes of education. The four great divi sions there noted are powerful enough to educate the members of their own body, although imperfectly and at great expense, owing to their want of union. But where are the vast numbers of children who are classed in neither of these divisions? The man with a dogma in his theological pocket looks down on them. If they have no appetite foe his theology they shall not be invited to partake of his literature or his science. The secular educationist would include these in the great educational feast. Ho looks around him and he secs that in the Na tional School system of Ireland, in the Regimental Schools, where the greatest results in the way of education have been obtained, the secular system vir- I tnally prevails. He wishes, as every good man does, that the poor shall be religiously educated ; but be does not wish that religion should be made a pretext for keeping the youth of the nation apart, for educational purposes. He it is who is really the religious educator. He wishes to prepare the intel lect for the reception of the truths of religion, but will not allow religious prejudices to interfere to make all education impossible. Lord lons, the Bishop of MANCHESTER, and others, must recognise this doctrine in time; in the meanwhile, let us be grateful that they have seen so much of it already, and opened to us a vista at the end of which dimly looms the groat prospect of universal national education. TURKEY. The French papers publish accounts from Constan tinople of the 25th ult., which define rather than extend our previous intelligence. The troublesome question of the Shrines, in which Turkey has no in terest beyond satisfying the exigencies of two jealous neighbours, was believed to be settled. Russia has succeeded in gaining her twopoints: the ascendancy of the Greek church —and of the Czar, its real head— is to strike the eyes of the ignorant population in the Byzantine form of the new cupola of thc Holy Se pulchre, and is to be further expressed by weekly shutting out catholics, with all other Christians, from the Virgin's tomb, until the Greeks shall have finished the celebration of their rites. It is said that M. de Lacour assents to this arrangement; of course the British ambassador offers no opposition, and the Porte agrees to ratify it by a positive diplomatic act. The business of deciding upon tho vital ques tion of granting or refusing to the Czar the virtual sovereignty of the Greco-Selave races, under the name of a protectorate, was not settled at the latest dates. Prince Menchikoff, it was said, awaited the receipt of instructions from the Czar. The Russian armaments are resumed by express orders from St. Petersburg. Thirty Hungarian officers from Omer Pacha's army were at Constantinople. A correspon dent, writing from Smyrna to the Semaphore of Marseilles, states that all the political refugees found 1 in the Ottoman Empire are to be at once expelled, and gives the names of several persons who have been ordered to quit Turkey. ELECTION EXPOSURES. FRANCE. PARIS, MONDAY EVENING. It is now considered certain that the session will be prolonged for ten or fifteen days. Several new bills were presented by the Minister of State only on Saturday last. I hear it said that the extraordinary deference now professed for the privileges of the Legislative Body arises principally from the fact that they wince very much at the terms of the con cession of the Lyons and Geneva Railway, which are, in fact, much more onerous for the state than those on which the Grand Central was granted. Had the state assistance been confined to a mere guarantee of interest, however large, there would have been few scruples, but the good round sum of 15 millions to be paid in hard money at all events, coming after so many other heavy calls on the public purse, frightens the legislators. However, a little more time for con sideration, and the explanations to be given by the government debaters will doubtless satisfy their scruples of conscience. It is a happy circumstance that their public duty coincides with their private interest, because a prolongation of the session, were it only for a single day, entails another month's salary as a consequence. M. Schneider's report on the budget has been dis tributed to members of the Corps Legislatif to-day. It ia much more favourable to the government than that of M. Chasseloup-Laubat last year. It, however, expresses regret that the government having now power to transfer credits from one chapter of the budget to another, has not in every ease prepared the items with scrupulous accuracy, but has, in many instances, made rough estimates in the old loose way. The report contains a pointed, though under the circumstances a barren, assertion that it is the right of the Corps Legislatif to discuss and vote the laws with independence and delibera tion. A hope is expressed that measures will be taken for the relief of landed property. M. de Monts lembert's amendment for striking out the produce of the sale of Neuilly and Monceaux from the receipts is alluded to for the purpose of stating that it was rejected " because the decrees of Jannary . 