said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to defects in the Act of 1857 respecting Finsbury Park, he will bring in a Bill to declare the trusts for which it was passed, and otherwise to amend the same?

, in reply, said, that it was a very peculiar ease. By an Act passed in the year 1857 the Metropolitan Board of Works were empowered to purchase 250 acres of land, for the purpose of a park in Finsbury, and they were at the same time authorized to sell for building purposes twenty acres, which might not be necessary for the park, in order to recoup themselves part of the expense of constructing the park. The Board had to deposit plans in the office of the First Commissioner of Works, and he presumed that by so doing they were bound not to deviate from those plans without his sanction. The Board availed themselves of the powers conferred by the Act, but only purchased 115 acres, and they at present wished to deduct from that quantity twenty acres for building purposes, that being the amount they were authorized to deduct from 250 acres. It appeared that they were desirous of taking the twenty acres principally from land adjoining the Seven Sisters' Road, and the inhabitants of the north of London considered that building on that land would materially interfere with the proper enjoyment of the park. He had received a Memorial signed by nearly 14,000 persons, including ministers of all denominations, and the leading inhabitants of Finsbury, protesting against that proceeding of the Metropolitan Board of Works. His power, as Chief Commissioner of Works, over the Board had, however, been rescinded by an Act passed in the year 1858, so that he had, at present, no control over them. Under those circumstances he had addressed himself privately to his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who always look a large and liberal view of these matters, and at a meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works his hon. Friend moved that the land in question should not be taken from the park; but he was defeated by a majority upon a division to rescind the Resolution which had already been come to on the subject, and the Board were now proceeding to exercise their alleged right. He (Mr. Layard) understood that right was a doubtful one. but he had no power to interfere. He was afraid that those persons who were interested in the park must have recourse to legal proceedings if they wished to test the right claimed by the Board. His sympathy was with the Memorialists, and he would be prepared to afford them any assistance in his power.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works have refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the laud purchased by them for the purpose of Finsbury Park?

, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Metropolitan Board of Works had refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the land they had purchased for the Fins-bury Park. It was originally intended that there should be a large park on the north side of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were authorized to carry out that scheme, the Government undertaking to grant them £50,000 towards the expenses of the 250 acres they were to purchase. The House, however, subsequently decided that the Government should not interfere in the matter, and consequently the whole of the outlay had to be met out of the rates, and not out of the coal duties nor any public fund. The Board, thereupon, determined to buy only 120 acres, which they did, at a total expense of £90,000. That money was raised to a great extent from the poorer classes in the metropolis, and he was quite sure the House would agree with him that it would be desirable the Board should, if possible, recoup themselves, to a certain extent, out of the land that had been purchased, for a portion of their expenditure. Ten acres out of the twenty set apart for building purposes were at the bottom of the land near the railway, and to that portion of the scheme no exception had been taken. The other ten acres ran along a fine road recently laid down towards the Seven Sisters' Road, and he had always opposed the proposal to apply that land to building purposes. But when he had recently brought the question before the Board again he had been defeated by a majority of 25 votes to 16. It appeared that the only power the Board had was a power to sell, and not to lease, and before they could make an offer of sale the park must be finished, and it must also be shown that the land was not essential to the park. That question, he apprehended, might be raised by a writ of mandamus. It further appeared that the former owner of the land had a right of pre-emption at the price of the day; but whether he would take it or not remained to be seen. If he did not, then it seemed the Board would have the power to sell in the open market; but, he found they could not demise the land for building purposes. Under those circumstances he thought that his hon. Friend and the House might feel assured that there was very little likelihood the sale of that portion of the land would take place; but that was the only assurance he could give upon the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State? for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of juvenile offenders sent under the Act 17 & 18 Vic, c. 86, to certified Reformatory Schools, care is taken to afford instruction in handicraft trades, or whether in any such certified Reformatory Schools employment is limited to field labour?

replied that, as a rule, a certain number of the boys were taught handicrafts, and he was not aware that in any schools the instruction was limited to field labour. Field labour, however, did occupy the chief attention, because it was felt that for many of the boys it would be an advantage that they should emigrate to the colonies, where, of course, field labour would be of the greatest service to them.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any answer has yet been received from the Spanish Government to the proposal made to it by Her Majesty's Government in December last, that the case of the "Tornado" should be re-heard before a Special Tribunal, and, if so, what are the terms of such answer; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House all Communications received by Her Majesty's Government, subsequent to the 26th of February last, from Mr. Graham Dunlop and other persons respecting the case of the "Tornado" and her crew?

