The Sun. — London, England, 1851-07-01 00:00:00

the e° as l'' Ila e 931 att e' d ;, a , 1. ; e di. e pr; oge , ; a g was, L inch u stice him, Lnd G' emir'' at all' t iosdi In A ° ng I neri e4 d ' ) be ' AL it" Meo mcl e a r soo" A In is il° lP ,, 5 00: reSse4lll T S N) LONDON, I form that opinion upon this sole, and to me perfectly satis factory, ground, that I cannot believe that a financier so able and so experienced, if he had contemplated that his law should be a permanent law, would have frllmed it upon a principle which I hope I may induce the House to believe is one so much to be deprecated. I am not about to entrap the house into a barren discussion as to the comparative mer it s o f di rec t an d i n di r ect taxation. In these days we are too apt perhaps to indulge in snch dis cwsions. I feel persuaded myself that it you have to nt h ° in a cou n t ry li ke England a revenue of t h e amoun t which we Iva at pr esent do raise, it would b e qu i te i mposs ibl e to i ob tain such r esu l ts b y a dh er i ng str i ct l y t o an y particular mode the greater rai s i ng our public revenue. I feel conv i nce d that greater th e num b er, the more vai i ous t h e means of supply, the greater will be the facility of raising the reverue ; and far from l a yi ng down any pedant i c ru l e to b e adhered t that o as_ at one mode of ra i s i ng taxes i n Pre f erence to another, all _ I would up h o ld as the gol d en ru l e o f a ll Chancellors of the Exchequer is, to beware that no tax, whatever form it may take, wh e th er th a t of a customs duty, an excise duty, or a direct impost, should in its nature be excessive. But alth ough I will not enter into a d i scuss i on as t o the comparative merits of direct or indirect taxation, of this I feel persuad e d , and I can har dl y d ou b t t h a t a majority of this House will sanction the proposition, that if direct taxation is to form a considerable part, or e ven the more cons id era bl e par t, o f our financial principleempi it it of the utmost importanc e that the u of that direct taxation should be a right .-oar.) Now, I cannot for a moment agree that the principle of direct taxation should be other than the t rin eiPle of indirect taxation. I am of opinion, as I think the highest authorities are of opinion, that direct taxation should be as general, not to say as universal, as indirect tax ation. -(Hear.) And, believing that that must have been the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, the very fact that he established his tax upon income on so narrow a basis, that he established exemptions on so considerable a scale, con vinces me that in his use of that impost he had no other than a temporary object-that he had no other object than that which he expressed in this House, and that in its original proposition, and in the renewal for which, at its original proposition, ho prepared the House and the country, he was perfectly justified in adopting it with that temporary object in view. I hardly know whether it is ne cessary, or whether on this occasion I am justified in even touching upon the consequences of adopting any other principle in the application of direct taxation. In fact, if you come forward and tell us that the essence of direct taxa tion is that it should be limited to a class, that it should be founded upon large exemptions, your impost is not so much a direct tax as a " forced contribution."- (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It is a tax upon capital. It is a con stant invasion upon the fund which is employing labour, and if carried to any excess, or continued for any length of time, its inevitable consequences must, in my opinion, be the impoverishment and misery of the community.- (Cheers.) I look then upon the policy which was pursued by Sir Robert Peel with respect to the income-tax, when he introduced it, and when, in accordance with the first speech he made on the subject, he three years after conti nued it, to have been perfectly justifiable, because his object being a temporary object, he had then only to consider the Policy and the expediency and the mode of attaining his temporary purpose in a manner the most easy and the most feasible. But I must call he attention of the House to the fact that the present Ministry, in making a tax upon in come the basis of their finance, were not actuated by the same principles as Sir R. Peel, and did not contemplate the tame use of th e i nstrument which they introduce to our no ee% With a candour which I cannot too much praise, and which I fully acknowledge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "en he asked for a continuance of the income tax for three pars, never for a moment intimated that his view of that Topthssas that it was a temporary one. Had the Chancellor the tax Exch equer come forward and proposed the renewal of ir her i he etax for thre e years f or t h e fourth time, I st ill d ou b t whether would have been justified in framing a great d l a r d ! e r in est, whi c h h a d cont i nue d f or a term muc h duration than was cont em pl a t e d by it s or igi na t or , w hich was again to be continued for a considerable, th see'gh a definite, term-I doubt the policy of the Chancellor the Exchequer, even under these circumstances, in tr e ardpg his tax upon income on the limited basis on which ... did frame it. But when the Minister of Finance tells us- Ask you t o renew t h e tax upon income for the fourth Fave for another th ree years, " and with_a frankness which I acknowledged informs us at the same time that we cant of contemplate the term when we shall be able to carry on tear financial arrangements without the aid of such an 'ro wa r % at, and f rame d i n such a manner, then I say that that the period when the Minister should have come forward, and if it had been his conviction that a large direct tax upon hethe . li ncome of the coun t ry was permanently necessary, that should have laid d own the just principle upon which such p, d a nam , onnt of direct t axa ti on could alone justifiably be ap _ to the p ro p erty and the industry of this country.- l i ne n ce ear hear.) t I may be told, as I have been told pa et of that day, that there was no acknowledgment on the the Government that in their financial con teeriplation the income-tax Bu:: I speak in the memory B •- was cf G e a t t o l em b be n e e a p perpetual tax. e t s ax e f . the House, and I am sure they will justify my statement, what n I recall to their recollection the catalogue of fiscal act;ievements which the Ch ance l lor of the E xchequer in d_u le :ed in, which he enumerated to an amazed audience, and Ithe• completion of which alone was indicated by him as the nerct _when this country could be free from this impost.- ( Hear, hear .) v I have great confidence in the vitality of tlat 3xisting. Government. -(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The gers which they have successfully encountered, the ea ch they las h( tropn es have evaded, and . the . crises which m e ly have baffled - all indicate the possession, if not o Yet of enduring qualities.-(Laughter, and cheers.) I assure the Noble Lord and his colleagues, though th at, nnyonuty to sit on this side of the table-(A laugh) - the,fully recognise their personal claims to the post which "' cu PY.--(Laughter ) Sanguine as may be their own Iva as to the term of t their administration, I do not think ttelatra',:peiaoteedn the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have con • prolonged as may be his tenure of office-that it wet ild ever be his fortune to achieve all those objects, the ac 71111(Plislaraent of which he ha s l a id d own an d announce d t o eco untry as the condition of terminating the tax on property and income as it is now framed. Well, Sir, I think I may fairly conclude that the tax, as now framed, is a permanent (feature in the financial schemes of her Alajesty's Ministers.- Hear.) sow, I beg the House to observe that in anything I have said I am making no objection to a tax on property and income. What I am directing the attention of the House to is this-and I think it of the utmost importance that this proposition of direct taxation is to form a more considerable portion of our financial system for the future tb an it has heretofore done, that direct taxation should be founded upon the true principle, and not upon the false one; ul Jon the principle which, in the long run, will be advan tageous to the community, and not upon one which, if it suc ceed, will in my opinion be most pernicious; that the prin ciple which we apply to direct taxation shall virtually be the same as that which we apply to indirect, and that in its application we should attempt to make it general, not to say universal. - (Hear, hear.) That is the only point that I am now enforcing upon the attention, and, I hope, the con viction of the House. It will be observed, then, as far as the financial statement of the Minister this year is con cerned, as far as we have it yet submitted to our analysis, that it was founded upon a false basis, 'that it assumed that the income-tax, as at pre sent framed, should be permanent ; and upon the assumption of its permanence, or of its continuance, the surplus estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer depended. I shall now consider the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward, and which were to be dealt with by the disposition of this assumed surplus-a surplus assumed upon the continuance of a tax, false, dangerous, and pernicious in its principle, as every tax intending direct impost to a large amount, and the principle of which is not of general application, I maintain is. - (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed three measures of considerable importance, and one or two of minor importance. The first in rank was, no doubt, a propo sition for the repeal of the window nax. It is unnecessary for me to dwell much upon this point. The objections to the window duty as it then existed were financial, or they were social, or, as it has been the fashion to call them, sanitary. I must stop to say that if the financial oppression of the window -tax was the great reason for Ps remission, it is to be regretted that the Minister should have attempted only par tially to remit it. It would have been more advantageous, had it been possible, that the tax should be simply and com pletely remitted. The fashion has always subsisted, and the present Government have followed it, in the division of a surplus, very often to fritter away its virtue by apportion ing a part to various interests of the community. -(Hear, hear.) Nov, in my °Pinion, as a general principle, it is much wiser, if you have a surplus, to do something that is efficient-(Hear, hear,-to discover what interest is most Buffering, what tax is most oppressive, and the remission of what duty would give the most elasticity to trade, or add most to the comfort and the happiness of the community, than to think that as a matter of course the commercial class, the agricultural class, the i nhabitants of the town, and the shipbuilder should each have a share ; when it is very possible that of these four classes three may require no aid, and when it is very p os sible also that h Y. - concentrating your resources upon one subject of assistance, You may afford sub stantial relief and s u c c our.-( Hear, hear.) But I d o not dwell upon that point-nor will I dwell upon the social reason which might have been and was urged in favour of a remis fheary as e beense eitaatrtyainedsion of the wind ow d uly, exce pt thatas ob jects were concerned, I think they might without any loss of revenue. Th e rea son that I do not dwell upon the subject at all is, that I do not intend, as I said on the 11th of Ap r il, w h en it was my d uty t o s olicit the atten tion of th e H ouse to subjects of similar to the present-thatle do not intend a t a ll to dispute the policy of the repeal th wi ndow -tax. I ac ce pt that as a realised result. I think after all that has passed, considering the unpopularity. of the tax, consid er i ng i ts injurious character, and cons id er ing all that has occurred in this House upon the topic, that nothing could be more injurious, more inexpedient, or more impolitic than to disturb that remission ; and as far as the revenue derived from the tax upon windows is concerned, I con fider it blotted out from the Exchequer.