The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 18, 1866.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.--LAST EVENING.

- -
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
INNOVATION ON THE CHURCH RITUAL.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY laid on the table several
petitions against any alteration in the ritual of the Church
of England.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Paisley Water Bill was read a second time, and the
following bills were read a third time and passed :—Titanic
Steel and Iron Company, Lowther's Naturalisation, South
Essex Railway, and Banbury Gas (Amendments).

THE DIVORCE ACT.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition from
Harlowe praying for a repeal of the Divorce Act, and also
against any innovation in the Church service.
CATTLE, &c. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL.
Earl GRANVILLE moved the second reading of this
bill, and szplained some of its provisions, which he said
were calculated to make it simple and expeditions in its

operation.
- The bill was then read a second time.
CATTLE SHEDS IN BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of ARGYLL moved the second reading of
this bill, which was agreed to.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the third reading
of this bill, which was agreed to
ELECTION RETURNS.
Lord CAMPBELL moved that a select committee be
appointed to examine the electoral returns laid on the
table with a view to the changes they suggest as desirable
or necessary in the right of voting; and to inquire into the
conditions upon which the occupation franchise might be
lowered with advantage in counties or boroughs of
England or Wales. The noble lord, after some preliminary
observations, said that with regard to the desirableness of
an inquiry of this nature by the house, he thought it only
necessary to refer to the identity of circumstances that
existed at present as compared with those of 1860. The
suggestions that had been made in the latter year had
been canvassed then, as at present, as to the possibility of
a large constitutional change. At the present time, as in
1860, the house was called on to exercise its power
in altering or modifying a measure which proposed
to make alterations in the state of the franchise.
Having adverted to the policy pursued by Lord Palmer-
ston in reference to the previous reforms introduced, and
to his opposition to anything tending to effect a violent
democratic change, he contended that much benefit would
result from the inquiry of the committee he proposed. Mr.
Dudley Baxter had written a very interesting pamphlet on
the subject of electoral statistics, and it appeared
that some hallucination prevailed on the subject. The
effect which would be produced by the house
exercising its functions in reference to this matter would
be, that it would throw a light on the actual political
position in which the class to whom the franchise would
be extended would stand in regard to capitalists. It was
very important to ascertain whether the class in question
would be likely to be influenced by those who employed
them, and whether they were likely to act on their OWEL
judgment, or to be operated upon by agitators. If the
latter were the ease, tho effect would be one not contem-
plated by many supporters of the extension of the franchise
because it would throw a largo amount of political power
into the hands of employers and demagogues. He con-
tended that a large extension of household suffrage was a
measure that required great consideration, and the inquiry
he proposed was calculated to secure for the subject that
consideration. No doubt those in favour of a large mea-
sure were desirous of securing a settlement of the question
and restoring tranquillity,buthe considered that no measure
however comprehensive would secure that result, because
popular disquietude arose from distress, the desire of the
democratic class to extend their power, and other causes
without the control of any act of Parliament. The noble
lord by his pledge of 1851 led to the bill of 1852, the bill
1832 led to the bill of 1854, that of 1851 to the bill of
1859, that of 1859 to the bill of 1860, and that of 1860
was the immediate cause of our present complication and
embarrassment. It was, therefore, by the error of a single
night, which the noble lord would not venture to defend,
that a lung series of difficulties, of which no man saw the
end, had been brought on the country. By the course
which he had taken in February, 1851, the noble lord had
invented that extraordinary system of pledges and en-
gagements, forestalling the deliberative power and action
of the Cabinet as to whether at a given time a given sub-
ject should be presented to the Legislature. In 1852 those
pledges forced him to introduce the subject of Reform at a
time when the horizon of the land was clouded by recent
events in France, to which the revival of despotic power
in that country had given rise, and which seriously
threatened to compromise the interests of this country.
In 1854, again, those unhappy pledges compelled him to
bring forward the subject at what every person felt was
an inopportune season. Three times the noble lord Shad
appeared before the public as the author of an important
project, and the world had a right to judge him by those
projects, and a right to ascertain how far he possessed
that which ought to belong to any man who took up the
reconstruction of the Constitution—namely, on the one
hand conviction, and capacity on the other. Take, for ex-
ample, his projects with regard to the borough franchise.
After full deliberation the noble lord told the Parliament
and the public in 1852 that £5 was the proper limit of the
borough franchise. In 1851 ho informed them, after the
same full deliberation, that £6 was the proper limit, and it
was well known that in the present year he had proposed
a notherlimit. If the noble lord had seriously been of opinion
that the borough franchise should be extended to £5 why did
ho repudiate that sum ; and if he was not clearly and de-
cidedly of opinion that the limit would be safe, why did he
present it to the country or to the house ? What security
had their lordships that in a few years the borough
franchise, now proposed to be £7, might not be fixed at £9
or £lO, or even raised to £l5 ? No inconsistency could
be more palpable. It would be a want of courage on his
part, he submitted, if he hesitated to say that the incon-
stancy, the inconsistency, the levity—(laughter)—with
which the noble lord during the last ten years and up-
wards had treated this momentous question ought to de-
prive him, as it had deprived him, of that confidence of the
friends of representative reform. The noble lord, in the
years 1848, 1849, and 1850, had with all the power of the
Cabinet resisted the annual motion in favour of household

