The Sun. — London, England, 1863-03-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening. Lord B EDESDALE, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, took his, seat at the usual hour. PRIVATE BUSINESS. the Isle of Wight (Extension) and Anglesey Central Railway bills were read a third time and passed. MUTINY BILL. This bill was read a first time. THE POLISH STUDENTS. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, seeing his noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, begged to draw his attention to the question lie had put some days ago relative to the art est of Polish students, who, on leaving Paris, were seized by the Prussian authorities, and then handed over to the Russian Government. Since that he had received information that the fact of the arrest and surrender of the students was correct, and also that they had been tried and shot by the Russian official. What he wished to know was, whether the noble earl had received any information on the subject. Earl RUSSELL said he received information as to two students only, and in a despatch he had received, dated the 7th of the present month, he found they had been claimed by the French ambassador on the ground of French nationa lity. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY asked whether he had received any information as to the fact of other students having been shot. Earl RUSSELL had received no intelligence to that effect. BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition from the Fellows of the King and Queen's College of Phy sicians in Ireland against certain clauses in the bill. They also complained of the power of appointing the Registrar- General being left entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieu tenant, and also that the medical officers appointed under the act should be subject to an examination by the Regis trar-General, who might not be either a professional or scientific man. Earl ST, GERMANS said he should best consult the feelings of the house if he reserved any observations he might have to make upon the petition presented by the noble lord until the particular clauses to which it referred were under the consideration of their lordships. Tb e Earl of BANDON thought if it was wished to make the bill effectual its promoters must separate it from all con nection with the administration of the poor laws. Lord CLEME `ITS was of opinion that the bill would prove altogether inopportune. The house then went into committee on the bill. Clauses up to 21 were agreed to. On clause 22, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that the title " Superintendent Register," instead of " Superintendent Registr_tr." should be given to the clerks of unions. The, committee divided on the clause as it stood. 'Contents Non-contents 5 Majority against the amendment The remaining clauses were agreed to. The house resumed, and the bill was reported. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL. The amendments on this bill were reported. SALMON EXPORTATIO N BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. CONSOLIDATED FUND (£10,000,000) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL. Lord STANLEY of ALDERDEY moved the second reading of the Post Office Savings Banks Bill. Lord REDESDALE said ,that he would move some amendments at another stage of the bill. It was then read a second time. COUNCILLORS OF INDIA. Lord LYVEDEN asked her Majesty's Government whether they intended to reconsider so much of the Act 21 and 22 Vic., cap. 106, as related to the nomination, elec tion, duration, of service, salary, and retired allowance of the councillors of India ? The soundest opinion in India seemed to be in favour of a revision of the constitution of the council. He wished to know whether his noble friend intended to submit the constitution of the Council of India to a'committee, or to bring in a bill for its reconstruction. The Duke of ARGYLL could not help thinking that his noble friend had introduced the question rather for the purpose of enabling him to state his own opinion,which he had a plain right and was very competent to do, than to obtain from her Majesty's Government information upon a subject which he knew very well he should hear nothing new upon. For, if it were the intention of the Government to make any such change in the law of 1858 as his noble friend suggested, they would have stated it openly before that time. To reply in form, however, to his noble friend's question, he should say her Majesty's Government had no intention to make any change in the constitution of India,or to take any steps towards the reconstruction of the Indian council, which was settled by Parliament, after full and careful deliberation, in 1858. The question of the construc tion of thmouncil had been raised, at that time, by a very distinguished member of the other house of Parliament, and it was not pressed to a division, because the opinion of the house was decided that the business of India was so peculiar that the Secretary of State ought to have the as bistanco of a number o: gentlemen who were well acquainted with and who had long experience in the affairs of that coun try. They could only thus obtain the aid of men of such posi tion and weight as Sir John Roberts, Sir Frederick Curry, Mr. 'Willoughby, and others. He did not think that the v due of the Council of India depended upon its numbers but rather upon the weight and importance of the men of whom it was composed. He thought it a bad thing to discuss organic changes often. Ho believed the Council of India worked remarkably well, and there was no intention to make any change in the system. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought that the feel ing of independence in the Council would be much strengthened by the declaration of the noble duke, that the system was not liable to be changed. He (the Earl of El lenborough) was always in favour of a council. He would fill every vacancy with the beat man that could be found for it. He would rather have a strong council than a weak one, fur a council of able men could be managed, whilst nothing could be done with nonentities. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not look upon the council with such unalloyed satisfaction as that with which the noble earl (Ellenborough) regarded it. He thought there was room for improvement, and that it certainly should not be so numerous. He did not know how this council was working. It was very well for the Secretary of State to come down and tell the house that he was forti fied by the opinion of Sir J. Lawrence or others, but how were they to know that he really was so supported ? It would be well if Parliament were informed whether the council was unanimous in its decision ; and if not unani mous, then how did those men with the great names vote ? Earl GREY thought that the very fact that they heard nothing about disputes or differences afforded the best proof that the council was working smoothly. (Hear.) AUSTRALIAN COLONIES. Earl GREY presented two petitions from the districts of Clarence and Richmond Rivers, praying for a change in their relationship towards the colonies by which they are surrounded. The petitions set forth that in 1859 the colony of Now South Wales was divided, and the district which forms the new colony of Queensland was separated from it, and erected into a separate colony, The petitioners coin pi,, ined that they were kept within the boundaries of New South Wales, although they are separated from it by a range of lofty and diffi milt mountains, which cut off all communi cation inland; and that they are 500 miles from Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, whilst they are only 100 miles from Brisbane, the capital of the colony with which they are naturally connected. They have no material influence in the Legislature of New South "Wales, and they are taxed for the public debt of that colony, which was raised for purposes from which they derived no benefit. They prayed to be joined with the colony of Queensland, with which they are connected geographically and by inclina tion. He (Earl Grey) considered that the complaint of the colonists was a very just and well-founded one. The other three petitions which he had to present were from The western portion of the colony of Victoria. 1 hey prayed t eat their districts, together with the south-eastern portion °I , the colony of South Australia, should be separated from l-1 colonies to which they were at present attached, and formedr into a distinct colony. They said they would then hile rn re a_ more considerable colony than Port Phillip. He con d. those petitions were well worthy of their lordships' consideration. The Duke of NEWCASTLE thI said that, with regard to if , e first set of petitions' South wwhtch separated the colony of Queensland from New lie could Wales was passed in 1859, t the explain what the w hen he was not in office. reins were for the change f rom y. All h estrict geographical line in laying out th e new colon that a! ter he had come into office he received applications, )anew representatives iv was, not hwaes,and patent, however, from the colonists theroselves,but from their in this country, to detach them from Ne w se attach them to Queensland. The letters were then completed; but he sa id that if the colo nists wouldeve agree to any new boundaryline, and apply to him, he would have new letters patent issued. Since that time he had never received any communication from the colony on the subject, and ho had hoped that the colonists had acquiesced in the arrangements. With regard to the other three peti. tions, ho was not aware that they wero the same which he had received before ; but ho assured his noble friend that he was accustomed to receive so many of a like nature, that if their prayers were granted the town of Sydney, without any land about it, would soon be all that