The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-04-06 00:00:00

of their regiments, but, of course, they could not commit
their regiments unless they had been consulted. In giving
, priority fo\fyoreign service, the selectiou would be governed
entitely byl hat was best for the public service.
In answer to Mr Ashley, Mr. Bourke said that Sir
Elliot had been asked by telegraph whether the name of the
"trustworthy person "—on whose authority he reported the
refusal of Russia to permit the retrocession of Bessarabia
to be discussed in the Congress—can be made public with-
out inconvenience.

The Marquis of Hamilton begged to ask the Chief Secre-
ary for Ireland whether he could give any information re-
specting the murder of Lord Leitrim in Donegal on Tuesday
morning, and whether the assassin had been captured?
Mr. Lowther said it was with deep regret that he had to
nform the House that the rumour to which his noble friend
referred was unfortunately correct. He had received a tele-
gram from the Under-Secretary at Dublin to the following
effect :

"The sub-inspector at Rathmullin reports that Lord
Leitrim and car driver were shot dead, and clerk mortally
wounded, about three miles from Milford. Supposed agrarian
outrage."
Mr. Gladstone gave notice that on Thursday he will ask
the Government whether, in the communication with the
Russian Government which has already been presented to
Parliament, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment to reserve to themselves liberty of withdrawal from
the Congress upon the proposal, by way of amendment to the
Treaty or otherwise, to discuss any matter as to which they
might consider discussion inadmissible, without sharing in
or waiting for the discussion itself.

Mr. Fawcett called attention to the Financial Statement
of Sir John Strachey, and moved three Resolutions con-
demning its three principal features. With regard to the
Salt Tax, he strongly objected to its recent increase in Bom-
bay and Madras, contending that the necessity might have
been avoided by economy and other taxes ; and the
Trades License Tax he condemned I4ecause it was to be
imposed solely on persons engaged in business, and would
fall on small traders and artisans with undue severity.
While admitting that a fund should be created for the relief
of famines, he insisted that it should not be expended on
public works, but should be devoted to the reduction of
debt, or should be kept in a separate account as a reserve
duly invested.

Mr. Grant Duff said the resolutions summed up all that
the House ought not to believe with regard to Indian
finance.
Mr. Maclver moved Ls an amendment that the trades
licence tax should be supplemented by a similar tax on
incomes from other sources; the amendment was not
seconded.

Sir G. Campbell suggested that a number of small econo-
mies might be effected, which in the aggregate would suffice
to dispense with the increase of the salt tax.

Mr. Smollett supported the motion on the broad ground
that the revenue of India as formerly levied, amounting to
50 or 51 niillions sterling per annum, ought to be sufficient
not only to meet the necessities of the Indian Government,
hut to leave a large surplus for the reduction of taxa-
tion or of the public debt. No fresh taxes would be
needed in India if economy were practised ; and every
Department, he contended, might be considerably reduced,
especially the overgrown Public Works Department. If
Mr. Hardy, therefore, would revert to the retrenchment
policy of Lord Mayo, some five millions a year might be
saved.

Mr. Grant enforced the statements and prayer of the
petition recently presented from Bombay, dilating on the
oppressive character of the Salt Tax, and censuring the
exemption of the official classes from the Licence Duties.

Mr. Birley agreed that the Licence Duties ought not to
be confined to those engaged in business; but with regard
to the Salt Tax he had satisfied himself that the desire of
the Indian Government was to mitigate its evils and put
it on a just and equitable footing. Mr. E. Noel
spoke much to the same effect, and Mr. Balfour
argued that, as the new taxes were intended as an assurance
against famine, it was only fair that the people should pay
some share. The fund which was to be created for the relief
of famine would be more judiciously expended on works
which would prevent famine than in doles of money.
Mr. Massey said the salt tax was assessed with wanton
inequality. He should vote against the first resolution and
support the second; and he recommended that the admin-
istration of the famine fund should be left in the himds of
the Indian Government.

Mr. C. B. Denison objected that the resolutions were
equivalent to a vote of censure both upon the Indian Govern-,
ment andASir J. Strachey.
Dr. Flayfair condemned the salt tax, although no one
could advise its abolition in the present state of Indian
Finance.
Lord G. Hamilton remarked that the circumstances under
which these taxes had become necessary and the fiscal re-
forms with which they were associated had been left entirely
out of sight in the debate. On the first head he showed that
within the last few years the famines, together with the in-
crease in army and home charges, had increased the Indian
expenditure by three millions a year, which had all been
met without increased taxation, although the surpluses
and the increment of revenue had all been eaten up. Sir
J. Strachey had come to the conclusion that as a sort of in-
surance against future famines he must have a surplus of
some two millions annually, and £600,000 of this he rn °-
posed to obtain by a re-arrangement of the Salt Duty. The
net result of this change would be that while the tax would
be increased by 11 annas to 46 millions of people, it would
be diminished by 8 annas to 70 millions, and by 12 annas to
70 millons. The differential duties and the Customs
line would be got rid of, and in a very short
time it was believed that increasing consumption
would lead to a large diminution in the duty.
With regard to the Licence Tax, he admitted the
justice of many of the criticisms on it, but there was no
choice between it and the Income Tax, which the Indian
Government would have preferred, but of which they had
been deprived by an agitation in which Mr. Fawcett had
borne a principal part. After explaining minutely the ar-
rangements with regard to the productive and unproduc-
tive expenditure, Lord George concluded by calling on the
House to support the wise and statesmanlike financial
policy of the Indian Government.