suffrage, introduced by Mr. Hume and supported by Mr.
Bright. But now the noble Lord did not hesitate to tell
the country, according to certain statements which had
appeared in the newspaper; that Mr. Bright was his ad-
'riser.

Earl RUSSELL.—No ; I never did.
Lord CAMPBELL—The Press might have misled him
(Lord Campbell).—(Hear hear, from Earl .Russell).—But
in the speech attributed to the noble earl it was distinctly

stated that, recognising the distinguished part which Mr.
Bright had taken in the cause of reform, he had thought
proper to consult him. He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced that
the noble earl now repudiated the passage absolutely, since

no climax could be more disastrous than when the noble

lord had gained immortnlity by resisting for three years
the democratic party in the country he should at last con-
sent to be their pupil. He had referred to these transac-
tions to show that, however great the noble lord's titles to
support and. confidence on other questions, on the question
of Reform his authority and
dtcredit were not such as to
debar their lordships froma inquiry which he asked
them to grant. If their lordships agreed to his motion he
should be happy to transfer the nett of the inquiry to
his noble friend on the cross benches
capacity was so eminently shown in 1(8601.1 Grey), whose
a similar committee. The noble lord concludedw by sub-
mitting his motion.
Earl RUSSELL said that the precedent of 1860,by which
his noble friend supported his motion, did not apply. When
the Reform Bill of Lord Palmerston's Government was
propcsed, it was admitted that the returns upon which the
bill was founded were inaccurate, and it was stated that
the estimate of the numbers who had been admitted would
be found larger than was calculated. It was stated, audit
was undoubtedly true, that the valuations and assessments
under the poor-law were exceedingly loose and variable.
Those grounds for inquiry appeared to him to be valid,
and a committee was appointed, which took a great deal
lite vadliu. able evidence, although it did not think fit to report.
unot quite understand the precise meaning of his
noble friend's motion. Certainly he imagined that these
electoral rettiroa
in the right of votitd
not of themselves suggest any change
the right of votin:.g.ihur give any opinion with regard to
commission should inquire into
lord went on to say that the
ire into the conditions upon which
the occupation franchise might be lowered with advantage
in counties or boroughs.
know that their lordships, he (Earl Russell) did not
there were conditions ou which the had as yet agreed that
franchise might be
lowered. He had no objection to til:
fight be lowered, but
granted thatthe occupation fraachisen house taking it for
he did not think their lordships shouhll
on the assumption that they were ts tar
i
which was matter of opinion. Sine© 1860 granted that
iinrt a committee
eat improve_
routs had been made in assessments and v
the Poor-law, and their returns were now far"roti°l's under
rate than those which had been presented in 1860 re t°
acetub-
committee. What was called gross estimated rental far more
accurately represented the actual state of the facts, though
there were no doubt certain boroughs in which this im-
provement had not been introduced, and with regard to
which it would be a matter of argument how many electors
would be added to these veral boroughs if a certain franchise
were adopted. However, if any bill received the assent of
the House of Commons for effecting what his noble friend
called organic changes, but which he (Earl Russell) did
not consider to be such, he was quite sure that, their lord-
ships would listen with attention and decorum to the argu-
ments of her Majesty'y Government and to, those of other
noble lords on both sides of the house, and there would be
a discussion befitting the dignity of the house and the im-
portance of the question ; but the inquiry moved for would
not tend in any degree to the public advantage. (Hear,
hear.) With i • egard to the personal attack of the noble
l:firsl. ,it was quite unnecessary for him (Earl Russell) to
reply.
11sitsnega, without t divh. nn.
ThEIZILOYMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN.
of SHAFTESBURY rose to ask the First Lord