-(Hear, hear.) I now proceed t o a measure o f t h e Mi n i sters ' o f a nove l nnaracter, in some degree connected with the tax which I.:onsider as en'irely abrogated, and that is the proposi• ti embodied in the Bill before us-namely, a tax upon houses, - Fa w, I ask the House to apply that sound prin ciple of finance which, in my opinion, ought to be one of our cardinal principles of finance-namely, that direct taxation should be as general as indirect taxation, to the measure which is n ow b efore the consideration of the House. I ask them to apply that searching principle to the Bill which has been introduced by the Government for imposing a tax upon houses. Sir, that fatal characteristic of the income-tax, which was perfectly justifiable when it was introduced for a temporary purpose by Sir Robert Peel, but infinitely to be deprecated when revived for a permanent purpose by the present Government - namely, direct taxation, established on the most limited basis, and partaking in no way of a general character, without the excuse of the Government having received it from their predecessors. I find that feature in an aggravated form in the house-tax.- (Hear, hear.) The Government had a suplus at their command with which they might have completely and efficiently dealt with the window -tax. They had a surplus which would have allowed them to remit the window-tax, if they considered the re mission of that tax to be of paramount necessity, and I do not disp u t e th e position. But they do not remit the window tax. It is a commutation-not a remission - (Hear, hear)- and it has this fatal fault, that the commutation is a partial commutation---( Hear, hear.) Complete remission, or com plete comm utation -these are the two principles which a financial Minister should pursue, But the Chancellor of the Exchequer not having the moral courage I will not say, but the financial courage, completely to remit the tax on win dows, which he ought to have done if he felt the necessity of doing it, takes out from the armoury of the financial minister one of the most incs.imable weapons land uses it for the most meagre and the meanest purposes.-(Cheers.) He brings forward the instrument which is to impose a tax upon houses-as just a tax in its principle as can well be con ceived, and which every person who reflects upon the pre sent position of our financial resources must have always looked to as a most valuable aid. He brings it forward, and he does-what ? He does not. even effect a complete remis sion of the window duties. He gives you imperfect remis sion and imperfect commutation, and he wastes those great resources which are offered him by a house-tax for a most limited and, comparatively speaking, contemptible result. And in doing this he not only does not obtain a complete QmPoubstio, thixgh he tIOWI obtain phial one; but be violates that important principle which at no period more than the present ought to be cherished by the House of Commons—the right principle upon which direct taxation should be applied.—(hear.) There were other measures brought forward by the Minister on that occasion. A dimi nution was proposZesl of the tax upon timber, which we have recently been discussing in Committee, and also of the duty upon coffee. With the permission of the House I will address myself briefly to these subjects. I am not one of those who think that there is any abstract excellence in a Customs duty—l am not one of those who think that, as a rigid rule, or even as a general rule, you should remit an Excise fury in preference to a Customs duty. All that I would do when the subject of the remission of taxation was concerned would be, to ascertain which duty is most op pressive to the people and most injurious to their comfort and their industry ; and whether I found that to be a Cus toms duty or an Excise duty, that is the impoet upon which I would lay my finger. Therefore I do not object to these propositions of remission on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they are Customs duties. Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could prove to me that the remission of these Customs duties would more bene fit the subject, would give a greater impulse to trade, would more tend to the advantage of the community than the re mission of an Excise duty, or any direct tax, I should prefer remitting the Customs duties; but nay great objecti n to the remission at present of these two duties—though I shall not now dwell upon this head - is that I do not think we are justified by the state of our revenue to remit any tax, what ever form it may take, and whether it is a Customs duty or an Excise duty ; because I imagine that our ability to do t hat depends upon the fact of the existence of a surplus or not.— (Hear.) But I must notice the phia upon which the remis sion of the timber duty has been put forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentleman says we owe the remission of the timber duty mainly and principally to the builders of ships in this country. Well, I think that no one will dispute the hardships to which the British ship builder is now subjected—(Hear, hear) —but a partial re mission of the duty . cn timber does not at all compensate the builder of ships in this country fur the competition to which you now exposed him. You are giving up revenue in this case without obtaining the result whin you ought to achieve.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if you were to allow the builder of ships in these isles to build in bond, as has before been proposed ; if you permitted him to use freely all the articles that are necessary to the construction of a ship in England, and pay no duty upon them, then you would put him in fair competition with the foreigner who brings a ship duty-free to this country, whilst the British builder is build ing his ship subject to a variety of duties.—(Hear, hear.) That is an arrangement which you ought to have made when you repealed the navigation laws.—(Cheers.) When you did that you ought to have permitted the British ship builder to build in bond; then he would have been placed in a position which I deny that the proposal of the Minis ter, as far as the British ship-builder is concerned, will tend to place him.—( Hear, hear.) There were other proposi tions in this budget. There were propositions which were intended for the relief of the distressed agricultural interest, and I shall not dwell upon them. They are already familiar to the House. Whatever was their value it is unnecessary for me to calculate them, because no sooner were they offered than they were withdrawn.—( Hear, hear.) But perhaps the House will permit me to make one observa tion upon the position of the agricultural interest with refer ence to the remission of taxation. I ventured to say just now that in the remission of a tax, whatever form it might assume, all that I recognised as the valid reason for ire repeal or remission was, that it should be the one which the Minister of Finance thought, on the whole, to be the most injurious to the community. That, I think, ought to be the rule which should guide him in the selection of taxes for remis sion —(Hear, hear.) Sir, I think there is another rule which ought also to guide a Minister of Finance, who is in the happy possession of a surplus. I think, if there be a particular interest in the country which is subject to great difficulty, is experiencing great distress, and incurring a long and continued depression, that it is the duty of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to consider the state of that interest, and to see whether the remission of any tax would tend to relieve it. Now, the House will recollect that at the com mencement of the year we were informed, by the Speech from the Throne, that a very important interest was in a state of great depression, and of continued depression. The House will recollect that, shortly after, the minister proposed mea sures, the tendency of which was announced by him to relieve that distressed interest; and without requesting the House to give an opinion now upon a question, to which I refer only in illustration of the financial course taken by the Government this year, and not with any view to obtain an opinion upon the subject from either side of the House, I ask the House to consider the position of the agricultural interest now with reference to the question of remission of taxation. By certain laws—the policy or impolicy of which form no part of our discussion to-night—we have agreed to place the cultivation of the soil in this country in complete competition with the cultivators of the soils of another countries. Now, is it not obvious that it is the first duty of the Government in remitting taxation to ascertain whether they cannot dimi nish the cost of production to the British farmer so situated? I ask the House to concede no more. That was the first duty of a financial Minister, who had counselled his Sove reign to announce from the throne that there was only one interest in the country, and that a most important one, in a state of continued distress. I am not now asking the House to decide whether it was in the power of the Minister or not, but I say it was the duty of the Minister to consider whe ther, in the reduction of duty he was about to propose, it was in his power to reduce the cost of production to the British cultivator of the soil. It was the opinion of myself and of my friends who supported me that it was in the power of the Government to diminish the cost of production. It was our belief that there was a pressure of taxation upon the cultivator of the soil which was not shared by the community, and though there might be a difference of opinion as to the degree of that pressure, no gentleman in the House will deny the fact that the eultivatioq of the soil belongs to a class in this country which pays taxes to which the commu nity at large is not subject.—(Hear, hear.) Following the seconu rule which I think should guide the Minister of Fi nance into the appropriation of his surplus—the first being that he should reinit the taxes:most oppressive to the commu nity; and the second, that he should remit that tax which presses most upon any suffering class—l called upon the Ministry to consider whether it was not in their power to accomplish that result. In doing to, as I do tonight, I in terfered in no manner with that complete remission of the window duty, which I consider to be a realised result, and one which no Government can disturb. I merely urged that it should be borne in mind that the cost of production should be diminished to the cultivator of the soil, and believing that adwise appropriation of the resources of the Minister suggested to m th i e g place. train s u u t the nm m e a n t t er s ia e l v ly era a l ssi p st r e o d po t s o it t i a o k n e s might t ov b er e which in a less or greater degree would, in my opinion, have effected that object. In doing so, I with vice of my friends, the course I had previously ureud, h he te adopted, a a n d. d I confessed I had otter o bj ects i n so doing than merely introducing an element which tended to diminish the cost of production to the British farmer. I knew that in matters of finance it is not merely pounds, shillings, and pence that aro always to be calculated, but that the feelings and opinions of the people, or of a great class of the community must be considered in the distribu tion of taxation ; and I was profoundly convinced that it was at that time, as now, equally desirable that any demon stration on the part of this House of sympathy with the cul tivator of the soil —any expression of a desire to assist him in his terrible struggle—any resolution for a vote by this House to assist him (as I considered it to be the duty of the House to do) in his effort to lessen the cost of production, was a course the most politic, and tending, whether a large or small measure were adopted—tending to allay asperities, to soften animosities, and terminate that conflict between the rival industries of the country which are so much to be de precated, and which so en -anger the institutions of the country. I am not at all prepared to say that that would not have been a wise and politic measure. On the other hand, he might have taken his surplus, and, dealing with that portion of' the poor-law funds which is not subject to the control of local administration, the Minister might have brought forward extensive measures of relief, which might have contributed to ail the finances of the farmer, and would have produced an impression on his mind that this House sympathised with his sufferings—that they were disposed to adapt his position to the al,ered circumstances in which their legislation had placed him.