The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-01 00:00:00

the object of the compromise being that the corporations
in question, seven in number, should continue to receive
the differential dues and duties on shipping fox such
a term of years as would enable them to lay b a surplus
sufficient to maintain their charities then existing. The
period of expiration of the longest of these leases was
1372. The institution in which he was himself most in-
terested was the Trinity House of Hull, and that institu-
tion would cease to receive its differential dues and duties
on shipping in the year 1872. The calculation was a close
one, but the result of it showed that at the expiration of
he period there would be a sufficient surplus to maintain
the existing char ties. If the right hon. gentleman came
down upon the surplus to the extent of £550 a year, it
would be insufficient to meet the requirements of the
charities. If the proposi,ion were persevered in, he
hoped the right hon. gentleman would make an excep-
tion in favour of these dues.
Sir J. FERG CI ,SON said he hoped the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in making the statement he had promised
with respect to the extension of the income tax to chari-
ties, would give the House more detailed information as
to the institutions which would probably be affected by it,
Mr. BRINE i said, though approving of the budget as
a whole, he could not give his consent to the proposal for
taxing charities.
The LORD MAYOR disapproved of the extension of
the income tax to charities, remarking that its practical
effect wo Id be to deprive the several charities of the
means of doing good equal to the extent of the tax to be
levied.

hon. friend the member for Leeds said in a portion of his
speech that they would turn out patients and persons now
in the enjoyment of incomes from charitable sources. That
was not the case, because the bill contained a provision for
the protection of individuals, and also another important
provision, that where there was a margin of other funds
from which the tax could be met, in no case should a de-
duction be made from those persons who were beneficiaries,
or recipients of the charity under fixed allowances. He
would undertake to show, when the time arrived, that so
far from the property of charities being in a worse position
than the case of individuals with less than £lOO per an-
num, it would be on a much better footing. The question
was very intricate, and he confessed that he had some diffi-
culty in obtaining the knowledge he required in reference
to it, but he should be prepared to make a clear and full
statement when it came on for discussion on Monday next.
It was desirable that they should approach the discussion
of the matter in a comprehensive manner, and he assured
the house there would be no desire to precipitate a decision
on it, but to give every opportunity for it. being thoroughly
sifted. The proposal had been made on the ground of strict
justice, and it would be for the house to adopt or reject it.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE argued that it was undesirable
to enter into a general discus eon on the subject before the
proper time. Though he disagreed with his noble col-
league that there was any impropriety in the course
adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet he wa-
struck with the observation that it weuld have been de-
sirable to have h ,c 1 a previous discussion in committee on
resolutions which would have put the house in possession
of much of that information without which it was impos-
sible to arrive at a proper decision upon this complicated
question. The bill was now before them, so far as
he could judge front it, no provision was made for pro-
reeling particular funds, such as the Patriotic Fund.
He considered it was desirable that early information should
be given on various matters on which the public mind was
forming itself, in ignorance of the Government proposal.
The right hon. gentleman had said, in answer to a question
put to him, that it was proposed to put the tax on endow-
ments, and not en voluntary contributions. Now, he (Sir
S. Northcote) wished to know what would be done in the
case of a fund such, for instance, as that which had bees
subscribed for the Lancashire distress. The committee were
in possession of more money than they could expend at
once, and, with a view to economy, it was funded and
drawn out as required, and he wished to know if that would
be considered chargeable to the income tax. Ha asked the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the house and the
eou.ntry information to what extent the Government in-
tended to modify the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, with the
indulgence of the house, said the object of the Government
was to lay a tax upon the great mass of public endowments,
and endowments were understood to mean investments of
a permanent character, as distinguished frost investments
of a temporary character, and held as it were for a floating
purpose for carrying out the details of philanthropic plans.
Religious societies depend on their annual subscriptions,
and they were charged to their full extent, and in order to
meet their engagements it was requisite for them to hold
small sums in reserve e hich they sold out in the course of
the year. The proposal of the Government would make
provision for exempting those cases, but he did not think
it wise to perplex the bill with minute details in regard to
them. Ample notice would be given for the consideration
and discussion of the subject.
Mr. WALPOLE said it was difficult to comprehend the
nature of the Government proposition. He thought the
tax would press heavier on the funds of the Bartholomew
Hospital than had been represented by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. The income was stated by the right hon.
gentleman to be £36,000, and the tax no more than £7OO
per annum, but 7d. in the £1 on that sum would amount to
upwards of 1,000 per annum.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the hospital now paid on the officers' dwelling-houses and
salaries about £260 a year.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he never understood that the
bill was intended to apply to voluntary subscriptions.
The important proposition the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to address him-
self to was, whether the recipients of those charities
were to be treated as separate individuals, or whether the
trustees of the charities would be treated as individuals
receiving incomes on which, as individuals, they would
have to pay income tax. Every principle laid down for
taxing charity property had forced itself to that distinction.
The legacy duty of 10 per c nt. was applicable to charities,
where the property was given to trustees in a lump sum for
general distribution; but if it was left to pay sums not ex-
ceeding £l5 to each of the recipients of the charity it paid
no duty, because the sums to be paid were under £2O, the
minimum at wnich legacy duty was paid. That was a
distinction that ought always to be kept in view in dealing
with charity property.
Mr. BAGWELL said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would experience considerable opposition from Irish members
on the point of taxing charities.
Mr. HENLEY said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
informed the house, with great candour, that this was an
intricate question, and that he had experienced some trouble