of the Treasury whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to bring in a bill for the purpose of
placing the children and young persons mentioned in the
third and fourth reports of the commissioners under the
protection of the Factories Act.
Earl RUSSELL said that the subject was under the con-
sideration of the proper department, but at the present
moment he was notable to state exactly what step it would
be thought right to adopt.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The BrEAREB. took the chair at four o'clock.
DOVER ELECTION.

The petition presented against the return of the sitting
members for Dover was withdrawn.
FACTORY ACTS.

Mr. FAWCETT asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when the Government would intro-
duce their promised measure for the extension of the Fac-
tory Acts. And whether the Government had consi-
dered the desirability of regulating the employment and
education of children who are employed in agriculture.
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible that he could fix a
day for the objects named by the hon. member. With re-
spect to the latter part of the question he had to say that
no plan was under consideration for regulation of the chil-
dren employed in agriculture.
TROOPS IN INDIA. _

Mr. O'REILLY asked the Secretary of State for War
when the following cavalry regiments would return from
India :—the 7th Hussars, and the 2d and 3d Dragoon
Guards ; and what length of time each of these regiments
would have served in India ?
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said the 7th Hussars
would return to England in 1871, the 2d Dragoon Guards
in 1869, and the 3d Dragoon Guards in 1870. The regiments
were kept there solely by circumstances connected with the
late mutiny in India.
THE PROBATE COURT.

Mr. MONK asked the Secretary to the Treasury whe-
ther the proposals submitted to the Treasury by the Judge
of the Court of Probate for the future regulation of the
salaries and emoluments of the clerks and officers of that
court embraced the district registries.
Mr. CHILDERS said the proposals related to the prin-
cipal registry only.
THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
Mr. GREGORY asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether he had received any communication from the
President of the Royal Academy on the subject of changes
in the constitution of the academy ; whether that com-
munication had been approved of by the Government ; and
whether he would order it to be laid before the house ?
Mr. COWPER said a letter had been, received from the
President of the Royal Academy, announcing that the
Council of the Academy had-determined to make certain
alterations, in accordance with the opinions expressed by
Government, to render it more in accordance with the
wants of the present time. The proposals of the Academy
were approved of by the Government. He should have no
objection to lay the correspondence on the table.
PRUSSIA AND ITALY.

Mr. BEAUMONT asked the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether he had reason to believe the
statement to be substantially correct in:the Neues Fremden-
blatt as to the alleged treaty of alliance, offensive and de-
fensive, between Prussia and Italy ?

Mr. LAYARD had no reason to believe the statement
was correct. The Government had received no such in-

formation.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY (IRELAND).

Mr. S. AY TOUN asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to bring in a bill during the present session for
the -purpose of granting a new charter to the Queen's
University in Ireland, or of altering the composition of the
senate ; and, if so, whether the bill would be brought in at
an early period of the session ?
Sir G GREY said lie hoped to be able to introduce the
bill at an early day. There were certain matters to bo in-
quired into which at present prevented him doing so.

THE STATE OF DUDE.
Colonel FRENCH asked the Under Secretary of State

for India whether, with reference to the pledge which had
been given to this house that all the public and bone fide
claims against the State of Oude would be paid out of the
rovenues of the country, it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to support the report of the commission
appointed by the Government of India to investigate and
report upon the cases of the several claimants, or what
steps were intended to be taken for the purpose of adjust-
ing the same ?
Mr. STANSFELD said the report of the cases was not
yet complete, and therefore ho was precluded from giving
the hon. gentleman a definite answer.
THE DOCKYARD ARTISANS—THE REFORM
BILL.

Mr. OTWAY asked the Chancellor of the Excheqr.er
whether the Government adhered to its intention of dis-
franchising the artisans in her Majesty's dockyards,
arsenals, and factories ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
inexpedient to give answers at the present moment as to
what course the Government proposed to take upon cer-

Ain clauses of the bill now under the attention of the

house.

