The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-22 00:00:00

-LONDON

house, in which the commissioners state the increase of
trade caused by their new regulations respecting draw-
backs on pieces of waste paper cutfrom envelopes. (Hear.)
Here no doubt was a great increase of trade created by
the means alluded to; but they must recollect that it was
only after considerable agitation and speeches from my-
self and others that t'iey consented to take such a step.
(Cheers.) If the comraL sioners think they give such
facilities to get the drawback, and do so much to increase
the trade, let us hear what the trade say upon the ques-
tion generally. The following letter is from Messrs.
Ward and Lock. (Here the hon. member read the let-
ter complaining of numerous delays incidental to any
application for drawback) I will now trouble the
house with a letter from Messrs- Chambers, who have
done so much to give instruction to the people:—
" Edinburgh, May 15, 1850.
" Dear Sir,—Along with this we hand you a short
statement respeming the pressure of the paper duties on
our publications. You will observe that during 1855
we used 378,3501b5. of paper, cos ing 11,7801. lls. 3d.,
and that in this price was included an excise duty of
2,4821. 18s., such duty being about a fifth of the actual
cost of the paper. Nearly all our publications are of a
cheap class, designed for popular instruction and im-
proveineet ; and the price of paper if by far the heaviest
item in producing works of this kind. Although the
duty is 1 per psund weight, with 5 per cent. additional,
it is our belief that practically the price of paper is en-
hanced fully 21. per pound weight, by reason of the
duty and attendant excise regulations. This is upwards
of a fifth in the price of most printing papers. So heavy
an increase on the price of paper acts discouragingly on
all our operations. We are constantly prevented from
entering upon schemes for issuing cheap publications of
an improving tendency from no other cause than the
pressure of toe paper duties. Some years ago we issued
a series of instructive and entertaining tracts at a penny
and a itaifpcnny each. The sale was enormous, and we
should hope some good was done. After issuing as
many as 20 volumes of these tracts, we found that the
state had received 5,0001. of paper duty, while our pro-
fits were nothing. and we accordingly were compelled to
drop the work, although the sales at the time were 80,000
weekly. It is chiefly from such facts that an adequate
idea can be obtained of the damage done to literature
through the pressure of the excise duty on paper. Of the
injury done to trade generally by this tax on produc-
tion it is not necessary for us to say anything.—We are,
sir, your obedient servants, "W. and R. CIIA3IBERS.
"Herbert Ingram, Esq., M.P."
I will here remark that the quantity of paper distributed
by there gentlemen and by the proprietors of the London
Journal is considerably greater than all the Bibles and
Prayer Books distributed by the clergy and the Bible and
other religious F o isties put together, and, be it observed,
the am runt cf the latter publications is increasing.
(hear.) Nearly six parts cat of seven of all paper made
is printed paper, and the paper used for Bibles and
Prayers is not more than 11 per cent. of the printed
paper need—showing, I think, a great remissness come-
where in the church. (Hear, and Laughter.) No draw-
back is allowed on the A B C book for the poor child,
or the spelling-book ; without the duty those books
would be decreased in price one-half. (Hear.) I state
fullmy conviction that you would do more good for the
education of tha people by a repeal of the paper duty
than by granting toe large amount placed on the esti-
mates, which will no doubt be voted this evening.
(hear, hear.) Let us look at the question as a menu•
lecturing question only. In doing this, let us take a
glance at other branches of industry formerly subjected
to excise duties. We will take, for instance, the printed
calico duty, repeeled 30 years ago. At that time it was
objected that the tax was so small that a printed gown
was scarcely affected in its price by the extra duty for
printing. Now, what is the result ! Why, that a printed
gown sells fir c msiderally less money than the duty
formerly paid, (dear, hear.) The manufacturers and
printers at the time defended the duty. What has been
the effect on our commerce in this repeal of the excise !