said, in reply, that the Foreign Office had received a despatch from Madrid, stating that the Spanish Government had declined to accede to our request that the case of the Tornado should be referred to a special tribunal. The reasons for this refusal were given very fully, and those reasons would be communicated to the Law Officers of the Crown. He had that day laid upon the table of the House all the communications that had passed on the subject subsequent to the 26th of February, with the exception of a despatch from Mr. Graham Dunlop, which, though it did refer to the case of the Tornado, contained the account of a conversation with a Spanish officer, now dead. It was, therefore, thought desirable not to lay that despatch on the table with the others.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to construct the salmon ladders so long promised on the Shannon, and when the eel weir at Ruskey is to be removed, in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the River Shannon of last year?

said, in reply, that the subject had not been brought under the consideration of the present Government, although it occupied the attention of their predecessors. Objections were then raised to the construction of these works, and no order was given upon the subject. If however, the owners who might be benefited by them would submit any proposal to the Government, and at the same time explain how they proposed to find the funds to defray the express which would be incurred, they would take those proposals into consideration, and afford any assistance to carry out their views. The difficulty hitherto had been that these proprietors were extremely anxious to have the im- provements effected, but they did not show any activity in stating how the money was to be provided to carry them out.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Despatch recently received from the Government of India regarding the construction of new lines of Railway in the three Presidencies?

The despatch, Sir, to which my hon. Friend refers is still under consideration. There will not, I believe, be any difficulty about laying it on the table when a decision has been arrived at with regard to the matter of which it treats.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What number of extra Constabulary have been sent to the County Tipperary, and on what districts or townlands the payment of such extra force is to be levied?

said, in reply, that the extra constabulary sent to the county Tipperary had been distributed ass follows:—Six in the district of Cashel, ten in the district of Bansha, nine to Tipperary town, and six to Dundrum—making thirty-one in all; and the cost of this extra protection would be; charged on the districts requiring it; but what townlands wore included he was unable to say.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What amount has been expended in the embellishments of the Crypt of Saint Stephen's; when that expenditure commenced; by whose order it was undertaken; and out of what fund the cost has been paid; and, if ever the Crypt is completed, to what use it is to be appropriated?

said, in reply, that £1,953 had been expended for embel- lishments and fittings, the cost of the embellishments having been about £830. The expenditure on the crypt commenced in 1854, Tinder the authority of a Vote of that House, the works being authorized by his two predecessors, the right hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper) and the noble Lord the Member for South Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). Both the crypt and the baptistry were complete, and were ready for the use of Members if required. It was not for him to determine to what use they were to be placed; but he believed it was intended, when the repairs were begun, that the crypt should be used as a place of worship for the numerous residents in the building.

said, he would bog to ask the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that in certain parts of Wales the Post Office Mails art; now conveyed on velocipedes instead of on horses; and if this change has been found to add to the efficiency and economy of the Service?

said, in reply, that no such change as that to which the hon. Gentleman alluded was at the present contemplated. An experiment had been tried, or would shortly be tried, to ascertain whether in certain rural districts these machines could be used by post messengers—on roads which were, not very hilly, and were otherwise adapted for the purpose. But as the practice of riding or driving upon velocipedes did not form part of the examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, he thought it would be necessary to allow the use of these machines to be optional.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What means those seamen of the Mercantile Marine who may have claims upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund should adopt to obtain their share of the £4,000 set apart by the Government for their benefit?

said, in reply, that the allotment of £4,000 to the Mercantile Marine was only proposed by the Bill now before the House, and, until it became law, seamen would not have any means of making claims. When it had passed, the Admiralty would communicate with the Board of Trade, and make arrangements under which seamen would be able to apply if they were qualified according to the regulations.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was aware when he gave it as his opinion that all persons who have received episcopal ordination are thereby disabled from sitting in Parliament, that it was thought necessary to prevent, by special enactment in the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829) the Roman Catholic Clergy from sitting in Parliament?