_ _
Mr. FawCett took two divisions—the first Resolution re-
lating to the Salt Tax, was negatived by 163 to 87; the
second, referring to the License Duties, by 159 to 96; and
the third was not pressed to a division.
The House was subsequently counted out at 25 minutes
past twelve o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 3, Mr. Gladstone gave
notice that on Thursday he would as her Majesty's Govern-
ment (together with, the question of which he had pre-
viously given notice) with respect to the proposal of Germany
on the 15th March, that a preliminary Confereu ce should be
held at Berlin to sz.ittle the course of procedure of the Con-
gress, whether the refusal of her Majesty's Government on
the following day to discuss that proposal is to be considered
as absolute, and, if so, whether they can conveniently state
the reasons of that refusal.

Sir 11. D. Wolff : I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private
notice, viz., whether any answer has been received to the
telegraphic despatch which was sent toiler Majesty's Ambas-
sador at Vienna, asking him whether he was at liberty to
give the name of the person who gave information respect-
leg the declaration of Russia not to submit the retroces-
shm of Roumanian Bessarabia to the Cougress ; and
whether he is enabled now to give us the name of the in-
formant.

Mr. Bourke : In reply to my hon. friend I have to state
that we have received an answer from Sir Henry Elliot on
the subject, and in consequence of the telegram we have re-
ceived I beg to state that the "trustworthy authority"
alluded to in the despatch which was the subject of the
question was the Roumanian Agent at Vienna.
Mr. Bright: Was it the regular agent or an intermediary
who informed Sir Henry Elliot?

Mr. Bourke: The despatch said that a trustworthy person
had been informed that Pi nice Gortschakoff made this state-
ment to the Roumanian agent at St. Petersburg That trust-
worthy person was the Roumanian agent at Vienna.

Mr. Gladstone : Did he obtain this information direct
from the Roumanian agent at St. Petersburg?
Mr. Bourke: That I am unable to aay at the present
moment, from the telegram which we have received. If
the right hon, gentleman wishes for further details, I hope
to be able to give them on Thuri day.
On the order for the second reading of the Vaccination
Law (Penalties) Bill, which was formally moved by Mr.
Pease, Mr. Sclater-Booth said he presumed the pro-
visions of the Bill were identical with those of the
measure which was brought forward last year. On that
occasion he fully explained the views of the Govern-
ment on the question of cumulative penalties for non
vaccination, and he believed that repeated prosecutions
in the same cases had not been so frequent since public
attention was called to the matter. He then pointed
out that the magistrates possessed larger discretionary
powers under the Vaccination Acts than was generally
supposed. Personally, he should prefer that these repeated
prosecutions should not be frequent, or that they should be
dropped altogether, and the magistrates, as well as the
guardians, should exercise a wise discretion as to whether
they issued several orders, or enforced the penalties for dis-
obeying them when issued. At the same time he could not
accept this Bill, because he thought there was no chance of
getting rid of such prosecutions altogether without breaking
down the Vaccination Acts, which he believed were gene-
rally regarded with favour by the public.

Mr. Pease then entered into a lengthy explanation of the
provisions of the Bill, which are chiefly directed against
the imposition of cumulative penalties under the Vaccina-
tion Act of 1867, and concluded by trusting that the House
would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and then
refer it to a select committee_

After a discussion, in which Earl Percy, Dr. Lush, Sir W.
Barttelot, Mr. Forster, Mr. Forsyth, Sir T. Chambers, Mr.
M. Henry and other hon. members took part,
Mr. Gladstone said he had come to the conclusion that the
best thing was to pass the second reading of this Bill, because
its basis was defined and limited, and if it was referred to a
committee the question of cumulative penalties would be
the maximum that could be debated. If they appointed a
general committee on the Vaccination Acts, then there would
be no part of the system that would not fall under
investigation, and the tendency would be to produce
much greater uncertainty with respect to the mind and
intention of Parliament than if they acted upon the
limited and carefully-defined proposal of his hon. friend.
The question was in a state in which the House must feel
they could not pass it by, and he desired to keep it within
practical bounds.
Lord It. Churchill, Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Samuda, Colonel
North, Colonel More. Mr. Muntz, and Mr. Sclater-Booth
also took part in the debate, and after a brief reply from Mr.
Pease, the House divided—For the second reading, 82;
against, 271; majority 189. The Bill was therefore lost.
The other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed.