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

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXcHEQEER
the house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.

On clause 2,
Sir J. FERGUSSON called attention to the defective
mode of levying the income tax. He objected t , the pre-
sent plan of centralisation, and moved to add to the end of
the clause words repealing the 44th section of the previous
Act, "directing that no assessor shall be appointed for
duties under Schedules A and B."
A long discussion then ensued as to new assessments
under Schedule A.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that the hon. baronet was mistaken in supposing there was
a new assessment last year under that schedule.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to.
TAXATION OF CHARITIES.

On clause 3,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
rose to redeem the pledge which he had given to the com-
mittee; and undoubtedly the question which he was about
to raise was one of sufficient magnitude and importance to
justify a separate discussion with regard to it. He should
altogether decline to embarrass himself and the committee
by entering upon peculiar cases which might be urged on
peculiar grounds. The question which he desired to sub-
mit was, whether charitable bequests should continue to
enjoy their present immunity from direct taxation, while
such heavy charges were undertaken by the State in the
interest of charities. It was, however, his intention to pro-
pose the insertion in the fourth clause of a certain qualifi-
cation to the enactment which obliged trustees to draw from
any other fund in their possession rather than to make any
deduction for income tax in the case of a recipient of a
small dole. With respect to the general proposal, he
was not ignorant of the opposition which had been ex-
cited to it, but the conviction of the Government was
that it was a wise one, and that it was a very mild and
temperate compromise—nay, that it was an equitable, and
even in a high degree a lenient compromise in regard to the
great mass of the charities. But having made that state-
ment he was bound at once to make the admission that it
was a proposal which ought only to be carried with the free
and deliberate sanction of Parliament, and that it was not
one in respect to which the influence of the Administration,
either in a greater or less degree, ought to be made to bear.
The question was new to public discussion ; but he had a
confidence in the fairness and justice of the House of Com-
mons which induced him fearlessly to appeal to it for a fair
and candid hearing of the case. He might be told that Mr.
Pitt and Sir Robert Peel were both against his proposal;
but he should demur to such an assertion. The income tax
under Mr. Pitt was a personal tax, and it was hardly pos•
sible for him to have got at the revenues of corporations.
In reality, it was under Lord Sidmouth that the exemption
of charities from the income tax was inaugurated, and at
the time little was known of the charities of the country,
except that they were in a state shameful to those who had
the administration of them. Such was the description of
their conditions placed on record by Lord Eldon—no re-
forming or radical authority. But then Sit Robert Peel
had been quoted as the author of the exemption. Why, in
the session:of 1845 a bill was introduced by L' rd Lyndhurst,
acting on behalf of Sir Robert Peel's Government. propos-
ing a tax of 6d upon all charities. There could be no doubt
that 19-20ths of the charities of the country were constituted
of deathbed bequests. Deathbed bequests were restrained
by law in most countries ; but in our country they were only
restrained when they took a particular form, a remarkable
instance of the freedom. which was permitted by the law of
England to individual caprice. Still a deathbed request could
not be regarded as charity in the same high Christian sense as
when a man dealt with that which was his own. (Hear.)
It was not to be denied that such bequests might have their
origin in laudable motives, but, on the other hand, it was
equa ly true they too ofte3nnproinceneddeedoufrtoemf mthoattivwehsinchoti
charge on
laud-
able, and that they were
only
upon charities. If the tes-
legacies was not a charge
T 10 per cent.
h
impossible for man to retain. e
free from legacy duty, and the 10 p
tator wished to give the entire sum enr
ecehnatr.itrwesa,snaeelielaftratet
upon the testator's estate. IL was not wise for the State to
give temptations to death .bed bequests. He had proceeded
on the assumption that an exemption was a gift, and the,
what the State remitted a man it gave to him. It was not
w.se
to
give temptations in the form of gifts of public
money, to men to endeavour to immortalise themselves as
founders.
(Sensation.) He might be wrencr' but it seemed
an anomaly that a man might to the day of his death enjoy
en-
joyment
the m eri
to• oifalmsgiving his wealth, and then unite to that
was gone, and have the f:gmlevionfgbby a will opened
if
he
heaidn gbtehene founder owf'nenpahr-e
ticular institution, when,
common lot of making provision forTh individuals,
hwisitnhatmhee
gift of public money
an exee ptiun, was obtained
wtoortinldeohuarvggee passed
tthis,
iinnttho
e oblivion.form
of
£150,000 at the exp-nse of the public. Ho was awarenj
be-
ing left to charitable uses because the_ateantadtoohirehad an aver-
sionait's to the
towards his relatives—(laughter)
committee whether it was fair that the Legislature
on to encourage by gifts of public money suchpriavdaivipeoisnidti.on.
If the State did not interfere with the wills of
duals, so as to interfere with their gold in this mannerivii
least it ought not to assist bequests so going. And whatever
cost cost to the State to those exemptions in favour of death..
bed bequests, the Legislature became responsible for them ;
however mischievous or scandalous any of them might be,
it assisted such with a gift of public money. But this was
a portion of taxation. Now, the income of the United King-
dom from property amounted to from £180,000,000 to
£190,000,000 a year. Of this property one-sixtieth, or
L 3,000,000, was possessed by public charities in a legal sense.
The taxation imposed on this £190,000,000 was about
£13,000,000 a year, of which one-half was paid in income
tax, The amount of exemption enjoyed by charities, which

was thus laid upon other property, was about £216,000 a
year ; but besides this there was a large and growing charge
on the public purse for the management of these charities.
This year £lB,OOO had been voted upon the estimates on this
account; but therein were not included the expenses for
superannuation and offices ; and, altogether, he might esti-
mate the entire expense to the State of, as Lord Eldon said,
restraining the "gross and general breach of trust," at from
£40,000 to £45,000. The £216,000 of exemption represented
7 per cent. of the income of those charities ,and the expenses
to the State for management represented 11 percent. more,
so that the quarter of a million which they cost amounted
to 8i p-r cent. of their income, and that was what the State
expended on charities as such. Now, Parliament had from
time to time passed acts to bring the entire expenditure of
the State within the control of the House of Commons.
Why was this part of the State expenditure to be shrouded
within the complicated sections of acts of Parliament, so
that Parliament could have no control over it. If Sir H.
Peel, in proposing, in 1842, the income tax, had, with the
view of keeping charities under the eye of the State, re •
commended the income tax to be levied on all property
without exemption, but that the sum of £lOO,OOO, the
amount then levied on charities, were to be voted from
year to year in their ail, this exemption accorded to death •
bed bequests, which was not granted to the alms of the liv-
ing, would not stand the scrutiny of the House of Commons
for a single year—(hear, hear)—and not one-terrth of the
doneat
hd
o lbeeno miwm, marshalled r
puttingsh a
Hospital,
theed
beat
saot
fs
footkt hi 1
the
charitforemost.iesi manner;
nowil:
rot:hehmuchclergy,
charitable
theba e:an
dajo
beenrofn
lyßt
yn
aehrn t of the exemption would re.
of the widows of Dissenting minis-
ters, rang in his ears, and the country was asked on their
account to continue a gift of a quarter ef a million on be-
half of charities. There were generals who, by putting their
able-bodied in front, and by the proper disposition of women
and boys dressed as men (laughter) won their battles. On
this principal the doubtful part of the charities was kept in
skilful reserve. Charities for the purpose of this inquiry
might be divided into three classes—the small charities,
the middle charities, and the great charities. He included
in the small charities the funds of large charities, which
were distributed in small amounts. By the middle charities
he meant generally stipends of money to the extent of from
£2O to £4O a year, given for the most part to widows and
orphans. But if in the case of the small charities it were
proposed to assist them by the grant of ss. to each, this
house would scarcely vote a single amount of ss. These
small charities were for the most part given for local poor
and local education. (Opposition cheers.) If they deserved
the toleration of the house, it was the most :that they de-
served Three times had they been condemned by the
Charity Commissioners, by the Poor-law Commissioners of
1831, and by the Education Commissioners of two or three
years. He had received a deputation that day the charac-
ter and weight of which he would leave them to judge of.
The Bishop of London was a member of that deputation,
and the demand of that deputation was, that the exemp-
tion now existing should be continued as at present. The
predecessor of the Bishop of London had been a Poor-
law Commissioner in 1834, and the commissioners of
1834 had reported very unfavourably of those small cha-
rities, stating that to evils inherent in themselves they
added others of a very injurious and demoralis-
ing kind. The commissioners of 1861 equally con-
demned those charities in their report. He was desirous of
proving to the committee the real state of those charities.
There were several towns and country parishes where there
were enormous charities, as they were called. Now he
wanted to know upon what ground those parishes which
had no charities for their poor were called upon to give
money out of their own pockets to enlarge the endowments
in favour of the parishes which had those charities. No
greater injustice could be conceived. (Hear, hear.) An hon.
member had said to him that he had betrayed his duty as
member of Oxford University, by pr,p :sing to interfere
with the charities of the Established Church, thus propound-
ing the doctrine that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was
under an obligation, before proposing a fiscal measure, to
ascertain whether the fiscal incidence of such measure would
be in favour of the communion to which he belonged, and
accordingly that he should adopt or reject it. (Hear, hear.)
He would take the class of charities for attendance at
church, which approximated to the character of a spiritual
bribe, for the parties were hardly ever known to attend ex-
cept when the charity dole was to be distributed. There
was not a city in the country which was more rich in chari-
ties than Coventry, and yet what was the result ? Why that
at the very first appearance of distress the people were pros-
trated ; whereas, if they turned to Lancashire, where there
were comparatively few or no charities, they would find that
distress was borne for more than a year before any appeal
was made to the public at large. (Cheers.) Application had
been made to him in favour of the " valuable" charities of
Bristol. The charities of Bristol were not valuable, but per-
nicious. encouraging indolence and mendicancy. (Hear.)
He was not going to say that the small charities were all
scandalous; his argument only amounted to this, that they
had no claim to the public purse. The right hon. gentle-
man then referred to what was known as Jervis's Charity,
which ought to be known to fame. In 1793 Jervis died,
leaving property to the amount of £lOO,OOO, for the benefit
of the poor of three parishes in Herefordshire. There was
one thing which Jervis had forbidden, and that was build-
ing. The population of those places in 1801 was 816; in
1851 it increased 1,222. Why had it increased ? Was it
because trade had increased and higher wages could be ob-
tained ? No; wages had fallen by 2s. a week. The popu-
lation increased because of the charitable dole. The case
had become so bad and the extent of the demoralisation so
great that an Act of Parliament had been obtained at great
expense to get rid of the evil ; and the managers of the
charity did the only thing which Jervis had forbidden.
(Laughter.) They expended £30,000 in building. It was
not a university or college which they built, but a boarding
school for the children of the three parishes. The real
meaning of which was, that the money of Jervis was to be
supplemented by the money of the State. The right hon.
gentleman next turned to the middle charities, and instanced
the Clergy Orphan Association, the income of which was
£5,000 a year. The income tax at 7d would be £145 a year
upon that property ; and perhaps the right hon. gentleman
the member for Oxfordshire would say that the Govern-
ment were robbing them of that. The charity was for the
orphans of the poor clergy, and let them see what was the
relief it afforded and what was the benefit which the Govern-
ment proposed to confer by the remission of the tax upon
£6O, He would take it there were 5,600 clergymen having
from £lOO to £l5O year, and 2,000 clergymen having £2OO
a year. The reduction to the 7,000 clergymen would be
equal to £7,000 a year, or about £1 per annum to each ;
while the £145 a year which the Government proposed to
take would be but £ll7s lld a year. Upon the small pri-
vate property in private hands there was levied a tax of
more than four times as much as was now proposed to be
levied upon corresponding amounts derived from charity.
He next came to a consideration of the greater charities,
and they must be considered under two classes—First, the
agnrea2tsCellcoanridtliyes,ooufr education, such Christ'swseudchhosapsitals.
Hospital ;
d
(Hear,
hear.)
Christ's Hospital enjoyed the most illustrious patronage,
and those who were connected with it no doubt exercised
their powers under excellent principles and with the best in-
t, ntions. By the calculation of 8 per cent. Christ's Hospi-
tal received annually £6,000 from the pockets of the people,
not one shilling of which, he contended, was the hospital
entitled on any ground of right or principle to receive.
(Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital was founded for the poorest
of the poor, "the fatherless and motherless children, and
the sick, sore, and impotent people." Who were, he asked,
" the sick, sore, and imp 'tent people" who were now to be
found in Christ's Hospital? (Hear, hear.) Why, they had
gradually improved in circumstances, and had worked them-
selves up in society with the increa, ing wealth of the nation,
and now they were chi dren of persons with incomes of
£2OO, £3OO, £4OO, and in some cases £5OO per annum.
(Hear, hear.) He denied that that class of persons was for
one moment entitled to call on Parliament for a public vote
in aid of education for their children; and no man would
dare to ask in that house for a vote of £5,000, £5OO, or even
£5, for such an institution. (Hear, hear.) The governors
had said that, by the imposition of the income tax, they
w, uld have to pay £2,000 per annum; and by the use of
those faculties with which he was blessed, he found that
that sum represented anincome of about £70,000 per annum,
including of course that amount which was now paid by
the receivers of salaries belonging to the institution, because
where seine service was rendered, it was not a charity, and
the person did not escape income tax; thus the poor curate
who does something for his income paid the tax, whilst
the poor knight, of Windsor, for instance, who really did
nothing, paid nothing. (Hear, hear.) Christ's Hospital
had 500 governors, who came into the possession of their
office by the payment of £5OO each ; and it was a spirit
stirring reflection to find that there were between 15 and
16 men ready annually to pay £5OO each to the hospital.
The £5OO was not merely alms, but for obtaining a vested
right-12,000 presentations. After referring to the work-
ing of the charity, and exposing many of its abuses and in-
consistencies, ho proceeded to show by contrast the differ-
ence between that institution and King's College, and then
passed to the consideration of the endowed hospitals, select-
in.. St. Bartholomew's Hospital as an illustration. That
hospital. had anincounnied of £36,000.
polstitinoonwitpwaiodul£d2oboe per
annum income tax,
v£e
dBsob.y
theA g ahi
hospital
this
from w a. s tt oh
eb e.i
increased
dt h
valueea dva no-f
tapesc
land,re a eaddriebsrl
benefit from the great reductions that bad taken place of
from recent beneficial h gislation as well as
late years in our customs tariffs. The income of the hospi •
tal in 1841 was £31,335, and in 1861, 20 years atter the im-
position of the income tax, it bad increased to £36,030.
s a
du m;
cp
1t
ei n 4 8 o2f
had(tt
rHioene (Hear.)
ar)
eeNdV
fromh What therefore
llegislation
had a
ind cbeenons e
qthe e
consequence
oc benefit
thethe
operationhospital
of the income tax in reducing taxation ? Taking the con-
s
sumption
on drugs
a difference of £1,245 per zties9aBB,;wlshich was 3,2461 b, at 5d per lb, that reduc-
r
oungaalatnodsaonr:endowment of £192 14s 7d ; sugar and
ofW efollo,da:ladnindgfotro
strhtaietlea
s
l
slnoofuneltostho
spirits, a
0,
i 2;
rn6seat
in2risdwn6u:dsmi
n;
zeibt,nlxstf2at
;eBvrsonuailanr3kdsoi
n.
fe
making
thegTashl, 141 hospital.
reduc-
tion htua2eol
t,) the income tax, through the redaction.
mate-
rials, he found that St. Bartholomew's
of £1,167, and through the enhanced
lop eerwct:eni,ndt
ooffrodbruuotitil
ehdsie,nrigna articlessu w
t he l
directu Hospitaleowf aepscruodpe
property
rttoyr
£1,440, together making £3,307 as
benefit received by St. Bartholomew's, against the pecuniary