would be left of what had been the colony of New South Wales. He thought it would be bad policy to erect too many colonies. In Aus- I ralia, at least, they should be cautious, until the continent should be more thickly peopled. There were some applica tlolls which he had nu doubt would require to be attended to. One was an application to have a district south of the Gulf of Corpcntaria, and near Port Essington, which contained the enormous superficial extent of 730,000 square miles, divided for the purpose of erecting a new colony. Another was for It new district near the Victoria river and the Alma river, but it would be very undesirable to sever those colonies that were not already both populous and flourishing. It wam necessary to exercise great caution, Their lordships adjourned at 25 minutes past 7 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening. The SPEAXER took the chair at 4 o'clock, THIRD READING. The Midland Railway (Extension to London) Bill was read a third time. The following bills were considered and ordered to be read a third time :—Ayiesbury Market Cleveland Rail way—Glasgow and South Western Railway (Capital)— Hereford, Hay, and Brecon Railway—Landport and South sea Tramway—Norwich Poor—Rixton and Warburton Bridge—Swansea Municipal Corporation. ~.x ~.r` -. - 4trame PETITIONS, By Mr. HORSPALL, from Liverpool, hi favour of the Partnership Bill, and praying that publichouses may be closed on the Sabbath; Mr. HUBBARD, from the Royal Institute of British Architects and Institute of Civil En• gineers, praying for a more equitable arrangement of the income tax ; Mr. CRAUFURD, in favour of a modification of the fire insurance duty ; Lord FERMOY, from Marylebone, against the Prisons Ministers Bill; from the Roman Ca tholics of St. Mary's, Kentish-town, in favour of the bill. WAR SHIPS FOR THE CONFEDERATES 'MANU FACTURED IN THIS COUNTRY. Mr. BRIGHT said he had a petition to present of rather an important character, and desired, therefore, to state fully its exact nature. It was from an important association which had been formed at Manchester, styled the " Union Emancipation Society," at a meeting of 6,000 persons held on the 31st of December last, and was signed by T. B. Potter as the president, and complaining of the building of ships in this country for the so-called Confede rates, for the purpose of preying upon the unoffending commercial ships of the United States. The petition fur ther sets forth that 40 ships were now building in the United Kingdom, really for the Confederates, but under the pretence that they were for the Emperor of China and other unlikely potentates. A ship built by an English firm, called the Alabama, had already destroyed forty ships belonging to the United States engaged in peaceful commerce. It had caused great feeling in the United States, and would, if continued, go far to destroy the good feeling between the two nations. Though the petitioners were not in a position to pr( duce evidence on oath to convict the parties of violating the law, yet they submitted that a pritna facie case had been made out to enable the Government to put the law in motion, no inseparable difficulty existed in vindicat ing the law and the honour of the nation. The petition, in conclusion, prayed the house to make immediate inquiry into the subject, and by prompt action to prevent the supply of other vessels to the self-styled Confederate Goovernment. WOODS AND FORESTS. Mr. A. SMITH gave notice that after Easter ho should Ova for the reappointment of a select committee, and especially with reference to the operation of the 14th and 15th Victoria. NAVAL ARCHITECTURE. Lord R. MONTAGU gave notice that on Tuesday, April 14, he should submit a motion to the house to the effect that, with a view to the economical construction of ships, a school of cadets should be formed, somewhat in the style of the military cadet establishment at Woolwich, with the view of ultimately discharging the duties of Royal naval architects, BOARD OF ADMIRALTY. Mr. DALGLISH gave notice that on that day month he should call attention to the constitution of the Board of Ad miralty. CHINA. Mr. LIDDELL gave notice that on that day month he should call attention to our present relations with China. BUILDING OF CONFEDERATE SHIPS OF WAR. Mr, FORSTER gave notice that on Friday next he should ask the noble viscount, the First Lord of the Treasury,whether there was not great danger of our friendly relations with the United States being disturbed by the building of ships of war in this country for the Confederate States, and ask if the Foreign Enlistment Act had not been invaded. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. Mr. E WART gave notice of his intention after Easter to bring forward a motion on this subject. THE TOBACCO DUTIES. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE QUER this bill was read a third time. The right hon. gentleman intimated that he was very desirous that the bill should go up to the Roust) of Lords that evening, in order that it might be passed into law before Easter. No additional points remained to be discussed, and it was im portant to the trade that no delay should take place in pass ing the bill. TURNPIKES. Mr. WESTERN asked the Secretary for the Home Department, whether it was his intention this session to introduce any measure for abolishing turnpikes ; and, if not, whether he would be disposed to leave out of the Con tinuation Act those trusts which are free from debt? Mr. BRUCE replied in the negative. The trusts ape. oiled would be generally dealt with. ALIENATING POSSESSIONS OF THE CROWN. Mr. GRIFFITH asked Mr. Solicitor-General, whether it was within the competence of the prerogative of the Crown, upon the advice of the Minister of the day, to alienate any undoubted territorial possession of the Crown or the country without the knowledge or consent of Parlia ment ; and, if so, whether such exercise of the prerogative was not in fact equivalent to the possession by the Govern ment of an arbitrary power of such alienation of territory ? The SOLICIT(,R-GENERAL could only repeat what was stated the other evening by the noble lord at the head of the Government, namely, that there was nothing in the common or constitutional law of the land to prevent the cession of territories placed under the protection of the Crown. Where territories were held by treaty the ques tion of cession would fairly come under legislative review. INDIA. Mr. VANSITTART asked the Secretary of State for India whether it was true that he had issued instructions to remove the seat of Government of the North-Western Provinces from Agra to Allahabad ; if so, whether he had any objection to the production of the correspondence re lating to the same ? Sir C. WOOD said that he had given no such instruc tions, and there was no correspondence that he was aware of. TIE ARMY. In reply to Mr. CONINGRA.II, -. Sir G. C. LEWIS stated that Lieut.-Col. Charteris, who entered the army in 1840, but who had not completed the term of 2.5 years on his recent retirement on half pay, ex changed with an officer who had served the required period, according to the Royal warrant. DRAINAGE-IRELAND. In reply to Mr. BAGWELL, Mr. PEEL regretted that it was not the intention of the Government to author ise a continuance of the former sys tem of arterial drainage. HORSE DUTY. Mr. HUNT asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in consequence of the small number of horses kept for hire in some parts of the country, and the difficulty expe rienced by the county constabulary in obtaining horses on hire from licensed persons, the Government would consider the propriety of recommending to Parlia ment to exempt from duty horses hired for police service, on the same principle on which an exemption was now allowed by law in the case of horses hired to convey pri soners to gaol ? Mr. PEEL replied that it was not desirable to multiply exemptions. The licensed persons paid a high duty, and there was no necessity, at the present moment, to inter fere with their trade. EAST INDIA (REUNION). Mr. CAVE moved for copy of any communication from her Majesty's consul at Reunion, respecting the condition of natives of British India held to labour in that island. Mr. LAYARD explained that the attention of the Go vernment was directed to tho subject, and they would do all in their power to protect the natives from being held in un willing slavery. After a short discussion, in which Sir M. Farquhar, Sir J. Elphinstone, and Mr. H. Seymour took part, the motion was withdrawn. INCOME TAX. Mr. HUBBARD rose to move, as affirming the prin ciple of an income tax, that the incidence of an income tax touching the products of invested property should fall upon net income, and that the net amounts of industrial earnings should, previous to assess ment, be subject to such an abatement as may equitably adjust the burthen thrown upon intelligence and skill as compared with property. The hon. member said the con sideration of the question of revenue and expenditure became more important when they considered that the in direct taxation of the country was now narrowed to a few articles, and that tea and sugar, the most important of these articles, were bearing war duties. Nothing could be more natural than that there should be a loud cry for the reduc tion of the war duties ; but a cry as loud would be raised for the reduction of the income-tax, because the tax was not only unpopular in itself, but that the existence of it was a memorial of broken faith, and the utter fallacy of all pzo phetic finance. But there was nothing in the nature of the income-tax to make it unpopular, or unfit it for the purposes of revenue; yet, nevertheless, it was viewed with detesta tion and alarm ; and th a t cou ld on l y b e b ecause i t was no t offounded upon any definite principle. It was not an invention of their own d ays, h ut had come to them