The Sun. — London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

'ERIAL PARLIAMENT ICOUSE OP LORDS—Last Evening, The Loup CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack a the usual hour. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given bycommission to the follow ing bills : Post-office Savings Banks Gardens in Towns Protection Office of Secretary of War Abolition Ca'nbridge, St. John's-lane, Stoipage .igid Wales Railway (Capital) Bells and Hants Extension Railway Market Harborough and L,ughborough Road London and North Western and Lancashire and York shire Railway Companies .S2u:h Staffordshire Railway Glasgow Gas Leyland and Farrington Gas Hereford, hay, and Brecon Railway Caledonian Railway (Breeenholuie Deviation) Scarborough. Water Leeds Ga 3 Swansea Municipal Crrporation Glasgow and South Western Railway ('apical) Harrowgate Gas The Royal Commissioners were tha Lord Chancellor ; Earl St. Germans, and Lord Sydney. CASE OF MR. BISHOP. The Marquis of NORMAN BY said he had that after ncon received a letter from the noble earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stating that owing to a severe cold he should be precluded from attending the house that evening, and therefore he (Lord Normanby) was reluctantly compelled to defer presenting the Petition of the Rev. Mr. Bishop, on the part of his son, now a p r i. soner in the fortress of Alexandria, till Monday next. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Midland Railway (Extension to London)—Wear Navigation and Sunderland Docks —Busby Railway —and Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway Bills were a second time. THIRD READINGS. The Dulas Valley Mineral Railway, Wicklow Copper and Hibernian Mines Companies, Uxbridge and Rickmans worth Railway, Banff, Portnoy, and Strathisla Railway, Stirling Estate, Workington Dock, Desford Roads and Accrington Gas Bills were read a third time and passed. THE PRINCE OF WALES. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales entered the house shortly after five, and sat on the front seat of the cross benches. The Earl of Derby immediately crossed to the Prince, and entered into a very animated conversation With his Royal Highness. THE ALBERT BRIDGE. Lord CHELMSFORD called attention to the petition for the recommittal of this bill, and moved that the bill be referred back to the same committee. The proposed bridge was proposed to cross the Thames between the new Chelsea bridge and the old Battersea bridge, and would undosbt • edly be of great convenience, not only to large areas of pri ♦ate property on both sides of the river, but also to the public property. It had been estimated that in four years the whole cost of the bridge would be realised from the sale of the improved approaches. The petitioners com plained that the committee of the Lards had reported against the bill, and had rejected evidence in its favour, whilst they received and acted upon the evidence proposed in the interests of the proprietors of Old Battersea, who were, of course, opposed to the scheme. Lord TAUNTON considered that after a committee had come to a certain conclusion, it was too much for the pro moters of a bill to come forward and ask for an alteration of that determination. After a few words from Lord D 3 Ros, The Earl of CAMPERDOWN said he had been a mem ber of the committee, and after the most patient hearing of the evidence brought before them, he was of opinion that it was not expedient at present to erect the proposed bridge. Lord CRANWORTH supported the motion, Lord TRURO opposed the motion. The Earl of DERBY supported the motion, because he thought the advantages of a bridge in the proposed posi tion were too obvious to admit of doubt. Thereal question for tho committee to have considered was, whether the pre amble of the bill (which stated that the biel would be of great utility to the public) had been proved. That question however the committee did not seem t have entertained. Lord TAUNTON said the motion had been brought for ward at the instance of a very powerful party, and he warned the house against listening to the suggestion made by them for upsetting the deliberate decisionof the committee. The Earl of DERBY thought the powerful party seemed to be all on the other side. (Hear, hear.) Earl GRAN - VILLE opposed the motion for the reasons stated by the noble lord behind him (Lord Taunton), and also upon the general ground of the inconvenience of dis turbing a decision cf a committee. Lord TAUNTON again entreated their lordships not to agree to the motion, and said that though, if it were car ried, he and the other members of the committee would do their best to give proper weight to any new evidence brought before them, still it would be done under protest, as con trary to his whole Parliamentary experience. The Duke of MONTROSE supported the motion. Lord REDESDALE opposed it on the technical grounds. Earl GREY thought it might always be assumed that a new means of communication would be advantageous unless special reasons were shown to the contrary; and he was by no means prepared to say that the time had not arrived when some mode of appeal from the decision of a committee should be adopted. He should therefore support the motion, more particularly as the fact of a large number of persons having been found willing to subscribe the funds for the bridge seemed to afford strong proof that it was generally considered to be required. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that, instead of referring the bill back to the committee, it would be bet ter to discuss it on its merits in the whole house on the third reading. The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the motion. The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought it was a dangerous course to interfere with the general practice of the house in its mode of legislating upon private business; and though he thought they could not have too many bridges in the metropolis, ho would rather the advantage of a new bridge should be delayed another year than disturb the admirable working of the present system with regard to committees. The Duke of SOMERSET thought it would be better to refer the bill to another committee. Their lordships then divided— Content Not content Majority The motion was therefore lost MARES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS. This bill passed through committee. INCLOSURE BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. Their 10:dships they adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS 7 Last Evening, The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. The Lords' Amendments to the Aylesbury Markets Bill were considered and agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time. The following bills, with amendments, were agreed to— Denbigh Water, North Bierley Gas, Saint Asaph Road, and Vale of Llangollen Railway. THIRD READINGS. The following bills were read a third time :—Blackfriars Bridge—Elsecar, Wentworth, and Hoyland Gas—Exeter Gaol —Great Western Railway (Branch at Great Bridge)__ Inverness and Perth Junction and Perth and Dunkeld Railway Companies—Seaton and Beer Railway—Tees Conservancy—Van Diemen's Land Company—and Ware, Hadham, and Buntingford Railway. The following bills were considered and ordered to be read a third time :—Birkenhead Improvement—Bris tol and Portishead Pier and Railway—Formartine and Buchan Railway Bill—Gravesend and Mil ton , 4 _ Ciaa—Great Grimsby Water—ltchen Bridge— Railway—Londonlway—London and South Western and Andover and Redbridge Railways—Mid Kent Railway— Rotherham :and Rimberwerth Local Board of Health — Southampton andlistley Railway—Stourbridge Railway— and Tranmere Dock s . The Londonderry R a il way (Seaham to Sunderland) Bill was read a second time. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table, and summoned the Speaker and the h em to attend at the bar of the House of Lords, to hear th e R oyal Com mission read and the Royal assent given to several bills agreed to by both houses of Parliament. PETITIONS-. ByLord Hotham, against subjecting charities to the in in tax. Petitions to the same effect were presented b;citi: Ingham, Durham; and from Charing - cross hospital ; Si; F. Smith, several, from Chatham; Mr. Henley, Oxford; Mr. Bentinck, Norfolk ; Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr. Walter, Mr. Pullen, Sir B, Bridges, Mr. Farrer, Mr. Alder man Salomons, Mr. Clay, Hull; Mr. Hankey, Mr. Baines, 30, Mr. Cox, 4, the Lord Mayor, several, Sir S. Northcote, several, Mr. Wynne, Sir F. Farquhar, Lord J. Manners, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Ayrton, Sir J. Duke, several; against the amalgamation of the Metroplitan with the City Police; Col. Sykes, praying for a modifica tion of the fire insurance duty. TURKEY. Mr. GREGORY gave notice that on Friday the 29th he should call the attention of the board to the condition of Turkey and its dependencies. WIDOWS AND CHILDREN OF SEAMEN. Mr. LIDDELL gave notice that on Friday, on the mo tion for going into committee of supply, he should call at tention to the subject of erecting residences for wives, children, and widows of seamen in connection with sea men's barracks, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners of 1861. THE SEA QUEEN. Mr• PEACOCK gave notice of his intention on an early day, to mod s for some correspondence with Earl Russell and Mr. Seward with respect to this vessel. THE LOAN SOCIETIES ACT. Mr, NOliali asked the Secretary to the Treasury what course the Government intended to pursue with reference to the Lean Societies Act, which would expire in Auguet next? Mr. F. PEEL replied