The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 2, 1854.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
CONDITION OF CALCUTTA.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Calcutta, complaining of the inefficient
manner in which that city is lighted, drained, and cleansed,
under the local municipal act of 1852, and praying fcr
municipal institutions similar to those enjoyed by towns
in the United Kingdom. After entering at some length
into the subject, the noble earl concluded by asking the
Government whether they were prepared to take any
steps to remedy the evils complained of.
Earl GRANVILLE said that as these were all purely
local matters, with which the Governor-General in coun-
cil and the local authorities were perfectly competent to
deal, he would not recommend their lordships to inter-
fere with them.
THE INCOME TAX BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE, in moving the order of the day
for going into committee on this bill, said he had no in-
tention of entering into a history of the income tax; and
he should not now have alluded to what took place last
year, but for the observations which had recently been
made in this house. A noble friend of his had observed
that there was great want of forethought on the part of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in abandoning, at a time
when he anticipated war, so important a source of re-
venue as the soap duty; that when the Government came
into office there was an ample revenue for all purposes,
yet they wantonly threw away 1,000,0001. a year in soap
duties, and substituted for it a tax which produced five
times that amount. Now, if there were one feeling
stronger than another, whether in or out of Parliament,
it was that it had become absolutely necessary for the in-
come tax either to be repealed or its inequalities to be mo-
dified. And this feeling had certainly been much encourag-
ed by what had taken place on the part of the late Govern-
ment. With a laudable desire to meet this feeling, they
announced in Parliament that it was a part of their
plan to make certain modifications in these inequalities.
But when their plan was propounded, it was felt to be
incomplete and immature, and its only effect was to in-
crease the public expectation that her Majesty's present
Government would deal with the impost. His right
hoe. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accord-
ingly
applied a degree of labour to the consideration of
the question, so as to master its principles and the
working of its details, which he believed had hardly
ever been bestowed by any public man upon a single
question whilst engaged in the discharge of the other
duties of his office. He had had associated with him
several other members of the Government, and after
the most anxious consideration, they had come to the
conclusion, which every ministry had of late come to,
except the Government of noble lords opposite, that it was
impossible to modify the income tax without increasing,
instead of diminishing its inequality and injustice, and
that if they meddled with it at all they would impair its
utility as a means of supplying the revenue. With the
expectations which had been raised on the part of the
country on the one hand, and with this opinion of the
Government on the other, it appeared to him absolutely
necessary either to give the tax up altogether or retain
it in its present shahs. By the admirable arguments of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accompanied by a pro-
position which met with the favour of the House of Com-
mons and the country, on account of its justice, its com-
prehensiveness, and the fact that it relieved to a consi-
derable extent—as in the case of the repeal of the soap
duty—both the manufacturers of the country and the
wants of the poorer classes of the people, the House of
Commons and the country were induced to accept the
income tax again. It was now proposed by the bill on
the table to double the first half-year's income tax. This
would give 3, 300,000/., which with the surplus of last year
would go to make ap the deficiencies upon the expendi-
ture of 56,000,000/., already sanctioned by the House of
Commons. The proposition was a simple one. The bill
merely enacted that during the first half-year double one
half-year's income tax should be paid ; the objects being
two—one, that as a direct tax, unlike an indirect, could
only be collected within 6 or 9 months subsequently to
its becoming due, the whole charge might be received in
the current year; the other, that if circumstances should
require it, Government might be enabled to come before
parliament and make a second call.
Lord BROUGHAM stated that he retained all his
former objections to the income tax. He still thought
that a tax upon income derived from capital ought to be
different from a tax upon income derived from labour ;
and that of all taxes a tax upon income was the worst,
with the exception of taxes upon food, taxes upon know-
ledge, and taxes upon the administration of justice. But
owing to the war in which we were engaged, the ex-
penses of which must be paid, the income tax was not
only necessary, but it was necessary to double it; and on
this ground alone he assented to it.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said the late Govern-
ment had been turned out upon their financial policy ;
and therefore it was the more incumbent upon the pre-
sent Government to show that their financial policy en-
titled them to the confidence of the country. Glancing
at Mr. Gladstone's several propositions, he contended
that all his expectations had proved illusory. He must
have known that war with Russia was impending when
he was proposing reductions of taxation and conversions
of stock. War, however, was now declared ; and then
Mr. Gladstone expressed an opinion that the present
generation might support the burden, and that the
doubling of the income tax for the present would be suf-
ficient. He took a different view on both these points.