£B5O which the Government now invited Parliament to
make it contribute to the taxation of the country. To that
statement there was only one answer, namely, that St. Bar-
tholomew's, as a receptacle for the most miserable of the
community, ought to receive a public subvention. (Hear.)
As for hundreds of patients being dismissed from these
hospitals as the resu t of this proposal, his belief was that
none would be dismissed from them, for one of the greatest
objections to the present system was that the absence of
public control abrogated all effective motives for the econo-
mical management of chaiities. Why should they, for
example, spend a sum of £220 annually upon a dinner at
St. Bartholomew's? But again, St. Bartholomew's, as well
as Guy's and St. Thomas's, were thinking of their future
aggrandisement; aed at St. Thomas's as much as 15 per
cent, of the income of the charity was spent on reproductive
but that investments,was notand
to on
givethe improvementitstolatnhdeadestWituetlel:
(hear, hear.) The fact was that the public grant for St.
immediate
relief o f
Bartholomew's would be ten times preferable to absolute
exemption ; for with a public grant they let in the light of
day. (Hear, hear.) But if it was proper that Parliament
should- make a present of some thousands annually to the
charities of the country, he would ask was it right that the
Was grant should be confined to institutions that had incomes of
£20,000 or £30,000 a year P it not fair to remember
the case of the unendowed hospitals of the young and
struggling institutions? The rapid growth of those charities
ought not to escape the notice of Parliament. Strange to
say their income grow mere
rapidly
than the property of the
community at large. Within the last 32 years it might be
taken that their income had grown from £1,200,000 to
£3,000,000. The income of what was known as Jones's
Charity, and which was possessed of some 32 acres of land
at Deptford, would, before any long period had elapsed, be
enormous. The charity known as Tonbridge School, and
an income of £BO,OOO a year. Again, Smith's Charity at
which now educated 200 young gentlemen, would soon have
Kensington within a limited number of years would have
an income of £50,000. The Government brought forward
this measure not as one of financial necessity, but as a just
and politic measure ; and although they would not presume
to press it upon an adverse House of Commons, yet they
did not hesitate to commend it to the justice, the equity,
the courage4and the wisdom of Parliament. (The right
hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud cheers, after
having spoken for two hours and ten minutes.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the eloquent speech of his
right hon. friend was marked by certain fallacies which
made themselves apparent throughout his remarks. He
(Sir S. Northcote) contended the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, from the idolus specus which he was in the habit of
seeing from his cave at the Treasury, looked on every man
as one liable to pay a tax, and if he took £5 out of the
pocket of one who had £lOO a year, claimed credit that he
had presented him the remaining £95, and made him respon-
sible for the manner in which he spent that £95. (Laugh-
ter.) The authority of all finance was in favour of exemp-
tion to charities ; and this was done on the ground that the
tax was laid not on property, but on persons in respect of
their property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this
matter forgot his observation of a few nights ago, that the
true basis of the tax was equality; for he would seek in the
case of a small income, whether the recipient was drawing
it from charity or from other property, and tax it in the
former case. It W9B necessary on that night to go into de-
tails. The house had affirmed the principle of the bill on its
second reading, and care must be taken now, if at all, that
individuals were not to suffer from this new mode of taxa-
tion. When they talked of equality, did the Chancellor of
the Exchequer think he would accomplish equality when ho
extended the income tax to those charities ? The right hon.
gentleman proposed not to remove the exemptions set forth
in the income tax, such as the stock of friendly societies
when under £2OO, and the like. Did the right hon. gentle-
man mean to leave friendly societies in their present posi-
tion ? He was sorry the hon. member for Rochdale and
the hen. member for Birmingham were not in their places,
as they might be able to give them some information
with regard to the Rochdale Equitable Pioneer Associa-
tion. There had been ranch dissatisfaction created among
some of the trades of that town, owing to the manner in
which this association had carried on its operations. He
found from a printed paper of the association that they
had divided among the members last year upwards of
£17,000 in the shape of profits; and as the Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke of exemption as a present, was the
right bon. gentleman prepared to make the trades of Roch-
dale give a present to this association with its profits of
£17,000. The right hon. gentleman had brought a great
indictment against the founders of charitable bequests; they
had been told of Jervis and Smith's charities; Smith was a
great sinner because he had left his property to his poor re-
lations, and Jervis was a great sinner because he had not
left his property to his poor relations. (Opposition cheers.)
By this measure the Government were inflicting a blow
upon the recipients of bequests which had been left years
and years ago. If there were abuses connected with those
charities, let them reform those abuses; but let them pro-
ceed upon sound principles, and not in the present crude
manner. He spoke in this matter with a perfectly clear
conscience. He was sitting on a commission that was in-
quiring into the endowment of public schools, and he was
quite sure the commission would recommend many im-
portant improvements in the mode of dealing with these
endowments. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had
spoken of the abuses of Christ's Hospital, but let him apply
himself to the task of reforming them in such a way as Par-
liament had done with the universities. Let the Chancellor
of the Exchequer deal with the small charities if they were
bad, biuy let him not come upon the middle charities. (Hear.)
Was the Government, was the house, going to condemn the
policy of the great public endowments of the country ? 'Were
they prepared to throw all the institutions of the country
upon private charity and State aid—the only two sources
in continental countries ? But in this country they had
great and noble endowments, and if there ever was a
moment when they should be cautious of laying a tax
upon charity it was the present, when the public had
made such munificent contributions towards the relief of
Lancashire distress. The Government might say they
were not going to lay a tax upon voluntary contribu-
tions; but let them recollect that, when a drain of
this kind took place, the ordinary charities must suffer
unless they had the endowments to fall back upon. (Cheers )
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel suffered a loss
last year of £4,000 upon their usual income, and other cha-
rities suffered in a similar manner. He asked the Govern-
ment, on the ground of expediency, to reconsider their pro-
position. During the autumn not a speech would be made
at any charity, nut a subscription solicited, not a circular
issued, in which reference would not be made to this new
tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be pre-
sent to explain that it was no tax. (Cheers and laughter )
The measure would create discontent and perplexity
throughout the country, and he trusted the Government
would not try to force a measure through that house
against the feeling of the public. He therefore hoped
the Government would withdraw the measure, and not
put them to the necessity of voting on it. (Cheers.) He
hoped the committee would go to a division on the whole
clause and not on the amendment of the hon. member for
Rochdale, and that it would be negatived by a large majority.
Mr. MAGUIRE considered the proposal an unwise one,
and unworthy so great a statesman as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He was opposed to the imposition of the tax
on charities. He considered it absurd to say that the State
was giving them a boon. The proposition was no other than
to tax poverty—the poor, the wretched, and the miserable,
and to deprive poor children of education. Rather than
tax them it would be better to reform their abuses.
Lord H. VANE was unable to agree with the argu-
ments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in sup-
port of the Government proposition. For the first time,
and contrary to all authority and precedent, the Govern-
ment proposed to subject hospitals to an income tax. In no
other country would the proposition to tax hospitals be en-
tertained for a moment. The strongest disapprobation to
the measure was entertained throughout the country,
Great abuses, no doubt, existed in the smaller charities, and
that they possessed large funds which might be better
appropriated ; but that was no argument for their adopting
so unwise, so unjust, and so inexpedient a measure. lie
hoped the committee would reject the clause.
Mr. W. MARTIN spoke in favour of the exemption of
county hospitals, which were not in the habit of entering
150 cases annually. The funds and subscriptions of
county hospitals were limited, and they had no means of
raising large annual sums. He considered it was for the
interest of every county that there should b 3 an hospital
within its limits, and he had no doubt that people would
cheerfully submit to their exemption from the tax.
Lord R. CECIL said there appeared,to be no supporter
of the measure on the Minisierial side of the house. No
doubt they would have the Solicitor-General by and by, for
ho appeared to be the only solitary barrel the Government
had loaded ready to fire, and he no doubt was kept back till
he could be fired with greater effect. Referring to the speech
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,. the noble lord said it
was a furious attack on charitable institutions and the
donors, and that he had spoken with bitterness of the liv-
ing, and raged with absolute fury against the dead. He
condemned what he called the sophistry of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and said that his speech was unworthy
of a great statesman, He defended the memory of the donors
of charities from the unworthy motives attributed to them
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only question
involved in the issue before the committee was, whether the
recipients of these charities received more than £lOO a year,
for if they did not, then, as a matter of bare justice and
right, they were entitled to be exempted from the tax. It
was in compensation to such people that they were ex-
empted from the operations of the Probate and Succession
Duties ; for by the policy Of our law the rich alone were
subjected to that tax. In telling the committee that the
great hospitals should be taxed, because they had gained so
enormously by the commercial legislation of late years, the
right hon. gentleman was excelling his usual sophistry;
while he seemed to envy the heritage of the poor, and to con-
sider that it was a great national calamity, as he dwelt upon
the circumstance of these hospitals becoming every day
richer. (Hear, hear.) But the truth was, the right hon.
gentleman could not have selected a mere unhappy mo-
ment for mooting such fanciful philosophy than in those
days of Lancashire distress ; and therefore it was to be
hoped that the committee would reject the proposal by a
large majority. (Cheers.)
A slight pause then ensued, and no member rising to
address the committee, although the benches on both sides