that the AO 'would be renewed as a permanent act. AUSTRALIA. Mr. MARSH asked the Under Semetary of State for the Colonies whether any, and if any what, petitions had been received within the last three years at the Colonial Office, for presentation to her Majesty, from different districts in Australia, praying for separation from the existing colonies, and the formation of new colonies? Mr. FORTESCUE replied that three petitions were pre sented in 1%1 from New South Wales praying for a sepa ration; in 1862, one from Victoria to the same effect. These were the only petitions. THE ISLAND OF SONIBRERO—THE UNITED STATES FLAG. In reply to Mr. Maguritt, Mr. LAYARD replied that Ibis island was the property of the British Crr wn. A British officer, on visiting the island in his ship, found the United States flag displayed He desired it might be taken down, and cn a refusal he directed one of his officers to take it down, and this was accordingly done. PRISON MINIS FERS BILL. In reply to an HON. MEMLER, Sir G. GREY stated that he should proceed with this bill on Thursday next. THE SHANNON. In reply to Col. FRENCH, Mr. F. PEEL said the report of the commissioners had not yet been received. AMALGAMATION OF THE CITY WITH THE METROPOLITAN POLICE. Sir J. DUKE asked if, after the report of the standing orders against this bill, he intended to proceed with it ? Sir G. GREY recited what he stated the other night, that the committee of Standing Orders had reported that as the usual notices had not been given in November, and which were requisite for a private bill, the orders of the house had net been complied with respect to the bill. The bill had been referred beck to the Standing Order Commit. tee, and until the committee again reported nothing could be done. THE "NO HO USE" ON FRIDAY. Lord R. MONTAGU called attention to the "no house" on Friday, and moved the adjournment of the house in order to enable him to do so. He urged that by the stand ' ing orders framed is 1862, which had been constantly vio ' lated by the Government, the Government ought to have ' made a house on Friday. Mr. D. GRIFFITH seconded the motion, and declared that the Government must have made it known that they did not desire a house, For there were several members in the lobby. Mr. B. COCHRANE spoke to the motion. Lord PALMERSTON regretted that no house was made on Friday, and therefore not enlightened by the con clusive answers which the Government would have given. (Laughter.) It certainly had been understood that the Go. vernment were to make and keep a house on Friday. (Hear,) There was, however, a fellowship on the part of hon. members in regard to making a house for members with whose motives they sympathised, the Government contri buting its quota. It appeared on Friday that there were several members in the lobby. But they had now been sitting three months, and this was the first time there had been "no house." He might say, however, that the Government would do their best to make and keep a house on Friday. (Hear, hear,) Mr. DISRAELI thought that the motion would be sufficiently answered by the promise of the noble lord. It certainly was understood that the Government should se cure the house on Fridays. THE CITY POLICE. Col. FRENCH pressed the Government to state their ultimate intentions with respect to the proposed amalgama tion bill. Sir G. GREY replied that if the standing order com mittee reported against the bill it could not be proceeded with ; but if they reported that the standing orders should be dispensed with the bill could be proceeded with. Lord R. MONTAGU withdrew his motion. VISIT OF THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS THIS EVENING. Shortly beforefi o'clock the Prince of Wales, accompa nied by Lord Alfred Paget, entered the peers and diplo matic gallery, It was currently reported that the Princess of Wales was in the Ladies' Gallery, over the Reporters' Gallery. His Royal Highness appeared in excellent health and spirits, and seemed very much pleased by his visit. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQT:ER the house went into committee on this bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2, Sir J. FERGUSSON called attention to the defective mode of levying the income tax. He objected t) the pre sent plan of centralisation, and moved to add to the end of the clause words repealing the 44th section of the previous Act, "directing that no assessor shall be appointed for duties under Schedules A and B." A long discussion then ensued as to new assessments under Schedule A. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the hon. baronet was mistaken in supposing there was a new assessment last year under that schedule. The amendment was negatived without a division, and the clause was agreed to. TAXATION OF CHARITIES. On clause 3, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he rose to redeem the pledge which he had given to the com mittee; and undoubtedly the question which he was about to raise was one of sufficient magnitude and importance to justify a separate discussion with regard to it. He should altogether decline to embarrass himself and the committee by entering upon peculiar cases which might be urged on peculiar grounds. The question which he desired to sub mit was, whether charitable bequests should continue to enjoy their preeent immunity from direct taxation, while such heavy charges were undertaken by the State in the interest of charities. It was, however, his intention to pro pose the insertion in the fourth clause of a certain qualifi cation to the enactment which obliged trustees to draw from any other fund in their possession rather than to make any deduction for income tax in the case of a recipient of a small dole. Will respect to the general proposal, he was not ignorant of the opposition which had been ex cited to it, but the conviction of the Government was that it was a wise one, and that it was a very mild and temperate compromise —nay, that it was an equitable, and even in a high degree a lenient compromise in regard to the great mass of the charities. But having made that state ment he was bound at once to make the admission that it wa• a proposal which ought only to be carried with the frqe and deliberate sanction of Parliament, and that it was not • one in respect to which the influence of the Administration, either in a greater or less degree, ought to be made to bear. The question was new to public discussion ; but ho had a confidence in the fairness and justice of the House of Com mons which induced him fearlessly to appeal to it for a fair and candid hearing of the case. He might be told that Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel were both against his proposal; but he should demur to such an assertion. The income tax under Mr. Pitt was a personal tax, and it was hardly pos. sible for him to have got at the revenues of corporations. In reality, it was under Lord Sidmouth that the exemption of charities from the income tax was inaugurated, and at the time little was known of the eharities of the country, except that they were in a state shameful to those who had the administration of them. Such was the description of their conditions placed on record by Lord Eldon —no re forming or radical authority. But then Sit Robert Peel had been quoted as the author of the exemption. Why, in the session:of 1345 a bill was introduced by L , rd Lyndhurst, acting on behalf of Sir Robert Peel's Government. propos ing a tax of 6d upon all charities. There could be no doubt that 19-20ths of the charities of the country were constituted of deathbed bequests. Deathbed bequests were restrained by law in most countries ; but in our country they were only restrained when they took a particular form, a remarkable instance of the freedom which was permitted by the law of England to individual caprice. Still a deathbed request could not be regarded as charity in the same high Christian sense as when a man dealt with that which was his own. (Hear.) It was not to be denied that such bequests might have their origin in laudable motives ; but, on the other hand, it was equally true they too often proceeded from motives not laud able, and that they were only made out of that which it was impossible for man to retain. The 10 per cent. charge on legacies was not a charge upon charities. If the tes tator wished to give the entire sum in charities, he left it free from legacy duty, and the 10 per cent. was a charge upon the testator's estate. It was not wise for the State t o o give temptations to death-bed bequests. He had proceed e d the assumption th a t an exe mption was a gift, and th a t what the State remitted a man it gave to him. It was not wise to give temptations, in the form of gifts of public money, to men to endeavour to immortalise themselves as founders. (Sensation.) He might be wrong, but it seemed an anomaly that a man might to the day of his death enjoy the accumulation of his wealth, and then unite to that en joyment the merit of almsgiving by a will opened when he par ticular gene, a and have the fame of-being the founder of a par e o mmroinusltittuotfiontlla,kwinhgenp, rifovhiseiohan ford bienednivcidonotalezthwisitnhatrahee would have passed into oblivion. The gift of public money to encourage this, f t abl thee usesp b 1 becausec. l l e in the form of an exemption, was obtained be ing lthee left expense w t as he a charitable t w e a st r a e to o r f £ b l a s d o a ,o n o a o v b e e r - - sion towards his relatives —(laughter) —and he put it to the committee whethe r it was fair that the Legislature was i called p . on to encour age b y gifts of public money