THE MALT TAX.

Sir F. KELLY rose to movo the following resolution :
•U That upon any future remission of indirect taxation,

this house will take into consideration the duty upon malt,
with a view to its immediate reduction and ultimate re-
peal." The hon. and learned gentleman took the oppor-
tunity of going at some length into the question of the
repeal of the malt tax. He said the Government had re-
duced the duties on bricks, timber, glass, cotton, wool, corn,
flour, soap, cattle, and provisions of every description, yet
the poor man's only comfort, if it could not be called a
necessary, was still subject to an oppressive and unjust
tax. The duty on wine, an article of foreign produce,
and consumed only by the rich, had been greatly
reduced, yet malt, three-fifths of the whole manufactured
was consumed by the poor, and still maintained a high and
unjust figure. The effect of a reduction of the tax would
be to give the poor man good beer instead of bad, and that
fact alone, he thought, ought to weigh greatly in favour of
his motion. If the malt tax was repealed, he believed
he was quite correct in stating that beer could be pur-
chased at one-third less than the price now paid.
He maintained that the consumer of beer paid three or
four times the amount of the tax as originally forwarded
to the Exchequer on malt; while, unlike every other im-
post, whether levied on income, fire insurance, tea, coffee,
or sugar, it stood alone in this, that it affected an article
which was consumed almost entirely by the working and
poorer closses of the community. It bore, in fact, as no
other tax did, directly not only on the comforts but on the
necessaries of the labouring population. The value of the
beer sold in the United Kingdom per annum was
£60,000,000 ; and of this More than three-fifths was con-
sumed by the working classes, who :paid, by this means,
the exorbitant impost; while, on wine,-for the rich, the
prohibitive duties had been reduced more than 70 per
cent. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how,
consistently with the great and enlightened principles
which he had so often laid down, he could perpetuate this
tax ? If the impost were repealed, the public, he stated,
would be able to buy beer at one-third of the cost at pre-
sent paid for it ; and, in addition, the obnoxious mono-
poly—whereby large brewers bought public-houses and
sold them, under restrictions detrimental to the consumer,
and at prices which bore no relation to their intrinsic
value—would be broken down. He pointed out that in
the days when there was no malt duty beer was sold at a
penny a quart, and said that even now it was possible to
brew good beer at 7d. a gallon. It was his sincere belief
and conviction that if the malt tax was repealed it would
be attended by a great and immediate benefit to the
people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He trusted
the time was fast approaching when those enlightened
principles of commercial policy would be applied to
this impost, and millions upon millions among the lower
section of the community would participate in the benefits
of that system to which they owed the groat commercial
prosperity of the country.
Mr. J. MORE briefly seconded the motion.
Mr. NEATE moved an amendment to the effect that in
the present state of the taxation and resources of the coun-
try, it was the duty of Parliament to make provision for
the systematic reduction of the national debt, and not to
sanction any proposal for any repeal or change of taxes
which was likely to be attended with a diminution of the
revenue.

, Mr. J. S. MILL, in seconding the amendment,, said he
had for some time felt so very serious and solemn a con-
viction on the subject that his hon. friend had brought
forward, that it was almost a matter of conscience with
him not to let slip any occasion of impressing that con-
viction on some hon. members. Not long ago it might
no; altogether unreasonably be supposed that the un-
rivalled growth of this country in every description of
wealth the limits of which it was hardly possible to
define or to look forward to, was an excuse to us_
almost a justification—for leaving our pecuniary obliga-
tions, without any serious attempt to reduce them, to
weigh upon posterity, who, they might reasonably ex-
pect, would be far better able to support them than they
were themselves. This was, however, at no time a
conclusive argument or a sufficient excuse, because
future generations would have their exigencies too.
(hear, hear.) And they had had an example of it not
from it by the,
re-add
years ago. Two years of war sufficed to
add to our debt nearly as much as was substracted
they had too mild, hadfsaacvtisnsof fifty years. (Hear, hear.) But
more recently
was to show that the been brought to their notice which
overlooked, and the tendency of which
was one not admissible yuso they had made to themselves
exceeded
thnetthe case of a nation whose popu-
lation greatly
be
supported
which could in the pre-
sent state of science
were, therefore, dependentgeovoeedtinsfinorf
from its own soil, and who
subsistence upon the
material. power of disposing of their
lillaprokne tB'
the whose
oreign
command over those markets de
con-
tinued existence of inexhaustible
hear.) The termination of their coal (Hear,
always certain, 1,:ol until !•):..3.,. ,
J -PpearAlP,l3,,lebs,,, though
at
great a distance that it ac weal quite utaiecessarysoioar
the present generation to occupy itself with that clues-