—(llear, bear.) That course was not pursued by the Government. I felt it to be my duty to invite their attention to what I considered their duty, and, though I was supported by nearly a moiety of the House, I was unsuccessful. And now I have brought the financial career of the Government down to the commence ment of the month of April. There was one observation which I wish to make with respect to the motion which 1 introduced to the House with the object of assisting the British farmer to meet his severe trial. The object I had always acknowledged to be twofold—namely, not only to ob tain for him some relief from the pressure of taxation, but also to show him that there was in this House a salutary sympathy with his distressed position. The Hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey) has lately made some observations —(Hear, hear)—upon my Parliamentary career, which cer tainly would have been less inconvenient, and might have been more ingenuous in him, if they had been made here in my presence.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the motions which I have brought forward were futile motions ; and secondly, that in bringing them forward the mover of them is insincere. These are very harsh senti ments. It is very probable that the motions which I have brought forward with the twofold object I have mentioned may have been futile, but at any rate motions that have been supported by a large party in the House of Commons have upon their surface prima facie symptoms of not being consi dered altogether insincere. It may be possible that a man who brings forward a motion in the House of Commons m ay be insincere, but it is difficult to penetrate the bosom of any: man. We should rather give credit for motives more Ratural, more charitable, and more obvious. I may have been mistaken and not insincere • my reason may have been misled; my have been a fo judgment may have been misguided; I may o man or a very vain man ; it is better to think that than foolish I should be an insincere man; at least, it must always be a question of controversy whether our mo tives are insincere. But what are we to say of a Member of Parliament who, when he believes to be futile, i i ) i y io a tion e s nt it e re brouflat o bfeorwa is e rd which e is insincere, omits no opportunity gentleman Iftolroeling himoinhytointehde same lobby—Wear, h ear )—and supporting by his suffrage.— (Dear, hear.) Why I • ht mig turn round on the Hon. Member for Berkshire, and say there is scarce an epi thet of vituperation — _ s seame a ph rase of i nvective, that, un d er suc h circumstances, I houtel not be justified in lavishing upon him.— (Hear, bear.) fiut it is more agreeable to me as it is to most of us, not to think too harshly of human na ture ; 'we all know that men actuated, not only by mixed motives, but often b y cont. are used ones, that it is very possible for a man to be in the possession of very considerable ability, to have received a remarkable culture, to be in the possession of many reputable and some amiable qualities, and yet to be gifted with such an uncouth and blundering organization , that he is perpe tually doing that which he did not intend, and saying and writing that which he did not mean - (Hear, bear) and that is the charitable view which I tyke of the Hon. Member for Berkshire's conduct.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, about this time a considerable event occurred. I hav e analysed the measures brought forward by the Government under their various heeds, founded upon an assumed surplus which was to sustain a large measure of direct taxation, founded upon a fallacious and injurious principle. I have shown you how the window duty, under any circumstances , was repealed, and nobody wishes to disturb that repeal. I have shown you how few measure were brought forward to diminish your import duties. I have reminded you of the measures that were brought forward to relieve the distressed agriculturists. I have reminded you that when Ministers, after an agitated epoch to which I do not wish to allude, re constructed their Budget, and discarded, in a manner not re markable for courtesy or kindness, the claims of the agricul tural body. I called upon the House to declare their opinion upon that subject; that though I was supported by nearly a moiety of its members, I was not successful in obtaining the object of my desires; and, Sir, I made no further objection to the Budget of the Minister. I was satisfied with fulfilling what I considered a public duty, and from that moment I was resolved, as far as I was concerned, that the measures which the Minister brought forward under such circum stances, and of which I questioned and challenged the pro priety, under those circumstances should not receive our op position. But what disturbed the serenity of the financial firmament Nothing 49121 014 lido of the Limo, Win Hon. Gentleman opposite--a great crnament of this House, one of its most valued Members, the lather of the House fir I believe he is looked upon in a paternal light—a gentle man whom I may fairly describe us being the most constant and consistent supporter of the Whig Government—who, though he assumes to chide them, chides them in a friendly spirit, and though he assumes to castigate them, castigates them with the most affectionate remarks—(Laughter)—a gentleman who, if you take a comprehensive view of his ca reer, has always stepped forward at the right moment to ex tricate a not sufficiently strong Government from the im pending catastrophe—this most distinguished supporter of the Whig Government (Mr. Hume) was the gentleman who brought forward the motion to limit the income-tax, which was to have been continued for an assured term of three years, to one year only; and intimated, in a manner which has necessarily bound the House, that his object in so doing was to submit that tax to Parliamentary investigation of the most searching character, wirh the view of terminating those inequalities— those circumstances that lead to fraud in it— and that inquisitorial proceeding which it seemed to have been acknowledged by almost everybody were believed to be ir removable. What happened? That motion was carried. Tne basis upon which the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was raised fell from under the superstructure; the fairy palace vanished in the night. That was no ordi nary loss ,o the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that was not merely a loss of income- tax for three years, though that was a result which the finance Minister must deeply deplore, but it was, regarding the schemes of the Right Hon. Gentleman, a loss of a permanent income-t ix. It wasnot merely a three years' tenure of the tax that was constructed and formed in the brief agitated epoch of the fraction of the present Par liamentary session, the ensuing recess, and the meeting of Parliament again ; but it was the permanent future of the financial Minister that was taken from him—it was the foundation on which was raise - 1, not merely the present superstrtipture, but on which, year after year, he was to build up all those elevations which were to have formed the great future of our renovated and reconstructed financial sys tem.— (Hear, hear.) It is impossible to over-rate the im portance of that vote—impossible to deny that from it the financial position of this country has become an uncertain and precarious one. Ido not blame the Noble Lord or his colleagues for accepting that vote, with its consequences. From this side no taunt has arisen which would intimate to the Noble Lord that he ought to have resigned after the most decided manner in which that vote was carried. . I think the Nob!e Lord and his colleagues acted in a much more hooour able manner in not resigning office then. Nay more, that they acted in a dutiful'and loyal manner in the peculiar cir cumstances ; and after the events of this year it was their duty to retain their offices. They fulfilled that duty, and not in an ungracious manner. But whilst lam willing to make that concession to her Majesty's Ministers, I cannot agree that their conduct was equally to be lauded in retaining nct only their places, but the financial measures which they had brought forward under circumstances so different, with prospects so different, from those in which they now found themselves. My opinion is that Ministers, feeling they were not so justified in retiring from office, but that it was their duty to retain their responsible position, should at the same time have announced to their eminent supporters who pro posed that motion, that he and his friends must take the consequences of that withdrawal of the financial propo- , sitions which had been founded on the assumed conti nuance of the tax, and which were to be furnished by the surplus which had now only an imaginary ex istence. Ido not think lam taking an extravagant or irrational view of the duty of the Government under such circumstances. But it appeared to me, as far as I could observe the human nature opposite me, that the Noble Lord was animated at the same time by feelings of a very similar character. There was a species of delay in the adyance ment of the financial measures of the Government; they never appeared in the paper—or, if they did, they were never noticed ; not a single stage did they ever make of progress ; and it was generally understood—l do no not speak of ru mours out of doors, or of those confidential communications which are made in-doors—but it was generally understood — perhaps it was a public conviction arising from such views of the situation of Ministers and of their duty to the country —but there was a general impression that the financial measures of the Government were withdrawn. How many Cabinet Councils were held I would not venture to state; but this I know, a remarkable scene occurred in this House. One of the most distinguished metropolitan Members, who seemed to share in this conviction, arose in his place and demanded some information from the Noble Lord as to the intentions of the Government. He wanted to know whether the window-tax was really to be repealed or not, and the answer of the Noble Lord was extremely un satisfactory. The inquiry was again repeated another night, and in a tone of menance, and the Noble Lord, turning his back upon us, made a confidential communication which appeared to be of a deprecatory character. The effect was as if the Noble Lord was hustled by a Finsbury mob in Saffron-hill, or some place of that character, where the pocket of the Minister was relieved of his financial sur plus. After a fortnight's friendly interpellations the Noble Lord at last screwed up his courage to proceed with his measures of remission, which are to be supplied from a moon-shine surplus—from a still imaginary surplus.