such a d If the State did n o t i nterfere with the wills of privasteoisnidtliovni. duals, so as to interfere with their gold in this manner, at least it ought not to assist bequests so going. And whatever cost to the State to those exemptions in favour of death bed bequests, the Legislature became responsible for them; however mischievous or scandalous any of them might be, it assisted such with a gift of public money. But this was a portion of taxation. Now, the income of the United King. dom from property amounted to from £ 1 80,000,000 to £190,000,000 a year. Of this property one-sixtieth, or /3,000,000, was possessed by public charities in a legal sense. The taxation imposed on this £190,000,000 was about £13,000,000 a year, of which one. half was paid in income tax, The amount of exemption enjoyed by charities, which was thtts laid upon other property, was about £m,ooo. a year; but besides this there wet a large and growing charge on the public pttree or the management of these chari4e— Ilia year £lB,OOO had been 'voted upon the estimates on thiS account; but therein were not included the expenses for superannuation and offices; and, altogether, he might esti mate the entire expense to the State of, as Lord Eldon said, restraining the "gross and general breat=h of trust," at from £40,000 to £15,000. The £216,000 of exemption represented 7 per cent. of the income of those charities ,and the expenses to the State for management represented 11 per cent, more, so that the quarter of a million which they cost amounted to 8i p r cent. of their income, and that was what the State expended on charities as such. Now, Parliament had from time to time passed acts to bring the entire expenditure of the State within the control of the House of Commons Why was this part of the State expenditure to be shrouded within the complicated sections of acts of Parliament, so that Parliament could have no control over it. If Sir R. Peel, in proposing, in 1812, the income tax, bad, with the view of keeping charities wrier the eye of the State, re commended the income tax to be levied on all property without exemption, hut that the sum of £lOO,OOO, the amount then levied on charities, were to Le voted from year to year in their aii, this exemption accorded to death bed bequests, which was not granted to the alms of the liv ing, would nut stand the scrutiny of the House of Comm one for a single year—(hear, hear)—and not one-tenth of the charities now in the enjoyment of the exemption would re tain it. The charitable army had been marshalled in a skil ful manner; much had been done in putting the best foot foremost. The claims of Bartholomew's Hospital, of the orphans of the clergy, of the widows of Dissenting minis ters, rang in his ears, and the country was ask. d on their account to continue a gift of a quarter of a million on be half of charities. There were generals who, by putting their able.bodied in front, and by the proper disposition of women and boys dressed as men (laughter) won their battles. On this principal the doubtful part of the charities was kept in skilful reserve. Charities for the purpose of this inquiry might be divided into three classes—the small charities, the middle charities, and the great charities. He included in the small charities the funds of large charities, which were distributed in small amounts. By the middle charities he meant generally stipends of money to the extent of from £2O to £4O a year, given for the most part to widows and orphans. But if in the case of the small charities it were proposed to assist them by the grant of Ss. to each, this house would scarcely vote a single amount of ss. These small charities were for the most part given for local poor and local education. (Opposition cheers.) if they deserved the toleration of the house, it was the most ;that they de served Three times had they been condemned by the Charity Commissioners, by the Poor-law Commissioners of 1834, and by the Education Commissioners of two or three years. He had received a deputation that day the charac ter and weight of which he would leave them to judge of. The Bishop of London was a member of that deputation, and the demand of that deputation was, that the exemp tion now existing should be continued as at present. The predecessor of the Bishop of London had been a Poor law Commissioner in 1834, and the commissioners of 1834 had reported very unfavourably of those small cha rities, stating that to evils inherent in themselves they added others of a very injurious and demoralis ing kind. The commissioners of 1861 equally con demned those charities in their report. He was desirous of proving to the committee the real state of those charities. There were several towns and country parishes where there were enormous charities, as they were called. Now he wanted to know upon what ground those parishes which had no charities for their poor were called upon to give money out of their own pockets to enlarge the endowments in favour of the parishes which had those charities, No greater injustice could be conceived. (Hear, hear.) An hon. member had said to him that he had betrayed his duty as member of Oxford University, by proposing to interfere with the charities of the Established Church, thus propound ing the doctrine that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was under an obligation, before proposing a fiscal measure, to ascertain whether the fiscal incidence of such measure would be in favour of the communion to which he belonged, and accordingly that he should adopt or reject it. (Hear, hear.) He would take the class of charities for attendance at church, which approximated to the character of a spiritual bribe, for the parties were hardly ever known to attend ex cept when the charity dole was to be distributed. There was not a city in the country which was mere rich in chari ties than Coventry, and yet what was the result ? Why that at the very first appearance of distress the people were pros trated ; whereas, if they turned to Lancashire, where there were comparatively few or no charities, theywould find that distress was borne for more than a year before any appeal was made to the public at large. (Cheers.) Application had been made to him in favour of the " valuable" charities of Bristol. The charities of Bristol were not valuable, but per nicious, encouraging indolence and mendicancy. (Hear.) He was not going to say that the small charities were all scandalous ; his argument only amounted to this, that they had no claim to the public purse. The right hon. gentle man then referred to what was known as Jervis's Charity, which ought to be known to fame. In 1793 Jervis died, leaving property to the amount of £lOO,OOO, for the benefit of the poor of three parishes in Herefordshire. There was one thing which Jervis had forbidden, and that was build ing. The population of those places in 1801 was 816; in 1851 it increased 1,222. Why had it increased ? Was it because trade had increased and higher wages could be ob tained ? No ; wages had fallen by 2s. a week. The popu lation increased because of the charitable dole. The case had become so bad and the extent of the demoralisation so great that an Act of Parliament had been obtained at great expense to get rid of the evil; and the managers of the charity did the only thing which Jervis had forbidden. (Laughter.) They expended £30,000 in building. It was not a university or college which they built, but a boarding school fur the children of the three parishes. The real meaning of which was, that the money of Jervis was to be supplemented by the money of the State. The right hon. gentleman next turned to the middle charities, and instanced the Clergy Orphan Association, the income of which was £5,000 a year. The income tax at 7d would be £145 a year upon that property ; and perhaps the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire would say that the Govern ment were robbing them of that. The charity was for the orphans of the poor clergy, and let them see what was the relief it afforded and what was the benefit which the Govern.. ment proposed to confer by the remission of the tax upon £6O. He would take it there were 5,000 clergymen having from £lOO to £l5O year, and 2,000 clergymen having £2OO a year. The reduction to the 7,000 clergymen would be equal to £7,000 a year, or about £1 per annum to each ; while the £145 a year which the Government proposed to take would be but £ll7s lad a year. Upon the small pri vate property in private hands there was levied a tax of more than four times as much as was now proposed to be levied upon corresponding amounts derived from charity He next came to a consideration of the greater charities, and they must be considered under two classes—First, the great charities of education, such as Christ's Hospital ; and, secondly, our great endowed hospitals. (Hear, hear £B5O which the Government now invited 1 3 a;liaent to make it contt ibute to the taxation of the country. To that statement there. was only one answer, namely, that St. Bar tholonact?e, as a recePfacle for the most miserable of the community, ought to receive a public subvention. (Hear.) As for hundreds of patients being dismissed from these hospitals as the rem t of this proposal, his belief was that none would be dismissed from them, for one of the greatest objections to the present system was that the absence of public control abrogated all effective motives for the econo mical management of charities. Why should they, for example, spend a EMU of £220 annually upon a Inner at St. Bartholomew's? But again, St. Bar tholomew's, as well as Guy's and St. Thomas's, were thinking of their future aggrandisement; and at St. Thomas's as much as 15 per cent. of the income of the charity was spent on reproductive investments, and on the improvement of its lands. 