Why, our trade has ii creased by millie.ns, and we have
so improved in our manufactures that we beat the whole
world in our printe s goods. (Cheers ) Tne last manufac-
ture fret d from excise duty was the duty on glass. Now,
the rep-al of this duty has exhibited in a marvellous way
the advantage of freeing our manufactures fronts the de-
pressing influence of the exc:sernan. The quantity manu-
factured increases onorte:ou,ly every year, and our export
trade increases in proportion. Without the repeal of
this duty we should not have seen the Crystal Palace of
1851, and the great trade now done in this country in
every description of glass manufacture, and the employ-
ment ef many thousands extra of the population. If this
house should agree to a repeal of the paper duty I have
no doubt many' more manufactories will spring up, and it
is peculiarly an employment suited for the ruraldistricts.
I also think that vegetable fibre produced from the land
will he extensively used in the manufacture of paper.
Lately a mill fer the manufacture of paper from twitch
was established in the county of Lincoln. I will take the
liberty of reading a letter from the manager on the sub-
ject:

" We have now collected ab mt 1,200 tons of twitch,
and our doing so has tended to promote the interests
both of landowners and landholders : —l. By stimulat-
ing the farmer to clean his Lend, and as far as possible to
eradicate from it a weed of most extraordinary rapid.ty
of growth, and which, while it exhausts the land in a
corresponding decree, often chokes and kills the young
corn plant. 2. By enabling the farmer, with the money
paid uou hi:, twitch, to buy a really serviceable ma-
nure, as a substitute for the small and oftentimes very
questionable amount of benefit derived from the ashes of
burnt twiich—abundahce of ashes (when required for
turnip sowing, 5z.,.) being produceable from the burning
of other weeds, sedge, parings, and rubbish. By those
two operations (thus stimulated) of cleaning and ma-
nuring, the land be gradually and greatly improved
at small (if any) cost to the farmer at the same time that
the value of his crops will increase. My time being very
fully occupied, I have very hastily and imperfectly re-
plied to your queries ; but I hope what I have written
is suffic.ent to answer the purpose you had in view when
you wrote.—l am, sir, yours obediently, SAMUEL SHARP.
—H. Ingram, Esq., M.P."

Paper is au article used in almost all other manufactures,
in wrapping up articles, and in boxes, it forms a serious
amount in the expense to which trade generally is sub-
ject. Many of our goods can scarcely compete with
French manufactures on account of the freedom from
paper duty in France. This grievance is complained of
in all our manufacturing towns, No w let us consider the
paper duty as a source of revenue. (Tee hon. member
read a tabular statement, showing that the paper duty
had exhibited much greater productiveness under the
law than the high scale, and continued)—ln conclusion,
I would observe that as the question of revenue is the
only thing under consideration, and as we have no advo-
cates for the paper duty except on these grounds—l do
say, with the greatest conviction of truth, that the in-
creased trade, the increased employment, the increased
consumption of taxable articles which would follow from
an abrogation of this duty, would compensate for the
amount levied by the excise on paper. Ido hope that
the house will have the courage and justice to pronounce
its opinion the' this tax is doomed, and that we shall not
stand in the world as the exception in levying taxes on
the intelligence, literature, and industry a the nation.
Mr. SALISBURY, while supporting the motion, said
there seas no question in which the working classes of
this country took greater interest in than the repeal of
the paper duties. When canvassing fur Chester, a
pledge was universally demanded of him to vote for the
motion ; and his own opinion was that if any arrange-
ment could be made for removing the duty, it would
give universal sati4action.
Mr. AYRTON pointed out the importance of the mo-
tion in connexion with education, Even the copy books
of the children were so heavily taxed that in many
schools for the poor the miserable expedient of the slate
had to be substituted, so tbat when the pupils after-
wards went out into the world they were wholly unable
to write with pen toil paper. He had himself once
thought the agitation fur the repeal of the paper duty
unnecessary, but having subsequently gone into some
calculations respecting the establiehment ofacheap paper
duty was the whole question. The same argument ap-
plied to all cheap publications, as the cheaper the publi-
cation the greater was the oppression of the paper duty.