—(Hear, hear.) I ant now arrived at that point at which I would ask the House what is the most prudent course that, under these circumstances, we should pursue? The fund from which the surplus was derived that was to be distributed virtually no longer existed. I would ask the House calmly and dispassionately to consider this point. What is the prospect or probability of the income-tax being renewed at the next meeting of Parliament? It is a disagreeable ques tion. But it is a question which I must beg this House calmly , to consider to-night. I am a member of the Com mittee which is to inquire into the income-tax. I am a member of it in deference to the feelings of the House, add against my own inclination. I would rather have seen a more effi cient member on it than:myself. Being a member, how ever, of the Committee,_ let it not be supposed that I am giv ing the opinion of that Committee in what I now state. We are sedulously pursuing the course of inquiry, but that has not led us to consider the circumstances which would at all influence my opinion on the topics to which I allude. I speak just the eaine as if I was not a member of that Committee, or as if that Committee had not been appointed. There is one reason among many which 1 confess weighs much with me, and convinces me that the tax upon income as at present formed will not be renewed by the House. I will tell you why. I find a universal admission that as at present framed that tax is an unequal tax and leads to fraud that it is rife with vexatious and inquisitorial proceedings—and that it is stamped by features repugnant to the habits and feel ings of Englishmen. Everybody agrees to that. Tory, Whig, Liberal, Conservative, or Radical, will admit those are the features of the income-tax. But there is also another opinion rife. Every man of any authority upon financial subjects, all competent to form an opinion on the topic, uni versally and without exception agree to another point, and that is, that those odious features of the tax cannot by any means be removed or modified. The man, then, must be short-sighted indeed who can hesitate as to the consequences of such en opinion upon human action--who can believe that a tax with such odious qualities, which the highest authori ties tell you can never be removed, can be renewed. That, though a sufficient, is not the only reason. I see among the great lights or science—among those whose writings will ul timately guide public opinion on the jubjezt, an opinion gaining ground every day that ir the principle of direct taxation, cannot be different from the principle of indirect taxation—that they must both be perma nent and equally general; of course I speak only of permanent taxes, and not of those imposed merely to meet an emergency, like the income-tax of Sir R. Peel. I ask then the House to consider, assuming that when Parliament next meets it will not consent to grant the income-tax as at present framed, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present remissions of taxation are carried, and there will be in consequence a deficiency of five or six millions (I say nothing of the Kaffir war), what are the prospects of the meeting that probable, or possible, defi ciency ? There are only two modes, and though blended they may produce the effect, analyse those methods, and they will resolve themselves into those by reduction of ex penditure or increase of taxation. Not one word will fall from mo to depreciate the efforts of any Hon. Gentleman to diminish taxation, though the results might be but a com paratively slight diminution of expenditure amounting, perhaps, to 100,0001., 200,0001., or 300,000/. only, 1 cannot help remembering that we live in a country which cauld never find money enough to build a national gallery. Therefore 1 will not speak with any want of estimation for those limited savings, but I agree with the Hon. Member for' the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that no reduction of expen diture can be effected in this country, unless you touch the military armaments of the country ; and the House must therefore consider what probability or possibility there is of such a course. I will not say one word to obstruct the progress of the principles in volved in the question of the maintenance of a perpetual peace. I will only make one remark. As long as I find that the strongest positions are in the possession of the weak est powers, that the richest territories in the world owe their allegiance to authorities less qualified to defend them, I see the elements of disturbance, which only the most san guine can affect to despise, and whether you call the process, in the enlightened language of the present day, "annexa tion," and not conquest, it is a process which I feel must begin with force, must be repelled by force, and must ulti mately be settled by force. But to dismiss those general principles. I ask the House to consider the general state of Europe at present, and say whether any Minister of this country can be asked with any face of reason now, or in the commencement of next year, to reduce the military arma ment of this country ? What is the state of the continent? You have one of the leading nations of the world, with a vast population, a most spirited and restless people, in the heart of Europe, who have acknowledged that they have no constitution—who, we know, have not in their country any of the elements of government—who, whatever be their powers of self-control, no one will for a moment pretend are not at this moment i i a position the most perilous that 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of men ever yet found them selves. Could even the Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Hume) tell them that there was less chance of a disturbance now than for some years back? If he makes a motion to that effect ho will not be as successful as when he limited the incomeetat to one year; and you, whether he be right or wrong, looking at what is most pro bable and possible, will not meet a probable deficiency of revenue by a diminution of military expenditure. Every man must feel that that is not the mode in which the defi ciency will be met. Then it must be met by increased tax ation, and in ten months' time they would in all probability be called on to supply the financial deficiency by increased taxation. In such circumstances, then, what was there more unjust, more impolitic, more savouring of folly, than BOW to be taking off two millions of taxes which no one pretends presses with any great severity on the subject, of which the collection is effected with comparitive facility, and which are more easily borne than any corresponding amount of taxation which might be granted in their stead. But I am bound to put another view of our position before the attentive consideration of the House, if I may still pre sume to trespass on their attention.—(Hear.) It is a view which, I think, deserves our gravest consideration. If you have a deficiency, and if you are called on—with the views which I have indicated as to direct taxation—to consider the principle on which our financial system is established, is it not of the utmost importance that we should come to that consideration with plenty of time, in a tranquil mood, and not urged by matters of pressing public interest? — (Hear, hear.) But what prospect awaits the House when it meets next February? What part is the Noble Lord prepared to take? The Noble Lord is not satisfied with financial embarrassment—he is not satisfied with a possible deficiency of 5,000,0001. or 6,000,000/. —he is not satisfied that we are to be called on to settle the principle on which the revenue should be raised to supply that deficiency, but chooses that tranquil and undisturbed hour to propose a new reform of the House of Commons. — (Hear.) Shall Ibe told to-night that, like the surplus, the new Reform Bill is to be conditional on a renewal of the in come-tax for three years. I beg the House to observe that this is the prospect which awaits us. When we meet, we hl a probable deficiency of millions in s t hthe deficiency—we must dis cuss revenue —w principle on with on must w supplyhichthe financial systeth of the coun try is to be established, and at the same time that her Ma jesty's Government are pledged—mind you, pledged—to in troduce a very extensive measure of Parliamentary reform. --(Hear.) To such a measare they are pledged in the most formal manner.—(Hear.) Must I recall to the memory of the House the language used by a Cabinet Minister and adopted by his colleagues on the second - reading' of the Bill introduced by the ILA Member Or East Surrey, whoa TUESDAtt EVENING, 7 I_ 'f formal announcement was ma le in order that all similar discussions might be terminated for this session? lam sure the Hon. Member for Montrose and his friends cannot have forgotten that announcement of the Secretary-at- War ; and I am quite as certain that the lion. Member and his Friends mean to hold the Government to its engagement—(Hear, hear.) The motion of the Hon. Member for East Surrey, though it was of itself ef a very extensive character, did not satisty Ministers. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secre tary-at-War met it by asking what use there was for so partial and limited a proposal. " Ministers have deliberated well on this question, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has given you hints before, but as you press me, I tell you the measure will be comprehensive, and not partial and . limited like this"—(Hear.) Such was the language of the Secretary-at-War. Ministers are pledged to deal with the subject in all its ramifications—they are pledged to bring forward a complete and comprehensive measure, and to the financial measure the Noble Lord pro poses to add a political experiment, and all to be discussed in the first week of February next.—(Hear. hear.) Surely, Sir, with such a prospect, it would be just as well to keep hold of 1,800.000/. of revenue if we can without disappoint ing what I acknowledge to be the legitimate expectations of the commnity with respect to the remission of the window tax, which, so far from questioning, is a part of those measures I wish to recommend for the adoption of her Ma jesty's Government.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, Sir, the motion which I have put before the House does not pledge Hon. Members to much more than to a very salutary principle in our financial arrangements ; but I should be ashamed of myself it' I attempted to conceal the course with regard to which we are willing to support Ministers if they zealously pursue it. We are willing to support Ministers in a complete repeal of the duty on win dows. We do nut wish in any way to interfere with that arrangement—an arrangement the wisdom of which I am not here at present to challenge.— (near.) But whether it be wise or unwise, expedient or inexpedient, I think in equity it is perfectly unobjectionable.—( Hear.) But, Sir, with regard to the measure before us, which is virtually a measure of partial commutation, I should wish to see Go vernment transform it to one of complete commutation.— (Hear.) I think, though we had not a surplus, that the en gagement of being relieved from an odious tax ike the win dow-duty, at the same time that the revenue does not suffer, is an important consideration, and still more important that the inestimable instrument which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer has re-introduced into our financial scheme should not be wasted for comparatively trifling and secondary pur poses. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the duties on timber and coffee, I must again repeat, in a manner the most de cided, that in expressing a hope that Ministers will not persist with these measures, I am offering no objection to them on the plea that they are customs duties.— (Hear, hear.) I discard all those principles of financial usages which would hold out customs duties as the only duties which ought to be encouraged. I feel that the revenue of a country like ours must be raised from various means spread over a large surface; and it is only because I believe there is no surplus to supply the vacancy which will be caused by those remissions that I hope Ministers, under the circumstances, will not persist with what I consider impolitic propositions. At the same time we are prepared to support a measure which shall permit the British shipowner to build his ships in bond with materials free of duty, and in fair competition with the foreigner who brings his ships ready made into this country. In saying this, I beg to state that the loss to the revenue, under these circumstances, will not be, in my opinion, of any considerable amount. I have taken great pains to inform myself on this point, and have availed myself of the information of men most quali fied to judge. I think they assumed that the loss by the remission of the duty on timber would be about 284,000/., and I think I can guarantee to the Chancellor of the Ex chequer that the odd 84,000/. will be all that he will lose by permitting British shipowners to build their ships in bond. It would be not so much a remission of taxes, as an act of political justice. These are the measures which we are anxious to see Ministers undertake, assured of our support it they pursue that course which, according to my observation and belief, their better judgment once impelled them to fol low.—(Hear, hear.) 1 see a smile on the face of the Presi dent of the Board of Trade when I talk of giving Government our support in carrying these measures, as much as to say that, though we would support them in these measures, we would hold back in our support if they were threatened with a vote of censure from Hon. Gentlemen behind. I can assure the Right Hon. Gentleman he is mistaken. When I say we shall support the Government, it is not merely in carrying these measures, but also against the menacing con sequences he anticipates, and without taking advantage of any discontent of any section of his followers.