were crowded, the question was then put from the chair,
when,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,—This
debate having be n brought to a close, we have fucther
means of ascertaining the opinion of the committee upon the
proposal submitted to them. It was certainly not the in-
tention
of the Government to press this as a merely official
proposal on the part of the Executive upon the notice of the
house, unless the house itself showed a disposition to rec.( ive
it. Our opinions upon it are fixed and clear ; but, as the
debate has come to a close without any independent member
having declared himself in the same sense, I am bound to
say that I think the case has arisen which I contemplated
earlier in the evening, and that it would not be consistent if
we were to take the sense of the committee upon the clause.
(Loud Opposition cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I must say that the announcement
which has just been made appears to me a very rational de-
termination. (Cheers and laughter.) At the same time, I
never heard an announcement for which I was less prepared
than by the speech of the right hon. gentleman in which this
proposition was introduced. (Hear.) I should not have risen
to make any remark after the last observations of the
right hon. gentleman had they not been preceded by a
speech which appears to me to have introduced to the con-
sideration of the house principles so dangerous—(hear,
hear)—l would even say so monstrous—(hear, hear)—that I
think it hardly becomes the house, after having heard such
an address from the Government, to allow the debate to
close in silence without attempting to obtain some evidence
that the opinions which have been advocated to-night by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer are at least shared by his
colleagues, and especially by the First Minister of the
Crown. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The speech of the
right hon. gentleman was at once answered by my hon.
friend (Sir S. Northcote) with a thorough knowledge of the
subject, and touching, as I thought, with a master hand
those glittering fallacies which had been introduced with
such confidence to the attention of the house. (Hear,
hear.) The debate went on. No one rose on the part of
the Government to answer the objections which had been
made to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and
I think it was due to him, due to the house, and to the
character of the Government that some answer should have
been made to the objections urged to a proposition brought
forward in a tone of so much confidence,—l will not say of
so much dictation. Sir, under ordinary circumstances,
when the Government had withdrawn a measure put for-
ward with so much parade I should willingly have remained
silent. But here occasion was taken to circulate principles
of policy to which the Government may recur upon sub-
sequent occasions, as if those principles had received some
sanction from the silence of the house ; and the opinions
which have been promulgated by the right hon. gentleman
to-night appear to me to be such as should not be allowed
to pats unnoticed. (Hear, hear.) Some short time ago the
right hon. gentleman introduced his general financial state-
ment, and when I listened to it I was extremely anxious
that it should pass, as to its main features, without any
organized opposition, for I felt confident that in the course
of the discussion which would arise the objectionable parts
in it would disappear and be withdrawn, without
being painfully obtruded upon the attention of the house.
For such a result I was anxious for the honour of the House
of Commons, because the budget of the right hon. gentleman
in its main features was the budget of the House of Com-
mons. Last year the house was called upon—never mind
who called upon it for the decision; let us not stop now to
consider on what side of the house he may sit—was called
upon to decide whether it was not expedient in the state of
our finances to counsel the Government to make a consider-
able reduction in the public expenditure, seeing that by that
reduction alone could the requisite relief in taxation be ob-
tained (Hear.) We were then told that reduction of expen-
diture to any considerable amount was perfectly illusory,
that no one could venture to touch the great sources of ex-
penditure in the army and navy, and that the man was guilty
of subserviency and servility to France who could for a mo-
ment, in however moderate a tone, intimate the wisdom, the
policy, and the possibility of such a course. This session
has brought forward a very different view of public affairs.
Economy is possible. Is is not subserviency or servility to
France to obtain by the most salutary and legitimate means
a reduction of the public burdens. And I say that for the
great measures of reduction brought forward by the Govern-
ment we are indebted to the House of Commons, and not to
the Government ; that it is the House of Commons which
has reduced the tea duty and the income tax, and that in
those main features it is the budget of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear.) Sir, I regretted to find that along with
these some remarkable features of eccentric invention were
again introduced by the right hon. gentleman, as if to vin-
dicate his title to financial originality, and renew his claims
to the wonder and gratitude of an admiring Parliament.
(Hear, and laughter.) I was very much interested in op-
posing the tax upon carriers, for I could realise, with many
other members, especially those on this side of the house,
the amount of ingenious vexation which that extraordinary
device would certainly have secured. (Hear, and laughter.)
That tax, however, disappeared before the order of
battle could be formed. (Hear, hear.) Then there was
the plan for taxing chits. After listening to the bewilder.•
ing rhetoric of the right hon. gentleman I hardly know
whether it has passed; but if it is any consolation to him to
feel that though defeated by the charities he has at last been
a conqueror of the clubs, he may cherish that consolation
this evening. (Laughter.) It is possible that before our la•
hours terminate that eccentricity may also disappear from
the budget of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But
to-night our attention was called to an invention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer which was of a much more
serious character than those just referred to. This is ano •
ther unnecessary novelty in our finance—one in itself ob-
jectionable, but still more objectionable from the manner in
which it has been introduced, and the principles with
which in discussion it has been associated by the Govern-
ment. (Cheers,) Now, to-night, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer called on us to tax the charities of the country ;
and he would have been perfectly justified in making
that appeal if he could have established a case which
would have recommended itself to our consideration.
(Hear, hear.) I am quite sure that if the principles on
which he recommended that course were such as would have
satisfied our reason, no sentimental objections would have
prevented the House of Commons from responding to his
appeal. But he laid down a principle which is the basis of
all the injudicious arguments which he has treated us to this
evening. This principle is, that the charities which are
exempted from taxation may be looked upon as donatives of
the State. That was the basis of the entire of the eloquent
harangue to which fur two hours we listened with so much
pleasure and with much more surprise. (A laugh.) What-
ever train of reasoning, whatever novelty of argument,
whatever new conception the right hon. gentleman ad-
vanced, that may be taken as the fundamental principle
of his policy and his harangue—a principle which I say is
utterly false in its premises, and equally fallacious in
its consequences. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the
Exchequer assumes that exemption from taxation is the
same as a contribution by the State of an equivalent
amount of money to the person or the property. (Hear.) Is
that so ? I deny it. (Hear.) Yon may have an injudicious
and unjust exemption, as unquestionably you may have an
injudicious and unjust tax; but an exemption, if founded
on justice, is founded on the assumption that you have esta.
blished your claim. On that principle you ought not to be
liable to the tax, and the exemption is a just one. That
exemption is not a privilege—i t is a right. (Cheers, and a
cry of hear.) An hon. gentleman says "Hear," as if the
onus p obandi was upon me to show that this exemption is a
just one. But we have not got as far as that. The argu-
ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is founded on
what he deems the abstract truth that any exemption is a
donation from the State. I deny the principle which is
advanced. I say we have a right to assume that the exemp-
tion is founded on justice, and that there is nothing in the
abstract assumption which for a moment justifies the posi
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making it the
foundation of an attack upon our charities. It is for the
House of Commons to decide whether they believe the
claim of these charities to be exempted from taxation is just
in itself. (Hear, hear.) That is an entirely different pro-
position from that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—.
namely, that exemption is a contribution to the person or
property. What we have to decide to-night is whether the
exemption t njoyed by those charities is sound in principle
or not. (Hear, hear.) Having laid down that principle,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded, in a strain of
argument, or I should rather say invective, against the in-
stitutions which enjoy the exemption. The greater part of
his speech was directed not against the intolerable state of
affairs which allowed a large portion of property to be un-
justly exempted from the incidents of taxation, but was an in-
vective against the very nature of this property, against the
very conditions on which it existed, against the principle
which has called it into existence, against the practices and
traditions of an ancient country. (Cheers). The right hon.
gentleman, proceeding always in that line, and weakened
and embarrassed, in spite of all his ingenuity, by the false
course on which he had started, was obliged to misdescribe
the character of the income tax itself. He argued through-
out that it was a tax on property, while, if there be anything
clear, anything universally acknowledged in finance—and
this I think my hon. friend the member for Stamford put
1-efore the house in a conclusive manner—it is that the in-
come tax is a tax on persons, and not on property. Being a
tax on persons, we naturally ask why are those persons who
are not in the enjoyment of the amount of income at which,
under your ordinary regulations, the tax commences--
why are they to be liable to this impost, while others
enjoying the same or a larger income are free ? The
answer is, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer
chooses to entertain views of those endowments different
from those which have alwa) s influenced Parliament for at
least the last century and a half, and opposed to the opinions
and convictions of the country. (Cheers.) And what is the
remedy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for all those
evils—for all that vicious principle which is the foundation
of the endowments of England, for all that mismanagement,
for all that impolitic state of affairs which he denounces
with so much power ? What is his remedy for the enor-
mous imperfections in the old bequests—from the evils in
those petty charities which he has called forth from their
obscure existence—for the abuses connected with those mag-
nificent endowments for hospitals and colleges which have
contributed so much to the promotion of education and the
development of benevolence in this country ? (Hear, hear.)
Why, it is the application of the income-tax. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) The condition of our charities has

