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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT ROUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. _ _ ROYAL COMMISSION. The RJyalassent was given by commission to the follow ing bills : Post-ofce _Savings Banks Gard , ns in Towns Protection Office of 'Secretary of Wit' Abolition CanabridgeySt. John's-lane, Stoppage Mid Wales Railway (Capital) Berks and H ants Extension Railway Market Harborough and L Aighboroueh Road London and North Western and Lancashire and York shire Railway Companies South Staffordshire Railway Glasgow GUB Leyland and Farrington Gas Hereford, Hay, and Brecon Railway Caledonian Railway (Breilenholme Deviation) Searber ugh Water Leeds Gas Swansea Municipal Corporation Glasgow and South Western Railway (. 'apital) Harrowgate Gas The Royal Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Earl St. Germans, and Lord Sydney. CASE OF MR. BISHOP. The Marquis of NORMAN BY said ho had that after noon 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 pri 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 Whi te h aven , Cleator, and Egremont Railway Bills were a second time. THIRD READINGS. The Dulas Valley Mineral Railway, Wicklow Copper and Hibernian Mines Companies, Uxbridge and Rlekmans worth Railway, Banff, Portsoy, and Strathisla Railway, Stirling Estate, Workington Dick, 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 undoebt edly be of great convenience, not only to large areas of pri vate 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 Lords 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 DI Ros, The Earl of'CAMPERDOWN said he had been a mem ber of the committee, and after the most patient heaving of the evidence brought before them, he was of opinion that it was not expedient at present to erect the proposed bridge, Lord CRAN WORTH 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 the committee to have considered was, whether the pre amble of the bill (which stated that the bid would be of great utility to the public) had been proved. That question however the committee did not seem t I 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 bythem 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 GRANVILLE 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 a ould 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, he would rather the advantage of a new bridge s h o uld 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 29 Not content Majority.... The motion was therefore lost. HARES (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 lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS--Last Evening. The SPEAXER 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 Hoy land Gas—Exeter Gaol —Great Western Railway (Branch at Great Bridge) — Inverness and Perth Junction and Perth and Dunkeld Railway Companies—Seaton and Beer Railay—Tees Conservancy—Van Diemen' s Land Company—and Ware, Hadham, and Bantingford Railway. The following bills were considered and ordered to be readand athird time :—Birkenhead Improvement --Bris tol rtishead Pier and Railway—Forruartine and Buch Railway Bill—Gravesend and Mil ton Gas—Great Grimsby Water—l tchen Bridge-- Let terkenny k /t a w Andover and Redbridge Railways—Mid and South Western and tailways—Mid Kent Railway Rotherham and Ktro g be Local Board of Health — Southampton and Netley Rearu'hway_Stourbridge Railway— and Tranrocre Docks The Londonderry Railway (Seaham to Sunderland) Bill was read a second time. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Daputy Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table, and summoned the Speaker and the house to attend at the bar of the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Com mission read and the Royal assent given to sev,ral bills a greed to by both houses of Parliament. PETITIONS. By Lord Hotham, against subjecting charities to the income tax. Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr. Ingham, Durham ; and from Charing. cross hostital• Sir F. Smith , several, from Chatham ; Mr. Henley, Oxford: ' Mr. Bentinc k, Norfolk; Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr. Walter, Mr. Pullen, Sir B. Bridges, Mr. Ferrer, Mr. Alder man Saloraons, Mr. Clay, Hull ; Mr. Hankey, M r . Dlints, 30, Mr. Ccx, 4, the Lord Mayor, several, Sir S. Northeote, FevEr4l, Mr. Wynne, Sir F. Farquhar, Lord J. Manners, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. A)rtou, Sir J. Duke, several; against the am algamation of tte Nletroplitan CA. Sykes , praying for a mothfica with the City Po lice ; lion of the fire ine•urance duty. TURKEY. Mr. GREGORY gave notice that on Friday the 29th he should call the attention of the board to th e 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 Ike Royal Commissioners of 1861. THE SEA QUEEN. Mr. PEACOCK gave notice of his intention on an early day, to move for some correspondence with Earl Russell and Mr. Seward with respect to this vessel. THE LOAN SOCIETIES ACT. Mr. NORTH asked the Secretary to the Treasury what course the Government intended to pursue with reference to the Loan Societies Act, which would expire in August next? Mr. F. PEEL replied that tho act would be renewed as a permanent act. _ _ . AUSTRALIA. Mr. MARSH asked the Under Secretary 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 IS6I 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 OS F ATES SOMBR ERO FLAG—. THE UNITED In reply to Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. LAYARD replied that this island was the property of the British Crown. A