'Well, but that was not to give immediate relief to the destitute. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the public grant for St. Bartholomew's would be ten times preferable to absolute exemption; for with a public grant they let in the light of day. (Hear, hear.) But if it was proper that Parliament should make a present of some thousands annually to the charities of the country, he would ask was it right that the grant should be confined to institutions that had it comes of £20,0,0 or £30,000 a year? Was it not fair to remember the case of the unendowed hospitals of the young and struggling institutions? The rapid growth of those charities ought not to escape the notice of Parliament. Strange to s iy their income grew more rapidly than the property of the community at large. Within the last 32 years it might be taken that their income had groan from £1,200,000 to £3,000,000. The income of what was known as Jones's Charity, and which was possessed of some 32 acres of land at Deptford, would, before any long period had elapsed, be enormous. The charity known as Tonbridge School, and which now educated 200 young gentlemen, would soon have an income of £BO,OOO a year. Again, Smith's Charity at Kensington within a limited number of years would have an income of £50,000. The Government brought forward this measure not as one of financial necessity, but as a just and politic measure ; and although they would not presume to press it upon an adverse House of Commons, yet they did not hesitate to commend it to the justice, the equity, the courage,!and the wisdom of Parliament. (The right hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud cheers, after having spoken for two hours and ten minutes.) Sir S. NOR fHCOTE said The eloquent speech of his right hon. friend was marked by certain fallacies which made themselves apparent throughout his remarks. He (Sir S. Northcote) contended the Chancellor of the Exche quer, from the idolus specus which he was in the habit of seeing from his cave at the Treasury, looked on every man as one liable to pay a tax, and if he took £5 out of the pocket of one who had £lOO a year, claimed credit that he had presented him the remaining £95, and made him respon sible for the manner in which he spent that £95. (Laugh ter.) The authority of all finance was in favour of exemp tion to charities ; and this was done on the ground that the tax was laid not on property, but on persons in respect of their property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter forgot hie observation of a few nights ago, that the true basis of the tax was equality; for he would seek in the case of a small income, whether the recipient was drawing it from charity or from other property, and tax it in the former case. It was necessary on that night to go into de tails. The house had affirmed the principle of the bill on its second reading, and care must be taken now, if at all, that individuals were not to suffer from this new mode of taxa tion. When they talked of equality, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think he would accomplish equality when he extended the income tax to those charities ? The right hon. gentleman proposed not to remove the exemptions set forth in the income tax, such as the stock of friendly societies when under £2OO, and the like. Did the right hon. gentle man mean to leave friendly societies in their present posi tion ? He was sorry the hon. member for Rochdale and the hon. member for Birmingham were not in their places, as they might be able to give them some information with regard to the Rochdale Equitable Pioneer Associa tion. There had been ranch dissatisfaction created among some of the trades of that town, owing to the manner in which this association had carried on its operations. He found from a printed paper of the association that they had divided among the members last year upwards of £17,000 in the shape of profits; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of exemption as a present, was the right hon. gentleman prepared to make the trades of Roch dale give a present to this association with its profits of £17,000. The right hon. gentleman had brought a great indictment against the founders of charitable bequests; they had been told of Jervis and Smith's charities; Smith was a great sinner because he had left his property to his poor re lations, and Jervis was a great sinner because he had not left his property to his poor relations. (Opposition cheers.) By this measure the Government were inflicting a blow upon the recipients of bequests which had been left years and years ago. If there were abuses connected with those charities, let them reform those abuses; but let them pro ceed upon sound principles, and not in the present crude manner. He spoke in this matter with a perfectly clear conscience. He was sitting on a commission that was in quiring into the endowment of public schools, and he was quite sure the commission would recommend many im portant improvements in the mode of dealing with these endowments. (gear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the abuses of Christ's Hospital, but let him apply himself to the task of reforming them in such a way as Par liament had done with the universities. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with the small charities if they were bad, but let him not come upon the middle charities. (Hear.) Was the Government, was the house, going to condemn the policy of the great public endowments of the country ? Were they prepared to throw all the institutions of the country upon private charity and State aid—the only two sources in continental countries ? But in this country they had great and noble endowments, and if there ever was a moment when they should be cautious of laying a tax upon charity it was the present, when the public had made such munificent contributions towards the relief of Lancashire distress, The Government might say they were not going to lay a tax upon voluntary contribu tions; but let them recollect that, when a drain of this kind took place, the ordinary charities must suffer unless they had the endowments to fall back upon. (Cheers ) The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel suffered a loss last year of £l,OOO upon their usual income, and other cha rities suffered in a similar manner. He asked the Govern ment, on the ground of expediency, to reconsider their pro position. Daring the autumn not a speech would be made at any charity, nut a subscription solicited, not a circular issued, in which reference would not be made to this new tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be pre ant to explain that it was no tax. (Cheers and laughter.) The measure would create discontent and perplexity throughout the country, and he trusted the Government would not try to force a measure through that house against the feeling of the public. He therefore hoped the Government would withdraw the measure, and not put them to the necessity of voting on it. (Cheers.) He hoped the committee would go to a division on the whole clause and not on the amendment of the hon. member for Christ's Hospital enjoyed the most illustrious patronage, and those who were connected with it no doubt exercised their powers under excellent principles and with the best in- Rochdale, and that it would be negatived by a large majority. Mr. MAGUIRE considered the proposal an unwise one, and unworthy so great a statesman as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was opposed to the imposition of the tax on charities. He considered it absurd to say that the State was giving them a boon. The proposition was no other than tsntions. By the calculation of 8 per cent. Christ's Hospi tal received annually £6,000 from the pockets of the people, not one shilling of which, he contended, was the hospital entitled on any ground of right or principle to receive. (Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital was founded for the poorest of the poor, "the fatherless and motherless children, and the sick, sore, and impotent people." Who were, he asked, "the sick, sore, and impotent people" who w ere now to be found in Christ's Hospital? (Hear, hear.) Why, they had gradually improved in circumstances, and had worked them selves up in society with the increak ing wealth of the nation, and now they were children of persons with incomes of £2OO, £3OO, £4OO, and in some cases £5OO per annum. (Hear, hear.) H e denied that that class of persons was for one moment entitled to call on Parliament for a public vote in aid of education for their children; and no man would dare to ask in that house for a vote of £5,000, £5OO, or even £5, for such an institution. (Hear, hear.) The governors had said that, by the imposition of the income tax, they would have to pay £2,000 per annum; and by the use of those faculties with which he was blessed, he found that that sum represented anincome of about £70,000 per annum, including of course that amount which was now paid by the receivers of salaries belonging to the institution, because where some service was rendered, it was not a charity, and the person did not escape income tax; thus the poor curate who does something for his income paid the tax, whilst the poor knight, of Windsor, for instance, who really did nothing, paid nothing. (Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital had 500 governors, who came into the possession of their office by the payment of £5OO each; and it was a spirit stirring reflection to find that there were between 15 and 16 men ready annually to pay £5OO each to the hospital. The £5OO was not merely alms, but for obtaining a vested right-12,000 presentations. After referring to the work ing of the charity, and exposing many of its abuses and in consistencies, he proceeded to show by contrast the differ ence between that institution and King's College, and then passed to the consideration of the endowed hospitals, select ing St. Bartholomew's Hospital as an illustration. That hospital had an income of £36,000. It now paid £2OO per annum income tax, and by his proposition it would be in creased by £B5O. Against this was to be placed the advan tages derived by the hospital from the increased value of land, arising from recent beneficial legislation as well as benefit from the great reductions that had taken place of late years in our customs tariffs. The income of the hospi tal in 1841 was £31,335, and in 1861, 20 years after the im to lax poverty—the poor, the wretched, and the miserable, and to deprive poor children of education. Rather than as them it would be better to reform their abuses. Lord H. VANE was unable to agree with the argu ments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in sup port of the Government proposition. For the first time, and contrary to all authority and precedent, the Govern ment proposed to subject hospitals to an income tax. In no other country would the proposition to tax hospitals be en tertained for a moment. The strongest disapprobation to the measure was entertained throughout the country, Great abuses, no doubt, existed in the smaller charities, and that they possessed large funds which might be better appropriated ; but that was no argument for their adopting so unwise, so unjust, and so inexpedient a measure. Be hoped the committee would reject the clause. Mr. W. MARTIN spoke in favour of the exemption of county hospitals, which were not in the habit of entering 150 cases annually. The funds and subscriptions of county hospitals were limited, and they had no means of raising large annual sums. He considered it was for the interest of every county that there should b 3 an hospital within its limits, and he had no doubt that people would cheerfully submit to their exemption from the tax. Lord R. CECIL said there appearedito be no supporter of the . measure on the Minisierial side of the house. No doubt they would have the Solicitor-General by and by, for he appeared to be the only solitary barrel the Government had loaded ready to fire, and he no doubt was kept back till he could be fired with greater effect. Referring to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble lord said it was a furious attack on charitable institutions and the donors, and that he had spoken with bitterness of the liv ing, and raged with absolute fury against the dead, lie condemned what he called the sophistry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said that his speech was unworthy of a great statesman. He defended the memory of the donors of charities from the unworthy motives attributed to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only question involved in the issue before the committee was, whether the recipients of these charities received more than £lOO a year, for if they did not, then, as a matter of bare justice and right, they were entitled to be exempted from the tax. It was in compensation to such people that they were ex empted from the operations of the Probate and Succession Duties ; for by the policy of our law the rich alone were subjected to that tax. In telling the committee that the great hospitals should be taxed, because they had gained so enormously by the commercial legislation of late years, the right hon. gentleman was excelling his usual sophistry; while he seemed to envy the heritage of the poor, and to con sider that it was a great national calamity, as he dwelt upon the circumstance of these hospitals becoming every day richer. (Hear, hear.) But the truth was, the right hon. gentleman could not have selected a more unhappy mo ment for mooting such fanciful philosophy than in those days of Lancashire distress ; and therefore it was to be hoped that the committee would reject the proposal by a large majority. (Cheers.) A slight pause then ensued, and no member rising to address the committee, although the benches on both sides position of the income tax, it had increased to £36,030. h (H ad ear der ) ive W d fromhat the le e a r i e s f l o a r t io a i d n bc consequence e n n s e q t h u e en b c e e n o e f fi t theth eopheorsaptiitoanl of the income tax in reducing taxation ? Taking the con sumption of tea, which was 3,2461 b, at 5d per lb, that reduc tion was equal to an endowment of £192 148 7d ; sugar and treacle, £B2 15s; soap, £26 2s 6d; butter and eggs, £l4l 2s 3d; spirits, £9B 15s 10d ; and wine, £2BB 13s. The reduc tion on drugs and medicines was Z 415; making altogether a difference of £1.245 per annum in favour of the hospital. Well, adding to that amount 50 per cent, for other articles of food, and for articles of clothing, end for building mate rials, o f a t l ie l l2 ,ll . l 6c4 f : ln mane d tad th x a ai t trh S orn t; ; B hg a h rt tht la he o e l e o rnhe ni d e uan w ct ' eei s od li n v o o s af p ldu i u t e a t l oief w s, a pi s nro d ap e se b ur t tm o y r b X e l n ,4 efi 4o, tretcoegievtalier dbymsakt,inzgarthi3,o3loo7masswetl:eagdaiirnesottthp:csuunmiaroyf THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1861 were crdwded i the question was then put from the chair, w:sen, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEk - said,—This debate having ben brought to a c'ose, we have further means of ascertaining the opinion of the committee upon the proposal submitted to them. It was certainly not the in tention of the Government to press this as a merely official proposal on the part of the Executive upon the notice of the house, unless the house itself showed a disposition to receive it. Our opinions upon it are fixed and clear ; but as the debate has come to a close without any independent member having declared himself in the same sense, I am bound to say that I think the case has arisen which I contemplated earlier in the evening, and that it would not bo consistent if we were to take the sense of the committee upon the clause. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—I must say that the announcement which has just been made appears to me a very rational de termination. (Cheers and laughter.) At the same time, I never heard an announcement for which I was less prepared than by the speech of the right hon. gentleman in which this proposition was introduced. (Hear.) I should not have risen to make any remark after the last observations of the right hon. gentleman had they not been preceded by a speech which appears to me to have introduced to the con sideration of the house principles so dangerous—(hear, hear)—l would even say so monstrous—(hear, hear)—that I think it hardly becomes the house, after having heard such an address from the Government, to allow the debate to close in silence without attempting to obtain some evidence that the opinions which have been advocated to-night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are at least shared by his colleagues, and especially by the First Minister of the Crown, (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The speech of the right hon. gentleman was at once answered by my hon. friend (Sir S. Northcote) with a thorough knowledge of the subject, and touching, as I thought, with a master hand those glittering fallacies which had been introduced with such confidence to the attention of the house. (Hear, hear.) The debate went on. No one rose on the part of the Government to answer the objections which had been made to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and I think it was due to him, due to the house, and to the character of the Government that some answer should have been made to the objections urged to a proposition brought forward in a tone of so much confidence,—l will not say of so much dictation. Sir, under ordinary circumstances, when the Government had withdrawn a measure put for ward with so much parade I should willingly have remained silent. But here occasion was taken to circulate principles of policy to which the Government may recur upon sub sequent occasions, as if those principles had received some sanction from the silence of the house ; and the opinions which have been promulgated by the right hon. gentleman to-night appear to me to be such as should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. (Hear, hear.) Some short time ago the right hon. gentleman introduced his general financial state ment, and when I listened to it I was extremely anxious that it should pass, as to its main features, without any organized opposition, for I felt confident that in the course of the discussion which would arise the objectionable parts in it would disappear and be withdrawn, without being painfully obtruded upon the attention of the house. For such a result I was anxious for the honour of the House of Commons, because the budget of the right hon. gentleman in its main features was the budget of the House of Com mons, Last year the house was called upon —never mind who called upon it for the decision; let us not stop now to consider on what side of the house he may sit—was called upon to decide whether it was not expedient in the state of our finances to counsel the Government to make a consider able reduction in the public expenditure, seeing