for thirty years more or less attracted the attention of
the Legislature. The Crown has isued commissions and
Parliament has appointed committees, the labours of
which have been eminently judicious and useful. I
should doubt, therefore, under any circumstances, whether it
was wise, or necessary, or expedient on the part of Govern-
ment to call public attention to the character of those insti-
tutions with a view to any change in their management or
character. But if the Government are of opinion that those
endowments are so injurious to the public weal ; if the Go-
vernment are of opinion that the statement of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer is justified by the facts; if the Go-
vernment are of opinion that this is a question which de-
mands our immediate and careful attention—and there is
nothing to justify such a. conclusion in what we see at pre-
sent—they should have brought the subject forward in such
a manner as that we could have dealt with it in a satis-
factory manner. (Hear, hear.) It is totally inadequate
to hold out to us as a sufficient means of remedial agency
that we should apply the income-tax to those institutions.
(Cheers.) As I before observed, every point that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has raised to-day, and which he has
placed before us with all the aid that ingenious casuistry
could supply, springs from one principle, which is unnatu-
ral and illusory. All his arguments are based on the false
assumption that exemption from taxation is naturally un-
just. lam not surprised that the house and the coma •
try, even in so short a space of time as has elapsed
since the right hon. gentleman made his financial state-
ment, should have been agitated and risen against a pro-
position so monstrous. (Cheers.) It offends all the feel-
ings and traditions which have been cherished in this
country—all our local associations—all that veneration for
the principle of inheritance to which we have so long ad-
hered. (Hear, hear.) We heard arguments to-night which
were a denunciation of endowments, and almost an appeal
for confiscation. (Hear, hear.) That this proposition should
have been introduced es a part of a financial scheme is sur-
prising; that it should have been introduced for so slight a
financial end or object is still more astonishing. (Hear.)
That when it was in their power, not from their own happy
imaginings, but following the sense of the House of Com-
mons, to effect some of those great reductions of taxation
which cur advice and public opinion had indicated, they
should have unnecessarily introduced a discussion of prin-
ciples which almost disturb the foundations of the State,
appears to me to be a course of conduct which the most bril-
liant rhetoric cannot justify, and which I think may lead to
consequences that the Government will hereafter regret.
(Cheers.) Sir, I shall only hope that this objectionablepro-
position, which was introduced with so much pomp, and
has been withdrawn in a manner so unpretending, may be
the last of the endeavours to attack the endowments of this
country, of which the wisdom of our times may improve
the application, but which are founded upon a principle
that has contributed to the greatness of this country, and
that I trust this country will always cherish. (Loud
cheers).