A new financial scheme had now been proposed. The
success of this plan appeared to be doubtful. In con-
clusion the noble earl said he should not oppose the mo-
tion, hut he left the house to decide whether the results
of Mr. Giadstone's policy had arisen from ignorance or
incapacity.
Lord MONTEAGLE contended at great length that
our financial position at the present moment was anoma-
lous if not dangerous. In spite of increased revenue and
prosperity we were in difficulties from the measures pro-
posed by the Government, among which he chiefly in-
cluded the reduction of interest upon Exchequer bills.
The effect was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
called upon to raise 3,000,0001. in money at great incon-
venience, to pay off these bills, and to re-issue them at a
higher rate of interest. More had been done by this
transaction to destroy the character of these securities
than at any period during the whole century and a half
that they had been in existence. The abortive schemes
for dealing with the funded debt had also been produc-
tive of great inconvenience. The balances in the Ex-
chequer had been reduced 5,081,0001. between April,
1853, and 1854, in consequence of these operations. Mean-
while a war budget had been carried, inasmuch as a sum
of 4,315,000/. had been voted, in addition to the ordi-
nary estimates for the army, navy, and ordnance ser-
vices. The balances thus reduced by the financial opera-
tions of last year entailed danger not only to the work-
ing of the Bank Act of 1844, but great injury to the
commercial interest, by limiting the means at the com-
mand of the Bank for its accommodation. And whilst
the balances had been exhausted the sinking fund had
been absorbed, not in the paying off of debt, but in cur-
rent expenditure. The keystone of the system of the
Government was, as explained by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that the supplies of the year should be raised
within the year. But on the 21st of April, when Parlia-
iiament was not sitting, an official notice appeared stating
that 6,000,0001. was required, and would be raised in
the very manner which all the previous declarations of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had repudiated. He
expressed considerable doubts as to the expediency of
this proposal ; and he cautioned the Government against
unnecessarily meddling with public credit, and against
fanciful systems of experiment with the finances of the
country.
The Duke of ARGYLL, replying to the observations
of the Earl of Malmesbury, contended that when the
financial measures of the Government were prepared
they had not, from the assurances given by the Emperor
of Russia, any reason to anticipate a state of war. Al-
luding to Lord Monteagle's observations, ho contended
that they exaggerated the actual state of things ; that
he had carefully left out of consideration the existence
of a state of war and the deficiency of the harvest last
year, circumstances which were enough to disturb the
calculations of any minister ; but he submitted that with
_an increasing revenue and with a Considerable balance
of income over ordinary expenditure, both which the
noble lord had admitted, there was no reason for des-
pondency. Under these circumstances he considered
the speech of the noble lord as rather uncalled for, and
as calculated to increase the difficulties which he had
described.
Earl GREY said the house was greatly indebted to
Lord Monteag!e for the able manner in which he had
examined the financial arrangements of the Government;
and the answer made by the noble duke he regarded as
eminently unsatisfactory. Though he could not agree
with Lord Malmesbury, he was certainly not prepared
to give that unmixed praise to the financial policy of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been claimed by
the noble duke, inasmuch as the result of that policy
had been to cause a considerable loss to the public. Our
present financial position was extremely serious. He was
alarmed at the low state of the public balances, and still
more at the language held elsewhere in defending their
reduction, because it calculated upon the whole amount
of dividends not being called for when due, and upon
accruing revenue to discharge the balance. This was
the course pursued by " gentlemen in difficulties" when
they told their tradesmen to call again, and he cautioned
the house against a system which might lead to a
notion in the public that there was not money in
the Bank to pay them. Their lordships should guard
against a policy which threatened to lead to such conse-
quences, and which, therefore, he characterized as rash
and dangerous. He had, indeed, no confidence in the
financial foresight of the Government.
After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE,
Earl GRANVILLE replied in considerable detail to
the objections urged against the financial policy of the
Government, which he vindicated in all its main points.,
htihes adjourned.
then passed committee ; after which
their lordships bloridlslp

HOUSE OF COINIMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.

The house then went into committee on the Oxford
University Bill.