from the dark ages w osp p f fin oses an , acn with e ace; e it had on l y b een introduced for temporary pur- Bu t h at p r Under these c i rcumstances it place the income-tax upon a legitimate had many years ago att racted i t,; y assurance a there tha that tli s its da y days sw er e were nu m b numbered. ered now? was th® duty of the house to basis. Circ ums t ances his attention to the working of the income-tax ; and a lth ough the conclusions of the com mittee ho had moved f or , and the weight of opinion in that house, were opposed to him, still his conviction in the soundness of his own views remained unaltered. A heavy bill of indictment had been brought against him for the course he had taken on this subject. This indictment had charged him with having propounded an impracticable scheme—(hear, hear)—that the scheme would create greater anomalies than it would remove; that it was at tempting class legislation, that he was violating the compact L made with the fund-holders, that he Was taking an unfair THE SUN, LONDON, WtDNESDAY EVENING, IVIAROEI 25, 1863, advantage of the merchant and the brewer, and, the last and heaviest blow of all, that his scheme was especially hostile to the agricultural interest r whieh had already suffered from the infliction of the income tax, To all these charges he gave a distinct negative, and if he could show the house that they were not well founded, surely he was entitled to their support. The hen. member then referred to the Parochial Assessments Act passed al 1836, the principle of which was renewed in the Union Assessments Act of last session, this principle being that the assessment should be made upon the net value. He contended that this principle was equally applicable to the assessment of the income tax. He desired to refer to one particular point propounded in the budget scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1853. The hon. gentleman referred to the Chancellor of the Ex chequer's statement with regard to the next receipts on lands and houses, which he estimated at £47,200,000, upon which the sum of 9d in the pound, and not 7d, was levied; and he proceeded to show that even that sum did not belong exclu sively to the owners of land and houses. In many instances they had to make life payments on settlements, mortgages) &c., so that in fact the owners had to pay on about £12,800,000 beyond their net income. That did not give the full extent of the annoyance of the tax, and he would give the house an instance of oppression which was very general. He would take the case of a property let under the ordinary covenants for £BOO per annum, The out• goings were ltio per cent., leaving £720. The property was mortgaged for £16,000 at 4 per cent., which was £640, and the residue for the landlord was £BO. The income tax was levied upon the whole £BOO, the mortgagee had to pay on what he received, and the tax gatherer took from the land owner on £l6O ; but as he only received £BO, he had in fact to pay is 6d in the pound, and not 9d. That was not all. Suppose the mortgage rate of interest was 41 per cent., the mortgagee would take £720, leaving no residue for the land owner; yet he would be obliged to pay income-tax on £BO, which he would have to provide from other sources. (Hear.) It was said that his proposition would create more griev ances and of a more oppressive character than at present existed; but he felt confident that its application to the in come tax would, on the contrary, sweep away all inequali ties that might exist except those occasioned by poverty and riches. He thought he had shown the landowners the grievance under which they laboured as being taxed on 60 millions, when, in reality, all they received was only 47 millions ; and he thought the landowners must see that, in reality, his proposition would do them a service. He did not profess himself to be the friend of any one particular interest, but to do justice to all parties ; and he assured the landed interest that if they looked at the question in its true light they would find how much they had been misled on this subject. He did not charge the Chancellor of the Ex chequer with the intention of deceiving them, but it arose from his not giving sufficient time to the investigation of the question, and his statement that his (Mr. Hubbard's) proposition was hostile to their interests, and would have the effect of increasing the payments from 111c1. to 131 d. in the pound, could not fail to have a powerful effect on the landed proprietors of the country. When his right hon. friend made that statement be could not have understood the action of the measure he was promoting, Now, what was the remedy he (Mr. Hubbard) prop°, ed forthis ? There was only one, which was the simplest remedy in the world, viz., to apply to the action of the income tax on land the same principle as that house had affirmed as the proper mode of treatment for local taxation—the net rateable value of the land—when all those inequalities would vanish, as the net income could be divided rateably among all the parties in terested. He thought he had disposed of the charge that his measure would be hostile to the agricultural interest, and would aggravate their burdens. If hon. gentlemen would refer to the Parliamentary paper No. 397 they would find that he had ground for affirming that the assessment upon land and houses combined, under his scheme, would be 9 64-100 d. in the pound, that being the point to which it would descend from 111 d., the sum fixed under the present system. It was not merely land and houses that would re ceive benefit from his proposal. Mines, quarries, and every kind of property would share in the benefit. Taking the net income only would carry relief to that helpless of all indivi duals—the owner of terminable annuities ; for even he would find relief in the application of that simple mode of taxation. On that point he had a parliamentary precedent in his favour. In 1846, when Government lent the English landowners three millions of money, repayable by 22 years' annuities, under the ordinary operation of the law those landowners would have been entitled to deduct the income tax on the whole amount. In 1853 a proposition was intro duced into the general measure of the budget, to the effect that the duty charged by the act should be deducted in proportion to such interest. That was a proper provision. Mr. Timm, in answer to the question why that provision should not be generally applied, replied that the circum stances of the loan were peculiar, and that he objected to its general application. The peculiarity was this, that whereas in the case of every terminable annuity which existed the State was the debtor, in this particular case the State was the creditor ; so that the State deliberately made a law car rying out one principle with regard to its debtors, which it denied as a matter of justice to its creditors. Such an utter subversion of justice ought not to exist. If they wished to make the income tax an object of intense hatred and con tempt, they could not do better than perpetuate such ano malies as those. He came to the second portion of his reso lution, which referred to industrial incomes. His principle was, that industrial profits were only partially applied as in come for the purposes of expenditure, the residue passing into investments as capital, yielding a new product for taxa tion, so if they taxed the product of that portion which passed into savings, they were taking the same property twice over. That subject had been looked upon from every point of view, and all agreed in asking for the same remedy or concession in the amount of the assessment. Here again he could appeal to precedent. In 1853 a clause was introduced into the renewal of the Incetne-tax Act, which awarded to the extent of one-sixth of his income a remission of the tax to every individual who spent the portion so saved in the purchase of a life policy. Mr. Pressley had interpreted that to be no portion of a man's income. That proved his case. He considered that principle excellent,but the mode in which it was carried out was open to great reprehension. If two men in the same profession, each receiving £1,200 a year, were to expend £2OO, one in the education of his son and the other in the purchase of a life annuity, why should the lat ter be exempted and the former taxed on the expenditure of his son's education. Ho proposed a concession of one-third on professional incomes, without reference to investment. The hon, genteman then replied to the charge that his scheme was impracticable, and quoted Mr. Pressley as an authority who was in favour of it. Another and a very serious charge had been brought against him—viz, that he would cause anomalies greater and more numerous than he could dispel. (Hear, hear.) One only had been brought to his knowledge, though others might exist, and that was, that he proposed to treat upon a different policy profits arising from public companies and private parties. With regard to public companies, what did the y consist of ? Why they were compounded on the one hand of managers and clerks, who supplied the skill, labour, and intelligence with which they were worked, and, on the other, of the proprietors, who supplied the capital. Well, at present, the law taxed equally the labour, skill, ani in telligence of the clerks and managers and the dividends of the proprietors. And although, in the application of the principle which he was maintaining, he saw no reason why dividends should escape taxation, he saw a still greater reason why the stipends of managers and clerks should not be entitled to a proportionate abatement. At the same time he admitted that it was all but wholly impossible to draw an analogy between incomes derived from trade and incomes derived from professions, still the absence of that analogy was exceedingly unimportant as regarded the main