that by that reduction alone could the requisite relief in taxation be ob tained. (Hear,) We were then told that reduction of expen diture to any considerable amount was perfectly illusory, that no one could venture to touch the great sources of ex penditure in the army and navy, and that the man was guilty of subserviency and servility to France who could for a mo ment, in however moderate a tone, intimate the wisdom, the policy, and the possibility of such a course. This session has brought forward a very different view of public affairs. Economy is possible. It is not subserviency or servility to France to obtain by the most salutary and legitimate mean s a reduction of the public burdens. And I say that for the great measures of reduction brought forward by the Govern ment we are indebted to the House of Commons, and not to the Government ; that it is the House of Commons which has reduced the tea duty and the income tax, and that in those main features it is the budget of the House of Com mons. (Hear.) Sir, I regretted to find that along with these some remarkable features of eccentric invention were again introduced by the right hon. gentleman, as if to vin dicate his title to financial originality, and renew his claims to the wonder and gratitude of an admiring Parliament. (Hear, and laughter.) I was very much interested in op posing the tax upon carriers, for I could realise, with many other members, especially those on this side of the house, the amount of ingenious vexation which that extraordinary device would certainly have secured. (Hear, and laughter.) That tax, however, disappeared before the order of battle could be formed. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the plan for taxing clubs. After listening to the bewilder ing rhetoric of the right hon. gentleman I hardly know whether it has passed; but if it is any consolation to him to feel that though defeated by the charities he has at last been a conqueror of the clubs, he may cherish that consolation this evening. (Laughter.) It is possible that before our la bours terminate that eccentricity may also disappear from the budget of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But to-night our attention was called to an invention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which was of a much more serious character than those just referred to. This is ano ther unnecessary novelty in our finance—one in itself ob jectionable, but still more objectionable from the manner in which it has been introduced, and the principles with which in discussion it has been associated by the Govern ment. (Cheers.) Now, to-night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called on us to tax the charities of the country ; and he would have been perfectly justified in making that appeal if he could have established a case which would have recommended itself to our consideration. (Hear, hear.) I am quite sure that if the principles on which he recommended that course were such as would have satisfied our reason, no sentimental objections would have prevented the House of Commons from responding to his appeal. But he laid down a principle which is the basis of all the injudicious arguments which he has treated us to this evening. This principle is, that the charities which are exempted from taxation may be looked upon as donatives of the ts 7 tate. That was the basis of the entire of the eloquent harangue to which fur two hours we listened with so much pleasure and with much more surprise. (A laugh.) What ever train of reasoning, whatever novelty of argument, whatever new conception the right hon. gentleman ad vanced, that may be taken as the fundamental principle of his policy and his harangue—a principle which I say is utterly false in its premises, and equally fallacious in its consequences. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes that exemption from taxation is the same as a contribution by the State of an equivalent amount of money to the person or the property. (Hear.) Is that so ? I deny it. (Hear.) Yon may have an injudicious and unjust exemption, as unquestionably you may have an injudicious and unjust tax ; but an exemption, if founded on justice, is founded on the assumption that you have esta. blished your claim. On that principle you ought not to be liable to the tax, and the exemption is a just one. That exemption is not a privilege--it is a right. (Cheers, and a cry of hear.) An hon. gentleman says "Hear," as if the onus In ob4ndi was upon me to show that this exemption is a just one. But we have not got as far as that. The argu ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is founded on what he deems the abstract truth that any exemption is a donation from the State. I deny the principle which is advanced. I say we have a right to assume that the exemp tion is founded on justice, and that there is nothing in the abstract assumption which for a moment justifies the posi tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making it the foundation of an attack upon our charities. It is for the House of Commons to decide whether they believe the claim of these charities to be exempted from taxation is just in itself. (Hear, hear.) That is an entirely different pro position from that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer— namely, that exemption is a contribution to the person or property. What we have to decide to-night is whether the exemption enjoyed by those charities is sound in principle or not. (Hear, hear.) Having laid down that principle, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded, in a strain of argument, or I should rather say invective, against the in stitutions which enjoy the exemption. The greater part of his speech was directed not against the intolerable state of affairs which allowed a large portion of property to be un justly exempted from the incidents of taxation, but was an in vective against the very nature of this property, against the very conditions on which it existed, against the principle which has called it into existence, against the practices and traditions of an ancient country. (Cheers). The right hon. gentleman, proceeding always in that line, and weakened and embarrassed, in spite of all his ingenuity, by the false course on which he had started, was obliged to misdescribe the character of the income tax itself. He argued through out that it was a tax on property, while, if there be anything clear, anything universally acknowledged in finance—and this I think my hon. friend the member for Stamford put before the house in a conclusive manner—it is that the in.; come tax is a tax on persons, and not on property. Being a tax on persons, we naturally ask why are those persons who are not in the enjoyment of the amount of income at which, under your ordinary regulations, the tax commences-- why are they to be liable to this impost, while others enjoying the same or a larger income are free? The answer is, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses to entertain views of those endowments different from those which have always influenced Parliament for at least the last century and a half, and opposed to the opinions and convictions of the country. (Cheers.) And what is the remedy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all those evils—for all that vicious principle which is the foundation of the endowments of England, for all that mismanagement, for all that impolitic state of affairs which he denounces with so much power ? What is his remedy for the enor mous imperfections in the old bequests —from the evils in those petty charities which he has called forth from their obscure existence --for the abuses:connected with those mag nificent endowments for hospitals and colleges which have contributed so much to the promotion of education and the development of benevolence in this country ? (Hear, hear.) Why, it is the application of the income-tax. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The condition of cur chorale* has for thirty years more Or lees attracted the attention of the Legislature. The Crown has issued commissions a.:4 Parliament has appointed committees, the labours of whit h have been eminently judicious and useful. I should doubt, therefore, under any circumstances, whether it was wise, or necessary, or eipedisnt on the part of Govern. ment to call public attention to the character of those insti tutions with a view to any change in their management or character. But if the Government are of opinion that those endowments are so injurious to the public weal ; if the Go vernment are of opinion that the statement of the Chancel lor of the Exchequer is justified by the facts; if the Go vernment are of opinion that this is a question which de mands our immediate and careful attention--and there is nothing to justify such a conclusion in what we see at pre sent—they should have brought the subject forward in such a manner as that we could have dealt with it in a satis factory manner. (Hear, hear.) It is totally inadequate to hold out to us as a sufficient means of remedial agency that we should apply the income-tax to those institutions. (Cheers.) As I before observed, every point that the Chan cellor of the Exchequer has raised to-day, and which he has placed before us with all the aid that ingenious casuistry could supply, springs from one principle, which is unnatu ral and illusory. All his arguments are based on the false assumption that exemption from taxation is naturally un just. lam not surprised that the house and the coun • try, even in so short a space of time as has elapsed since the right hon. gentleman