On clause 1, which appoints the commissioners,
Mr. HORS lAN moved an amendment that the clause
should be postponed, with a view to leaving out the names
of the Bishop of Ripen, Lord Ellesmere, Mr Justice
to the Bishop
Cole-
ridge, and Sir J. Audrey.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to this course, contending
that those gentlemen were in all respects qualified to at :t
as commissioners. .
Mr. HORSMAN repeated his objection, more especi?lly
Coleridge,tlp entitled t
butre respect e
thee t thanlues t
itohne
was, Were
e roof
mirr.tismoeTtHo of Ripon, as be contended a bishop nad
ample duties to attend to in his own diocese.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said no two individuals were more
theyi able 1 cant and
devote.jn g
EsußchONan tihnoqulrYht atshtehiastlempt to erase from
the bill the first clause, which appcduted tb.o Qomplisioners,

seemed like takin:* Off- the head and leaving nothing but the
trunk. He hoped the house would d s no account consent
to postpone the clr.use.
After some remarks from Mr. Heywood, Aft. I3lo)clietti
and Mr. Wigram,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if he understood the discussion aright, it turned partly on
the general question as to the fixing of the names at the
commencement or close of the eommittee, and partly on
the names themselves. Of course, the house by passing
names now, would not be precluded from the substitution
of other names hereafter. He believed that there was no
choice between giving the largest discretionary power and
adopting propositions of the broadest character. He held
that it was the duty of Government to appoint men who
would be satisfactory to those whose whole life and hopes
were bound up in the welfare of the University. Objec-
tions bad been urged against two of the proposed commis-
sioners, Mr. Justice Coleridge and the Dean of Wells, on
the ground of their religious views. It had been properly
replied to that objection by an hon. member who had
spoken, that those were matters which ought not to be dis-
cussed there; but he might observe, that he believed the
statements put forward in that respect wore not justified
by fact. Then Sir J. Awdrey was objected to because he
was supposed to have expressed dissent from the bill ; but
having received Sir J. Awdrey's evidence, his (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's) opinion of the general tenor of
that evidence was that it was conceived entirely in accord-
ance with the spirit of the bill. What were the views Sir
J. Awdrey had expressed ? That college ought not to
maintain the monopoly of instruction—that it was doubt-
ful whether the oaths ought to be retained, and that the
restriction of holy orders in reference to fellowships ought
to be relaxed.
Mr. HEYWOOD—But as to Dissenters?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHAQUER was not
aware that there w,is anything about Dissenters in the bill ;
but what he contended was, that generally the evidence of
Sir J. Awdrey was in accordance with the spirit of the bill.
Then the hon. gentleman wanted a scientific man ; but, if
he had searched through the University, it was doubtful
whether in general acquirements, including science, a man
could be found equal to the Dean of Wells. He obtained
the highest scholarship in the university ; took a double
first class in classics and mathematics ; and had filled the
professorships of astronomy and moral philosopy. Then
it was said these commissioners had other duties to occupy
their time. If it were desired to reform any institution—
to improve its organisation, instead of disorganising it—
they must carry with them the confidence of those with
whom they had to deal, and must appoint men to carry
out that reform in whom the institution had confidence,
and in whom Parliament had confidence ; for this, it was
necessary to appoint men of great experience, and ability,
and honour, and tried prudence ; but where were such men
to be found if they were to be precluded from making
choice of men already filling high and important stations ?
With regard to the Bishop of Ripon—when be was re-
quested by the Government to allow himself to be nomi-
nated as one of the commissioners—the first thing he did
was to write to say that his diocese had the first claim upon
his care, and before ho could consent he must know that
the nature of the duties required of him were such as he
could discharge without interfering with the duties of his
diocese. The bishop was informed that what would be
required of him was a general supervision in the framing
of general rules, and not the dealing with a large mass of
details, which would be left to the secretaries.
. Mr. DISRAELI protested against the principle which
he understood had been laid down by the right hon. gen-
tleman that what they were to decide was not so much
the clauses of the bill as who were to be the administrators
to whom the carrying out of those clauses was to be en-
trusted. No principle could be more dangerous. What
he contended was, that they should first settle what was to
be done, and then deliberate as to who were the most com-
petent to do it, and to fill the offices to be established, and
not permit themselves to be influenced in their decisions
upon the clauses of the bill by the character and position
of those whom it was proposed to appoint as trustees to
carry them into effect.