British officer, on visiting the island in his ship, found the United States flag displayed. He desired it might be taken down, and on a refusal he directed one of his officers to take it down, and this was accordingly done. PRISON MINISTERS BILL. In reply to an HON. MEMBER, 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 ci ry 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 ho F tated 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 back 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 in 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 before 6 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 EXcHEQEER 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 present 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. With 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 was a proposal which ought only to be carried with the free 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 he 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 charities 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 1845 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 or i g in in laudable motives, but, on the other hand, it was equa ly true they too ofte3nnproinceneddeedoufrtoemf mthoattivwehsinchoti charge on laud able, and that they were only upon charities. If the tes legacies was not a c har g e T 10 per cent. h impossible for man to retain. e free from legacy duty, and th e 10 p tat o r w i s hed to give the enti re sum en r e c e h n a t r . itr w es a , s n a e e l i e la ft ra t e t upon th e testator's estate. IL was not wise for the State to give temptations to death .bed bequests. He had proceeded on the assumption that an exemption was a g ift, and the, what the State remitted a man it gave to him. It was not w.se to give temptations in the form o f gifts of public money, to m en to endeavour to immortal i se t h em selves as founders. (Sensation.) He might be wrencr ' but it seemed an anomaly th a t a man might to the day of his death enjoy en joyment the m eri to• oifalm sg ivin g his wea lth, and th en un ite to that was gone, and h ave the f:gmlevionfgbby a will opened if he h e a i d n g b t e h en e founder o w f ' n en pa h r- e ticular institution, wh en , common lot of making provision forTh individuals, h w is it n h a t m h e e gift of public money an exe e ptiun, was obtained w to or t i n ld eo h u a r v gg e e passed tthis, i i n n t t h o e oblivion .form of £150,000 at the exp-nse of the public. Ho was a w ar e nj be ing left to charitable uses because the_ a tea n ta d t o o h i r e h a d an aver sionait's to the towards his relatives—(laughter) committee whether it was fair that the Legislature on to encourage by gifts of public money suchpriavdaivipeoisnidti.on. If the State did not interfere with the wills of duals, so as to interfere with their gold in this manner ivi i least it ought not to assist bequests so going. And whatever cost 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 £180,000,000 to £190,000,000 a year. Of this property one-sixtieth, or L 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 thus laid upon other property, was about £216,000 a year ; but besides this there was a large and growing charge on the public purse for the management of these charities. This 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 breach of trust," at from £40,000 to £45,000. 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 percent. 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 H. Peel, in proposing, in 1842, the income tax, had, with the view of keeping charities under the eye of the State, re • commended the income tax to be levied on all property without exemption, but that the sum of £lOO,OOO, the amount then levied on charities, were to be voted from year to year in their ail, this exemption accorded to death • bed bequests, which was not granted to the alms of the liv ing, would not stand the scrutiny of the House of Commons for a single year—(hear, hear)—and not one-terrth of the doneat h d o l been o miw m , marshalled r puttingsh a Hospital, theed beat s a ot fs footkt h i 1 the charitforemost.iesi manner; now il: rot:hehmuchclergy, charitable the ba e :a n dajo beenrofn l y ß t y n a e hr n t of the exemption would re. of the widows of Dissenting minis ters, rang in his ears, and the country was asked on their account to continue a gift of a quarter ef 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 1831, 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 pr,p :sing 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 more 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, they would 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 for 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 5,600 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 lld 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 a g n rea 2 t s C e ll co a n ri d t l i y es ,o o u f r education, such Christ's w s e u d ch hos a p s itals. Hospital ; d (Hear, hear.) 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 t, ntions. 