point, namely, the amount of the assessment. He denied that he was open to the charge of attempting to promote class legis lation; and while he had endeavoured to avoid interfering with the action of the Government, he hoped he had afforded the house an opportunity of affixing their approval to a simple basis on which the income tax for the future should rest, thereby giving effect to that axiom of Adam Smith, that " the subjects of every State ought to contribute to its support in proportion to the revenues they enjoyed." Mr. LEATHAM, in seconding the motion, said that, although they might not do complete justice to every one, that was no reason why they should despair of relieving some of the most prominent inequalities of the present in come tax. They might leave much injustice unredressed ; but that was no reason why they should not reduce the in cidental injustice to a minimum. In the words of a great statesman he might add, " Were they to despair of justice because they had need of such great justice ?" (Hear.) One reason for moving in the matter now was on account of the change of policy which had been declared by those who sup ported the tax. The plea which used to be put forward was that the tax was under sentence of death, and there fore that it was not worth while to reconstruct it ; but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disconti• slued his annual pantomime, and the tax, no longer de cent enough to die once a year, took its place amidst the permanent sources of our revenue. He must express what he believed to have been the complete disappoint ment of the commercial classes at the result of the com mittee of 1861. It was impossible to read the report of that committee without being struck by the want of logic in their conclusions, and yet that was the report which was to extinguish the most wide-spread discontent ever aroused by direct taxation. (Hear, hear.) When his hon. friend (Mr. Hubbard) made his statement of last year, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer was left single-handed to vindicate the report, and although he was not going to deny that the right hon. gentleman did not upon that occasion make a most masterly speech—indeed, he never heard him make otherwise than a most masterly speech—still, his argument was by no means conclusive. The hon. member proceeded to criticise several passages in the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered on the occasion of the motion of Vie hon, member for Buck ingham, submitted last year, dwelling especially on one argument made use of by the right hon. gentleman, to the effect that schedule D had no claim to abatement, because a great many persons taxed under that schedule took care by self -assessment to do themselves justice. That meant of course, said the hon. member, by falsifying the returns. But what kind of justice did the right hon. gentleman do to those meritorious persons who refused to evade the pres sure of an unjust tax by conspiring to defraud the revenue, and who were told, in return for that exercise of high morality, that in schedule D lurked all the roguery of the country? By persisting in such arguments, and in a aye tern of Unjust taxation, he was undermining the morality of a class upon whose high sense of honour depended the credit and reputation of this country in the eyes of foreign nations. (Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,—Sir, there are certain acts the repetition of which enables a man to cast aside whatever degree of bashfulness or shyness he may have previously exhibited in performing them. I am sorry to say that the repetition of the same annual speech on the same annual motion is not one of those acts ; and I must sincerely state to the house that it is with some degree of bashfulness that I feel myself compelled—(" Oh I")—by the motion of my hon. friend, to revert to the discussion of a subject which, as far as it can be opened out in a debate of this kind—and I am one of those who think it is not likely thus to be very fully opened out—is, to a certain extent, of a threadbare character as regards the principal topics and arguments it embraces. My hon, friend appears here as a re former of the income-tax, and not only that, but likewise as the advocate and champion of a particular plan. He does not appear as a reformer of the income-tax in general, for no man has more mercilessly than my hon, friend the mem ber Buckingham cast aside, rejected, and repudiated the plans of every previous reformer. He enjoys, indeed, an absolute certainty that the plan which he himself proposes is, in all its essential parts, perfect and invulnerable, and if he could but convey to the minds of others that undoubting sentiment with which he himself regards it, certainly he would lead us at once to the adoption of that scheme. But I must be permitted to say this, that while I resist the project of my hon. friend as being, in regard to its impracticable and visionary character, on a footing with the other schemes which he joins me in repudiating —nay, as being a scheme much more vulnerable in argument than those which he rejected because he found them so de feetive,—l do not stand on the proposition that the struc ture of the income-tax is to be defended as being, in all its parts, entirely agreeable to justice. It is not possible, I believe, to devise a tax of this kind which shall not be full of inequalities and anomalies. Still, the inequalities and anomalies of the income-tax, as they now exist, have at any rate this advantage—an advantage which even the faults of every established tax possesses —namely, that they are in some degree understood, and that the back has in some degree adapted itself to the burden. But the faults, the anomalies, and, as I think in most cases the injustices, which my hon. friend proposes to introduce, have the addi tional disadvantage of novelty—a novelty which, to the speculative mind may constitute an attraction, but which, if it even were the fate of my hon. friend to have to propose his plan as a practical measure for the adoption of the house, ho would find, when once we had to consider it as a question of legislation with a view to the supply of the public necessities, that to shift anomalies and injustice from one side to another isnot merely not to remedy an evil, but to exchange an existing evil for another still worse and more difficult to bear. Sir, my hon. friend has submitted to us two resolutions, and he proposes them with the same confidence as be projected them last year. But I mast again point out to him that upon which I have dwelt, when formerly engaged in argument against him—viz., the pre dicament in which he stands with reference to recorded au thorities on this question. He spoke himself of an entire misconstruction of principles and misconception of 'objects on the part of those with whom he has to contend. But, at any rate, this must be admitted, that on a matter of such a character authority is of great importance, because the au thority of men in such a case is not a naked and bare claim to domineer over the minds of others, but as the expressed result of the experience of those who have come nearest to this question, who have most closely and systematically examined it, and who have been obliged to adapt their conduct in this house to the principles which they found practically applicable to the subject with the least amount of objection. In that sense my honourable friend does not doubt that the two greatest Finance Ministers of this country—if I may presume to form or pass an opinion upon our Finance Ministers—Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel —have both considered this question, and have both left the tax as a uniform income-tax, not, indeed, as the image of perfection in our fiscal system, but as that form on which, as wise, prudent, and practical men, they found it necessary to take their stand. But the question has also a more re cent history, and that history is somewhat remarkable. A committee was appointed in 1850 to consider, not the plan of my hon. friend, but a plan which so far agreed with it that it aimed at a reconstruction of the tax in favour of those classes whom, at the expense of other classes, he proposes to relieve, Now, what was the history of that committee ? The inquiry was voted by the house, if not unanimously, by at least a large majority. Every one was desirous of in quiry, and those who projected the investigation made the most sanguine and confident announcement that they would prove their case before it. The committee sat; it examined the matter patiently; it ended by making no report. That plan entirely broke down. Nor was that all. There were gentlemen of eminence in this house who went into that committee completely wedded to the plan of reconstruction, and who came out of it either entire converts to the prin ciple of the present tax, or, at all events, greatly shaken in their adhesion to the scheme for reforming it. I have been told—and I may be contradicted if I am wrong—that my lion, friend the member for Rochdale, who entered that committee with the utmost confidence in the practica bility of the re-adjustment scheme, was entirely shaken in his belief as to its feasibility by hearing the evidence adduced. And it is perfectly well known that another gentleman, then a member of this house, and not second to anybody in his fitness for dealing with politico-econo mical questions—Mr. Ricardo—went into the committee of IMO prepossessed in favour of that scheme, and came out of it convinced that its agitation was mischievous and its adoption impracticable. Well, we had another committee, on the urgent application of my hon. friend, in 18G1. How was it composed ? He won't himself deny that which I am now about to assert. He did not lose his report. His scheme was not rejected by that committee, because it was a committee which went to