tion. (Hear, hear.) The cause of that was that they
suffered themselves to calculate upon the present rate
of consumption ; but the fact was that their con-

sumption of coal increased with such extraordinary
rapidity from year to year that the practical exhaustion
of their :supplies had become no longer a question of
centuries, but a "question only of generations. (Hear,
hear.) Probably some hon. members might be ac-
quainted with a small volume written by Mr. Stanley
Jevons, entitled the " Coal Question," and it appeared
to him, so far as a person not practically conversant
with the subject could judge, that Mr. Jevons' treat-
ment of the subject was almost exhaustive. He seemed
nearly to have anticipated-everything which was possible
to be said against the conclusion to which he arrived, and
to have answered it. That conclusion was that if the pre-
sent rate of consumption of coal continued three genera-
tions at the most, or very possibly a considerably shorter
period, would leave no workable coal in existence
nearer the surface than 4,000 ft. in depth, and that the
expense of raising it from that depth would be such
as entirely to put it out of the power of this country
any longer to compete in manufactures with the richer
coalfields- of other countries. (Hear, hear.) He thought
that if there were any one in that house, or out of it, who
knew anything which would invalidate this conclusion of
Mr. Jevons, it would be right of him to come forward and
make it known. He had himself read various attempts to
answer Mr. Jevons, but he must say every one of them came
to nothing more than to make it more or less probable that
their supplies might continue a few years longer than the
term Mr. Jevons had assigned. In fact, it now came to this,
that instead of being at liberty to suppose that future
generations would be more capable than they are them-
selves to pay off this debt, the present generation and
one or two more which would follow it, would have the
smallest chance of ever being able to pay it. What
was the duty which facts of this sort imposed upon
this nation ? Were they going to bequeath their pecu-
niary obligations undiminished to descendants to
whom they could not bequeath their assets ? :(Hear,
hear.) Suppose it were the case of any private
individual. Suppose the property of any gentleman in that
house had become deeply mortgaged, and that the bulk of
it consisted of a mine, rich, indeed, but certain to be ex-
hausted in his lifetime, would he think it honourable to
waste the whole proceeds of that mine in a riotous living,
and to leave his children to pay off the debt out of the
residue of his estate. Now, what would be . vicious
and dishonourable in a private individual was not
less dishonourable in a nation. They should think
of those things while it was still time. This country was
at prsent richer and more prosperous than any country
which they knew or read of, and it could without any ma-
terial inconvenience or privation set aside several millions
a year for the discharge of this important duty to their
descendants. (Hear, hear.)- He did not think we were
much to blame as far as we had yet gone. It was quite
right to get rid of all very bad taxes—of all those which
produced a greater quantity of mischief than they
were worth for the purpose they were now speaking of or
for any other. Thanks to the progress of opinion, and to
the enlightened and far-sighted Minister who now for a
number of years had administered their finances this work
had been very nearly performed. (Cheers.) There were
very few taxes remaining which wore utterly unfit to
exist. If there were any they did not yield so large a
revenue but that they could hope, without much
difficulty, to get rid of them also. (Hear, hear.)
The bulk of their revenue was now derived, and would
continue to be derived, from a comparatively small
number of imposts, each of them yielding a very con-
siderable sum, and none of which, he thought, was now
very seriously objectionable in principle, or very
greatly mischievous in practice, any further than it was
inevitable to the payment of taxes. (Cheers.) He
thought it perfectly legitimate to try experiments in
some respects, when there was any chance, by lowering
the rate of taxation, that the existing revenues they
yielded might be increased or maintained. It was legiti-
mate also to vary the mode of imposing the tax, either by
levying it at a later stage in the production of the article,
which would got rid of a number of objections. To abolish
any of these taxes yielding a yearly revenue of £5,000,C00
or £6,000,000, merely in order that they might have
1 the satisfaction or advantage et spending in some other
way the produce which it yielded, appeared to h:la to
be a criminal dereliction of their duty. (Hear, hear.)
if we were able, either by increase of resources or by re-