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 imp 'tent people" who were 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 increa , ing wealth of the nation, and now they were chi dren of persons with incomes of £2OO, £3OO, £4OO, and in some cases £5OO per annum. (Hear, hear.) He 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 w, uld 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 seine 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, ho 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 in.. St. Bartholomew's Hospital as an illustration. That hospital. had aninco u n n ie d of £36,000. po l s t iti n o o n w it p w ai o d ul £ d 2o b o e per annum income tax, v £ e dBsob.y theA g ahi hospital this from w a . s t t o h e b e.i increased d t h valueea dva n o - f tapesc land,re a e a d d ri e b s rl benefit from the great reductions that bad taken place of from recent beneficial h gislation as well as late years in our customs tariffs. The income of the hospi • tal in 1841 was £31,335, and in 1861, 20 years atter the im position of the income tax, it bad increased to £36,030. s a d u m ; c p 1 t e i n 4 8 o 2 f had(tt r H ioen e (Hear.) ar ) eeNdV fromh What therefore llegislation had a ind c been ons e q the e consequence o c benefit the the operationhospital of the income tax in reducing taxation ? Taking the con s sumption on drugs a difference of £1,245 per z t i e s9 a BB , ; w ls hich was 3,2461 b, at 5d per lb, that reduc r o u n g a a l a t n o ds a o n r: endowment of £192 14s 7d ; sugar and ofW e fo ll o , d a:l a d n in d g fo t r o s t r h t a ie t le a s l s ln o o f un el t o s th o spirits, a 0 , i 2; rn 6 seat in 2 ri s dwn 6 u: d smi n ; zei b t, n lxs t f2a t ; e Bv r sonu a ila n r3k d soi n. fe making thegTashl, 141 hospital. reduc tion htua2eol t , ) the income tax, through the redaction. mate rials, he found that St. Bartholomew's of £1,167, and through the enhanced lo p e e r w c t: e ni, n d t oo f fr o db r uu o ti t il e h dsi e ,n r igna articles su w t he l directu Ho spital eo w f aepscruodpe property r t t o y r £1,440, together making £3,307 as benefit received by St. Bartholomew's, against the p ecun iary £B5O which the Government now invited Parliament to make it contribute to the taxation of the country. To that statement there was only one answer, namely, that St. Bar tholomew's, as a receptacle 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 resu 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 chaiities. Why should they, for example, spend a sum of £220 annually upon a dinner at St. Bartholomew's? But again, St. Bartholomew's, as well as Guy's and St. Thomas's, were thinking of their future aggrandisement; aed at St. Thomas's as much as 15 per cent, of the income of the charity was spent on reproductive but that investments,was not and to on give the improvementits to la t n h d e a dest W itu e t l e l : (hear, hear.) The fact was that the public grant for St. immediate relief o f 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 Was grant should be confined to in stit utions that had incomes of £20,000 or £30,000 a year P 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 say their income grow m er e rapidly than th e p ro p er ty o f th e community at large. Within the last 32 years it might be taken that their income had grown from £1,200,000 to £3,000,000. The income of what was known as Jones's Charity, and which was po ssessed of some 3 2 acres of land at Deptford, would, before a n y lo ng period had elapsed, be enormous. The charity known as Tonbridge School, and an income of £BO,OOO a year. A gain, Smith's Charity at which now educated 2 00 you n g gentlemen, would soon have Kensington within a limited n umber of years would have an income of £50,000. The G ov ernment 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 courage4and 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. NORTHCOTE 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 his 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 W9B 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 ho 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 hen. 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 bon. 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. (Hear, 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, biuy 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 privat e c h ar i ty an d St a te a id —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 £4,000 upon t h e ir usu a l i ncome, and other cha rities suffered in a similar manner. He asked the Govern ment, on the ground of expediency, to reconsider their pro position. During the autumn not a speech would be made at any ch ar i ty, nut a su b scr ipt ion 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 sent 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 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 to tax poverty—the poor, the wretched, and the miserable, and to deprive poor children of education. Rather than tax 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. lie 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 appeared,to 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 ho 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 o f th e Exchequer,. the noble lord said it was a furious atta c k 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. He condemned what he called the sophistry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said that his speech was unworthy of a great statesman, H e defended the memory o f t h e d onors 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 c a lamity, 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 mere 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 were crowded, the question was then put from the chair, when, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,—This debate having be n brought to a close, we have fucther 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 rec.