—(Hear.) We would support them because their cause would be that which we believed necessary for the interests of the country. Five minutes more, Sir, and I shall have done. After all, what is the question at stake? It is the public credit of the country. That is the real question ; and it is not to be to lerated that a Ministry, acting under a feeling of false shame, should be encouraged in pursuing measures the tendency of which is considerably to injure the public credit of the country. I beg to remind the House of this important consideration. We are so used to the blessings of public credit—we live in an atmosphere and in a world so com pletely influenced_ by, it, that we are not so apt to con sider what would be the consequences of any injury done to it. I was reading to-day an account, by one of the most eminent publicists in existence, of a recent visit to this country, and I was struck with one sentence, the justice of which I run not prepared to acknowledge, but which I think is worthy the consideration of the House, He says, " Things have changed in Englind as everywhere else, and property is not so secure as it was, nor public credit as sacred." Now, I believe the eminent writer was misled by symptoms which, though superficial, might mislead a fo reigner, however able and experienced; but the observation is one deserving attention, and I think it becomes the House to consider how dependent public credit is on the conduct of Parliament. We know well that the resources of Eng ' land, though not inconsiderable, are inferior to those of many countries which do not occupy the position she does in the eyes of mankind. We were often told by Honourable Gentlemen opposite, when members of the Anti-Corn Law League, that there was scarcely a raw production used in our manufactures which was not imported from foreign countries. We know well that the most celebrated diamond in the world, which blazes at this moment close to us, within the crystal walls of that enchanting palace, which the enlightened taste and pre scient philanthrophy of an illustrious Prince have raised to the glory of England, and the instruction of two hemi spheres—we know, I say, that that diamond was never found within the dominions of the illustrious Consort of that Prince, our Sovereign Lady the Qaeen ; and we know that if all the geologists in the empire were to explore with their hammers the rocks and hills that surround us, they would not be successful in producing one ingot of that metal, the thirst for which, as the poet tells us, has produced so much misery to mankind.—(Dear, hear.) I was, Sir, somewhat amused, and not a little astonished, with a statistical work which I met with the other day, and which professed to catalogue the resources of the principal dominions in the world. I remember it stated that the revenue of Russia, whose gigantic destinies menace as it were the coming gene rations of men, is not so great as that raised by the English excise. Then came the ancient empire of the Kaisers, with its triple kingdom of Bohemia, Hungary, and Lombardy, with a revenue not exceeding the amount raised from the stamps and taxes in this country—those taxes which so de light the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those stamps that so perplex him.—(Hear. hear.) And, strange to say, the revenue of Russia, that mighty power, whose disci plined array only last year frightened all the capitals of Europe, is not so great as that local and provincial taxation of this country, with the peculiarities of which it has been my fortune so often to trouble the House.—(Hear.) Nor, Sir, can I forget that even India, with its cloud of kings and myriads of subjects—with its mountains of light and pillowed palanquins— with . its stores of gems showered at the feet of our Queen, does not. throwfrom its exuberant bosom a public income so great as that afforded even by the curtailed cus toms of England.—(Hear.) By what magic is it that Eng land has produce a revenue greater than that of all these immense dominions? It is by this public credit—a produc tion of British growth more to be prized than the harvest of tropical climes—more precious than the gems of Golconda,or the auriferous deposits in the Sierras of the Pacific.—(Hear, hear.) Of this public credit Parliament is the creator—the champion, the guardian.— (Hear, hear.) Is it possible, then, that the House of Commons will ever hesitate to fulfil its duty. I cannot believe it, and with the conviction that they will do it, I beg to move by way of amendment, the resolu tions I now place in your hands.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolutions : " That, according to an estimate of the probable future produce of the existing taxes, submitted to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears that a surplus revenue may be expected in the present year to the extent of about 2,000,000/. '• That in the revenue so estimated is included a sum ex- ceeding 5,000,000/. derived from the tax on income, respect ing which an inquiry has been directed to be made by a Committee of this House, on the result of whose labours may depend the future renewal or modification of that important impost. "That in this provisional state of the financial arrange ments of the country, it appears to this House to be most consistent with a due regard to the maintenance of public credit and the exigencies of the public service, not to make any material sacrifice of public income in effecting each changes as may be • deemed advisable in other branches of taxation." 4 The question having been put, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that the present was the third time on which the Hon. Gentleman had addressed the House on financial subjects, and whatever talent he might have displayed, he had, at the conclusion of his speech, left them in the most profound ignorance of his intentions. The only practical recommendation in the Hon. Gentleman's elaborate display of two hours and a half was, that of permitting British shipowners to build their ships in bond. But another disadvantage attended the speech. It not only fell short of the motion, but it was absolutely con tradictory. In the motion the Hon. Gentleman said that no tPx should be repealed; but in his speech he was willing to repeal the window-tax. The Hon. Member had indulged a lively imagination, and had talked of the gigantic empire of Russia—the triple empire of the Kaisers. He had then tra velled to India—had spoken of mountains of light and pil lowed palanquins—down to such humble things as stamps and taxes. Now all that was very eloquent, but the only point which he had to notice was that relating to the finan cial condition of the country. The Hon. Member was mis taken in supposing that no man could tell what was the financial condition of the country at this moment. Now all the statements he had made in the budget of the 4th April were fully warranted. He still believed that the surplus would be 1,900,0001., as stated, minus the expense of the Kafir war. The Hon. Gentleman was mis taken in supposing that the surplus of this year would de pend on the permanence of the income-tax. What might be the case next year he could not say, but this year the income tax did not affect the surplus. He had never advocated the income-tax as a permanent tax; but merely as a tax to enable them to cover certain reductions in the finances of the country. The Hon. Gentleman had a lively imagination, but he should not exercise it in putting words into his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) mouth which he had never used. What he bad stated was, that he thought the House should only this year deal with those taxes which it was indispensable to deal with, and leave for future consideration the question whether it would be advisable to make other changes in connection with the income and property-tax. The Hon. Gentleman had said, although the Government re tained their places, they had also preserved the financial measures which every one had thought were withdrawn. Now, not only himself, but his Noble Friend at the head of the Government, had ctstinctly stated that they were not inclined to make any alteration whatsoever in the financial measures of the year. There might be some few which it did not matter much whether they passed in April, or May, or June; but generally they had determined on adhering to their plans. What was the nature of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman ? It was " That no material sacrifice of public income should be made in effecting such changes as might be deemed advisable in other bunches of taxation." Now that meant—if it meant anything—that not only no reduction which had already passed that House should be admitted, but that the relief which had been promised in one particular impost should be abandoned, and that the window-tax was neither to be repealed nor modified, nor a house-tax substituted in its place.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. • Gentleman, on'atformer occasion, also made a long speech , and propos ed an amendment on going into Committee on JULY that tax; but though he made a long speech no result could be drawn from it until another Hon. Gentleman helped him out, and then it appeared that what he meant was," Don't repeal the window tax." He (the Chancellor of the Exche quer) thought that. by the proposition he had made with respect to the window-tax great relief would be given to the towns, but that that given to the country would be even greater. The Hon. Gentleman, however, now thought that the public credit was in danger. If so, how did it happen that he had voted for the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose ?—(Hear, hear.) If he was of the same opinion then as he was now, it was rather strange he should have sup ported that proposition, the effect of which would have been to prevent a repeal of the window-tax, and to endanger the public credit.—(dear, hear.) A motion had been made not long ago, which would endanger no less than 5, 000,000/. of the public revenue derived from taxation. The motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose was made on the 2d of May, and on the Bth the Hon. Member for the West Riding o f Yorkshire introduced a motion for the repeal of the malt tax. Now, the danger to the revenue was as great on the 30th of June as it was on the Bth of May. On the motion, however, which on the Bth May endangered 5,0J0,000/. of revenue, he found the name of Benjamin Cisraeli in its favour—( Hear, and laughter) —and now, on the 30th of June, the Hon. Gentleman opposite censidered that the public credit would be endangered by a sacrifice of 1,500,000/ of revenue. But perhaps there might be two Benjamin Disraelis—(Laughter)—aud the Honourable Gentleman op- polite was not the honourable Member who had so voted • on the former occasion.— (Hear, and laughter.) But, after all, the real question then before them was, whether or not the window-tax was to be repealed?—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman's amendments were carried it would be impossible to repeal that tax. Yet the Hon. Gentleman . _ hiriiszif had said that he considered the window-tax was to ha blotted out of the Exchequer. lle (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not changed his opinion since he had proposed the repeal of that tax, and the substitution for it of a house-tax. He believed that its repeal would be a great boon, and afford great relief to all classes in the country, the agricultural classes as well as those in towns. He was as anxious as any one could be to retain a surplus in the Ex chequer; and he thought enough would be left, after carry ing out his proposition for all the purposes which he con templated. The question, therefore, which they had to de cide to-night was the repeal of the window-tax ; and he trusted the House would decide at once upon that question aye or no.