Then with regard to the probable effect of abolishing
such duties, he might mention that in America, where the
manufacture was untaxed the production and consump-
tion of paper was treble it was in this country. And
there could scarcely be a doubt that if the du.), were
taken off here, the production would increase three-fold
iu a very short time. It was not merely the amount of
the duty that .4•4 complained of,—a much more serious
evil was the interference of the excise. He was told
that if there was no excise paper might be printed as it
came from the mill, without undergoing the process of
drying aad damping, by which a considerable saving
both in time and labour would be effected. Probably
there was no commodity that enfered into the opera-
tioue of martufectures and trade more largely than paper,
and in one instance, and one only, the statute considered
that circumstance a sufficient ;round for an exemption
from the duty. The paper that was used in pressing
woollen cloths paid no duty. But could there be a
greater anomaly than to exempt the paper employed in
pressing, while that which was used in packing was
chargea,.de ? There were many branches of manufacture
in which paper was largely consumed, as well as in
making woolen cloths. Why should not the duty be
remitted in those cases also ! From a return of the
apolicetions to, and the concessions made by, the Board
of Inland Revenue fur exemption from the paper duty,
he fund thet paper and mill-board used in the manu-
facture rf papier mache were allowed to go free of duty,
on the special ground that the existing regulations
operated ii juriouely to the trade. In the same way the
commission, re had allowed the application in the case
of paper etupl eyed in making patterns f, r the Jacqoard
leoni, and a dtawhack was also to be aelowed on the
cuttings of envelopes. The rule aepeared to be that if
the parties were especially persevering, and insisted
that the paper used by them aas for the purpeAs
of manufacture, the application was ellowed. But
what difference wee there in point of principle be-
toceen paper used for pressing cloth and, packing
(Jett. ? or between that used in the manufacture of
papier mache and that used in inithing hat-box• a!
He contended that every man who used paper for
the purposes of his redo was entitled te the draw.
back— (hear, heal)—and if the claim was allowed
to that extent, 11.,w could they coneiste.ntly insist upon
the duty upon paper which was used in the highest, the
best, and the most righ,eotis employment to which it
c-mid be devoted, viz , for the education of the people ?
(Hear, hear.) Again, why should prayer-books printed
in one form be exempt from the paper duty, while
prayer-books printed in another form were charged ?
The exemption
no doubt
exemptionuwt originally m
e in favour ofa debibbleecsauasned
atp rayert
time they Were the orineipat melees of education ; aid
now, when the means of education were so largely ex-
tended, why shod.] not the exemption be extended iu
the same prop. rtioii ? But if they were to get rid of
the duty in all caeca whose it ()prated as an obstruction
to trade, and in all cases a here it obstructed progress of

TVESDAY EVENING,

JUNE

1858.

deputation which waited on Lord Derby on this ques-
tion. He (Mr. Bright) was present. One of the depu.
tation was a paper manufacturer in Yorkshire, who
stated that just before the recent commercial panic he
was in London making a contract for the sale of paper.
The cost of the paper a.; the mill was 4001., while the
duty was also 400/., making the cost to the buyer 8001.
He had to pay the duty in six weeks. He took a bill at
four months in payment on the sale, which had to run
through the commercial hurricane which ensued, and be
bad to pay 4001. to the excise, which he could only get
if the bill was paid at maturity after having to run four
months. How could any trade survive a system of
regulation like this by which this trade was regulated ?
He was sure that it was not statesmanlike or fair for a
Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a million of tea or
sugar duties in comparison with the raper duty, which
interfered with a great trade in a mariner so offensive and
disastrous. There were gentlemen present who repre-
sented boroughs and counties in Ireland, and this was a
question of importance to them. When the duty was
taken off, paper could be made of straw, and especially
of oat straw, which was better than wheat straw. In
Ireland there was abundance of labour and water power,
and especially of oat straw, and Ireland therefore offered
an admirable field for the extension of the paper trade.