Lord PALMERSTON—I am anxious, sir, to answer the
question which the right hon. gentleman opposite asked at
the commencement of his speech—namely, whether the
proposal made by my right hon. friend was his own pro -
posal singly, or was one in which his colleagues also con-
curred. Sir, lam happy to be able to assure the right lion,
gentleman that the course pursued by my right hon. friend
and the proposal he made were entirely concurred in by all
his colleagues. (" Hear," a laugh, and cries of " Divide,
then.") If none of those colleagues rose for some time to
support him, it was entirely because they felt that his ad-
mirable and most convincing speech—(laughter and ironical
cheers and counter cheers)--was both unanswerable and un-
answered. The right hon. gentleman opposite has reduced
his objections to what he called one fundamental point. He
says the whole foundation of my right lion, friend's argu-
ment was that an exemption from taxation was equiva-
lent to a grant from the country. Well, I maintain that
that is perfectly sound. (Hear, hear.) As long as your ex-
penditure is a fixed sum it is demonstrable that if you ex-
empt a portion of the community from contributing their
share to the taxation by which that sum is to be raised, you
do virtually grant them a part of the fund which comes from
the rest of the public to defray your expenditure ; and, there•
fore, when the right hon. gentleman opposite talks of a fal-
lacy, I must say I never heard such a fallacy as he has sought
to establish by denying that an exemption from taxation is
equivalent to a grant of public money, The right hon. gentle •
man argues, indeed, that it is not so, because he says that the
fact of the exemption implies that it is just. But that is
begging the whole question. (Hear.) No doubt if a person
is justly entitled to exemption, when you concede a right
to him you don't confer a boon. But we deny, and no man
has yet proved, that these charities are justly entitled to
exemption. My right hon. friend has been accused of pour-
ing forth invectives against these charitable institutions.
Why, the most severe things which fell from my right hon.
friend were his quotations from the reports of the Commis-
sioners who were employed and authorised to inquire into
these charities. (Hear.) It was the passages he read from
these reports that contained those condemnations which
hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to represent as
having been the simple expressions of my right hon. friend's
individual opinion. I say, then, that we entirely concurred
in the proposal, and I think my right hon. friend has de-
monstrated that it was founded upon justice and good sense.
(Cries of " Divide" from the Opposition, and " Order.")
The right hon. gentleman opposite has given the key to
the whole secret ; for he has said that " local associations"
aro adverse to the proposal of my right hon. friend.
(Laughter.) Why, sir, that is really the fact—(Opposi-
tion cheers and counter cheers)—and it was very candid
in the right hon. gentleman opposite so openly and
broadly to acknowledge it. (Hear, and a laugh.) But
that, sir, is not only a enctive for individual votes and
opinions ; it is also a ground upon which the Government
are entitled to take, and ought, I think, to take their line.
And if we find that a proposal, however just in itself, how-
ever demonstrably true, is opposed to " local associations"
of the most extensive character, not only in this house, but
all over the country, why we respect those prejudices and
bow to them. (Cheers from the Opposition.) We don't on
that account believe them the less to be prejudices. That
being so, I think my right hon. friend has exercised a very
wise discretion—(laughter and hear)—in not pressing upon
the house--as he had stated at the outset he did not mean
to do—a proposal which upon discussion should appear to
be adverse to its general opinion. Although we think the
proposal right and just in itself, and although we believe
that when the arguments of my right hon, friend shall be
read by the country, opinion out of doors on this subject
will undergo a change ("Oh," laughter, and " Hear, hear")
yet we 1)..,w to the present state of feeling and of local asso-
ciations ; and I think my right hon. friend has exercised a
sound discretion in the course he has taken. (Opposition
cheers and counter- cheers, )