its inquiry with foregone conclu sions adverse to his proposals. Some of the members were opposed to the present mode of levying the tax; others were favourable to it; but the majority depended upon minds which were entirely impartial. Yet how did that inquiry end ? By the adoption of a report wholly hostile to and condemnatory of the scheme of my hon. friend. And the reason why that report was carried was because the majo rity who agreed to it consisted of men who were brought to their conclusions in consequence of their labours and inqui ries on that committee. Sir, these are facts of great impor tance. It is very easy to discuss a matter of this kind in the House of Commons, but something is due in point of authority to the conclusions of those who have been selected by the house for the purpose of examining in great detail a particular question of great intricacy and complexity. And when it is found that committee after committee closes its investigations with a mind more adverse to such schemes as my hon. friend's than that with which they began them, that is a fact of great significance, which not all the ingenuity of my hon. friend can shake. And, although I don't pretend for one moment to say that the house is to be governed by the authority either of Ministers or of committees in opposition to its own convictions—(hear, hear)—yet it is an element of great weight in the case, which it would be highly for the interest of my hon. friend's argu ment if he could eliminate from it, but the force of which, I think, we must all feel it difficult reasonably to disregard. My hon. friend the member for Huddersfield made a very ingenious speech, but how does he know what may happen to himself ? Other gentlemen, ingenious like him, and with the same leanings, looking at the question from a distance, have thought to reduce the income tax, but when they came to look at it more narrowly have found, not that the present tax stood tree from fault and blame of almost every kind, but that it was unwise to encourage the agitation of schemes which in themselves were impracticable and tended to ex cite hopes and expectations that cannot be realised. (Hear, hear.) Now my hen. friend, rejected by his own committee, and having himself rejected the favourite schemes of re formers in the preceding committee, after having had his motion likewise rejected by a large majority in the house, comes forward with unabated confidence and again submits his propositions ; and I must say my hon, friend as he adds to the numbers of his campaigns, together with his expe rience—l had almost said together with his misfortunes— exhibits no small increase of hardihood, for he adopts a much bolder tone, and undertakes to show us that there can not be a greater mistake than to suppose that he is favour able to the great capitalists, bankers,merchants,and brewers, who having their property invested, not in their business, but in the funds and railway shares, were subject to the highest rate of tax. My hon. friend is so modest with re spect to Schedule D that he will not allow himself to assume the smallest credit as a benefactor to that unfortunate inte rest, and when he deals with Schedule A he adopts quite an opposite tone, He says there cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that I am going to augment the burden on Schedule A. He quotes an entirely impossible case of a gen tleman with £BOO a year derived from landed estate, and that 4720 of it may Le put out on the interest of a mortgage, I certainly am not conversant with such a case, but he says this is a most cruel case. I have shown that under the pre sent law such a man, instead of paying 9d, in the pound, may really pay Is. 6d.; whereas, under the plan I propose he will only pay 'Old. Let us then try that issue. Does he admit or not that his plan is to relieve one class at the expense of another ? If he says that be does not impose unjust burdens on Schedule A, I fully admit he is not half so unjust to Schedule A as to some others. I don't know on what principle he has been pleased to select some de scriptions of income which are generally considered most fluctuating and uncertain, in order to smite them with the weight of his right hand and lay on them the full weight of the tax, Railway and canal property is to pay the highest tax. Canal property, under railway competition, has under gone severe pressure and reverse, but he selects it for agree able prominence in taxation, while he makes a deduction of one-third from every flourishing business in the City of London. (Hear, hear.) Then with regard to railway pro perty—l hope there is no railway shareholder in this hou-e —(a laugh)—if there be he will judge what kind of reme dial scheme that is which leaves railway property taxed as now at the full rate, and puts an extra tax on it in order to give relief of 33 per cent, to every flourishing business in the City of London. (H ear. ) Th e G reat W es t er n divi dend took a great jump upwar d s ; b u t some thing of this kind lately happened that the shareholders, enjoying an income of £3 per cent. one half-year, the next it dwindled to ss. per cent. ; but my hon. friend has no mercy for such an income, and he prop oses to levy a sur-tax for the benefit of those who are to enjoy is reduction of 25 per cent. My lion. friend assumes an over-modesty with respect to Schedule D, and a degree of confidence, of innocence, to wards Schedule A, of which he is hardly entitled to claim the benefit. His inference meant, if it meant anything, that he would give as effective reduction on Schedule A. :is that so t or is it not ? Let us understand. Is the plan to relieve everybody oitt of some bottomless purse possessed by my hon. friend, but of which no one else is cognintit or, is it the old vulgar plan of putting his hand into the Rocket of one man to place the contents in that of another P That is my translation of my hon. friend's speech, and it is very considerably supported by the figures and papers he has laid on the_table. We have heard his speech to-night; how great a benefactor he is to Schedule A. Well, the amount of tax paid in 1860-61 under Schedule A was £2,048,000, and the amount of the tax which would have been paid under Schedule A, if the scheme of my hon. friend had been in operation, is £2,308,000, showing an augmenta tion of £260,000, or about 12f per cent. That is the plan; but don't be mystified about the amount of expenses and repairs and charges of maintenance. That is the net result presented by my hon. friend. Schedule A actually paid under the present cruel and grinding tax £2,048,000, and if his plan had been in operation it would have paid £2,308,000 —an increase of £26o,ooo—for the relief and benefit of other parties. (Hear, hear.) My hon, friend worked himself up by his dissertation on the three years' average clause till he appeared to arrive at the conclusion that the present law was by far too much in favour of those who pay the tax under Schedule D. Let us see how he ought thus modestly to disclaim the character of benefactor to Schedule D. I revert to his own simple figures. Schedule D in 1861, when the tax was 10d„ paid £3,613,000, and if his plan had been in operation, Schedule D would have paid £3,049,000, or less by £564,000 than it actually paid. I therefore think I have established in favour of my hon. friend, first of all that he has somewhat overstated his claims to the gratitude of the taxpayers in Schedule A, and that he has greatly under stated the grounds, on which he is fairly entitled to be con sidered a benefactor, to those paying under Schedule D. Let us now come to the principle on which he founds his propo sition ; but first of all let me say this—to render anomalies and cases of injustice. Under:Schedule A he says he will make an allowance of one-twelfth or 81 per cent. ; let us see the meaning of that. Some owners of land have properties in which the repairs of agricultural holdings are veey heavy, and go far beyond one-eighth, but many other holders have properties on which they don't pay a shilling for repairs. The way the hon. gentleman would remove anomalies is that, whether a man pays 20 per cent. for repairs or no thing, a deduction of si per cent, shall be made all round to him who pays nothing as well as to him who pays much. If he could grant that reduction to one without taking it from another, there would be something to say for such a mode of dealing, but that is not a►nd cannot be the case. If you make a deduction all round, the meaning is that to benefit one man you must tax somebody else. The general upshot of my hon. friend's plan is that he adds rather more than one-eighth to the payments of those who pay the tax upon land or houses. Every man upon the average who now pays £8 would then pay £9, but the difference would be that, while as a class those who now pay £8 -would then pay £9, many of that class would still only pay £B, because the increase of the tax upon them would be counterbalanced by an arbitrary reduction, while others of the same class, instead of paying £O, would have to pay £lO, and this im mense inequality my hon. friend seeks to introduce by a machinery as arbitrary in character as it is unsatisfactory and anomalous in results. But he says he rests upon one main proposition as the basis of his plan—that is, he aims to relieve what he calls industrial incomes. I will come to the justice of that principle by. and-by, but upon what con siderations does he found it ? His argument is, " I will re lieve industrial incomes because under the law as it now stands the very same property which is taxed in one year as profits of trade is taxed in another year as capital with refe rence to the fruits it produces." But is that a reason why the income-tax should be reconstructed ? Because in 1863 you tax as profits in trade what in 1864, so far as unex pended, appears as capital yielding fruits subject to taxation, I say that is the principle of our law as to property in general. The law of this country makes property pass through preliminary taxation at the point when it comes into the possession of the holder, and then subjects it the year after, and every year after, to taxation in respect of its fruits. If a man makes £50,000 in trade in 1863, my hon. friend says that ought not to be taxed in respect of its fruits as capital in 1864, But supposing a man inherits a property worth £50,000 in the Funds in 1863, he pays Pro bate Duty, Legacy Duty, Succession Duty. It is taxed as capital in 1863, it remains in his possession, yielding in come, in 1864, which is taxed again. The main reason which my hon. friend urges for breaking up the income-tax and substituting a scheme of his own is because we apply to savings made in trade the same rule which we apply—when ever the law can apply it—to any other property when it comes into possession of the holders. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend has no ground for substituting hisplan for the existing system, and the principle of his plan, I must say, appears to me to be fraught with danger. The hon. member for Huddersfield seems to think that the existence of a surplus would solve the question ; and that the exception I took to my hon. friend's proposition is simply that we had not a surplus, and, therefore, had not the money wherewith to do justice. I did mention the non-existence of a surplus as a difficulty for my bon. friend to deal with, but not as any part of the difficulty I felt in acceding to his proposie tion. If there be a surplus—and it does not become ma to say now whether there be or not—(laughter)—but if there be a surplus of taxation we ought to deal with this question upon precisely the same footing as if there were no surplus —that is we should do justice between the several classes of taxpayers of the country. Now as to the practicability of the proposed scheme, my hon. friend has, I think, done an involuntary injustice to the late chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue. He said that Mr. Pressley, although he made difficulties at first, and although he was a most violent Conservative in all matters relating to revenue, yet such was the force and truth of my hon. friend's plan that at the close of the inquiry he withdrew all his objections, and had no more to make. My hon. friend mistakes the character of Mr. Pressley perhaps because he has not been privileged, as many of us have, to enjoy the intimate friendship of that gentleman. What is the value of the term " Conservative" as applied to politics is not a question for discussion at present; but as applied to the administration of the revenue laws never was error more ludicrous than to desciibe Mr. Pressley as eminently en titled to the epithet describing him as wedded to existing schemes and existing laws. For six years I have had the closest intercourse with Mr. Pressley upon all matters re • lating to the revenue, and never in my life did I see a man more wholly free from all vestige of prejudice, more eager for improvements, or more eager to carry them out. He never withdrew his objections to my hon. friend's plan, because he never made any. (Hear, hear.) Does my hon, friend think that Mr. Pressley was so young in his duties as to commit himself in a reply to some ingenious question of my hon. friend, put in the hope of obtaining the sanction of Mr. Pressley's authority to his views, or that he was a man to put himself in the place of the members of this house and dictate to them the principles upon which the tax should be levied ? All he said was "if the house choose to enact a plan we can carry it out," and there is no doubt of that. But what is the principle of my hon. friend ? He claims privilege for what he chooses to call industrial in comes. There is some degree of fallacy in that expression. Industry in this country is exempt from income-tax. I do not know that that exemption can be said to rest upon any very broad or clear principle, but for my own part I think it may be justified by two considerations—first, that I believe it to be visionary to dream of levying income tax from the bulk of the labouring classes, and next, because, as far as I am able to judge, under the system of taxation now existing the labouring man, although exempt from income tax, pays at least a very fair, perhaps a rather full, share of taxation ; but as far as the income-tax is concerned, indus try, properly so called, except a limited portion of the more highly skilled mechanics, is exempt, My hon. friend means the profits of edacated men in professions, or some of them, and he likewise means the exercise of industry and intelli gence in combination with capital. I want to know upon what principle my hon. friend gets to this particular dis tinction, as different amounts of taxation are to be taken from different people not according to the revenues they possess, which is an intelligible principle, not according to their poverty, which is an intelligible principle, not accord ing to their wealth or poverty, but according to the degree in which industry and capital are mixed up together in making up the income. My hon. friend propounds this as the foundation of his system, but in my opinion a more dangerous principle it is not possible to conceive. Those whom he desires to relieve are the class whose fortunes are on the most rapid state of progress and increase. Those who are needy in proportion to the station they occupy my hon, friend leaves untouched, or rather he subjects them to additional burdens in order to give a great relief from taxa tion to a class whose fortunes are in the most rapid state of augmentation. But how does he think, when he has esta blished his claim on behalf of what he calls industrial in comes, he will be able to shut out those who are disposed to recommend other principles ? He will, no doubt, be shocked when I say that in my opinion more is to be said in favour of graduated taxation than for this plan. A gra duated taxation recognises poverty in one class and over grown wealth in another, and justice demands that one should pay less and the other more, there is something rather plausible in that principle, more so than in my hon, friend's plan. He takes a widow, with £2OO a year from the Funds, with six children to educate, to train, and to start in the world, and he takes the case of a great merchant—l will not say brewer or banker, as there seems to be some objection to specifying those flourishing classes ; but to a great merchant, with £20,000 a year, he grants a relief to the extent of one-third, and in order to do that he adds 25 per cent, to the burden of the poor widow. I protest against the principle of my hon. friend. It is one, in my opinion, which, when carefully examined, is much leas plausible and at least as dangerous as the principle of gra duating taxation. The member for Huddersfield says I ap pealed last year to the gentlemen opposite. He is much more fresh in his recollection of that speech tdeen I am, having done me the honour to refer to it; but I"am not aware that I appealed to the gentlemen apposite in particular. I ap pealed to the whole house, and I trust they will have the justice and the manliness now to repeat the vote which they gave on that occasion, (Cheers.) Some justice and some manliness I think it requires, because I do not deny the faults and Saws of the present income tax, Ido not deny that a feeling has aided, does exist, and I believe will always exist among considerable portions of the community in the direction of the motion which my hon. friend has made. Neither do I deny that such a feeling is entirely natural. But I do say that when the real merits of the case are examined, when investigation is made of broad practical issues, such as I have only endeavoured in one or two cases to exemplify, but which were mere fully and sharply brought ottt before my hon. friend's committee ; the danger involved in my hon. friend's principle will be apparent. The danger, moreover, will be °Worts of agitating subjects like this, and of substituting vague expoctations in the minds of the community—expectations which only end in taking money from one man to give it to another—for those ra tional hopes of reduction which never can be realised by my hon. friend's plan, but the realisation of which must en tirely depend on the adoption of judicious economy, and the consequent applica'ion of sound principles to the relief of the public. (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") Mr. HUBBARD, whose voice was almost inaudible through the impatient cries for a division, wished to know what answer the right hon. gentleman had given to his argument. He left the matter where it stood, and merely sought to give it a new complexion. His E dvice was id sub stance that they should wear their chains till their hands and feet grew callous, and till they ceased to feel the galling of the yoke. The house divided, with the following result— For the motion Against it Majority The resolution was therefore lost. APPROPRIATION BILL. Lord R. MONTAGU rose to move the following resolu tions—That every bill hereafter introduced for the appro priation of supplies be printed and distributed in time for consideration before it passes through committee of the house. Second, That it is inexpedient that any bill for the appropriation of supplies shall contain the power of transfer which was first introduced into the Appropriation Act of 1346, and which unsettles the appropriation of all the grants of the year for the naval• and military service. The noble lord said he would be prepared to show that many changes had been made in the Appropriation Bill after it had been printed. These changes had taken place year after year. One year the appropriation clause was inserted, and the transfer clause