22nd had the force of law according to the constitution;" thus, in the eyes of the committee, relieving them from all complicity in the Orleans confiscation. The Moniteur contains decrees promulgating the telegraphic convention concluded between France and Sardinia, and the literary convention with the Duchy of Nassau, also several laws recently passed by the Corps Legislatif, and among them the bills for the re-purchase of the canal shares, and the new colonial 1 post age bill. Front the Ist of September next the ge of letters between France and the colo min will be subjected to the 'same charges and con ditions as letters sent from one post-office to another l in France, except that there will be an additional charge of ten centimes upon every letter for carriage by sea. The Sieete says, contradicting the Debate, it feels able to affirm that France has not yielded any pert of the arrangement concluded last year by M. Lavalette, and that the Czar has recognised this ar rangement. It must be borne in mind, however, that it is part of the tactics of the republican opposition to represent it as impossible that France can with honour give way in the least with regard to the Holy Places, in the hope of lowering Napoleon in the eyes of the nation, should circumstances oblige him to forego any of the concessions rashly extorted front the Porte by M. Lavalette. The correspondence from Constantinople published yesterday by the DAats is the subject of much con theting comment. The Petrie has a paragraph cau tioning the public in a general way against all rumours in circulation on "so delicate a subject." The Pays thus pointedly and disparagingly alludes to the Debats: We think it necessary to be somewhat mistrustful of the asws published by a journal to-day relative to the negotia- Aims at Constantinople. This journal has once before raised en alarm which a few days later it assumed the task 0 dispelling. It would be unfortunate if too much Moist y were to be felt about this "bascule de nouvelles." According to this journal Russia arms, disarms, threatens, sod soothes, with as much facility as a character in a play. We believe that cabinets act with more calm and consis tency, and we cannot understand how a serious journal can return for the twentieth time to the same nutation, treat ing it each time in a different manner. In another paragraph the Pays suggests that if the Porte continues to arm while the negotiations are going on, it can only be to show that the con cessions it may make will not have been obtained by intimidation. Whatever the truth may be these remarks of the official journals are of course worth nothing, except as showing the impulsion which government desires to give to public opinion for the moment. The linkers looks upon the question as being very far from settled: We heartily desire that everything may be amicably arranged, but we greatly fear that this desire will be dis appointed. Russia certainly has not sent Prince /dens chikoff to Constantinople, and has not put troops and vessels in motion to obtain mere trivial concessions, and we cannot believe that France and Eng land are disposed to let Rus ia take whatever she chooses.' M. Komierowski, a retired officer, who was one of Marmont's aide-de-eatnps, publishes in the Mints a correspondence between him,elf and M. Liunartine, with a view to vindicate Marmont's me- THE COMMITTEE ON DOCKYARD PRO- MOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS. Yesterday, leave having been given by the House of Lords for his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, late First Lord of the Admiralty, to attend and be examined before the committee, the committee room was crowded at an early hour. The noble duke arrived soon after 11 o'clock. Instead ' of occupying the witness seat, hie grace by some accident found himself in a seat at the table of the committee, and was by no means very audible, at intervals, in the delivery of his evidence. The Chairman (Lord Seymour), in addressing his lord ship, said—Will your grace atato to the committee what was the date of your accession to office ?—I think it was on the 2nd or 3rd of March, 11352. Had you previously held any situation in any department of any previous government ?—Never. From the commencement of superintending the adminis tration of the Admiralty, were any arrangements made as to the distribution 'of its patronage among the lords and Secretary of the Admiralty ?—There was; and I believe it has always been the custom among the different members of the board and among the different lords. I, for my own part, took all the naval and military patronage, and gave up the civil patronage to the secretary. You gave up all the civil patronage to the secretory?— Yes, excepting the master-shipwrights, and one class of memangere, which I reserved for deserving soldiers atd marines. Is your Grace aware whether it had been the custom before to give up the appointment of the principal officers in the dockyards to the secretary ?—I never inquired ; I had no knowledge on• the subject either one way or the the other. I may mention that Lord Ellecborougtt told me he never knew anything about the private patronage, but I only say that from hearsay. Then the committee are to understand that it was with your sanction Mr. Stafford had almost all the dockyard ap pointments?—The whole of them, except in cases where it would be an honour conferred on a master shipwright that be should receive the appointment from the head of the establishment. I only reserved it for that reasen, that it might be considered a degree of honour for a master ship wright so to receive it It appears from the evidence that on April 2, 18.52, Mr. Stafford wrote a letter to the Surveyor of the Navy, in which he stated there seemed no alternative but to resume the system that existed previous to September, 1819, and pointing to cancelling the circular of Sir Francis Baring of September, 1849. Now, I wish to ask your grace whether you Lad given any directions to Mr. Stafford before he wrote that letter ?—None. I may mention that Mr. Stafford at various times had conversations with ma on the subject. I do not know whether the committee would wish to know what these representations were, but the letter was written without my knowledge, and without my knowing anything about it. Then your lordship had not considered, either one way or , the other, the expediency of cancelling the circular of Sep tember, 1849 ?—I had not. Was it represented to you by Mr. Stafford in theta conver sations that the surveyor's department appeared to use in fluence in favour of any political party '-- The conversations were at various times, for many mornings, when he came to me, and they were to the effi et that he was responsible for all the patronage of the Admiralty—that he felt waifficulty in doing his duty—that when celled upon by the govern ment or by the House of Commons to explain anything for which he was responsible, he had not the means of answer ing, the whole of the aprointments end patronage being in the surveyor's office. He told me also that the patronage of the Admiralty was used against the government; and lastly, the last time he spoke of it he said that he felt he had not the power of doing his duty, and that he could not retain his office under the circumstances, mention ing it only in conversation ; and he told me that his office was of little value to him. I always refused to interfere, for want of experience. I had not sufficient experience, and therefore refused to interfere. Hearing it stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty that the patronage of the Admiralty was given to political ad versaries, did your grace institute any inquiry on the subject at the time ?—None whatever; and I never, from the day I was in office to the day I left it, inquired whether the patronage was in the hands of the surveyor, or whether it was in the hands of the secretary. I never knew anything about it. It was never brought to my knowledge by the parties. I knew nothing whatever about it. Ilad your grace any reason that induced you to distrust the surveyor of the navy in his department ?-1 hail only the representation of the secretary, who was a member of the government, and who was responsible to the House of Commons. If he made representations, whatever the representations may be, I supposed he had grounds for thou representations, for I never inquired. I refused to interfere because I had not sufficient experience. Did not year grace consider it very prejudicial to the in terests of the service that there should be even an imputa tion against the surveyor's department of the exercise of political favouritism ?-1: might be so against any depart ment. I have been now 50 years in the navy, and I never heard but one story told of the same system of government influence and jobbing, as it is called, in the dockyards having always prevailed. It was a matter of common notoriety, as I far as I know. Did your grace take into consideration the circular that I had been isued by Lord Auckland, and written by Mr. Ward, with a view to preventing jobbing in the dockyards ? —lprd Aukisud's regulations were excellent—they wer • xcellent ; and I miy mention that the effect of the minutes was to return to Lord Auckland's regulations. But Lord Auckland's regulations state that the good or bad working of any system must depend in a great measure on those entrusted wih the administration now, when it was represented to your grace that the surveyor's office was not properly carrying out that administration, did it appear to you to be your duty to order an inquiry into it ? —I can not cmccive how I could have made any inquiry into the matter. The means of inquiry would be by a committee. I bad no means of inquiring into every individual case that wes recommended. 1 only heard it generally from the secret try as a confidential and responsible member of the board, and as responsible to tho House "of Commons, that such was the case. I had no reason to disbelieve it, and at the same time I did not know that it was anythirg more than what might have been going on as before. 1 believed it might not have been the Surveyor of the Navy who did it, but that it might have been some one under him. Batas far as the interest of the service was cemeerned, if political favouritism prevailed through persons in his depart meet to the injury of the service, it would be pretty nearly the same as though it prevailed through the exercise of the influence of the surveyor himself ?—lt appeared to me then,