trenchment in our expenses, to dispense with the malt
tax, how much wiser and better would it be to set that
aside for the extinction of the national debt. He would
press the attention of the house to the duty and necessity
of taking that consideration for posterity which had been
strong in every nation that ever did anything great,
and had never left them till the nation, as in the case of
Rome under the Empire, was already falling into de-
crepitude and ceasing- to be a great nation. There
might be some who would say, in the words of the old
jest, " Why should we trouble ourselves for posterity ?
Posterity had done nothing for us ?" Was it true that
posterity had done nothing for us ? He maintained that
whatever had been done for mankind by the idea of
posterity, by a philanthropic regard for posterity,
by a sense of duty to posterity, and even by the lest;
noble but still pure feeling of ambition to be remem-
bered and thought well of by posterity, by the foun-
ders of nations, and by those second founders
of nations, the Reformers; by laws and institutions.
which caused free countries to be free, and well-
governed countries to be well governed; by all the
heroic lives that had been lived and deaths that had
been died in defence of freedom and in defiance
of tyranny, from Marathon and Salamis to Leipsic
and Waterloo; by all those traditions of heroism and
of virtue by which the treasuries of nations were full;
by all the schools and universities which had handed
down torus the culture of past times and by that
culture itself ; all this is amassed for us only because our
ancestors have cared and taken thought for posterity.
We owe to it our groat masters of thought —our Bacon,
and Newton, and Locke —our Shakspare, Milton, and
Wordsworth. (Cheers.) It is said that some eminent man
when he desired to assist any person by pecuniary help
used to have a way of doing it thus. He would say :
"Mind, Ido not give it you. I only lend it you ; and
I expect that if you are ever able to repay it you
will do so, not to me, but to some one else who may be in
a like position, and with the same stipulation, so that the
stream of benefit may go on as far as human honesty can
keep it flowing:, (Cheers.) He was not sure but it was
Franklin. And what Franklin did from benevolence, in
order that the benefit of his gift might go as far as possible
we should do from the gratitude we owe to our predeces-
sors, which wo can never repay directly to those from whom
we, like the objects of Franklin's benevolence, received it,
but to others for whom they have cared and for whom, and
not for our ewn service only, their labours and sacrifices
have been incurred. What were we that we should usurp
to ourselves and employ for our own purpose and use ex-
clusively what was meant for mankind? It was lent, and
not given to us, and we were bound to hand on these gifts,
not only in full, but with interest, to those who stand in
relation to us as we to those from whom we have received
them. So shall we deserve and so may we hope to receive
a share of the same gratitude. (Much cheering.)
Mr. C. S. READ supported the motion, on the ground
that the farmers, as a class, had not only derived less ad-
vantage from free trade than any other portion of the com-
munity, but were in reality sufferers from the application
of that principle to the commerce of the country. The
whole system under the operation of this tax was, in fact,
a gigantic monopoly, which, beginning with the monster,
continued with the brewer, and ended with the licensed
publican. It was worthy of the consideration of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a beer tax might not
be substituted for the malt duty. Ho believed that one
penny a gallon would produce upwards of £4,000,000 a-
year.
Sir E. BUL LER also supported the motion. He de-
nounced the tax as oppressive, partial, excessive, and pe-
culiarly unjust to the labouring classes.
Mr. SURTEES and Mr. P. URQUHART also said they should
vote for the amendment.
Mr. BEACH recommended the reduction of the duty on
the ground that the increased consumption of malt would
soon recoup the Exchequer for any loss it might sustain.
Mr. C. BUXTON viewed the question of "cheap beer,"
as stated by Sir F. Kelly, from a practical stand point. He
argued that, owing to the enormous expenses for casks,
water, horses, premises, delivery, bad debts, &c., that
beverage could never be sold at the low rate quoted. As
to the brewers' "monopoly," as it had been termed, if any,
it was entirely owing to the malt tax. But he assured the
house that there was no compulsion as to dealing with cer-
tain firms, since the publican had only got to go to some
other brewer and get the amount previously advanced, so
as to pay it off, and he could at once take his custom to the
other firm. Ho should not, however, vote for the resolu-
tion.