—(Cheers and cries of "Divide.") Mr. NEWDEGATE said the subject brought forward by the Hon. Member for Bucks was one of the deepest import ance, considered with a view to the prospective condition of the pubic interests ; and he wished briefly to state his sin cere concurrence with the Hon. Gontleman in his belief that it was highly inexpedient to sacrifice a large amount of public reveuueat the present moment, and particularly when there was a large amount of an unsettled claim with the East India Comp — any. But at the same time he wished to guard himself from being concluded, by voting in the mi . iiority on that occasion against voting fur any remission of taxation which might hereafter be proposed, either by the Government or any Hon. Gentleman opposite. He con sidered the Hon. Member for Bucks was right in his views with respect to all the most important interests of the coun try, and, therefore, he would vote for his present motion. Mr. GLADSTONE confessed it did occur to him, while listening to portions of the speech of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that he would have wished that parts of that speech had received a fuller development at his hands. He referred particularly to the course which the Honourable Member might wish the House to pursue in the event of the adoption of the motion then before it. In considering the objections which he (Mr. Gladstone) had stated on a former occasion to the financial plans of the Government, he could not refuse to support a motion which asserted a sound prin ciple in opposition to those plans—(Hear)—but he would state with as much brevity and plainness as he could the reasons which influenced his vote, and the course which he thought the House was bound to pursue under present cir cumstances.—(Hear' hear.) When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the repeal of the window-tax he had also proposed the renewal of the income-tax for three years ; and even under these circumstances he (Mr. Gladstone) should confess it appeared to him to be a most unwise and most hazardous proposition, as respected the maintenance of the public credit, in parting with so important a source of revenue as the window-tax, by substituting for it a tax in the shape of a house tax, to place the latter on so narrow, and, as he thought, so illegitimate a basis as the Govern ment had selected fcr its foundation.—(Hear, hear.) He had objected to the house tax for these two reasons:— In the first place, they introduced it without the slightest calculation that the great anomaly in the tax which had caused its abolition in Ib34—he meant the inequality of its incidence to the mansions of the great as compared with those of the middle classes and those dwellings used for busi- ness—was not removed.—( Hear, hear.) It was that in equality in the tax which had led to its abolition in 1834. But they had heard little of that objection on the present occasion, probably on the principle of not looking a gift horse in the mouth; that flaw in its structure having been passed over in silence. However, he could not think that it was good to introduce into our laws that which was objectionable. He could not consent, moreover, to a house-tax, which exempted six-sevenths of the whole house property of the country from its operation. He was not aware why they should take such an irrational course with respect to the house-tax. It was something like giving a charter of future exemption from all taxations to those six sevenths of the houses of this country. For his part he knew no more legitimate subject for taxation on the whole, and upon general principles, thanahe house property of the country.—(Hear, hear.) If it we?e true that house property was subjected to certain burdens for local purposes, it was not so with respect to the Imperial Treasury. He looked upon house property as the most secure and permanent de scription of property as a resource of revenue to the country. He could not therefore prevail on himself to give a vote which would in future preclude any portion of that revenue from beinirmade available. But what had recently occurred added tenfold to the considerations he had before entertained. Flow different, how much more formidable a character had that question now assumed ! He did trust the House would seriously and dispassionately consider the position in which the income-tax now stood. The proceedings of the present year had inflicted a heavy blow upon that impost.—(Hear.) It was impossible to conceive that it could be again proposed in that House without serious if not obstinate opposition from one or more parties in Parliament. Let them con sider the line of conduct taken by one party, and the position in which the question now stood. There was a large body of Gentlemen in that House who said it was unjust to levy a uniform per- centage under all the schedules of the Act. These Gentlemen had obtained a Parliamentary Committee to consider, not exclusively, but mainly whether they ought not to alter that per-centage under the Act? Such was the state of one of the powerful parties of that House. The Government were not to be looked upon as friends on general or permanent gtounds to the imposition of the income-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, in 184 0 , had given in something like his adhesion to the principle of the income-tax as a portion of the general taxation of the country. The Noble Lord, too, within the last few weeks had spoken in terms which might represent his opinions as showing that the repeal of that tax was not to be ex pected. There was another party in that House which believed that the per-centage under schedule D was so con stituted as to demand the renewal of the arrangement under that schedule. There were many on that (the Opposition) side of the House, of whom he was one, who could not con sent to the income tax if the per-centage was varied. From all considerations of policy they were precluded by a solemn pledge upon the statute-book from anything in the nature of such a variation. Now in what conaition was the income tax to come out of that Committee? Was it to come with a recommendation to vary the per- centage ? If so it would not receive the sanction of the House.—(Hear, hear.) If otherwise, it might be met with the hostility of a powerful party. He could not forecast all the difficulties which might arise under the circumstances ; but this he should say, that these 5,000,0001. of revenue were placed in a most precarious position. He would, therefore, ask the House whether it were wise, whether it were politic, whether it were honest, to exclude from their view the preparations for a contin gency so great as the possible lapse of the income- tax ? (Hear.) In case of the lapse of that tax, what would main tain the public credit? They might talk of public economy ; and certainly that House had not exceeded its duty in en forcing economy and retrenchment ; and he hoped more might be effected In that direction. Certainly arrangements had been entered into which in the course of time would have the effect of causing a saving in expenditure in connexion with the debt. But he was not of opinion that the income tax could be done away with, and public credit at the same time maintained, if they withheld their hands from new taxation. Then he would say, let them have the resource of a house• tax , not indeed to take the place of an income tax, but to fill up some portion of the deficiency caused by its removal. And there was the connexion between the two subjects. The position in which they were placed was this, that while the income-tax was placed in such a perilous position, they were proposing a house tax on a basis so narrow, that it could not be made properly conducive to the public revenue. Such were the objections which he entertained to the financial policy of the Government. But if he was asked what would he recom mend, his answer would be, that he disclaimed on the part of those not connected with the Government the duty of pointing out in detail the nature of the financial measures connected with the direct taxation of the country. But is was, he thought, what they ought to do—adopt the prinAple laid down by the Hon. Member for Bucks, that the surplus which they had was not to be dealt with as permanent in come, to be given away without reference to future necessi ties. But if they wished not to disappoint the expectations raised with respect to the income-tax, they ought to have to constructed their house tax as to place it on a basis so broad as that in case of necessity it might be made available for yielding a considerable sum to the Exchequer. What was the precise limit of the basis he did not presume to say ; whether it ought to include 101. houses, or to adopt a gradu ated scale ; or whether the tax was to be levied on owners or occupiers ; or whether they were to make all house property liege to taxation. These were questions upon which it would not only be premature but impertinent for him to express an opinion. The fundamental objection which he had to the proposed house-tax was, that it cut off from the House of Commons the most valuable source of revenue. It cut off that source of revenue, too, at a time when those measures adopted by the House, and suggested by the Government, had made it probable that that source should be had recourse to to maintain the interests of the country, as well as that public credit which they all had so much at heart.—(Hear.) He had thus stated all his reasons for the vote he intended giving. He would only add one more word of explanation. In voting, as he intended, for a motion which he conceived asserted a sound financial prin ciple, he was far from saying that the Government would be right in withdrawing the changes they proposed to make in the Customs Bill. Such a sacrifice of revenue as that which they proposed to make was what the public bad a right to expect for the renewal of the income-tax. The proposed remission of the duties ou timber and coffee had al ready taken effect in the votes of the House, and the estimates had been conducted with a view to those reductions. The revenue upon those articles was not an inflexible revenue, but one of that elastic nature as would go to increase itself. But, with respect to the house-tax, he could not allow that proposition to pass without the ex pression of his honest opinion that that was a revenue which Parliament ought not to give away, as it was a revenue which might be drawn without the slightest objection being made to it, and this more especially under circumstances which might be formidable, and which events showed might be near at hand.—( Hear.) Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Hon. Member for Bucking hamshire said he did not wish the window-tax to be re tained, and the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down admitted that the duties on timber and coffee ought not to be preserved ; and these were precisely the questions with which the House had to deal on that occasion. Such were the practical questions which they had then to determine. That was what the House had been for some time deliberat ing upon—whether the duties on timber and coffee were to be reduced, and whether the granting of the income-tax for only one year was so important as not to justify any further remission of taxation. He knew that the vote had been come to by the joining of parties holding the most diverse opinions; but though he deeply regretted that vote, he was not of opinion that by it a fatal blow was struck to the credit of the country. He should do deep injustice to those who may be said to be the authors of that vote, if he im puted any ulterior design to them. There never was period when public men and parties wer e were united u), 185 L the opinion of maintaining the. balance of public credit, and that this balance of public credit was not only the main pillar of our strength, but the main source of our financial prosperity. He did not believe that the public credit rested on suoja an unstable foundation as a vote of that [louse. And he was certain, notwithstanding the present House had come to a resolution to have the income-tax for only one yoar, that next year the House would not shrink from the duty of re-considering their determination, and of putting the financial credit of the country on a sure and solid basis, whatever the steps they may be required to take for that purpose. The question was whether they would not disappoint the reasonable expectations of the country if they did not repeal the window-tax and take off the duty on timber and coffee? He thought the answer in this respect so clear that he could not bring himself to waste the time of the House with arguments in support of the case. He would not follow the ingenious gentleman into the varied disquisition with which he had favoured the House upon the financial condition of the country. Taxation must be made to adjust itself to the circumstances of the country; but the House must recollect this, that while taxation was pressing on the riche?... part of the community, the great mass of tax ation—whether we wished it or not—did press with severity on the indu strious classes. So, therefore, it was that argu ments which, taken by themselves, would not be expedient and proper to urge ja justification of particular taxes, if coupled with other circumstances would justify those taxes. Alr it must also be recollected that the window-tax was not without exemptions; that tax was not very equal in operataon, for windows in shops occupied for purposes of trade were exempted, just as land and ether rated property had also :ts exemptions. The Hon. Gentleman had stated with a go-Dd deal of parade -he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would pa. 