Mr. HENLEY—Sir, I will not now enter into the question
whether the Government have not made a blunder in this
matter. (Cheers and laughter.) But, as the noble lord has
spoken of the feeling of small associations or of local associa-
tions, I would just say that I believe they comprise the whole
country (cheers); because the whole is made up of parts. If
there is one thing more true than another it is that the en-
tire country does not take the same view which the noble lord
and hie right hon. colleague think to be so just. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman has done me the honour to say
that I use very mild language. (A laugh.) I suppose
he alludes to the opinion I expressed the other evening that
it was a queer sort of justice to rob the poor. (Hear.) I was
informed on that occasion by a right hon. friend of mine
who sits near the right hon. gentleman, that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was the last man in the world who could
be supposed to do any such thing as that—(a laugh)—as
the financial and commercial legislation with which his
name had been indentified would prove. Now, I am one
of those persons who, in an ordinary way, look at the
measure which is before this house, and I don't trouble my
head or care a halfpenny about the motive or antecedents
of those who propose it. It is quite enough to do to see
whether the measure itself is good or bad according to
the best light one can get upon it. But the speech
of my right hon. friend the member for the city of
Oxford naturally set one a thinking. (A. laugh.)
Now, what has happened? No man is more ready to admit
than I am that the species of legislation to which my right
hon. friend alluded has been carried on for the last 15 or
16 years with the best of motives, with the great hope and
expectation and, it may be also, with the result of increasing
the material wealth of all classes of the community. But
what else has been going on during the same period ?
Material wealth, deck it out as you will with flowers of
speech, means money, and money is Mammon. (Laughter.)
Well, to secure those results and carry the same principles
further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined hand-in-
hand with those who made an attack—under the name of
reforming them—upon the old endowments of the Univer-
sity which he represents. What was the main thing that
ho did there ? He destroyed the Christian character of
the education. (Oh, oh.) I will say what was done, and
then you may say " ( h, oh I" if you please. He com-
pelled, and those who acted with him compelled, the Uni-
versity to give her education and tender her honours to
Jew, Turk, heretic, and infidel. (Oh, and laughter.) That
fact can't be denied, and I say it destroys the Christian
character of the education. (Question.) What followed ? In
1860 and 1861 an attempt was made by the Government to
change the character of the education of the lower ()lasses,
and to dissever the Government from the religious educa-
tion of the people. This house then rejected and forced you
to take back your proposition. Well, let those two schemes
be viewed together. I am not going to draw the conclusion,
but the speech of the right hon. gentleman must set people
thinking whether Mammon, guided by the tree of know-
ledge, will not bring us to this simple principle, "rem,
quocunque modo rem." We could not have had a more
striking instance of this than the speech of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The principles he has laid
down are nothing but " Mammon and the tree of
a tfh e
ayn
ya r ek
iuntdt
.einconsistent, with any
other rgien, c"i pl e and
tohbajetetthinisnacblaluesien
ieavweriythrderspawecnt..
for I thin
oh t) I amk it w
extremely
exceedinglyremel
(Hear, hear.) y
glad
Mr. LOCKE was astonished at the indignation of hon.
gentlemen opposite, for not long ago a bill had been intro-
duced by the right hon. gentleman the member for Wilts
for making charities liable to poor. rates, and it was then
treated by them as a mere business matter.
When the Chairman put the question that the clause
be withdrawn there were some cries of "Divide I" but ulti-

mately the clause was negatived without a division, amid
loud cheers from the Opposition.

Clause 4, which relates to the s-ame subject, was with
drawn.

On clause 5,

Mr. HUBBARD Paid, as they had now introduced a
graduated scale of income tax, the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer should state how far it was to be carried. Ho him-
self approved of it as applied to industrial incomes.