Mr. DE GREY supported the motion. He argued that
Parliament was bound to remove the present tax, if only
to redeem the pledge given by the late Sir R. Peel that the
abolition of the corn-laws should be followed by the revo-
cation of the malt tax.
Mr. M'LAREN supported the amendment, since he con-
sidered it highly discreditable to Englishmen that no at-
tempt had been heretofore seriously made to reduce the
national debt.
Mr. DUCANE expressed an opinion that the farming
interest would bo satisfied with the settlement of this
matter by a tax on beer. Ho deprecated the question being
even considered one of a more party character, since it
affected the interests of the whole community.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the motion.
Mr. lIUBBARD thought the real grievance of the malt
tax was, that it interfered materially with the cultivation
of the soil, inasmuch as under its operation lands which
were peculiarly well situated for the growth of barley had
to be laid down in crops for which they were not so adapted.
There was, he maintained, no general call for the repeal of
the tax, although ho should be happy to see it removed as
soon as the state of the revenue would allow it. He re-
gretted, however, his inability to vote for the motion of
Sir F. Kelly.
Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH supported the motion. He
complained that the importation of the question of dealing
with the reduction of the national debt was not a fair
method of nicetiog the matt,?:r.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the

point involved in the amendment was far too important to
be dealt with in such a way. It was a subject which should
be fully unfolded before the house, and taken into its most
careful consideration; and, therefore, he intimated that it
was his intention to offer some observations respecting it
when he came to make his annual financial statement.
Passing, then, to the motion, the right hon. gentleman re-
peated his former protests against the attempts to commit
the mind of the house by anticipation in respect of the dis-
posal of an unknown surplus to one particular claim,
amongst various competing claims which were not then
before the house. Alluding to the suggestions which
had been made of substituting a duty on beer for the
malt tax, he observed that there were enormous
difficulties in the way of the accomplishment of that
object. Not that he meant to say that these were insuper-
able ; but ho knew not how they were to be overcome ;
I and if ever they were, it must be the result of a general
concurrence of views among the parties concerned, of
which there was now no distinct prospect. Without ex-
pressing an obstinate adherence to the present form of the
tax, he called on the house not to consent, by agreeing to
the motion, to the sacrifice of so large an amount of
revenue.

Mr. NEATE withdrew his amendment.
The house then divided. The numbers wore—
For the motion
Against it .. 235
Majority —B5
The select committee on the Vaccination Bill was
nominated.

Leave was given to Mr. Scourfield to bring in a bill for
the regulation of railway debentures; to Mr. Childers for
a measure to secure the repayment of public moneys ad-
vanced for the drainage and improvements of lands and
other like objects in Ireland ; and to Mr. Milner Gibson
one to amend tho Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c., Act,
1861.
The Grand Juries Presentment (Ireland) Bill was read
a second time.
The remaining orders of the day were disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

GRAND TRUNK OF CANADA.

The report of the directors states that the gross
receipts of the united system of the Grand Trunk,
Champlain and Buffalo, and Lake Huron, in the
six months ended Dec. 31 last, were £714,780, the
ordinary working expenses being £395,674, or 55.35
per cent. ; there remained £319,106. From this was
deducted £89,689, being the whole expenditure in-
curred in the half year for renewals of the railway
and works, and £52,945 to extinguish the whole
amount left at the debit of the' renewal suspense
account, leaving £176,472, minus the nominal
amount of postal and military service revenue—viz.,
£15,363, but plus the balance of £BO remaining
over from the preceding half year, leaving £161,189,
which was disposed of as follows :—£58,848 for
discount on American currency, £2,287 interest on
lands, £4,424 interest on mortgage to Bank of Up-
per Canada, £14,688 interest on loans, Island Pond
Debentures, exchange, &c., £2,312 instalment on
Portland sinking fund, £32,786 rent of Atlantic
and St. Lawrence, £11,250 rent of Detroit line,
£10,274 Montreal and Champlain, £16,864 Buffalo
and Lake Huron, and £7,491 equipment Bond in-
terest, making together £161,226 less £37 over-
charged on second preference interest, £161,189.
The certificates for the interest due for the past year
on the preference bonds and stocks would be issued
on the 15th May next. With the exception of the
bankers' balances in Canada, covered by securities,
the undertaking was on the 31st Dec. last free from
liability or debit to suspense account, while the net
revenue alone had now paid for the whole ordinary
and extraordinary renewals unlertaken since 1861
inclusive, amounting in total to £326,863. Were it
not for the extraordinary charge against revenue for
renewals,exceeding the estimate of past years by over
£lOO,OOO, and the loss on American currency of
£59,000, a sum of say £160,000 would have
been available for division on the prefe-
rence bonds and stocks sufficient to pay the
1
full half-year's interest on the first, second,
and third preferences, and 1 per cent. on the
fourth preference stock. It must, however, be ex-
pected that the cost of renewals would be consider-
able for some time to come. The steady decline in
the premium of gold in the United States (now 25
per cent.) gave season to hope that the late serious
deductions from earnings for loss on the exchange
of American currency would before long cease ; as
from the Ist of January last the board proposed that
the net earnings be regularly remitted and be divided