Mr. BASS would be glad to know on wi at principle it
was proposed to retain the tax on delivery orders,
The CHANCELLOR of the EX...:HEQUER said that
there was no " omnibus" b:11 on the table of the house; he
feared he would be obliged to make au omnibus speech after
the discussion which had taken place. He would therefore
endeavour to satisfy the minds of the hon. members who
had spoken, with respect to their comno nts and questions,
and the house would excuse him if he did so with as much
faithfulness as he was able. To begin with the noble lord
who commenced this debate, he was sorry to be obliged to ex-
press dissent from the statements which had been made by
him ; except with regard to the general dictum very properly
laid down, that it was the duty of the house to bestow great
attention upon every financial proposition submitted to it.
The noble lord said the measure could not be persevered in,
because the word used in the resolution was "chu rgeable," in-
stead of " charged." The noble lord was entirely wrong, and
the distinction between those words had nothing to do with
the question. If the noble lord had taken pains to attend to
the meaning of the technical language which was necessary
in a financial measure, he would have found that what he
thought was not charged was charged. The charge of the
duty, in technical language, was a prior operation, which
was made according to law, and applied to property in cha-
rities as well as to every other description of property. The
noble lord stated that there was a certain proportion of pro-
perty exempted altogether; but to that he should answer
that the exemption was not made according to law, but was
done at the discretion of the Executive Government, from
the almost hopeless task of bringing very small properties
under the charge. He might here say that he agreed with
the noble lord that it was not desirable he should anticipate
the statement on the subject of charities which he had to
make to the house on the part of the Government ; but at
the same time he was bound to say that the statements of
the noble lord were so wild in their nature, that he was
obliged to take notice of the exaggeration which pervaded
them, Among other things, the noble lord said the effect of
the proposition would be to discharge some hundreds of in-
mates from St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Had the noble lord
ascertained the cost of patients in the London hospitals, and
the burden which would be cast by this proposal on St.
Bartholomew's Hospital? He would show what the nature
of that burden was. He could not speak minutely or pre-
cisely, because his knowledge of the cost of cases in the hos-
pitals was only derived from statistical documents. The
cost of an in-patient in the London hospitals generally was
X 25 a year; the cost in St. Bartholomew's was perhaps a
little higher; but the noble lord would probably set him
right.

Lord R. CECIL—As the right hon. gentleman wished to
be accurate, he might tell him, on the authority of a state-
ment made by the treasurer of St. Bartholomew's, that the
result of the proposal on that hospital would be that several
hundreds of in-patients and several thousands of out. pa-
tients would be annually excluded from the bentfits of the
institution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued
—He was bound to receive with respect any statement
coming from such a quarter; but this he should say, that
the amount of tax which would be laid upon the property
of St. Bartholomew's would be little more than £7OO. Its
income was £36,000 a year, and, after deducting £261, which
was now paid from a little more than £l,OOO, the gro-s
amount which would be levied and the addition which would
be charged under the new arrangement would be a little
more than £7OO. What compensation it got for that sum he
would show at a future period. The noble lord the member
for Stamford complained that he had attempted in committee
to force a final discussion upon the subject, and had abridged
the opportunity for discussion. He had done no such thing,
nor had he in any way departed from the usual forms. The
hon. baronet who followed the noble lord argued that the
imposition of the small charges, which it was now proposed
to repeal was a false step ; but he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) was not prepared to admit any such conclusion;
for although he thought that it would be inexpedient that
those charges should permanently remain, yet at the time
they were imposed they were necessary instruments for ef •
fecting great financial relief to the country and great ad-
ministrative reforms. His hon. friend the member for Derby
asked why not also give up all the other charges imposed in
1860. But he saw no reason why a charge, because it was
imposed in 1860, should be given up in 1863. The charge
which was called the "penny impost" entailed considerable
labour, was an impediment to the progress of business and oc-
casioned an expenditure of a good deal of time; but the charge
in which the hon. member was interested did not entail
anything of the kind. And it was the intention of the
Government to adhere to the declaration he had made in
their name about the surplus, which in the present state of
the finances of the country they proposed to reserve, and
steadily to resist to the best of their power all attempts at its
diminution. The hon. baronet the member for Evesham said
that this was not a moment for pressure, and therefore not