( ive 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 be 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 pats 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. Is 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 chits. 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• hours 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 State. 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—i t is a right. (Cheers, and a cry of hear.) An hon. gentleman says "Hear," as if the onus p obandi 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 t njoyed 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 1-efore 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 alwa) s 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 whi c h 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 our charities has for thirty years more or less attracted the attention of the Legislature. The Crown has isued commissions and Parliament has appointed committees, the labours of which have been eminently judicious and useful. I should doubt, therefore, under any circumstances, whether it was wise, or necessary, or expedient 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 coma • 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 es 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 cur advice 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 lion, 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 lion, 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 never heard 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 r i g h t h on. f r i en d h as b een accused of pour ing forth invectives against these charitable institutions. Why, the mo s t severe things which fell from my right hon. friend were hi s 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 hon. 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" aro 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 enctive 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, however just 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," laughter, and " Hear, hear") yet we 1)..,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. HENLEY—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 hie right 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 he alludes to the opinion I expressed the other evening that it was a queer sort of justice to rob 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 care a 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 ho did there ? He destroyed the Christian character of the education. (Oh, oh.) I will say what was done, and then you may say " ( h, 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 ()lasses, 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 a t f h e a y n y a r e k i u n t d t . einconsistent , with any other r g i e n , c " i pl e and t o h b a je t e t t h in is na c b la l u e s i e n i e a v w er i y th r d e r sp aw ec n t.. for I thin oh t) I amk it w extremely exceedinglyremel (H ea r, hear.) y glad 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 there were some cries of "Divide I" but ulti mately the clause was negatived without a division, amid loud cheers from the Opposition. Clause 4, which relates to the s-ame subject, was with drawn. On clause 5, Mr. HUBBARD Paid, as they had now introduced a graduated scale of income tax, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer should state how far it was to be carried. Ho him self approved of it as applied to industrial incomes. Mr. HUNT thought the exemption of £6O should be applied to incomes above £2OO a year. Mr. PEACOCKE wished to exempt incomes of £lOO a year, and should move that £lOO be substituted fir £6O. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the hon. gentleman would not press the motion, as the pro posal of fixing £6O as the basis had been already recognised. 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 till 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 clause which provided for tho conversion of perpetual into ter minable annuities. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the motion. After some further conversation, The amendment was withdrawn. The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses, 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 t!me and pa:sed. NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND SO CIETY WINDING-UP ACT (1861) AMENDMENT 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 and 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'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. COLCHESTER—MAY 2. At this corn exchange to-day there was a small show of wheat, which sold at is per qr advance on last week's prices, which was reluctantly given by the millers. Spring corn is dearer, and little doing. Wheat, white. 46s 56s Beans, Mazagan ..30s 33s red ..42s 52s middle & small.3ss 42s Barley —s —s Peas, white 40s 42s Oats GLOUCESTER—MAY 2. To-day there was a moderate supply of English wheat from the farmers, which held for is per qr advance on the prices of last week, with a firm trade. Foreign wheat is to 2s more money, which checked sales. Barley at late prices. Oats, peas, and beans firm. CHELMSFORD—MAY 1. Beat wheat may be quoted at is advance on last week's currencies, and rather an improvement in the trade. No change in any other kind of grain. Wheat, old white...3os 536 new ..35s 49s old red....37s 46s new 358 44s Barley 2' , El 36s Chevalier ..28s 40s Grinding 22s 31s Malt.... Chevalier 64s 69s Oats 2os 28s l'eas,Pluiridge, 37s 40s White 39s 40s Boiling 4os 43s Dun 35s 38s Ditto now .. —s —s Beans, Tick, old 34s 390 new --s --a Harrow Ticks 3ss 40s Mazagan 3os 380 KIRKCALDY GRAIN —MAY 2. We had small supplies of wheat, barley, and oats:brought forward to-day. Wheat and barley sold much tho same as last week, and oats 6d to is dearer. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First.... 348 Od 23s 6d I 23s 6d Second ..40s Od 27 s Od 25s Od Third ....—s Od —s Od —s Od COAL Di: Prices of Coal per Ton al .ARJiET. the close of the market. s. d. Bates'sWest Hartley 14 6 Bower's West Hartley 15 0 Wylam 15 0 Carway and Duffryn Malting , 19 ,6 Hastings Hartley l5 0 Canfield Moor Butes 12 6 Buddle'sWest Hartley 15 0 Cowpen Hartley 13 0 North Pelton Gas 13 0 West Hartley 15 0 Eden Main ..15 0 Walls End. s d. Walls End. ''' - Wharncliffe 14 0 Ships at marks Hartlepool .16 • South Hartlepool 16 9 K elloe ..16 3 South K elloe Heugh Hall 15 6 Ridde11...... l4 0 Haswell. ..... . 17 0 Hetton l7 0 Tunstall Cassop l6 0 Braddyll's Hetton 16 0 Byron 14 6 it, 49; sold, 26. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. Aup'..ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. May 19. via Marseilles May 14. Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. May 4. Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena May 3. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton May 2. via Marseilles May 14. Falkland I s l an d s Ma 4 Gibraltar, via S ou th ampton .. May 2.. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton May 2. via Marseilles May 14. India (Bombay), via Southampton .. May 11, via Marseilles May 5. Portuga1.... Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton May 2. via Marseilles May 5. Newfoundland ..May 13. Oporto and Vigo .. U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... May 7. by U.S. packet.... b CanaMay 1. W.C. of Afri ca , M a d e i ra, and Te y neriffe dian packet. May 10. Bahamas, via New York May 7. Mexico.. All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, }May 14. California, and Briti s h Columbia.. ROYAL COLLEGE OP VETERINARY SURGEONS.— The annual meeting of this body was held yester day at the College, Red Lion-square—the President, Pro fessor Simonds, in the chair. The annual report read by the secretary stated that the number of the members of the college practising in the kingdom was 1,018, while the num ber of those who improperly assumed the title of veterinary surgeon was 1,244; and those practising as farriers, 1,189. It was strongly urged by several speakers that legislative interference should be sought to protect the legitimate members of the profession from the false representations of unqualified practitioners, and also to secure immunities and exemptions from the members in reference to serving as jurors. After some discussion, the report was unanimously adopted. The following gentlemen were elected to fill the vacancies occasioned by the retirement in rotation of six members of the council :—Messrs. Cartledge, Silvester, Braby, Jex, Gamjee, and Sacker. A vote of thanks to the President terminated the proceedings. [ AD VERTISEMENT.)—HoIIoway's Pills.—Liver and Sto mach Complaints —On change of weather, excessive exer tion, or mental trouble, a distressing pain often arises in the side, shoulder, or elsewhere. Its known cause is con gestion of the liver. Its infallible remedy is Holloway's Pills. Mr. Roberts, of St. George's-square, Liverpool, states that after trying countless means for relieving these oppressive pains without receiving the slightest benefit, he commenced a course of Holloway's Pills, which forthwith ameliorated his sufferings and in a short time freed him from them altogether. All disorders of the stomach are as readily dispelled. Occasional doses of these purifying Pills will prevent the liver becoming enlarged, and consequently will stave off bilious sickness and diarrhoea, and preserve the complexion:from unhealthy sallowness. TRH SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY !WEMNG, MAY 5, 1863. Births. -- --- PROSSER.—On the 3d inst., at. 45, Grosvenor-place, Lady Harriett Wegg Prosser, of a daughter. STUART.—On ti.e 2d inst.. at Kempston, Beds, the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel William Stuart, M.P., of a daugh ter. WALTON.—On th© 31 inst., at Crouch-hill, Mrs. L. T. Walton, of a daughter. WOLLEY.—On the 2d inst , at Eton College, the wife of the Rev, Charles Wolley, of a son. Marriages. DURRANT — BARTON.—On tho 30th ult., at the British Embassy, Sir Henry Josias Durant, Bart., of Scottowe Hall, Norfolk, to Alexandrina Charlotte, daughter of the late General Sir Robert Barton, K.C.8., and Lady Barton, of Montagu-place, Montagu-square. HA CKETT—MURPHY,—On the 28th ult., at Dublin, P. W. Hackett, Esq., 9th Regt., eldest son of Sir William Hackett, Lotamore, Cork. to Mary, daughter of J. J. Murphy, Esq., Master in Chancery, , Deaths. BASER. —On the 4th inst ,at Church-row, Hampstead, James Sims Baker, Esq., late of St. Aryans, Monmouth- Fhire, aged 68. DAVIS.—On the 2d inst., at Boxmoor House, Herts, Thos. Davis, Esq., aged 85. FIELD.—On the 2d inst., Joshua Field, Esq., of Westow, Yorkshire, aged 84. GRACE. —On the 2d inst., at Tring, Mr. Carter Grace, aged 67. HARVEY —On the Ist init., at Langley- park, Bucks, Rbt. Harvey, Esq., aged 74, POLLEN. —On the 2d inst., Sir John Walter Pollen, Bt., aged 79, WRAXALL —On the 2d inst., at Passy, Paris, Lieut.• Col. Sir W. Lascelles Wraxall, Bart., aged 72. London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANDREWS, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at TUE Sur( Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of, the Savoy, in the County OP Midelleeex.—Tneaday. May 5, 1863.