Is was also the same with regard to many agricultural
counties in England, where the trade was now shrinking
and coming to nothing. In Buckinghamshire, the
right honourable gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) if he asked
the paper manufacturers—if there were any left —they
would tell him how much it had been destroyed, and how
much industry had been garotted by this duty. His
right hon, friend had a right to a the house whether
the duty was not so great an evil as to entitle him to
ask the house to say that "its maintenance as a perma-
nent s 'urce of revenue was impolitic." The right hon.
gentleman asked his right hen, friend to stop there in
his resolution. He (Mr. Bright) knew that there might
be many gentlemen who agreed in opinion with him on
this question, but who doubted whether a resolution
should be brought forward which asked a government
to act in a particular way when it could hardly act in
any way, and he thought that his right hon. friend
might fairly stop at the first part of his resolution, and
put generally that which the house had done that night,
f 2r every member who had spoken had uttered the con-
demnation of the duty ; and ha should recommend his
right hon, friend to agree to the adoption of his resolu-
tion to that extent. He did not wish to hamper the
government, but if the house declared that the paper
duty was impolitic as a permanent source of revenue, it
would be a great step towards freeing knowledge from
the hand of the tax-gatherer ; and he took it for granted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the
resolution if it stopped at. the first words ; and if so there
would be no necessity for a division.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should not have added any-
thing to this discussion, if it bad not been that his right
hon. friend (Mr. M. Gibson) had attributed to him an
opinion which he had never expressed, and which he
had never entertained, namely, that the paper duty was
an excellent duty, and ought to be maintained at all
hezards. He had never expeessed such an opinion.
Mr. M. GIBSON—My right hon, friend has misre-
presented me. I did not state that he said that the paper
duty ought to be maintained at all hoz erds, but only that
it was a good tax.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—What he said—and it was said
in the course of a financial statement—was that, com-
paring the paper duty with other duties, it did not appear,
looking to the circumstances in which the country
was placed, that it was expedient that it should be
repealed. He had a distinct recollection that he said no
mere than that comparing it with other duties there was
no reason for placing it high amongst theHe which it was
expedient to repeal. When his right hon, friend said
that he called it a good duty, would his right hon.
friend undertake to name one duty in the whole
het cf our taxes, or one, whether it was among excise,
customs, or direct taxation, to which objection might
not be made ? Every duty was attended with its own
disadvantages, and was, by its very nature, an evil and
an inconvenience to the community. But what a Chan-
calor of the Exchequer had got to do was, to take into
consideration those duties to which the smallest number
of disadvantages attached. From that point of view
they had to consider whether the paper duty was one
which ought to be abolished. They had been told that
the income tax was to be repealed in three years, and
that statement had been received with great approba•
teen ; but it so, you must abandon five millions of direct
taxation. A question might then arise, not whether it was
possible to remit indirect taxes like the paper duty, but
whether it would not be necessary to impose other direct
taxes to replace the income-tax. When the proposition
was made for the prospective repeal of the income-tax,
he (Sir G. C. Lewis) made the same objection which he
did uow, that the house had bound itself to a reduction
of taxation. When it was known that there was a sur-
plus, that was the time to consider what taxes were to
be remitted. He should rejoice when the time arrived
that such a reduction could be made; but till that time
did arrive, he could see no advantage in the house tying
itself down by prospective resolutions lilt so the present.
Mr. DaUSIOVIOND said he should like to double
and quadruple that tax which you called the tax on
knowledge. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very indistinctly heard,
was understood to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said that this tax was one of the few remaining excise
duties which, as being vexatious, ought not to be kept up as
a permanent source of revenue. With regard to sever al
excise duties,it had been found that after their abolition the
revenue continued as large as before, and he believed that
their abolition gave a spring and an impulse to the general
revenue. But as to the exact time for repealing this or that
tax, great latitude should be given to a Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He thought that this was not the exact mo-
ment for such a step. When a Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was calledlon to repeal a tax, he ought to have before
him the whole of the customs and excise duties, and on a
review of them all, to ascertain which would cause the
most benefit to the public by its repeal. There was a
question which bad been touched on by the hon. member
for Birmingham, with regard to which he (Lord J.