omitted ; another year the transfer clause was retained, and the appropriation omitted. The object of the resolutions he was about to move was to lay down a distinct proposition which would prevent any changes in future in the Appropriation Bill. The Treasury check was a mere matter of form, and its object had been attained. He quoted Sir G. Bromley, Mr. Arbuthnot, the Duke of Somerset, and others in support of that opinion. The clause had been most injurious in its effects, and he proceeded to show its operations in six different ways, that the expenditure had vastly increased since the introduction of the clause into the act—that it prevented departments from coming to Parliament for more money when they re quired it—and that it produced a laxity in the estimates. It tended to defy Parliament finding out how the money was appropriated, and it induced departments to take more money than was wanted on popular votes, and less on un popular ones, and apply the balance to other purposes. No possible inconvenience could result from expunging the clause. He advocated the establishment of a Treasury chest fund as preferable and as likely to bring the depart ments more under the control of the Treasury than as at present by the surrender of their balances. He concluded by moving the resolutions. Mr. COX seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with regard to the first resolution, that his noble friend greatly exaggerated the effects of the law to which his mo tion had reference; however, he had no objection to a suf cient number of copies of the bill being placed at the dis posal of members, although he did not consider it worth while to incur an expenditure of some hundred pounds in order that every member of the house might receive a copy. The second resolution he interpreted to mean that it was desirable to bring every excess of expendi ture under the notice of the house at the earliest possibh.: period; but, in framing that resolution, his noble friend bad not taken into consideration that, upon the re commendation of the committee which sat last year, the suggestion had been embodied in the act of Parliament. The second resolution, therefore, was directed against a danger which no longer existed. Sir F. BARING, as a chairman of the committee on public accounts, which sat last year, considered that the Appropriation Bill ought to come before the house in a printed shape before it passed; but, with respect to the second resolution, there was no necessity whatever for it after the provision which had been inserted in the Act on the recommendation of the committee of which he was chairman. Mr. HADFIELD cordially supported the motion, and moved, as an addition to the first resolution, that the same rule should be applied to the Indemnity Bill. Lord R. MONTAGU then accepted the modification in his first resolution suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and withdrew his second resolution, while Mr. Hadfield's addition was agreed to amidst much laughter. Mr. NE WDEGATE said that if ever the house was to have an effectual check on the power of transfer, which had been so much abused, they must have the detailed accounts of expenditure of the year before, otherwise their attempt would always be entirely futile. The motion in its amended form was then passed. PROCESSION AND ILLUMINATION ACCIDENTS. Mr, HARVEY LE NV IS moved for an address for re turns of the names of the persons killed or injured during the procession of the 7th day of this instant March, and on the occasion of the illuminations in the City on the 10th day of this instant March, and of persons who afterwards died in consequence of injuries received on either of those days; and of the persons injured on either of those days whose cases were reported to the City and Metropolitan police, distinguishing the localities in which the deaths and injuries occurred. In doing so the hon. member expressed a decided opinion that the accidents ought not under any circumstances to have occurred. The crowded state of the City during the preparations for the reception ought to have been sufficient warning to the City authorities that they might expect a great and overwhelming crowd, But not only that, notice of the most grave character had been given from a quarter entitled to the most deferential attention—namely, the com mander-in•chief• His Royal Highness had stated that he had tendered military assistance to the Lord Mayor, which assistance had been to a great extent declined; a second re presentation being necessary to induce him to accept a limited number of mounted artillery. The hon. member described the scene in the City on the day of the reception, and pointed out how utterly inadequate the police force had been to perform the duty required of them, He thought the time had come when there should be but one system of police throughout the metropolis. Mr. NORRIS asked that there should be added to the return a list of the persons killed when the deceased Duke of Wellington lay in state at Chelsea Hospital. He believed, when the reports were presented, it would be found that the chief cause of the confusion was the order which caused all the attractive part of the procession to be confined to the space between London-bridge and Temple-bar. (Hear.) The LORD MiYOR said it would be inconvenient to discuss the matter before the papers were in possession of the house; but he would just state, in reference to a report which has been circulated as to his having refused the offer of the military, that the offer of his Royal Highness the commander-in-chief was accepted the very same day that it had been made. Colonel NORTH said he had been informed that Sir R. Airey, on the part of his Royal Highness, had waited upon the Lord Mayor for the purpose of making an offer of assis tance by the military, and that the Lord Mayor had declined that offer. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman whether that statement was so or not. The LORD MAYOR said it was true that when Sir R. Airey had waited upon him he had not accepted the offer, but he had informed Sir Richard that, as he was only the holder of the office of mayor for a twelvemonth, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of accepting the assistance of the soldiers off-hand, but would send a written reply to his Royal Highness. That reply was sent off, ac cepting the offer, within two hours afterwards, A report of all the particulars has been prepared at the request of the Home-office, and sent in that (yesterday) afternoon. Sir G. GREY was also of opinion that the discussion would come on more conveniently after the papers were be fore the house. He had not yet seen the report referred to by the Lord Mayor, but the right hon. gentleman had informed him that it had been sent, and he would road it at once, and lay it before the house. ~~ RMII= CUSTOMS DUTIES. Upon the motion of Sir S. NORTHOOTE, a return was or dered, showing the receipts of customs duties for 1862. PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT BILL, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to extend the operation of the recent acts with respect to limited liability to partners in commercial firms. In the year 1854 that house, on the mo tion of the hon. and learned member for Plymouth, came to the conclusion that the law of partnership, which rendered every person who, though not an ostensible partner, shared the profits of the concern, liable for the whole of its debts, was unsatisfactory, and should be modified so as to place it upon the principle that one might share the profits without liability beyond a fixed amount. He might also add, that the present state of the law did not rest upon any statute, but upon judge-made law—the decision of Chief Justice Eyre, in 1693. It was not for him to pronounce any opinion upon that decision, but he might state that it had been im pugned by many eminent legal authorities. The system of limited liability was iii operation in many continental court• tries, as well as in the United States of America, and it was supported by a great many of the chambers of commerce, though, he was sorry to say, not by all, as the hon. member for Glasgow, who had a motion on the paper for reading the bill a second time that day six months, would inform the house of the opposition to the measure on the part of the chamber of commerce of that city. Mr. BUCHANAN said the bill before the house might with great propriety be divided into several different mea sures; but the most important of it was, the proposal for extending the principle of limited liability. As to the pro posal for registering partnerships, it was a good one, an d he had no doubt it was a subject which should be sent to a select committee, for there would be much clifacult z - in de- fining what a partnership was. But with regard to theelr, tension of the principle of limited liability he objected to it altogether. He trusted the hon. member for Birmingham would nol think ho was pursuing a discourteous procedure; in moving that the bill be read a second time that day sin months. (A laugh.) It appeared to him that the hon.