Sir J. PAKINGTON inquired in whom the appoint-
ment of the secretary would be vested, and who was to be
appointed ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that it had not yet been
fixed who should fill the office of secretary ; if it were de-
sired he should have no objection to introduce the names
at a later period, otherwise the crown would appoint them
and fix the salaries.
After a few words from Mr. HORSMAN, the committee
divided.
For the clause 169
For the amendment
Majority for the Government ---28
The clause was agreed to, as was clause 2, and, after some
discussion, clause 3. A long debate took place on the wording
of that part of clause 4 which prescribes that no oath taken
by any officer of the University shall be pleadable in bar of the
authority of the commissioners • Sir Wm. Heatbcote moved
the omission of these wordsand the substitution of a modified
proviso not making mention of any oath. On division this
amendment was negatived by 118 to 69, majority, 49;
and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 5, which substitutes the Hebdomadal Council
for the Hebdomadal Board,
Mr. WALPOLE explained the grounds of amendment
which he proposed to the sixth clause, which provides
for the composition of the council. His amendments
went to increase the number of heads of colleges or halls,
who were to be part of the council, from six to seven, and
to do the same as regarded the professors, and to provide
that, instead of such heads being elected by the congre-
gations, they should be selected from among themselves
by the heads of colleges or halls, and to make similar pro-
vision in regard to the selection by the professors from
among themselves.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER removed
front clause 5 some words connecting it with the provi-
sions for the composition of the council ; and, after dis-
cussion and a protest from Mr. NEWDEGATE, the clause
was agreed to.
On clause 6, Mr. Walpole's amendments being moved,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entered
into argument to show their inexpediency, urgint that the
word clique seemed expressly invented to describe the li-
mited constituencies they would create, and that the whole
bill was passed on trust and confidence in the men for
whom legislation was being attempted.
A long discussion followed, in the course of which
Mr. NEWDEGATE protested against the depriving the
government of the University of its free and popular cha-
racter, and instanced, as one of its merits, that convocation
very nearly crushed the Tractarian heresy at its oustet.
Mr. LOWE ridiculed the pictura drawn by Mr. Newde-
gate, and in turn referred to the discreditable spectacle of
men having been brought up in hundreds from all corners
of the kingdom to condemn Dr. Hampden's book, which
few of them had read. He spoke from experience in de-
scribing the Government of the University as an oligarchy.
Mr. HENLEY contended that the proposed plan would
throw the whole power into the hands of the younger
members, who would be an oligarchy of about a hundred.
He also avowed much apprehension of the increased in-
fluence of Tractarianism from the new constitution, in
which the clerical element was far too prevalent.
Mr. E. DENISON, Sir W. HEATHCOTE, and other mem-
bers having taken part in the discussion, the committee
divided on the amendment relating to the election of the
heads, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
For the original clause
Majority against Government —l3
Mr. WALPOLE then (as we understood) suggested that
the words in the clause giving the Chancellor the power to
appoint one of the heads of houses to be a member'of the
hebdomadal council should be omitted.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there was no objection to the
omission of the words, and they were accordingly struck
out.
Mr. WALPOLE said that his next amendment, which
proposed that " the six professors of the council should
be elected by the professors from ameng themselves,"
was the same in principle as that which had just been
agreed to, and would probably be consented to by the
Government.
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted that this amendment was
virtually included in the decision to which the house had
come, and he would therefore agree to it.
A conversation then followed with regard to the struc-
ture of the clause, and the distribution o the members of
the council among the elective body.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
to drop the seventh professor, and that the wording of the
clituse should stand thus, " six professors to be selected
from themselves."
Mr. HORSMAN objected to that, as it would greatly
reduce the professorial element of the Hebdomadal
council.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked
what the movers of the former amendment meant by the
term " to be selected."
Mr. WALPOLE explained that the heads of houses
would select from among themselves by election those per-
sons whom they chose to invest with the powers of their
representatives.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that he should persist in the insertion of the words,
" one other such professor to be separately elected by the
professors."
Mr. DISRAELI did not object to this seventh profes-
sor, but the seventh should be elected by the professors of
theology ; and he should therefore move the addition of
the words "of theology."
The committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against... • l4B-13
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was proposed to amend the
end of the clause, so as to make it agree with the changes
already made in it; but at that hour (12 o'clock) he would
not proceed further with the committee.