Sir, I must beg leave to correct the answer I gave on a former occasion. My learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General advise me that, according to their view, sustained, no doubt, by the existence of that clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, that the provision contained in the Act passed in the case of Horne Tooke would not be understood to exclude from Parliament clergymen other than those of the Established Church. If that be so, the state of the law is one of anomaly and confusion still greater than I had supposed, and certainly it ought to receive the early attention of Parliament. It is not easy to see the precise manner in which it ought to be dealt with; but it is not possible to make any attempt to alter the law in the Bill now passing.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is or is not the case that the Lord Major of Dublin retains the commission of the peace for the year succeeding his year of office?

said, in reply, that the Lord Mayor of Dublin did not retain the commission of the peace for the year succeeding his year of office. The misapprehension upon the subject had probably arisen from the fact that the Lord Mayor of Dublin pre- sided in the Court of Conscience during the year following that of his mayoralty, but he did so not as a justice of the peace, and not by statute, but by immemorial custom.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, What is the total sum which has been spent on the maintenance of British Graves in the Crimea; why is or has been responsible for the proper application of such sum; and will he lay upon the Table Sir Andrew Buchanan's recent Despatch on the subject?

said, in reply, that the entire sum spent had been £3,291 15s. 3d., and the expenditure ranged over a period of six years, from November, 1860, to November, 1866. It included the remuneration of custodians and watchmen, as well as repairs. He was glad of an opportunity of stating these facts, because exaggerated accounts of the expenditure had appeared in the papers. The gentlemen who had been responsible for the application of the money were the two consuls at Kertch, who had been directed to visit the graves periodically and report on their state. A small sum had also been expended by the consul at Odessa. The despatch of Sir Andrew Buchanan contained other matters than an account of his visit in company with the Prince and Princess of Wales to the Crimean graves, and therefore it would be inconvenient, to lay the despatch on the table; but he would be glad to allow any hon. Member to see that part of the despatch referring to the condition of i the graves.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under existing circumstances, he intends to carry out his plan of reducing the Forces in Canada?

, in reply, said, instructions had been given for the removal from Canada of a portion of Her Majesty's Forces; the order was now in the course of execution, and it was not the intention of the Government to countermand it.

said, in consequence of that answer, he would beg to ask whether it is intended that those troops that remain should be left in such a state of efficiency as to numbers that they would be prepared for any emergency?

said, that due regard had been paid to what was required by circumstances in the re-distribution of Her Majesty's troops in British North American Provinces.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a Petition has been received from the Chiefs and Landholders of the Punjaub, complaining of an Act passed in October last, called the Punjaub Tenancy Act, as an infringement of the customs of that Province; and, if not, whether he has heard that such a Petition has been submitted to the Governor General for transmission to the Secretary of State; and whether the Secretary of State for India has sent any instructions to the Governor General on the subject of the above Law?

Sir, vague rumours respecting this Petition have reached me, as they appear to have reached my hon. Friend, but no official information has been received about it, and no instructions whatever have been sent to India.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intends to introduce any words into the Irish Church Bill to secure the life interests of the Professors of Maynooth, in accordance with the statement to that effect made by the Attorney General for Ireland when the House was in Committee; or whether those gentlemen are now satisfied that their life interests are secured by the Bill as it stands?

Sir, on re-consideration we are of opinion that the words which have been introduced into the Bill are practically sufficient for the purpose of securing the life interests of the Professors of Maynooth, and we have not the least reason to suppose that those gentlemen are dissatisfied with the security afforded to them.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether the Government have decided in what way the promised full inquiry into the late loss of life at Londonderry is to be carried out; whether by two Commissioners appointed by the Government; and how soon such inquiry will be made?

said, in reply, that inquiry would be conducted by two Commissioners—eminent barristers—in precisely the same manner as the inquiry into the riots at Belfast had been conducted some years ago. The appointment of those gentlemen had not yet been made, but he hoped it would take place in the course of a few days.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the new regulation giving a step of honorary rank to Militia Officers of certain standing, Whether he proposes to take into consideration, as a qualification for such step, lengthened service with embodied regiments, as distinguished from attendance at the annual training?