Russell) differed in opinion with that hon. member. The
house would recollect that last year the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposal that the income tax should be
kept up at 70. in the pound, and that, instead of Is. 3d.,
the duty on tea would be ls. 51. ; and that there should
be a proportionate increase in the duty on sugar. This year
we had allowed the income tax to fall from 7d. to 50, in
the pound ; but we bad kept up the duty on tea at ls. 51.,
and also retained the proportionate increase in the duty on
sugar. It was almost a matter of good faith when next
there was a reduction in taxation that the duties on tea
and sugar should be reduced, which were in fact war duties;
and there could be no greater claim for reduction of taxa-
tion than in those artioles of consumption which entered
so largely into the comforts of the people. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer, when he was in office before, was of
that opinion • and he (Lord J. Russell) was sure that if
there was a duty of is. on tea, the increased consumption
would soon bring up the revenue. He hoped the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer would take those taxes into consi-
deration. He trusted his right hon. friend would not press
his resolution, as it stood, on the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, but would leave out the latter part, and be satis-
fied with the declaration contained in the first paragraph,
" that the paper duty ought not to form a permanent source
of revenue," and as the amount was so small it would pro-
bably be one of the• first taxes which would be repealed.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that as he understood there was
no objection to the first part of his resolution, namely, that
the retention of the paper duty was impolitic, he would
withdraw his resolution, and move " That in the opinion
of the house the maintenance of the excise duty on paper
as a permanent source of revenue was impolitic."
'
Mr. BASS said he apprehended that if this motion was
agreed to it did not commit the house to the opinion that
there was no other tax equally oppressive. (A laugh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—In assent-
ing to this motion, I must express a hope that the house
may be allowed at once to go into committee of supply,
and proceed with the vote on education.
The original resolution was then withdrawn, and' the
amended motion having been put,
Mr. BENTINCK said, before the question was put he
wished to say a word. He hoped that it was clearly un-
derstood that the resolution meant nothing. (Laughter.)
The motion was then_agreed to.

SUPPLY LE DUCATIO N.

The house then went into committee of supply.
The first vote was 663,435/. for education.
Mr. ADDERLEY said that after the very extensive
powers of by-legislation which the house had entrusted to
those who had charge of this subject, it had a right to ex-
pect a very explicit statement from the responsible officers.
So strongly had he been impressed with what was due to
the house on that score, that from the moment of his en-
tering upon the duties of the office he ha I the kiaour to
hold, he had lost no time in making every effort by which
this by-legislation could berendered more open to Parlia-
ment. In saying that much, ho hoped it would not be
understood that he took credit to himself for arranging
and codifying the by-laws of the Committee of Council on
Education. That labour had been most admirably per-
formed, however, by Mr. Lingham, the successor of Sir K.
Shuttleworth, who had devoted much time to the subject
and than whom the public had not amore efficient servant.
The minutes of council, from the first appointment of the
committee, were now in the hands of hon. members not only
chronologically arranged, as they were two years ago on
his own motion, but codified. Now the whole amount of the
vote was 66',00J/., which could be divided under the three
following heads :- -157,000/. for building and furnishing
schools, 400,0001. for training various kinds of masters,
and 57,0001. for the management and inspection of the
schools, which included the staff. It would be seen that
there was an increase in this vote of 83,0001. as compared
with that of last, year, and lie had to appeel to the com-
mittee to say whether that increase was not a matter of
en tire satisfaction. With regard to the increasing amount
of this vote, he would at once say he was not one of those
who took a gloomy view of the question, and thought the
vote would one dey assume the most formidable propor-
tions. On that point, however, he would submit his cal-
culations to the commitee. From the first commencement
of the system, they had expended in building schools the
sum of 1,000,60 1. That sum iit ested in school buildings
and furniture, he would put at 6 per cent. as an annual
charge to the 'Treasury, amounting to 60,000/. The our-
rent expenses annually were 500,0101., and therefore *he
whole expenditure on account of education was 561,0001.
