The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

that the proposal, however just I. itself, and however de-
monstrably true, is opposed to local associations of the
most estemive character—(hear,irm)—not only in this
house but all over the country, we respect that prejudice—
(cheers)—end bow to it, though we do not for a moment
think it to be leer a prejudice. On that sosamt I think my
right hon. (timid has exercise, a wise discretion in not prais-
ing on the house, as he stated in the outset he did not mesa
to do, s proposal which on discussion appeared to be ad.
vend to the general feeling of the house. We think that
proposal wan right and founded on justice and good sense, sod
we believe that when the argument' of my right boa. friend
shall be read by the public out of doom, opinions will be very
much altered, but bowing to the meant state of opinion
and to local associations, I think my right bon. Mood has
exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the proposition.
Mr. HENLEY said he did not wish to go into the (1111:4-
Con of whether the government had made a blunder. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour to
say he spoke in mild language, and he believed that what he
alluded to was the expression of hie (Mr. Healey's) opinion
that it was queer sort of justice to rob the poor. On that
&vision it was said by • right hon. friend of his who sat
very near him, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wee
the last man in the world who would do such a thing as
that, oo account of the financial and commended legislation
of which he had been a leader. Well, he (Mr. Henley) was
one of those who in the ordinary way looked to the measure
before the house, and he did not trouble his bead or care •
halfpenny for the antecedents of the person who proposed
it. It was enough to do to look at the measure and see whe-
ther it were good or bad. But the speech of the right hon.
gentleman the member for the city of Oxford set one
a-thinking. What had happened? No one was
more ready to admit than he was that that class of
legislation which the right bon. gentleman alluded to,
and whieh had been earned on for the last 15
or 16 years, had been adopted with the best motives,
with the purest motives he would even go the length of
saying, by those who had carried it out, in the great hope,
and it might be with the result, of increasing the material
wealth of all classes of the community. What else bad
been carrying on? Material wealth, hang it round with
flowers as they would, deck it as they pleased, was
money. Money was mammon. Well, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, to secure these operations, to
carry out farther the same principle, did what! He
joined hand in hand with those who made an attack, noder
the name of reforming them, oil the old endowments of the
university which he represented. What was the main thing
be did there! He destroyed the Christian character of the
education. (Loud cries of "Oh, oh.") They might say
"Oh, oh," but let them hear what was done, and then say
" Oh, oh," if they pleased. He compelled the university to
give her education, the honours of her education, to Jews,
Christians, Turks, sod infidels. (Oh, ob.) They might say
" Oh, oh, his, they could sot dozy the fact. The right
hon. gentleman destroyed the Christian character of the
university. Well, how was that followed? In
1861 an attempt was made to change the charac-
ter of the education of the lower classes of the people.
The house rejected this reposition, and threw it back upon
them. These *ebonies, setting up Mammon on the one band
and the tree of knowledge on the other, could lead to no
other conclusion than this :
" Rem ferias ; rem
Redd si possis ; si non, quocunque modo rem."

(Hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the proposition was
to be withdrawn, because it was founded on a very bad
•
Mr. J. LOCKE said this was not the first attempt to tax
charities, for in 1858, the thea President of the Poor law
Board, the right hoes. gentleman the member for North
Wilts, proposed to rats charities a the poor and other
pariah rates, and that proposal was supported by hon.
gentlemen opposite. (Haar, bear.) Charities might, he
I thought, be properly subject to the name tax, but there
I was great difficulty in distinguishing between those which
ought to pay it in full and those which should only be
liable to a diminished rate, and as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's present proposition did not do that he was not
disposed to support it.
Clauses 3 and 4 were then negatived without a divisioe,
amidst a few cheers from the opposition.
Clause 4 was agreed to.
Up= class 5
Mr. HUBBARD said as this woe the first time a
graduated seals had been introduced, it required much
ooesideratioo. . .

Mr. HUNT did not nee upon what principle the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer could refuse to c►ny up the deduc-
tion to lemma larger than 2001.
Mr. PELCOCKE also considered that the exemption
ought to be extended, and proposed an amendment to the
effect that 1001. instead of 60/. ehould be deducted from
incomes 42001.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
wee a practical advantage in standing on tradition in these
mitten, and 60& bad been fixed as the deduction, because
that was the point to which Mr. Pitt proposed, in 1815, to
extend total exemptions.
The amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the clause agreed to.
The schedules were also agreed to, and the bill as
amended passed through committee.

STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL.
On the order for the consideration of this bill as
amended.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved some
verbal amendments in clause 4.

Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate. The
bill, be said, had been delivered only • few hours before,
and there had not been sufficient time to consider the effect
of the alterations made, or whether further amendments
were not necessary. . .

After ► short ecinversation the motion was agreed to, and
the debate was adjourned until Thursday.