for interest and dividend in accordance with the re-
spective priorities of the bonds and stocks of the
company. The increase of the gross receipts of the
half year as compared with the corresponding half
of 1864 had been £86,565, or at the rate of 14 per
cent. The average receipt per passenger carried had
been 7s. 10d. against ss. Bd., and the average receipt
per ton of freight had been 15s. sd. as against
15s. 9d. in the corresponding half-year. The in-
crease of the ordinary working expenses had been
£19,402, or at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, as
against the above increase of 14 per cent. in receipts.
In consequence of the exceptional charges against
the half-year, amounting in the aggregate to

In group 5, the Bristol and Portishead Pier was
adjourned, and the Bristol Harbour Junction Rail-
way and Wharf Depot was heard and adjourned.
In group 7, the Thames and Severn Canal Naviga-
tion and the Wye Valley were adjourned. In group
9 thepreamble was proved in the following cases :
The Hoylake, the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's
Quay and Hoylake, and the Chester and West
Cheshire Junction. In the case of the Manchester
and Stockport the preamble was proved. In group
13, the Lancashire and Yorkshire (West Riding
branches, &c.), was proceeded with and adjourned.
Yesterday, in the House of Lords, before Lord
Redesdale, the following Railway Bills passed
through with amendments :—Delabole and Bossiney
Harbour, the Central Ireland, Central Wales Exten-
sion, the Limerick and Castle Connell, and the
Furness. The following bills were proceeded with
and adjourned :—Waterford, New Ross, and
Wexford Junction, and the Ryde Station. In the
Standing Order Committee the Aberdare Northern
was found not to have complied with the stand-
ing orders, and also the Kingston and Epsom.
Before Mr. Smith, in room B, the following
bills complied with the standing orders :—Kid-
welly and Burry Port and Burry Port Amalgama-
tion, and London and North Western (new lines).
_ _

In the House of Commons, before Mr. Dodson's
committee, the following railways bills were passed:
—Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire (Liver-
pool Extension) ; Llynvi Valley ; Lynvi Valley and
Ogmore Valley ; Worcester, Bromyard, and Leo-
minster ; Presteigh, Clun, and Bishop's Castle ;
Winchcomb and Midland ; Ellesmere and Glyn
Valley ; Uxbridge and Rickmansworth ; Wrexham,
Mold, and Connah's Quay (Extensions). In group
1, the Metropolitan District passed, and the Metro-
politan (additional powers) was proceeded with and
adjourned. In group la, the London, Chatham,
and Dover, and South-Eastern (Kennington, Clap-
ham, and Brixton) was proceeded with and ad-
journed, and in the London, Chatham, and Dover
(various powers) appearances were taken. In group
5, the preamble was proved in the Bristol Harbour
Junction or Railway Wharf Depot ; the Wiltshire
bill was withdrawn ; the `Vantage and Great Wes-
tern Junction was unopposed and referred to the
General Committee. In group 7, the Thames and
Severn Canal Navigation was proceeded with and
adjourned. In group 9, the clauses were settled in
thefollowing bills :—Holylake, the Wrexham, Mold,
and Connah's Quay and Holylake, and the Chester
and West Cheshire Junction. In group 13, Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire (best Riding branches, &c.),
the preamble was proved; the Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire and Great Eastern was withdrawn;
the Great Northern and Great Eastern arrange-
ments (Spalding to Lincoln) was withdrawn ; the
South Yorkshire was unopposed and referred to the
General Committee ; and the Great Eastern, Great
Northern, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire bill was withdrawn.