The house then resumed, and Thursday next was fixed
for the further proceeding with the bill.
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
bill,
• Mr. R. PHILLIMORE said that as the Attorney-Gene-
ral had assured him of his intention to carry a measure on
this subject through the house during the present session,
he should not press the present bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested with some vehe-
mence against the idea that he had promised to carry a bill
on a subject of such difficulty during the present session.
What he had promised to do was to prepare a bill, which
he hoped he should be able to introduce this year.
The bill was then withdrawn.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC REGULATION
BILL.
Mr. CARDWELL moved that this bill be committed
pro forma, in order to insert amendments. He had been
in communication with the principal railway companies,
I. and he thought he should be able to make some changes in
the machinery of the bill that would make it carry out its
objects in a better manner.
The bill then passed through committee pro forma.
WITNESSES BILL.
Mr. I. BUTT moved the second reading.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the object of the
measure was to enable courts of justice to issue subpcenas
to persons residing in any part of the United Kingdom ;
but it contained no machinery for the enforcement of such
subpcenas. It would be better to adopt the plan of requir-
ing the court in whose jurisdiction the witness lived to in-
dorse the writ.
Mr. BUTT promised to insert a clause in committee for
that purpose, and after some conversation,
The bill was read a second time.
WAYS AND MEANS.
The report of the Committee on Ways and Means was
brought up and agreed to.
DUBLIN PORT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
THE MILITIA LAWS.
Lord PALMERSTON moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the militia laws. The bill was intended to alter
the law in one respect only. By the act of 47th Geo. 111.
.the.crown had the power of embodying the militia only in
case of an invasion or danger thereof, or in case of rebellion.
In the present state of things, considering how large a por-
tion of the regular army had been sent abroad, and con-
idering the time that taut elapse before troops could be

enlisted to fill their place, it was of importance that Go-
vernment should avail themselves of the service of the
militia. lie was happy to say that the country, though at
war with Russia, was not in danger of invasion ; but it was
important that the law should enable the crown to avail
itself of the services of the militia. The object of the bill
was to enable the crown to embody the militia whenever
the country was in a state of war. He also proposed to take
power, that if the militia were called out, and there should
be occasion for continuing it for 56 days, that that should
be done without the necessity of giving fresh notice.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said he was sure there would be no
objection on the part of the officers or the privates in the
militia to go into service either for 28 or 56 days, but there
was ono matter to which he would call attention. For-
merly, when the militia was called out, the wives and
families were relieved by the parish. Since the new poor-
law they had only a workhouse order; and as it was im-
possible to maintain them out of the pay of the men, that
was a great hardship. Another point was siith regard to
the depots, which at present were insufficient, and if the
deputy-lieutenants ordered anything to be done, the quar-
ter sessions had not authoi ity to pay for it.
Colonel KNOX suggested that the militia should be en-
couraged to volunteer into the army. But he knew an in-
stance in which a colonel advised his mon not to enlist.
Mr. GROGAN asked if the Irish militia would be
called out.
Lord PALMERSTON said he intended to bring in a
bill to consolidate the militia law when the matters spoken
of by the hon. baronet would be considered. It was not
intended to call out the Irish militia at present. It was
not desirable to incur an unnecessary expenditure at
present.
Sir J. YOUNG said it had been determined to increase
the pay of the Irish constabulary 45,0001. a year.
The bill was then brought in and road a first time.
Mr. BEAMISH moved that the returns relating to the
Grand Canal (Ireland), ordered 17th March, be laid before
the house forthwith.
Mr. MOFFATT said it was a question between two pri-
vate companies, and he moved that the order be discharged.
Colonel DUNNE hoped that the house would enforce
this order.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN said that inasmuch as this return
arose merely out of a dispute between two railway com-
panies, he thought that the house ought not to call for
these papers.
Mr. CARDWELL thought that this matter arose out
of an attempt by a railway company to effect an arrange-
ment for taking the grand canal, which Parliament a year
or two ago refused to sanction, but which it appeared had
now been effected by pi ivate arrangement. Under these
circumstances he thought it might be questionable whether
these returns could be viewed merely as private matters.
Mr. MOFFATT, upon this explanation, withdrew his
amendment, and
The returns were accordingly ordered.
The house then adjourned at five minutes to 1 o'clock.