made his financial state ment, should have been agitated and risen against a pro position so monstrous. (Cheers.) It offends all the feel ings and traditions which have been cherished in this country—all our local associations—all that veneration for the principle of inheritance to which we have so long ad hered. (Hear, hear.) We heard arguments to-night which were a denunciation of endowments, and almost an appeal for confiscation. (Hear, hear.) That this proposition should have been introduced as a part of a financial scheme is sur prising; that it should have been introduced for so slight a financial end or object is still more astonishing. (Hear.) That when it was in their power, not from their own happy imaginings, but following the sense of the House of Com mons, to effect some of those great reductions of taxation which our advise and public opinion had indicated, they should have unnecessarily introduced a discussion of prin ciples which almost disturb the foundations of the State, appears to me to be a course of conduct which the most bril liant rhetoric cannot justify, and which I think may lead to consequences that the Government will hereafter regret. (Cheers.) Sir, I shall only hope that this objectionablepro position, which was introduced with so much pomp, and has been withdrawn in a manner so unpretending, may be the last of the endeavours to attack the endowments of this country, of which the wisdom of our times may improve the application, but which are founded upon a principle that has contributed to the greatness of this country, and that I trust this country will always cherish. (Loud cheers). Lord PALMERSTON—I am anxious, sir, to answer the question which the right hon. gentleman opposite asked at the commencement of his speech—namely, whether the proposal made by my right hon. friend was his own pro posal singly, or was one in which his colleagues also con curred. Sir, lam happy to be able to assure the right hon, gentleman that the course pursued by my right hon. friend and the proposal he made were entirely concurred in by all his colleagues. (" Hear," a laugh, and cries of " Divide, then.") If none of those colleagues rose for some time to support him, it was entirely because they felt that his ad mirable and most convincing speech—(laughter and ironical cheers and counter cheers)—was both unanswerable and un answered. The right hon. gentleman opposite has reduced his objections to what he called one fundamental point. He says the whole foundation of my right hon. friend's argu ment was that an exemption from taxation was equiva lent to a grant from the country. Well, I maintain that that is perfectly sound. (Hear, hear.) As long as your ex penditure is a fixed sum it is demonstrable that if you ex empt a portion of the community from contributing their share to the taxation by which that sum is to be raised, you do virtually grant them a part of the fund which comes from the rest of the public to defray your expenditure ; and, there • fore, when the right hon. gentleman opposite talks of a fal lacy, I must say I neverheard such a fallacy as he has sought to establish by denying that an exemption from taxation is equivalent to a grant of public money. The right hon. gentle • man argues, indeed, that it is not so, because he says that the fact of the exemption implies that it is just. But that is begging the whole question. (Hear.) No doubt if a person is justly entitled to exemption, when you concede a right to him you don't confer a boon. But we deny, and no man has yet proved, that these charities are justly entitled to exemption. My right hon. friend has been accused of pour ing forth invectives against these charitable institutions. Why, the most severe things which fell from my right hon. friend were his quotations from the reports of the Commis sioners who were employed and authorised to inquire into these charities. (Hear.) It was the passages he read from these reports that contained those condemnations which hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to represent as having been the simple expressions of my right hon. friend's individual opinion. I say, then, that we entirely concurred in the proposal, and I think my right hen, friend has de monstrated that it was founded upon justice and good sense. (Cries of " Divide" from the Opposition, and "Order.") The right hon. gentleman opposite has given the key to the whole secret; for he has said that " local associations" are adverse to the proposal of my right hon. friend. (Laughter.) Why, sir, that is really the fact—(Opposi tion cheers and counter cheers)—and it was very candid in the right hon. gentleman opposite so openly and broadly to acknowledge it. (Hear, and a laugh.) But that, sir, is not only a motive for individual votes and opinions ; it is also a ground upon which the Government are entitled to take, and ought, I think, to take their line. And if we find that a proposal, howeverjust in itself, how ever demonstrably true, is opposed to "local associations" of the most extensive character, not only in this house, but all over the country, why we respect those prejudices and bow to them. (Cheers from the Opposition.) We don't on that account believe them the less to be prejudices. That being so, I think my right hon. friend has exercised a very wise discretion—(laughter and hear)—in not pressing upon the house—as he had stated at the outset he did not mean to do—a proposal which upon discussion should appear to be adverse to its general opinion. Although we think the proposal right and just in itself, and although we believe that when the arguments of my right hon, friend shall be read by the country, opinion out of doors on this subject will undergo a change (" Oh," l aug ht er, an d " H ear, h ear ") yet we ts,w to the present state of feeling and of local asso ciations ; and I think my right hon. friend has exercised a sound discretion in the course he has taken. (Opposition cheers and counter. cheers.) Mr. lIENLEY—Sir, I will not now enter into the question whether the Government have not made a blunder in this matter. (Cheers and laughter.) But, as the noble lord has spoken of the feeling of small associations or of local associa tions, I would just say that I believe they comprise the whole country (cheers) ; because the whole is made up of parts. If there is one thing more true than another it is that the en- tire country does not take the same view which the noble lord and his tight hon. colleague think to be so just. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has done me the honour to say that I use very mild language. (A laugh.) I suppose ho alludes to the opinion I expressed the other evening that it was a queer sort of justice to r.)1) the poor. (Hear.) I was informed on that occasion by a right hon. friend of mine who sits near the right hon. gentleman, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last man in the world who could be supposed to do any such thing as that—(a laugh)—as the finAncial and commercial legislation with which his name had been indentified would prove. Now, I am one of those persons who, in an ordinary way, look at the measure which is before this house, and I don't trouble my head or caria . halfpenny about the motive or antecedents of those who propose it. It is quite enough to do to see whether the measure itself is good or bad according to the best light one can get upon it. But the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the city of Oxford naturally set one a thinking. (A laugh.) Now, what has happened ? No man is more ready to admit than I am that the species of legislation to which my right hon. friend alluded has been carried on for the last 15 or 16 years with the best of motives, with the great hope and expectation and, it may be also, with the result of increasing the material wealth of all classes of the community. But what else has been going on during the same period ? Material wealth, deck it out as you will with flowers of speech, means money, and money is Mammon. (Laughter.) Well, to secure those results and carry the same principles further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined hand-in hand with those who made an attack—under the name of reforming them—upon the old endowments of the Univer sity which he represents. What was the main thing that he did there? He destroyed the Christian character of the education. (Oh, oh.) I will say what was done, and then you may say " ch, oh I" if you please. He com pelled, and those who acted with him compelled, the Uni versity to give her education and tender her honours to Jew, Turk, heretic, and infidel. (Oh, and laughter.) That fact can't be denied, and I say it destroys the Christian character of the education. (Question.) What followed ? In 1860 and 1861 an attempt was made by the Government to change the character of the education of the lower classes, and to dissever the Government from the religious educa tion of the people. This house then rejected and forced you to take back your proposition. Well, let those two schemes be viewed together. I am not going to draw the conclusion, but the speech of the right hon. gentleman must set people thinking whether Mammon, guided by the tree of know ledge, will not bring us to this simple principle, "rem, quocunque modo rem." We could not have had a more striking instance of this than the speech of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. The principles he has laid down are nothing but " Mammon and the tree of knowledge," and they are utterly inconsistent with any other principle of any kind. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh I) lam extremely glad that this clause is withdrawn, for I think it was exceedingly objectionable in every respect. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LOCKE was astonished at the indignation of hon. gentlemen opposite, for not long ago a bill had been intro duced by the right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts for making charities liable to poor-rates, and it was then treated by them as a mere business matter. When the Chairman put the question that the clause be withdrawn awe were e 9149 cries of "Divide I" but ulti- mately the clause was negatived without a division, araU loud cheers from the Opposition. clause 4, which relates to the same subject, was with drawn. Ou clause 5, Mr. HUBBARD said, as they had now introduced graduated scale of income tax, the Chancellor of the Ex' chequer should state how far it was to be carried. He him' self approved of it as applied to industrial incomes. Mr. HUNT thought the exemption of £6O should bt applied to incomes above £2OO a year. Mr. PEA.COCKE wished to exempt incomes of £lOO a year, and should move that XlOO be substituted f £6O. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped thc hon. gentleman would not press the motion, as the Fr o ' posal of fixing £6O as the basis had been already recognise d ' The amendment was negatived without a division and the clause agreed to, as was clause 6. The schedules as amended were also agreed to. The bill as amended then passed through committee. STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL , , The debate on this bill as amended was adjourned Thursday next. SAVINGS BANKS BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Clause 1 was agreed to. On clause 2, Mr. HUBBARD moved the omission of the close which provided for the conversion of perpetual into ter• minable annuities. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER oppos ed the motion. After some further conversation, The amendment was withdrawn. The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauseh and the house resumed. CONSOLIDATED FUND (X 20,000,000) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. EXCHEQUER BONDS (£1,000,000) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND SO CIETY WINDING-UP ACT (1861) AMENDMEN T BILL. Lord C. PAGET moved the second reading of this bill. After an objection from Mr. LYGON, which was with• drawn, the bill was read a second time. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered Old agreed to. COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL. This bill was read a second time. MARRIAGES, &c., (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL (STAMP DUTY). This bill was passed through committee. The house adjourned at twenty minutes past one o'elook• COUNTRY MARKETS. V' COLCHESTER—MAY 2. At this corn exchange to-day there was a small ell of wheat, which so ld at is per qr advance on last week prices, which was reluctantly given by the millers. Sprit/ corn is dearer, and little doing. Wheat, white. 46s 56s Beans, Mazagan .. 300 3 , 31 red 42s 52s middle & small.3ss il 2 0 Barley —s —s Peas, white .. 40s 4 Oats GLOUCESTER—MAY 2. To-day there was a moderate supply of English wh eil , t , from the farmers, which held for is per qr advance on tit, prices of last week, with a fi r m trade. Foreign wheat to 2s more money, which checked sales. Barley at la w prices. Oats, peas, and beans firm. CHELMSFORD—MAY 1. Beat wheat may be quoted at is advance on last Wet!: currencies, and rather an improvement in the trade. change in any other:kind of grain. Wheat, old white 30s 53s teas, Partridge.... 370 new 35s 49s White 393 43 ,; old red.... 37s 46 s Boiling 4OO 1 0q0 , — new 353 44s Dun 35s °"'" ..--0 Barley 28s 36s Ditto new .. — l3 Chevalier 2Bs 40 s Bean s , Tick, old ..34s 3 2 11 0 Grinding ..22s 31s new..---8 49 , 1 Malt.... 6ls 67s Harrow Ticks 350 ' • a 11 Chevalier 64s 69s new..--1 3 ~gi Oats 20s 28s Mazagan .......30$ Li KIRKCALDY GRAIN—MIN 2. We had small supplies of wheat, barley, and oats:breug" forward to-day. Wheat and barley sold much the eagle '- last week, and oats 6d to is dearer. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First....34s Od I 23s 6d I 23s 6d Second ..40s Od 27s Od 25s Od Third ....—s Od —s Od —s Od COAL Frloes of Coal per Ton at ARKET. the close of the market. Walls End. s. d. Bates'sWest Hartley 14 6 Bower's West Hartley 15 0 Wylam 15 0 Carway and DuiTryn Malting . 19 6 Hastings Hartley l5 0 Tanfield Moor Butee 12 6 Buddle'sWest Hartley 15 0 Cowpen Hartley 13 0 North Pelton Gas 13 0 West Hartley ..15 0 Eden Main .....15 0 8 di IHartlepool.. ......... 16 i South Hart1ep001...... 15 5 K elloe ......15 South Kellee 1 s; Heugh Hail 15 g Ridd e ll l4 v Haswell .. . ...... 17 0 ' Hetton ...... 17 0 Tunstall Cassop l5 0 ....... 0 Bru.ddyll's Hetton ..... 1 6 Byron 14 6 Walls End. Wharncliffe l4 0 Ships at market ,t, 49 ; sold, 26. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. c A unralia and Mauritius, vi a S ou th amp t on. NO lg• 14, via Marseilles MaY 1 drazil and Cape V er ds, by B r i t i s h pac k e t . May ' Cape of Good Hope, A s c ens i on , an d St . H e l ena Mal 3., China, Penang, and Singap ore , v i a S ou th amp t on Mal 14,, via Marseilles MaY A Falkland Islands Gibraltar, via Southampton May "" 2 , India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton May 0, via Marseilles... • M a y 11. India (Bombay), via Southampton .. May .- g via Marseilles May u. Portuga 1.... Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton MaY ' 6 ' . via Marseilles ..ray 3, Newfoundland Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. A mer i ca , b y B r it. pac k e t .... MaY 1 by U.S. packet... • 1 , by Canadian packet. May , o , W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe.. May,; 1! Bahamas, via New York MaY , Mexico All parts of West I n di es , i nc l u di ng Chili, Peru, I M a y Y 4.0 14. California, and B r iti s h Columbia.. ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS."' The annual meeting of this body was held Yes ter day at the College, Red Lion-square--the President, r r i ° ) ; feesor Simonds, in the chair. The annual report read he the secretary sta t e d th a t th e num b er o f th e mem b e rs of tm colltge practising in th e ki ng d om was 1,018, w hil e the nub ber of those who improperly assumed the title of ve terin a surgeon was 1,244; and those practising as farriers, O. ° , It was strongly urged by several speakers that legislau; interference should be sought to p ro t ec t the legitill 3l `,4 members of the profession from th e f a l se represen t a tions " 4 unqualified practitioners, and also to secure immunities silo exemptions from the members in reference to serving jurors. After some discussion, the report was unanin 3 ° ° the adopted. The foll ow i ng gent l emen were e l ec t e d to fill vacancies occasioned by the retirement in rotation of oi members of the coun c il : —M essrs . Cartledge, Silve s t l ; Braby, Jex, Gamjee, and Seeker. A vote of thanks to President terminated the proceedings. fl t o' [ADvEansiormir.]—Holloway's Pills.—Liver an- er . mach Complaints —On change of weather, excessive el . 0 tion, or mental trouble, a distressing pain often arises p . the side, shoulder, or elsewhere. Its known cause / 0 's gestion of the liver. Its infallible remedy is Iloilo ° el, Pills. Mr. Roberts, of St. George's-square, LiveVess states that after trying countless means for relieving these be oppressive pains without receiving the sli g ht es t bent';ias commenced a course of Holloway's Pill s , w hich forth b i t s ameliorated his sufferings and in a short time freed,oo from them altogether. All disorders o f th e s tomach P iitllo readily dispelled. Occasional doses of these purifying„oll will prevent the liver becoming e n l arge d, an d consat e rto will stave off bilious sickness and diarrhoea, and pr e " the complexion from unhealthy sallowness. Births. / 011 PROSSER.—On the 3d inst., at 45, Grosvenor-plac e / Harriett Wegg Prosser, of a daughter. ice 0 1 STUART.—On Clio 2d inst.. at Kempston, Beds, tbl i ati gir Lieutenant-Colonel William Stuart, M.P., of a ‘..- ter. L. T . WALTON.—On the 31 inst., at Crouch-hill, 31 r e • Walton, of a daughter. . 0 of WOLLEY.—On the 2d inst , at Eton College, the vil the Rev, Charles Wolley, of a son. Marriages. . rq "fiS b DURRANT—BARTON.—On the Roth ult., at thtL r i l oor e Embassy, Sir Henry Josias Durant, Bart., of t f th e Hall, Norfolk, to Alexandrina Charlotte , ' _ d ue,; ( l - ° ''''' late General Sir Robert Barton KC.B a r f. l'ti , H Barton, of Montagu-place, Montagu-square. m i n , x ' A CKETT—MERPHY,-011 the 28th lt , at nu - iri O° W. Hackett, Esq., 9th Regt , eldest u son . of Si r IT i. JI Hackett, Lotamore, Cork. to . Mary, daughter of Murphy, Esq., Master in Chancery, Deaths. , o teado BAKER. — On the 4th inst ,at Church-row , -. llar tou th '' James Sims Baker, Esq ., late of St. Arvanel ivi°ll— aged 68. Th ° s' DAVIS.—On the 2d inst., at Boxmoor House, gerts, Davis, Esq., aged 85. FrEnD.—On the 2d inst., Joshua Field, Esq.' of WeBl4ll' ce, Yorkshire, aged 84. CE.—On the 2d inst., a t T r i n g, age d GRACE. — On I Jr. Carter Gra 67, s_ lt,bt. HAHRaVrvEeYc Esq.,O nthaegeld 7 Ist inst ,, at Langley.park, Bil c '' ' . Vt., i , Lieli t ' . C°l. POLLEN. — On N 7 . 9--: On the 2d inst., Sir John Walter Pollen, WitAxALl 4 ,-0/ the 2d inst., eat 2 ... -E1 aged 7h. Sir W. Lascelles Wraxall, Bart , ItS VIS ' g 9 London : Printed and Published by WILLIA. A No , 11 2 , of t r N a n o d, . 112,1 n h te Strand , rreolPrinter,not ot; athteTslasEvoSy:rtV N ec.opti °I Strand, Middlesex..—TiACSday, IslaY 6? 10P.