The Press.
London, England, 1853-05-14 00:00:00

rtgg.

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 14, 11433.

HOUSE OF LORDS-FRIDAY.

The royal assent was givan to the Exchequer
Bills Bill, the Crystal Palace Company Bill, and other
hills. The Lords Commissioners were the Lord
Chancellor, Vicount Canning, and Lord Stanley of
Alderley.
On the motion of the Earl of SuAm:serer, the
Common Lodging-houses Bill was read a second time.
The Earl of Maur then called the attention of
their lordships to a misrepresentation of which he
had to-day been the object in an evening journal,
arising out of his examination before the Dockyard
committee. He had been asked four or five questions,
to which he believed his answers were most. clear and
distinct. One was, whether he hail heard that Mr.
Stafford had made a statement to the effect that he
(the Earl of Derby) had pressed upon him with
regard to the distribution of the patronage of the
dockyards. To this he replied that he should have
been much surprised at such a statement if made by
Mr. Stafford, but that he did not believe any such

announcement had been made. This answer was
perverted in the journal iu question. He entertained
the highest opinion of Mr. Staffing, believing him to
be a man of the strictest honour and veracity. Con-
sidering the explicitness with which he had spoken,
he was the more su►prised at the error to which he
now referred. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of AIMMARLE then presentel a petition
from Manchester, praying that the fntnre Government
of India in this country should consist of a minister
and a council appointed by the Crown, and directly
responsible to the Imperial Parliament. The noble
earl entered at some length into the question of the
internal condition of twilit, pointire4 out the remedies
to which he thought Parliament must turn its
attention.
After a few observations from the Earl of Ettr.x-
Dolmen"( and other noble lords the subject dropped.
The Cathedral Appointments Bill and the Burghs
(Scotland) Bill were read a third time awl passed.
Their lordships then adjourned until :%tooday, the
23rd instant.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-Ffirmv.

Lord l'AramasTorf having moved that the house at
it rising adjourn until Thursday next, for the Whitson
holidays,
Mr. DISRAELI asked what course the Government
intended to pursue with regard to public business on
Thursday and Friday next ?
The CHANCELLOR of the FACIIEWER proposed to
take the second reading of the Income Tax Bill on
Thursday, but much would depend on the progress
made on the legacy-duties resolution to-night.
In reply to another question from Mr. DISRAELI,
Lord PALMERSTON said that until the Government
saw their way more clearly with regard to the finan-
cial propositions, they could not name a day for the
measure on our Indian territories.

In reply to Mr. COBDEN,
Lora I)Al.multsToN promised that wapiti node()
shall be given of the introduction of the Education

Mr. TITNELL gave notice that on the 11th of
Juno he would move for leave to bring in a bill to
abolish the property qualification of members of
Parliament.

The hon. member also gave notice that, as an
amendment to the bill of the noble lord the member
for the city of London for disfranchising the dock-
yards, he should move that the votes of dockyard
men be taken by ballot. ((.71eering from the Minis-
terial benches.)
in answer to Mr. NEwnEovrr.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not
proposed to interfere with the exemption front taxa-
tion at present enjoyed by farmers in respect to
horses employed in husbandry but that a change
would be made in the tax on carts.

The report of the ineome-tax resolutions was
brought up and agreed to, and have was given to
bring in a bill founded on them.

THE BUD(, ET.

The adjourned debate on the legacy-duty resolu-
tions WWI then resumed by
Sir .1. RtatsuroN, who opposed the proposal on the
ground that it would entail injustice on the land.
The budget, gonerally, detivient, in that impar-
tiality which ought to Ike the basis or such a scheme,
and this partieulor proposition Was inyolitic because
it threw an additional burden n:'o3 ateable property,
whicli was already sufficiently time&

Mr. I:aEst; FIELD moNed stmenetment to the reso-
lutio to the eth'et of alleviatitt!_t Coe incidence of the
tax upon real estate as e nnpare 1
with personalty.
He ehar teterised the bailg 't as a w• ar upon property.
After ~ome discussion, in which abr. H. DICONNOND,

eto IP