and difficulty in understanding it. If it was so intricate
and difficult as the right non, gentleman had stated, how
was it possible that any hon. member unconnected with the
Government could understand the question he would be
called upon to vote on Monday with the imperfect informa-
tion they then possessed? The intricacy of the subject
showed its importance. He understood the right hon.
gentleman to say that the operation of the measure was not
to be retrospective, but there was no information on that
point. He had tried to form the best opinion he could upon
the bill, but it was like a thick hedge, through which no
man could get bileyts, much mole his head and body.
(Laughter.) He hoped the house would have more time to
consider the matter. The right hon.gentleman described this
as a just measure, but it was the first time he (Mr. Henley)
had heard it said it was just to rob the poor; and he ven-
tured to say that that was the first time such a notion of
justice had entered the head of a Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. The right hon. gentleman considered it right
to tax the poor, the halt, the lame, and the blind, and
that was his new system of justice. It was, however,
to be hoped that the house would have time to fully dis-
cuss that new code of justice before they were asked to
adopt it. He thought the proposition should be printed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that he said the new tax would take between COO and £BOO
a year from St. Bartholomew's Hospital. With regard to
the intricacy of the question his remark had reference not
to the intricacy of the proposition, for that was very plain,
but ti the present law. The Government proposition was
very intelligible, but if hon. members wished for further
information he should be ready and willing to give it.
After a few remarks from Lord LovAINE,
Sir M. FARQUHAR said the proposal was of great im•
portance and of universal interest to the public, and it was
de.irable to know the precise effect of the Government pro-
position. He called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to allow ample time for the consideration of his proposal.
Lord J. MANNERS said the house did not want any
Pxplanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the
existing law. Hon. members on both sides were periecily
conversant with the law, at d, what was more, they were I
perfectly content with it. (Heat.) What they wanted to
know was the intention of the right hon, gentleman with I
respect to that law.
_ _

a moment when any small addition to the revenue of the
country ought to be proposed. The ground on which they
rested, and on which they desired to stand or fall, was
simply the ground of fairness and justice. If their proposals

were just to the country, let the house adopt them ; if
they were unjust, by no means let it import any unjust
charge into their financial system, even if the necessities
of the country were greater than they were. The hon.
baronet also said that during the last two years there had
been a deficiency of £5,010,000. He was at a loss to dis-
cover it; for, although there was a deficiency in 1831.62,
the surplus in 1862.63 more than restored the balance. His
hon, friend the member for Buckingham had revived the
whole subject of the income tax, and had put to him six
_ _

questions. But with the greatest respect he should beg to
be relieved at the present time from answering them (Hear,
hear.) They had already had two debates on the income
tax, and if a third were required it was impossible to mix a