per annum. The number of children in the schools wai
80:1,00. Now, taking the population of England, Wales,
and Scotland at 24,000,000, and assuming that ono-eighth
of that number would be children within the age of
education, that number would be 3,000,000. Deducting
from that number those who were educated in private
niece:a, or who bel ,aged to the upper classes, there would
remain about 2,000,000 children to be dealt with by those
seheols. If, therefore, a sum of i",f 0,000/. was the annual
charge for the education of 800,000 children, an easy sum
led them to the result that 1,41. 0,000/. would suffice for
the education of all the children whom they could pee
sibly expect to come to the schools. But in that case
a great economy could be effected in the normal and
training schools, and he had great reason to hope that a
sum of 1,000,000/. would prove abundantly sufficient to
meat all the wants of the system they had created.
He was happy to say that he beliensi the question could
ue7er be discussed upon party grounds in that house.
Whatever difference there 'night be among them as to tle
mode in which the end should bo attained, there could be,
and there was, he believed, none as to the end in view. It
would therefore, he believed, be satisfactory to the house
to know that the Royal Commission on the subject which
the house had agreed to on the motion of his right hon.
friend the First Lord of the Admiralty recently requested
her,Majesty to appoint, was now completed and would he

issued to-morrow. The right hon. gentleman concluded
by moving the vote.
Mr. W. EWART regretted that the right hon. gentleman
had not taken a larger view of the subject. He though'
that a minister of education ought to place before the
house a general view of the question, not only with regara
to schools, but with respect to the manner and habits,.
and effects of school education on the people. In Scotlana
long hereditary teaching had shown the people the vslue
of education. It was now a part of their nature and
habits, and he trusted that it would soon produce the
same effect in this country.
Mr. GILPIN differed from the right hon. gentleman in,
Our declaration that no man altogethe:depended at presen'
on the voluntary system. (Hear, hear.) Seeing that the,
grant was annually increasing, and extending throughaur
the length and breadth of the land, and placing in the
hands of one department an immense amount of patronage
he thought it high time for the house to look carefully intel
the question in order to ascertain how far the sums voted
carried out the views and intentions of Parliament. One
of the most important lessons that the working classes, and
„
all classes had to learn was, that it was their duty to eaL!l
cats their own children. (Hear.) He did not think d.
could be said that the voluntary principle had fails),
Without Government aid much had been done, and mon
would be done by voluntary efforts, and the danger vri ,
that Government aid would supersede those efforts. (Sear')
Mr. PULLER said it was a great advantage to have '
body of educated teachers in the country, and their efforts
were tellin; not only in the large towns but in the agrictn.
tural parishes.
Mr. MASSEY complained of the withdrawal of the
capitation grant from the ragged schools. The minute r 3
council of ast December reduced the grant from 50s. 1e
ss. each child, and the result had been most injurious "',,
these schools.
Mr. FOX agreed with the hon. gentleman who had jogt
spoken, that the class of persons to whom he referred stood
most in need of the fostering hand of those who had the
disposal of the public money.
Mr. POWELL expressed the opinion that thewith'
dr:IN.-al of the capitation grant from the ragged school;
would be a great hardship ; many of those schools hs,.
been founded on the faith of the minute, and it would w'
a breach of good faith now to withdraw the grants. ,
Mr. LOWE said it seemed to be generally assumed that
all which could be done was effected if they provided the
poor with the means of education ; if they did not chn°°
to avail themselves of these means the state could do n°'
thing more. lie, however, was rather disposed to 104
with the honourable member for Oldham, that the
government could do more indirectly than directly for the
encouragement of education. They should establish pries:
numerous and valuable in their eyes. The governme°
could do a great deal in this way, by throwing open some
situations, such as messengers, or Post-office letter carrier"l
to those who passed the best examination. If it was found
that a boy, by coming up to a certain standard, coin'
obtain a provision for life, the impulse given to education,
would not be confined to him or to his competitors, hat
the feeling in favor of it would be raised amongst all tbe
lower classes. Public companies having large establish:
merits could also aid in this way. When the lower class.'