- member for Birmingham had not quite accurately stated the conclusion arrived at by the committee of 1851, for upon the point of the approval of the principle of limited liability that committee divided in the proportion of 6 to 2 against the principle. But, though the decision of the committee was adverse to the principle, he admitted that it did not deter the G ,vernment from adopting it ; for the right hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock, with the sanction of the Government, had subsequently introduced a bill extending the principle to banking companies. As re garded past legislation, he had not a wor to say in ap proval or disapproval. But they were now called upon to take a great step in advance, and to apply a principle which was special to all companies, and that was such a change that he was entitled to ask what was the amount of success which had attended the principle of limited lia bility. Well, what was the fac', as regarded the exten sion of the principle to banking companies ? That, since the passing of the Act in 1856 to the present time, only two out of all the old-established banks availed themselves of it. The hon. member then read returns showing the number of joint-stock companies which had been established under the principle, end how many had been abandoned, and contended there was nothing in the working of the system to warrant them in further extending it. There was much loose talk about the success of the system in France; but as far as any evidence before them went to prove the working of the principle, it showed quite the oppo site result. He could show a similar result as regarded the working of the principle in the United States. The system had also been condemned is America, where bankruptcy was more prevalent than in this country. In Belgium, Holland, and in many places in Germany, limited liability was looked upon with disfavour. He condemned the per fect freedom of contract that was now contended for, and he urged that there was an obligation on the State to pre vent fraud. This proposal differed from the present law in many important considerations. There was no provision in this bill for the protection of the public, and by it a part ner might sign away the property of the concern, and bind the company to a greater extent than his own limited lia bility, The hon. member concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. GREGSON seconded the amendment. Mr. M. GIBSON said it was unnecessary to go into the. details of the bill, as the hon. member who moved it had consented to refer it to a select committee ; but with regard to the general proposition, that a man who advanced money to a trading concern, and who was paid not a fixed rate of interest, but a rate of interest which fluctuated with the profits of the business, should be held to be a partner, that he considered to be open to very great doubt. He inclined to the opinion that such an advance of money ought not to constitute a man a partner, but that neither ought to be al lowed to take part in the working of the concern. It was the principle of the French commandite law, that the commandi teur should have no share in the management. He considered the provision of, the bill which required the, compulsory re gistration of all partnerships altogether impracticable. However, he thought there were some other provisions which were worthy of the consideration of the house, and therefore he did not hesitate to recommend that the bill should be read a second time. Mr. MALINS supported the bill, and contended that the limited liability principle in this country had been attended with such signal success that it was advisable to extend it also to private partnerships. Mr. T. BARING diaapproved of the bill and warned the house that its adoption would be attended with danger. It would upset the whole system of trade and credit, and wail of a character that if at all attempted it should have been introduced as a Government measure. Mr. BAZLEY said he had been a member of the Royal Commission of 1853, and he was then opposed to the prin ciple contained in the present bill, and all his subsequent experience had tended to convince him still more strongly that he was right in the course he then took. Sir H. CAIRNS considered the principle of the bill was bad and its provisions impracticable, for no registration office could get through the business of registering every petty loan made to private traders all over the kingdom. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the present confused state of the law of partnership rendered some alteration very desirable, and therefore he thought the bill should be read a second time, and its defects altered in committee. Mr. WHITESIDE suggested that as they were spend ing a " humdrum session," the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should take the bill under his special care. Mr. JACKSON thought the bill, if passed, would up root the whole trade of the country. It was credit which had mainly created the commercial wealth and greatness of this country, but this bill would destroy credit and prevent the progress of the company, Mr. SEELEY said the bill might prove injurious to large capitalists, but the public at large would be benefited by it. Mr. Alderman SYDNEY opposed the bill as unneces sary and uncalled for. The house then divided. The numbers were— For the second reading Against it Majority —l7 The bill was read a second time. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. On the report of this bill, Mr. VANCE moved the omission of the 11th clause, and the insertion of the following :—" Any person who shall be convicted of bribery at any election shall be incapable of being elected or sitting in Parliament at any time during the then existing Parliament." Mr. WHITESIDE called attention to the wording of the 11th clause. If a member was declared duly elected, and he was afterwards convicted of bribery before a judge and jury, he would have to resign. This he thought would be acting unjustly towards the member. Sir G. GREY said they had decided on punishing the constituencies for bribery, and the question was whether candidates were to be allowed to g , ) free. The clause Wee similar to the present law, and no doubt it would have the effect described. Mr. AYBTON considered the principle of the clause en extravagant one. It would subvert the privilege of that house in respect to the validity of elections by constituting the judges a court of appeal by a side proceeding. Mr. PULLEN ultimately consented to withdraw the clause, and the bill was then ordered to be read athird time• SUPPLY—REPORT. The report of supply was brought up and agreed to. MARINE MUTINY BILL, Tho bill was read a third time and passed. The Inclosure Bill passed through committee. The house then adjourned at 1 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. MARKET HARBOROUGH—TUESDAY. White wheat, 498 to sls ; red, 42s to 46s per 36 stone• Malting barley at 36s to 40s per qr. ; grinding, 29s to 3 1 1 per 30 st. Oats, old, 27s to 30s; new, 21s to 25s per 2* st. ; beans, 36s is 43s per qr. LEEDS-TUESDAY. The better sorts of white and - red wheat met a fair sale, and last Tuesday's rates were maintained. Iu barley the trade was quiet. No change in other articles, SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...lgs Od to 205 03 White If , ...21s Od to 23s O d New red , , ...16s Od to 175 03 New white „ 1/ ...19s Od to 20s O d Beans // If ... 16s 6d to 19s 6d Peas, per qr 4ss Od to 55s Od Grinding barley, per qr 28s Od to 30$ Od Malting ditto, „ Oats 2ss Od to 300 Od Flotir, is 9d to 2s 2d per stone. NEWCASTLE-UNDER -LYME—MoNDAY. There was hardly an average show of wheat t -day, for which the demand was slow, and prices were about the same as last week. The weather has been more seasonabl e during the week. Old white wheat..6Bs to 63s I Old red wheat, ...54s to 580 New do. ..528 to 548 New do. ..45s to 508 LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY. At our market to-day there was a fair attendance of the town and country trade, and more disposition to sell whea t, prices being fully 2d per cental lower than last week. Oats were . the turn i n f avour o f b u y ers . B ar l e y an d p e as were difficult to move. Egyptian beans is per qr dearer. Oat meal a trifle low e r. There was a very d u ll business doing in flour, and prices tending downwards. Indian corn 3d per qr lower. MELTON MOWBRAY—TUESDA Y . The following were the currencies :—New white wheat , 48s Od to 54s Od ; new red, 43s Od to 48 s per 36 stone; beans, 43s to 44s for old ; new sorts, 36s to 59s per 38 at. ; barley, 36s to 38s for malting, and 29s to 31s per qr . for grinding; oats, 21s to 30s Od per 24 stone. Births• CARRUTHERS.—On the 21st inst., at Audlem, the wife of Lieut.-Col. G. Carruthers, of a daughter. GREENHILL.—On the 23d inst., at Forest. place, Leystoir stone, the wife of James C. Greenhill, E sq ., of a son. Marriages. BURROW-00deastthsoeial o 9 f th tlae late inst., Augustus Burr ower , ES—LEEsII. Nesbitt Burrowe s, to I sabella Mary, third d a ughter 0 + Sir Win. Leeson. HODD—Nitsu—On the 24th i ns t ., at All Saints', Here at e Caen,olon Colonel T lv h 1 0 0 0 ; ford, Mr. it. Hodd, jun., of Westbourne-road N„ Barn o ^' bury, to Barbara, daughter of J, Nash, Elq., Barr e court, Ilereford, Deaths. CLERK. — On the 22d inst ,at 43, Eaton-square, Maria, the eldest daughter of the Right Hon. Sir George Cler i ‘' Bait CLENNELL.—On the 24th inst., at London•fields, ney, Mrs. Clennell, aged 88. DAVIES.—On the 24th inst., Elizabeth, the wife of Lieut.' Gen, Davies, of Danehurat, Sussex. GLOVER.—On the 22d inst., at Kentish-town, Charles Vr . Glover, Esq. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDEEW S 2 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TH E Sufi Office, No. I ' i , Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County ° Middlopm—Wednesday, Nan% 25, ISA Subi Mem. Meure r and b anti it Will, rnitte3 An 1 111 E Presal] A ducted The , renew: dances and a' Gll SApp oi Mr. G tallad, If all, E m. Great 1 Plays o'cloc Varla Bolos b F-11 T innume Frame ; Malfot tended daily fl R I IIIEII,O London Must Explan the see, A di N avy, M Bove ad( the Arn District Weights race 1011 to start horse to The in the 11 the day I n 2 a( Winner sous, thi sold for 20 Rove start or 10 Rave 1 The al in COUT Newp T Ml NT oni an 4 /To-. th 4 Uesda3 lOwt 1 . Th T. Thl 111. 'I h IV. Th, V. The at for ela; hav loch the •T. Gm A. Gro J. L. I crui: R. B. 1 W. 31. trnvi T. .Ta r E. Ha lake age( the INN NO*7A P( fijN Sub Mini) °mce 1 0 , n zank( Pc For t S A' Geor; MlBl3 ora Irish "Ti sati Poll