up a general discussion of this kind with that upon the

stages of the financial bill of the year. The hon. member
also demanded that he should give him his views as to the
future of the income tax. He was entitled to make that de•
mend ; but in complying with it he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was also entitled to limit it to what was safe
and prudent. (Hear, hear.) He certainly had had warn-
ings on the subject. (Laughter.) In 1853 he made a com-
putation, and submitted it to the house, upon the belief that
the expenditure of the country was likely to continue at the
level at which it then stood. In 1857, after the Russian
war, the disposition of the country led to a great augmen-
tation of that expenditure. He resisted it, but he was in a
minority. They had now a different scale of expenditure,
and most certainly, having once seen it raised, it was not
for him to determine what might be in future years the pro-
spective wants of the country, or to venture on any rash
prophecy as to what would be its expenditure. (Hear.) He
however saw no reason why the limit of its expenditure
should rise higher. He saw great reason to hope that it
might fall lower, but beyond that he was not disposed to go.
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the creation of revenue, in his
opinion, if the country could meet its expenditure with a sum
of from £63,000,000 to £65,000,000, then at some future and
short period of time it would be possible to carry on the
government of the country without resorting to an income
tax. (Hear, hear.) The question whether they should
resort to an income tax in time of peace was one of the
gravest that could be conceived, because while on the one
hand objections could be urged against it, on the other hand,
the recommendation of the tax was that it had the tendency
of equalising the burden of taxation as between the higher
and lower classes of society. (Hear.) An hon. member
(Mr. Hunt) wished to know what the effect would be if the
£6O deduction were carried through all classes of income.
The means of computation which they had at command
were only of a partial character ; but the result might be
thus stated. They took the area of taxation of incomes
between £lOO and £l5O a year at £13,500,000 ; and upon
that the relief would amount to £160,000. Between £l5O
and £2OO the amount was £3,222,000, and on that the relief
would cost £24o,ooo—the sum of both being £300,000.
They took the amount of the higher class of incomes at
£17,700,000. The extension of the £6O deduction to that
class would amount to £514,000, and over and above
the others, giving as the cost of deduction on all classes a

Lord H. VANE must also join in expressing a hope that
he question would not be pressed upon the house unti,

sufficient time had been allowed for consideration. (Hear,
hear.) There was no doubt that a very strong feeling had

arisen adverse to the proposal, and that it was regarded by
very many as a retrograde policy. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON recommended that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer should take until to-morrow to decide as
to his course. In his view the right hon. gentleman ought
to make an e, planatory statement on Monday, and then
allow of a sufficient interval for deliberation, before calling
upon the hou.e to come to a vote with respect to the proposal.
Mr. MAL INS pronounced the proposal to tax charities
a most impolitic one, although he considered the budget as
a whole the best which the right hon. gentleman had ever
produced.

Mr. KINNAIRD concurred in the recommendation that
ample time should be allowed for the consideration of the

queillioo.

Mr. CARDWELL impressed upon the house the desira-
bility of refraining from a discussion of the subject piece-
meal, but to await the explanatory statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
The bill was then read a second time.
STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this

The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose to
explain its provisions. He said that the machinery for
the administration of the public debts of the country
was somewhat peculiar; still it was most adccirable for
its purpose, and was marked with the greatest possible skill
and efficiency by the Bank of England, as well as by the
Bank of Ireland. Nor, in introducing this bill, did the Go-
vernment desire to make any fundamental change in the
system, although at the same time it was capable of itn-
provemenr. In the first place, it did not offer the greatest
possible facilities to those who found it necessary to borrow
money on the security of stuck ; and therefore, an important
object of this bill was to establish the most perfect freedom
in regard to the borrowing of money on the security of stock,
by the creation of stock certificates
payable to bearer, which
might be transferred from hand to hand with the same faci-
lity as a bank note, The bill would be a groat convenience,
and bring more buyers and holders into the market, It
would also create dealing in stock in foreign and provincial
markets at present almost unknown. Though an anti-
centralising measure, and one likely to affect to a certain
extent the business of the broker and banker, it had been
received with general approval in London, The provisions
of the bill were as follows—lt proposed to give every holder
of stock the option of exchanging his registered stock for
certificates to bearer, with interest payable by coupon. The
period for which interest eh uld run was a matter for consi-
deration, which would be determined upon the best advice,
if the bill passed into law, though it was not likely that it
would be for less than five years or for more than ten years.
Tho transfers of stock into these new certificates would only
be, in round numbers, carrying them down as low as certifi-
cates of -.650, capital representing a
yearly interest of 30s,
and a half-yearly interest of los. The benefits of the bid

sum of £914,000. He did not know what effect that state:
ment might have on the mind of the hon. member, but he

thought it was conclusive that it would be a wanton and

purposeless waste of public money if they were to extend
the exemption upwards as suggested. (Hear.) It might be
. _ _

said that it would be convenient to persons with incomes of
£3OO, but he owned that he was not willing to depart from
the traditional limit which always recognised the sum of
£2OO as the highest amount at which the exemption should
attach. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet (Sir J. Fergusson)
referred to charities with mixed receipts from endow.
manta, fees,
and contributions, but in their case
the proposal of the Government only referred to
charitable endowments. With regard to passing tolls, he
received that morning a statement of the case from
which he understood that there was a compact between the
Government and the parties, and if it turned out to be so,
the case would by no means fall within the proposal, His

r THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAI!" 1, 1863.

would be the facility of circulation, the universality of
holders, and the freedom from restraint in money dealings.
It might occur to the minds of gentlemen approaching the
onsideration of the question for the first time, whether
there was a likelihood of these certificates being exten-
sively, commonly, or even rarely forged. Of course, the
best means would be adopted to prevent such delinquency ;
but the guidance of experience showed that there was very
little danger on this score. Another difficulty might arise
from fraud when held by the joint holders. In the case of
ordinary commercial partnership it would be unwise to at-
tempt by law to secure partner against partner. But in the
case of trustees, the bill would make it a breach of trust to
take these securities ; and in addition to that it was proposed
that notice of this disability should be printed on the certi-
ficates. It wee proposed that the bank should at once pro-
vide the means of effecting this new description of conver-
sion as regards Consols and the New Three per Cents,, re•
serving the power to extend it to the other descriptions of
stuck. On the same principle as Exchequer bills were drawn,
it was proposed to make these certificates payable to blank
or bearer, so that if any one, for tne sake of security from
abstraction, liked to insert his own name he could do so at
the sacrifice of some of the facility of transfer which he
would otherwise enjoy. The bill would possibly affect the
revenue of the country in a slight degree, by necessitating
increased remuneration to the bank fer the increased
trouble it would entail. It would also probably cause a loss,
from foreign holsters of certificates not being liable to pro-
bate euty. It was proposed to charge a maximum fee of 1
per cent. for the original conversion of registered stock to
certificates to bearer, with an additional tee when the num-
ber of certificates exceed a certain proportion is the amount
of stock held. A fee would also be charged where nomi-
nal certificates were exchanged to certificates to bearer.
With regard to the issue of certificates t bearer, taking
counsel with the hon. gentleman behind him (Mr. Hodg-
son), and the best advisers he could find, they were of
opinion that when they were going to have the national
debt rept essnted in one d .cument, which should have no
relation whatever to any particular place, but circulate
uniformly as tar it could go, that it should be one, and
issued in one place. (Hear,) But he found there was a
very strong desire in Ireland that the Bank of Ireland
should have the power of issuing its own certificates to
bearer; and in point of tact there was good ground for such
a demand There was a distinct national debt for Ireland
which had its centre in the Bank of Ireland, as well as the
in in portion had its cent re in tee Bank of England; and
having bad an interview that day with the members for
tubltn, and other gentlemen from Ireland, he would make
arrangements for the issuing of certificates to bearer in Ire-
land as well as in E gland. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUN T, after stating that the house had reason to
be thankful to the right hon. gentleman for the lucid state.
ment he had made, suggested certain cases of fraud in con-
nection with trust funds, and other descriptions of property,
which he was afraid the bill would not prevent.
Mr. AIALINS expressed his thanks to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer for his measure, which be was sure would
be a great boon to the public. With regard to the fears ex-
pressed by the hon. member for Northamptonshire, they
were for the mcst part imaginary. His principal object in
rising was to euggew, as tne right hon. gentlemen had taken
a step in the right direction by giving increased facilities for
dealing in stocks, that he would go a little further and intro-
duce some arrangement which would enable the owners of
stock to have their dividends paid to their bankers, upon
writing to the Bank of England requesting it to be done.
Mr. HODGSON said, from all the information they
were enabled to possess, the amount of frauds in funded
property was exceedingly small. The Bank of England
never acknowledged trusts of any kind, so that the pro-
posed alteration would make no difference in that par-
ticular, and he believed there would be no greater means
of having frauds committed by trustees under the pre-
sent bill than before. With regard to the suggestion of
the honourable member for Wallingford, all he could say
was, that if tbo honourable member would open an ac-
count with them at the Bank, and give them power of
attorney, they would be happy to do all his business,.
(Laughter, and hear, hear.) He believed the proposal of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do great good, and
would encourage foreigners to invent still more largely in
English funds, At present there were £18,000,000 invested
in the funds of the National Debt by foreigners resident
abroad. He thought the proposed measure for Ireland would
also be productive of great benefits to that country. (Hear,
hear.)
The house then went into committee.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, the words
"Reduced Three per Cent. Annuities" were inserted after
"Consolidated Annuities" in clause 2, giving thus the same
advantage to both descriptions of stock.
The other clauses were agreed to, and the bill passed
through committee.
TELEGRAPHS BILL.
Mr. M. GIBSON moved the third reading of this bill.
Lord A. CHURCHILL moved the third reading of the
bill this day six months. He aid so because in the former
stages of the bill its details, and not its principle, were dis-
cussed. The bill had been mutilated and restricted in its
operations from the opposition that had been made to it, in
order to confirm the monopoly of existing telegraph compa-
nies. The powers of the bill had been mistaken, and be as-
sured the house there was no desire on the part of its pro •
motera to act in the arbitrary manner that had been attri-
buted to them (which had been in some instances adopted
by existing companies) by the opponents of the measure.
The subject generally had better be reconsidered. There
should be a consolidation of the existing telegraph acts.
Sir F. SMITH seconded the amendment.
Mr. F. S. POWELL considered the measure a very use-
ful one, although it might not be quite perfect.
Mr. M. GIBSON hoped the noble lord would not press
his amendment to a division, but that he would take his
chance in another place of introducing whatever amend-
net nts he deemed necessary.
Upon that Lord A. CHURCHILL withdrew his amend-
ment, and the bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (420,000,000) BILL.
The bill passed through committee.
EXCHEQUER BON DS (410,000,000).
This bill likewise passed through committee.
BOROUGH RESIDENCE UNIFORM MEASURE-
MENT BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,