acquired a taste for anything they did not require
government machinery to provide it. The goverronse
did not need to provide the means of gratifying their
taste for beer; if they had the same taste for education
,
they would soon have the means of gratifying it, and ~
great object of the house and government should be to er
cite that taste,
Mr. BLACK objected to the principle of the present
system, which was entirely sects,,lam He begged to alof,
that the vote be reduced by 14,7511., the increase in Ss°t,
land, as he wished to prevent the further extension of the
system.
Mr. INGHAM considered that the vote fell short of vr•-:1
the country required. The working classes themselves vrs',
most anxious on the subject, and when the committee es
some time since to inquire into the condition of the norther;
mining districts, a proposal was made on behalf of 03
workmen that there should be a twopenny school 1.0430,
compulsory attendance until children reached the w
of 11.
Mr. COWPER said he could hardly believe that St);
Black's demand for the exemption of Scotland from
tri,
benefit of the vote had been made in concert with otn'i
Scotch members. He (Mr. Cowper) objected to any Pa(
of the vote being spent in training teachers; it ought
to be spent in tuition.
Mr. BLACKBURN said that the objection of Mr. 13,,sei
to the mode of distributing the grants in Scotland apP"A
to the whole of the grants. He hoped the amendins"
would not be pressed. -
Mr. ADDERLEY said there was no such vote as the ens
which the amendment professed to refer to.
Mr. BLACK altered the form of his amendment, '—
proposed a reduction of the whole vote by 14,7511. j
Mr. BARROW spoke in favour of ragged school'
against means of diminishing crime.
The amendment was withdrawn.
The CHAIRICAN then reputed progress.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said b
proposed that this bill should go into committee on Fitt)
SALE AND TRANSFER OF LANDS (IRELAPY
BILL.
1,01
The house then went into committee on this bill ; "t 1
Serjeant DEASY and Mr. 31'3/AIION having objected trsl,4
being proceeded with at that hour (half-past 11), with Po
concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hoe
immediately resumed.
The Durham County Palatine Jurisdiction Bill was
a third time and passed.
The Nisi Prins Court (Ireland) Bill passed through es'y
mittee.
The Vaccination (Ireland) Bill was committed pro for°
to introduce amendments.
The Copyright of Designs Bill was read a second timedThe Stipendiary Magistrates, &e., Bill was read a seat
time.
rhe Joint-stock Companies Acts Amendment Bill Ar
read a third time and passed.
PORTENDIC AND ALBRED.A. CONVENTION Bs.' of
:Sir E. B. LYTTON, in moving the second reading ,
this bill, explained that its object was to enable the
vernment to carry out a convention which had been In of
in 1853 with France, on the subject of the navigation
the river Gambia.
The bill was read a second time accordingly.
The Cowley's Charity Bill was considered as amends,' pl
The Harvey's Charity Bill was read a third time
passed.
The Bristol Municipal Charities Bill was read athiPl
time and passed.
The Bristol St. Nicholas and St. Leonard's Charities
was read a third time and passed.
The Art Unions Act Amendment Bill was read a spoon
time.
The Publie Grounds and Playgrounds Bill was re!'
third time and passed.
The Joint-stock Banking Companies Bill was consider
ed
as amended.
MR. BARBER'S COMMITTEE.
The committee to consider the case of Mr. Barber, s.„O
the question whether he should receive compensation, "
nominated.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, however, protested against ,d.
principle of awarding compensation under such circoro
stances, as he thought it was likely to be a precedent Will
would lead to great inconvenience. tbg
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and
house adjourned at half-past 12.