Mr. HUNT thought the exemption of £6O should be
applied to incomes above £2OO a year.
Mr. PEACOCKE wished to exempt incomes of £lOO a
year, and should move that £lOO be substituted fir £6O.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
hon. gentleman would not press the motion, as the pro-
posal of fixing £6O as the basis had been already recognised.
The amendment was negatived without a division and
the clause agreed to, as was clause 6.
The schedules as amended were also agreed to.
The bill as amended then passed through committee.
STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL.

The debate on this bill as amended was adjourned till
Thursday next.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. HUBBARD moved the omission of the clause
which provided for tho conversion of perpetual into ter-
minable annuities.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion.

After some further conversation,
The amendment was withdrawn.
The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses,
and the house resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (X 20,000,000) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
EXCHEQUER BONDS (£1,000,000) BILL.
This bill was read a third t!me and pa:sed.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND SO-
CIETY WINDING-UP ACT (1861) AMENDMENT
BILL.
Lord C. PAGET moved the second reading of this bill.
After an objection from Mr. LYGON, which was with-
drawn, the bill was read a second time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered and
agreed to.
COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MARRIAGES, &c., (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND)

BILL (STAMP DUTY).
This bill was passed through committee.
The house adjourned at twenty minutes past one o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.


COLCHESTER—MAY 2.
At this corn exchange to-day there was a small show
of wheat, which sold at is per qr advance on last week's
prices, which was reluctantly given by the millers. Spring
corn is dearer, and little doing.
Wheat, white. 46s 56s Beans, Mazagan ..30s 33s
red ..42s 52s middle & small.3ss 42s
Barley —s —s Peas, white 40s 42s
Oats

GLOUCESTER—MAY 2.
To-day there was a moderate supply of English wheat
from the farmers, which held for is per qr advance on the
prices of last week, with a firm trade. Foreign wheat is
to 2s more money, which checked sales. Barley at late
prices. Oats, peas, and beans firm.

CHELMSFORD—MAY 1.
Beat wheat may be quoted at is advance on last week's
currencies, and rather an improvement in the trade. No
change in any other kind of grain.
Wheat, old white...3os 536
new ..35s 49s
old red....37s 46s
new 358 44s
Barley 2',El 36s
Chevalier ..28s 40s
Grinding 22s 31s
Malt....
Chevalier 64s 69s
Oats 2os 28s

l'eas,Pluiridge, 37s 40s
White 39s 40s
Boiling 4os 43s
Dun 35s 38s
Ditto now .. —s —s
Beans, Tick, old 34s 390
new --s --a
Harrow Ticks 3ss 40s
Mazagan 3os 380

KIRKCALDY GRAIN—MAY 2.
We had small supplies of wheat, barley, and oats:brought
forward to-day. Wheat and barley sold much tho same as
last week, and oats 6d to is dearer.
Wheat. Barley. Oats.
First.... 348 Od 23s 6d I 23s 6d
Second ..40s Od 27s Od 25s Od
Third ....—s Od —s Od —s Od

COAL Di:
Prices of Coal per Ton al

.ARJiET.
the close of the market.

s. d.
Bates'sWest Hartley 14 6
Bower's West Hartley 15 0
Wylam 15 0
Carway and Duffryn
Malting , 19 ,6
Hastings Hartley l5 0
Canfield Moor Butes 12 6
Buddle'sWest Hartley 15 0
Cowpen Hartley 13 0
North Pelton Gas 13 0
West Hartley 15 0
Eden Main ..15 0

Walls End.

s d.

Walls End. '''
-
Wharncliffe 14 0
Ships at marks

Hartlepool .16 •
South Hartlepool 16 9
K elloe ..16 3
South K elloe
Heugh Hall 15 6
Ridde11...... l4 0
Haswell. ..... . 17 0
Hetton l7 0
Tunstall
Cassop l6 0
Braddyll's Hetton 16 0
Byron 14 6

it, 49; sold, 26.

Foreign Mail Packet List.

MAILS DUE.
Aup'..ralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. May 19.
via Marseilles May 14.
Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. May 4.
Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena May 3.
China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton May 2.
via Marseilles May 14.
Falkland Islands Ma 4
Gibraltar, via Southampton
.. May 2..
India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton May 2.
via Marseilles May 14.
India (Bombay), via Southampton .. May 11,
via Marseilles May 5.
Portuga1....
Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southampton May 2.
via Marseilles May 5.
Newfoundland
..May 13.
Oporto and Vigo ..
U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... May 7.
by U.S. packet....
b CanaMay 1.
W.C. of Africa, Madeira, and Tey neriffe dian packet.
May 10.
Bahamas, via New York May 7.
Mexico..
All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, }May 14.
California, and British Columbia..

ROYAL COLLEGE OP VETERINARY SURGEONS.—
The annual meeting of this body was held yester-
day at the College, Red Lion-square—the President, Pro-
fessor Simonds, in the chair. The annual report read by
the secretary stated that the number of the members of the
college practising in the kingdom was 1,018, while the num-
ber of those who improperly assumed the title of veterinary
surgeon was 1,244; and those practising as farriers, 1,189.
It was strongly urged by several speakers that legislative
interference should be sought to protect the legitimate
members of the profession from the false representations of
unqualified practitioners, and also to secure immunities and
exemptions from the members in reference to serving as
jurors. After some discussion, the report was unanimously
adopted. The following gentlemen were elected to fill the
vacancies occasioned by the retirement in rotation of six
members of the council :—Messrs. Cartledge, Silvester,
Braby, Jex, Gamjee, and Sacker. A vote of thanks to the
President terminated the proceedings.
[ADVERTISEMENT.)—HoIIoway's Pills.—Liver and Sto-
mach Complaints —On change of weather, excessive exer-
tion, or mental trouble, a distressing pain often arises in
the side, shoulder, or elsewhere. Its known cause is con-
gestion of the liver. Its infallible remedy is Holloway's
Pills. Mr. Roberts, of St. George's-square, Liverpool,
states that after trying countless means for relieving these
oppressive pains without receiving the slightest benefit, he
commenced a course of Holloway's Pills, which forthwith
ameliorated his sufferings and in a short time freed him
from them altogether. All disorders of the stomach are as
readily dispelled. Occasional doses of these purifying Pills
will prevent the liver becoming enlarged, and consequently
will stave off bilious sickness and diarrhoea, and preserve
the complexion:from unhealthy sallowness.