Mr. M'CA.NN moved that the order be discharged.
Mr. DENMAN, in seconding the motion, said that mem-
bers had not been treated with the usual courtesy in their
being kept there all night uncertain whether the bill would
be brought on.
Mr. VANCE said that was the first occasion on which
he had seen advantage taken of the casual absence of the
member having charge of a bill to move its discharge.
There was a distinct arrangement between himself and the
hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) who lent his
opposition to it, that the bill was not to be brought on be-
fore ten o'clock.
After some observations from Mr. HUNT and Mr. K.
ELUCkESSEN,
Sir M. W. RIDLEY moved that the debate be ad-
journed.

Mr. WHITESIDE and Sir G. GREY having addressed
the house,
Mr. S. COLLINS, who had chargelof the bill, proceeded
to speak in support of the bill, and against time. The hon.
member continued to address the house for more than an
hour, amidst continu 'us groans and cries of " divide," his
avowed object being to postpone the decision until his
friends, who had promised to support the bill, should have
returned to the house
Mr. NASH said the bill was a job, and that it ought to
be denounced as a bill for the encouragement of bribery and
corruption.
Sir H. BRUCE supported the bill.
Mr. BUUVEItIE suggested the withdrawal of the mo-
tion before the house, and then take the division lon the
motion for going into committee. The hon. member for
Knaresborough had made the singular complaint that
his bill had come on before he expected, and therefore he
had spoken against time to allow hon. members to come
down to the house to supp.rt his motion for going into com-
mittee. He repeated what had been said on a former occa-
sion, that the rules of the house were made by gentlemen
for gentlemen, but if they were to be violated as they had
been in this instance, the sooner they were altered the bet-
ter. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON defended the hon. member for
Knaresborough from the unjustifiable attack that had been
made on him. He however approved of the suggestion of
taking the division on the motion for going into committee.
Mr. LIDDELL and Sir M. FARQUHARSON also defended
the hon. member for Knaresborough from the imputation
that had been cast on him by the right hoz. gentleman the
member for Kilmarnock. They supported the bill.
Mr. B. CARTER thought that when a bill of great im-
portance was on the paper members had a right to expect
that the gentleman who had charge of it would either be in
his place to move the second reading, or that he would get
some one to move it for him.
Ater some observations from Major HAMILTON,
Sir M. RI DLEY withdrew his amendment for the ad •
journment of the debate; and
Mr. M`CANN withdrew his amendment that the order
of the day for going into committee on the bill b. 3 discharged.
Mr. BOUVERIE then moved that the house go into
committee on the bill that day six months.
The house divided, with the following result :
Aes 139
Noyes
Majority —43
The amendment was therefore carried, and the bill was
lost.

JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND)
BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
After a short discussion between Mr. Whiteside, the At-
torney• General, Mr. I. Butt, and Mr. George, the chairman
was ordered to report progress.
MARRIAGES, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.
On the report of this bill several amendments were
agreed to.

ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION.
Sir J. FERGUSSON obtained leave to bring in a bill to
regulate tho compensation for accidents.
The bill was accordingly brought in and read a first time.
TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) ACT
AMENDMENT.
Mr. BAGWELL also obtained leave and brought in a