'don him for having smiled at the time—what he proposed as part of his plan, to proffer to the shiing in terest—n imely, to give them the privilege of building ships in bond. He was soraryndtoprsoepeostehetoliornnui. Gtipeni;letmheenrevertto an exploOied system, manufac tures in bond in this country. Mr. B]JME would say a few words, as part of the state ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman rather reflected upon him, as the originator of the debate. He did not agreee with what had fallen from any Hon. Members who had pre ceded him . It was necessary to carry out that plan and those views of taxation with which the present Government took office. He thought, however, Government might have carried ou t those principles even further. The surplus might have been devoted to more useful purposes than buying up a portion of the debt. He approved of the aboli tion of the window-tax. He approved of the house-tax, but disapproved of the mode by which it was carried out. The house tax was a property tax, and there ought to be no exceptions.. It was exceptions which generally created dis content towards a tax. Then with respect to the income tax, was it not denounced on all sides as unequal and unjust ? He had endeavoured to get it modified on these grounds. The Right; Hon. Gentleman did not wish the income-tax to be continued. He differed from that Hon. Gentleman. He thought the income-tax ought to be continued, and even increased if necessary. Whilst he was willing to grant the supplies, he wished at the same time to relieve the industry of the country. Taxes had hitherto been levied on the industry of the country, and the rich had been comparatively exempted from taxation. Out of 5240'00,0004 of taxes 84 per cent. was raised on the industry .of the people. Would the people allow this amount of taxation to continue without requiring property to bear its proper- share of the burden? He approved of the inquiry now going on, and the result would be, he hoped, to place the burde Ins of the country on the interests best able to bear them. I.'hese were the principles he had always advocated, and he • peas satisfied they were the principles which the country would ultimately adopt. He was satisfied the in terests °i s the country would be best served by placing the taxation on a sound and an equitable basis. The House then divided, when there appeared— For Mr. Disraeli's amendment ... ... 129 Against it ... ..• ... 242 Majority against the amendment --113 The announcement of the numbers was received with con siderabl a cheering from the Ministerial side of the House. The House then went into Committee on the Bill pro forma, Mr. BERNAL in the chair; and the Chairman imme diately reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. ' Sir It. HALL gave notice that he would move the ex , tension of the tax to Ireland. George Coles, a fireman belonging to the Tooley-stree station, said he saw two or *tree strangers on the top of the D warehouse before that buildirg• caught fire. While he was walking between the C and D warehouses, he 3aw smoke come up from a trap-door in the D warehouse. He kneeled down and looked in, and saw a small portion of fire in the corner nearest to the window. To be positive, he went into the top floor, and when be got within about six yards of it, he found the heat too much for him to go nearer without assistance. He ran back to the roof of C, and called the at tention of the fireman now in the hospital to it, telling him that the I) warehouse was on fire. He went down with a hose, but the fire became so great that his companion was severely burnt, and he was compelled to quit the place with him, and take him to the hospital. The fire appearel to be in a corner in an angle of the building on the floor, and was not near to the roof. _ _ Mr. Braidwood, superintendent of the fire brigade, said he was called to this fire at five o'clock, and from the descrip tion of goods the warehouse contained, he believed the fire had been caused Ly spontaneous combustion. If there was damp or oil amongst the rags, with the heat of the weather, they would be very likely to cause spontaneous ignition. Hops would burn furiously when there was sufficient heat, but he did not know what heat would be required to set them on fire. The CORONER thought it was not well to close such an inquiry hastily, for when persons read the account of the pro ceedings, fresh evidence was often elicited thereby. He therefore thought the best course was to adjourn the inquiry for a certain period, and in the meantime that every effort should be used to clear up the mystery in which the matter was at present involved. With this view he advised that a reward should be offered to any one who had information in their possession as to how the fire originated; half the amount to be paid on the commitment, and kalfon the con viction of the offender. This offer might bring forward some useful evidence, and if it did not they would only b,I. in th, position they were at the present time. The suggestion was immediately acceded to by OA jury and the inquiry was adjourned. Mr. Wigan, before the breaking up of the inqun, 5 pressed his intention of offering 2001. reward for the api hension of the offenders, who liiid set the premises on fire. COURT CIRCULAR. OSBORNE, MONDAY. The Queen and the Prince, accompanied by his Ma jesty the King of the Belgians, walked early this morn ing in the park and grounds of Osborne. ilia Serene Highness the Prince Augustus of Coburg arrived at O s b orne yester d a y a f ternoon , on a v i s i t t o h er Majesty and Prince Albert. His Serene Highness left Osborne, for Claremont, early this morning. T Highn:ases the Prince of Wales, the Princessheir itoya itoya l l and younger branches of the Roy al Family, and the Princess Charlotte of Belgium, walked and rode as usual. Their Roy al Highnesses the Due de Brabant and swaettlel,ndedby Colonel de Moerkerke crossed to Portsmouth in the a C n o d m s t r d R e o F b l e a r n t d o r e a s r , Fairy royal yacht this afternoon, for the purpose of see ing Portsmouth Dockyard. Their Royal Highnesses Prince Arthur and the Princesses Helena and Louisa, left Buckingham Palace yesterday morning in an open carriage and four, for a drive. __ Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent took a car riage airing yesterday. The Finance Committee of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of the the Works of Industry of all Na tions, had a meeting yesterday afternoon, at the Exhibi tion. There were present Earl Granville (chairman), Lord Overstone, Sir Alexander Spearman, Mr. Cubist, Mr. T. Field Gibson, Lieutenant-Colonel Reid, and Mr. Edgar Bowring (secretary). The meeting broke up at five o'clock. The Earl of Dandonald had an interview with Earl Grey, yesterday, at the Colonial-office. Sir Robert Ferguson transacted business yesterday with the Commissioners of Railways, at the Board of Trade. Mr. Baxter also transacted business with the Commissioners. Mr. John Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yesterday, at his official residence Downing street. GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH BILL. The order of the day for the third reading of this Bill having been read, Visco ant EBRINGTON moved the omission from clause 1, line 7EI, of the following words :—" So far as the same are aut horised by the Public Health Act." He objected to thoso words, not only on principle, but also in conse quence af the evils which the adoption of the provision had already produced in :the towns in which it had been carried into eff set. Mr. F =WEN seconded the motion ; but he doubted the prudenc s of dividing the House upon the subject. Mr. D fULLINGS said the object. of these words was to make ti ie Bill consistent with the measure of last session. Lord SEYMOUR said that those words had been intro duced ii tto the Bill of last year, in conformity with the best legal ad vice, and he had thought it advisable to re-insert them in the present measure. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL :said that without those words tbie Act might be completely overturned. The a trendment was then negatived without a division. Mr. FULLER moved that Hastings be inserted in the schedule.. Sir W. VERNER seconded the motion. Lord SiYMOUR opposed the proposition. He was quite ready to admit that Hastings was one of the dirtiest towns in E nglanil--(Laughter) - but the point was, that St. Leo nard's, b eing a clean town, could not be justly laden with the expe use of cleansing Hastings. Mr. Hf )LLAND supported the motion. Lord E;BRINGTON reminded the House that under the Health of Towns Act there was ample power to rate parti cular dist riots according to their especial wants without bur dening ci >utiguous localities. The House divided. The numbers were For the motion ... Against it Majority ... —lB The be of Hastings was accordingly inserted in the schedule.. The Loan Societies Bill; the Highway Rates Bill; the Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill ; and the Burgesses and Freemen's Parliamentary Franchise Bill were read a seccnd time. • The Corinty Courts Further Extension (Compensations) Bill, and. ate Advances for Public Works, &c., Bill went trough Committee. Mr. L A.BOUCHERE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend Oe Mercantile Marine Act; and, the other business upon the. paper having been disposed of, the Hour• adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock. THE FIRE AT LONDON-BRIDGE. OFFICIAL INQUIRY. An inq :test was held at eleven o'clock yesterday, at the London -lsridge Hotel, by Mr. Payne, the coroner fur the city of London, to investigate the cause of the recent exten sive fire at Mr. Alderman Humphery's wharf. The jury having been sworn, Mr. PAYNE described to them the situation of the build ings, and pointed out on a rough plan the portions which had been destroyed. The Coroner and jury then proceeded to view the pre mises, and on their return, Mr. William Snooks, Tooiey-street, surveyor, described the premises which were burnt, as it has already appeared in the papers. James Dimsdale, Tooley-street, porter—Knew the pre mises and had been employed in them. When the fire broke out he was in Montague-close, in front of the warehouses. It was about a quarter to four o'clock. There was a jour neyman of the name of Eaton with him. Ho was coming from the new building. He saw a gentleman standing at the bottom of A warehouse. He did not know who he was. The gentleman sung out " Fire " and " Po lice." Witness then went over to give the alarm. He saw the fire on the first floor of warehouse A. He went to Mr. Brown, of the Hibernia-wharf, and he sent Eaton for the engine immediately. He then came back to the fire, and rendered assistance as far as he could. He was there the whole time to eight o'clock. He went into letter C, or the third floor, but he could not tell what was in the wares'iouse. He assisted in removing hops from letter C warehouse. He saw the fire in letter D from the loophole of letter C. He did not go on the roof at all, nor did he go into the warehouse Dat all. Ile knew nothing of how the fire commenced, and could give no opinion with respect to it. When he saw the fire first it appeared to him to be on the staircase. He saw it through the window. The door near which the gentleman was standing was open. He didn't know what became of the gentleman. The gentleman ap peared to be alarmed. He was standing still, and was calling " Police—fire !" He worked in all the warehouses frequently, ever since they were built. Did not know what was in the warehouse A, but believed there were rags there—white linen rags. Did not know what was burning when he first saw the fire. At twelve o'clock that night he was in Mr. Waterman's premises ; witness was then sober ; had not been in A all day. lie (witness) pointed out the gentleman whom he srsw at the door of letter A when the fire broke out. Thomas _Harris Edge, 61, Walcot-place, Kennington-road, clerk—Had been down in the Borough, and was passing along the warehouses when a person passed him, running as fast as he could towards Tooley-street. He was a labouring man. He came from the direction of the warehouses. He also saw another man in the direction of the church-yard. Both had come from the same direction. There was no ap pearance of fire outside. That was about a quarter to four. He saw several men looking through the first window of the ground-floor of letter A. That was the staircase-window, and on looking in he saw the fire. On seeing the fire he thought the two men had gone for the engines. He called out fire us loud as he could. He went into the warehouse occupied in letter Aby Mr. Hewitt, cheese factor. As soon as the fire reached the first-floor where there were rags, it blazed out very violently. He had not the slightest know ledge of how the fire originated. When he first saw the fire the rags were not burning. William Eaton, a Bridge-street labourer, was in Mr. Ilevritt's warehouse shortly before four, and heard a crack ling, and on looking into A warehouse he saw fire on the staircase. There is a small room by the side of the stairs, in which lumber is kept, and he was of opinion that the fire originated there- Richard Welsh, warehouseman to Mr. Humphery—Mr. Hewitt occupied the ground floor of letter A, and Mr. Ho liugsworth, paper-maker, the second, third, and fourth floors. The latter's warehouses were filled with calico and linen rags. Mr. Wigan, hop-factor, occupied the fifth floor, and Mr. Humphery the top one, which was empty. B was oc cupied by Messrs. Hitchen and Thornton, hop factors, on the first and top floors. Mr. Wigan had floors 2,3, 4, and 5, which contained hops. Letter D was occupied entirely by Mr. Wigan with hops. He was not on the premises ale; half-past seven in the morning. He opened the loos:Ven and locked the doors before he left. Everything gee were safe, He returned about half-past five, and the prey: re then on fire. There is a small cupboard under th stairs e letter A, in which paint-pots and other lunlb a er ofwere the fire, broke He could not form the least idea as to the origt re and heard no one threatening to set the p iece r e . Was on the spot when the fire broke out in letter r , ; an was on the roof of C about seven, and eays7lgm6 of fire. In about half-an-hour afterwards the out in lett er D. He saw smoke coming out of the windows of th e fif t h an d at there could be re inan B and the fire in D. any connexion between fire in A and B and the fire in D. Mr. Thomas StannOr said that a cheese a factor, and that his attention sixth floors. It did not appear. to d th was Mr. Thomas Stannor said a cupboard in the warehouse, but be calledEd w a Edward t H h e e w fi i r t e t: an d 87 the reflection of it in No. 2 w t as he fire commenced there, or it would w th a d re n h o o t u b s e e l . iev T e h t e b r a e, 5 , it is open all day. H e cou ld f orm no not i on as first have destr o y ed the staircase. Any person could go into had he ever heard threats of ttohehpowlacteh,e fire began, nor injurary. „ r. Charles Brown, foreman to Mr. Alderman Humphery, said—When the fire was discovered he was in the counting house at Hibernia-wharf, and when told of it by Eaton, he ran with the key to the warehouse No. 2 A, thinking he should be able to quench the fire. He went up three or four stairs, but was unable to proceed further in consequence of the, immense heat. He saw the rails and the rags inside the warehouse on fire. There was no appearance of the lire coming from a cupboard, but he belied it came from a bale of rags near to the door. THE GREAT EXHIBITION. Yesterday there was a very considerable falling off in the numbers that visited the building, the police returns giving 52,879 as the total, while the receipts at the doors amounted to 2,4691. 16s. The excessive heat of the weather is probably the cause, for there is no reason to believe that the Crystal Palace is as yet losing its attrac tiveness with the masses. By a constant use of hand watering-carts and cans, tind by removing the glass par titions at the eastern and western ends, the interior was kept pretty cool throughout the day, and the tempera ture must have been considerably lower than it was out side. A good deal, however, still remains to be done in the way of ventilation, and it is satisfactory to find that the managcmeat are taking vigorous steps to insure the comfort of their visitors during these veritable dog-days. They intend to open up large spaces for the admission of fresh air Loth below and in the galleries, and we have no doubt that when their arrangements are completed they will be crowned with the same success as has hi therto attended their labours. RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. BRISTOL, JUNE SO. STOCK EXCRANGE.—.The share market was firm to-day, and prices had an upward tendency. The transactions were principally confined to Great Westerns, which closed firmly at 86. LIVERPOOL, JUNE 30. STOCK EXCES_NGE.— The share market has been better today, and prices are rather in favour of the buyer. The transactions were as follow :—Ambergate and East Junction, dis.—Caledonian, 11 7-16—East Lancashire, 15% — Lancashire and Yorkshire, 53 3 4—Ditto, Fifths, 7% dis.— London and North-Western, 124 3 / 4 —Ditto, New Quarters, 418 p.—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 27—Midland, 47;4 —Ditto, Halves, 18L4 Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton, New Preference, 21%—South-Eastern and Dover. 2314—York, Newcastle, and Berwick, 19 13-16 York and North Midland, 20—Dublin and Belfast Junction, 20 die. MANCHESTER, Juz 30. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The business to-day was moderate, and prices remain at about yesterday's quotations. The transactions were as follow :—Bolton Blackburn, Clitheroe, and West Yorkshire (No. 1), s—Ditto (A), s—East Lanca shire, 15 —Lancashire and Yorkshire, 53%—Ditto, Firths, 7 3 / dis.—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, 27—North Staffordshire, 8;2 dis.— South-Eastern and Dover, 23%. BIRMINGHAM, JUNE 30. STOCK EXCHAIIGE.—The share market opened firm this morning, but throughout tike day the business transacted was limited. Shrewsbury and ,Birmingham (A), were done at 41. 16s. 3d. dis. LADY PONSONBY'S NEW WORK, "CLARE ABBEY." —ln this story (says the John Bull) the talented author of " The Discipline of Life" has displayed all that power of painting the passions of the human heart, and the hard struggles between inclination and duty, of which her former work gave such ample proof. The sufferings of the noble, unselfish Reginald Vere, the severe self-discipline to which Ernest de Grey has to subject his impressible yet powerful nature, and the conflicts which the heart of Camilla has to sustain before it finds rest in the enjoyment of a purified affection, after casting off the drops of wild and wayward passion, impart to the tale a fascinating interest, while its lofty moral tendency raises it above the ordinary level of works of fiction. " Clare Abbey" is decidedly one of the most successful, cne of the most attractive, and at the same time one of the most high-toned novels of the season." SERIOUS CHARGE OF SHOOTING A MEMBER OF CHRIST CHURCH.—On Thursday afternoon Mr. Joseph Caudwell, a money lender, was charged before the Rev. the Vice-Chancellor and Dr. Wynter, two magistrates of the county o f Berks, with wilfully and maliciously wounding Mr. Alexander Henry Ross. 8.A., of Christ Church. It appears that early that morning Mr. Ross, and some of his companions, resorted to the house of Mr. Caudwell, which stands on Follow-bridge, and is in Berkshire, and, in a frolic, attempted to throw several pieces of cannon, standing in front of his house, over the wall into the Isis, but while in the act of trying to do so, Mr. Caudwell was aroused, and, having opened a window, without saying a s word, he deliberately fired a blunderbuss at Mr. Ross. A portion of the shot struck him on the neck, ear, and hand, the latter of which is very much injured. Evidence of the facts having been given, and Mr. Hansard, surgeon, stating that he considered MrAtoa seriously wounded, so much so that he could not certify that he was out of danger, as, from the nature of the wound in his hand, lock-jaw might be the result, the magistrates r.e mended the defendant for a week, and the same eveniug, be, morning a sarsnat was conveyed to Abingdon Gaol by the University and the Inspector of the University police. .. Bart., De. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S COLLEGE, BuRY.—HERTFORD, FRIDAY, JUNE 27.—This ayley deputation from the East India Company, so:misting o f John. Shepherd, Esq , Chairman, Sir J. Weir got puty Chairman, Sir R. Campbell, Bart., c. Melville . L. Lushington, Sir H. Willock, the Hon. W e 11 ' and other directors, visited their Civil bury, near Hertford, for the purpose o ege, L -T of distributing • prizee On a • to the successful students of the year. driving at the College, the ffrectors waited on t. ci b :hem Ns' henry Melvill, 8.D., the Principal, who press dad lth a most satis factory report. Immediately sa d vis't they repaired, in company with a large numbere. d iiveredl ors, to the College Hall, where speeches were b the students in English, Latin, Greek, SY rlac ' Hindostanee, Sensor% Te logoo, and other Oriental ere • languages. Mr. Hooper read a list of the students why Were entitledentitled to prizes and medals, and as their names yarn called they presented themselves at the directors' table 10 receive their respective rewards of merit. The chairman, addressing the students, remarked that he was happy In being able to congratulate them upon the satisfactory report which the Reverend Principal had expressin presented, 8 a hope that the College would in time to co l ie maintain the high reputation it had already gained. S h ortly afterwards the directors returned to town. frll -N , ' E CO ..--MERCIAL TRAVELLERS' SCHOOL ASSO• essnox....._The half-yearly court of this association for the education of orphan and necessitous children took place on Sat MruJrday morning, at ten o'clock, in the London Tavern; • . hlasterman, M.P., in the chair. The secretary read the report, vi hich stated that the receipts during the half year which had just terminated were 2,477/.35. 4d., and that the building fund now amounted to 9,400/. The number of children in the asylum at Wanstead, on Christmge last, as well as at the present moment, amounted to 111, 2Elol by the election which would take place that day of eight children that number would be augmented to 119, consisting of 75 boys and 44 girls. The report congratulated the association on the continuing public favour which their association met. and informed the members that the progress of the children in their education had been of the most satisfactory descrip tion. The amount subscribed to the building fund warranted the board in commencing a new building as soon as a suita ble plot of ground could be obtained, and they were anxious to obtain a site on some railway or ccmmanding elevation, which would attract the public observation. The secretary informed the meeting that the offices were about to he re.. moved from their present locality to the most conspicuous part of Cheapside. The report was then unanimously adopted, and ordered to be entered on the minutes. The following scrutineers were appointed :—Mr. Halt, Mr. Woollaton, Mr. Adars, Mr. Staniford, Mr. Bligh, and Mr. Fenton. A vote of thanks was afterwards passed to the chairman for his con duct in the chair. THE BALLOT.—The Liberals of Bath, in conse quence of the various cases of intimidation which came under their notice at the recent election, have drawn up a petition to the House of Commons in favour of the ballot. The petition has been laid down in several parts of the city for signature, and no doubt a large number of names will be appended to it. \~ ~, s ■