, in reply, said, it was proposed to give an honorary rank to officers who had served a certain number of years; but no distinction was to be made whether regiments which had been embodied or disembodied.

said, he wished to ask a Question with regard to Victoria Park. An apprehension existed amongst the frequenters of the Park that a public-house was about to be opened within its precincts, in which spirituous liquors were to be freely sold. He should be glad to hear from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, What are the intentions of the Government, with a view to allaying this apprehension?

said, in reply, that he was much obliged to his right hon. Friend for giving him that opportunity of explaining a matter which had been very much misrepresented. The House was aware that Victoria Park was in a part of London inhabited chiefly by the working classes, many of whom came from considerable distances, bringing with them their wives and families, in order to enjoy a day in the Park. Hitherto the principal refreshments to be had in the Park were sour ginger beer and stale buns. The working man could not dine upon such food as that, and he thought it would be a great been to him to authorize the selling of cooked meats, and something which might furnish him with a dinner, so as not to render it necessary for him to take his wife and children out of the Park to one of the numerous small pot-houses which had sprung up round about. But it was not true that he had authorized the sale of spirituous liquors; he had, on the contrary strictly prohibited anything of the kind. Beer had always been sold in the Park. There was to be no bar drinking, and if he should hear of any case of intoxication, he would withdraw the privilege which had been accorded. He believed the real promoters of the commotion against the change were the keepers of beer-shops in the neighbourhood of the Park, who feared they would lose some of their trade by the innovation.

said, he wished to know. Whether the Royal Commissions which have been ordered to issue for the purpose of investigating the Elections at Norwich, Beverley, and other places were about to sit, because it was very important? ["Order!"] With a view to placing himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. It was very important that these inquiries should be carried on as speedily as possible, in order that if these places were proved not to have been engaged in corrupt practices new Writs might be issued during the present Session. He begged to move the Adjournment of the House.

said, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member that it was desirable that these Commissions should sit as soon as they conveniently could, and he had every reason to suppose that when the Commissions were issued the Commissioners would immediately make arrangements for their sitting. But he had to inform the hon. Member that the Commissions must first be agreed to by the other House of Parliament. They would probably be agreed to by that House soon after Whitsuntide, and he trusted that after that there would be no delay.

said, he hoped the Government would accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for White-haven (Mr. Bentinck.) If these persons had not an absolute freehold right, they had certainly a fair equitable claim. Their predecessors had held their offices for life, and they themselves had had no doubt that they would do the same. It appeared to him that that was more than a case of doubt; that the case strongly inclined in favour of these officers; and he hoped the Government would accept the clause.

said, he had himself already brought the case of these persons before the House, and he would not repeat his previous arguments; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that members of the stipendiary choir at Armagh, though not the holders of freehold offices, have claims on the freehold. He would give his earnest support to the clause.

said, it was quite impossible for him to accede to that proposal. In truth, the matter had been discussed before, and decided upon by the House. It would be quite absurd to treat an organist or a singer in a choir as a freehold officer. If a singer lost his voice was he to be compensated out of the funds of the Dean and Chapter for the rest of his life? The Bill carefully drew a distinction between offices which were freehold and those which were non-freehold, and in regard to the latter category words were introduced at the end of Section 17 to give the Commissioners the widest discretion in dealing with those non-freehold officers where it was conceived that they were, or might be, deprived of any income by that Act; and that was the utmost limit to which they could in reason possibly go. Inasmuch as it was quite possible that some of those officers connected with cathedrals might be able to establish that they had a freehold office, they ought not, perhaps, to be precluded from establishing that. For instance, there was a very nice question connected with one office—that of the Master of Song in the cathedral to which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bentinck) had referred; and there was also the case of the vergers of cathedrals. What he therefore proposed to do in order to meet those cases was to insert in Clause 16, line 22, after ''Ireland," the words "or other holder of a freehold office of a similar nature connected with such church." That would enable everyone of those officers to establish that he had a freehold office if he could, and if he could not he must fall back upon Section 17.

said, he would not press his clause at present; but he wished to correct his right hon. and learned Friend on one point. If his right hon. and learned Friend walked across to Westminster Abbey he would find a number of singing men who had freehold offices limited to the extent that he had pointed out; and it was not possible in Westminster Abbey or in any of these cases for the Dean and Chapter to deprive those singers of their places if they lost their voices. Under the circumstances, however, he would accept the crumb thrown out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, it would not be in the power of the Government to accede to a clause worded so widely. Its operations extended not merely to any persons deprived of a yearly income—though that was wide enough—but to any person who might suffer pecuniary loss, and that in any manner, under the operation of the Act. The words, though confined at present to ecclesiastical persons, would, if extended to the laity, carry compensation to a tradesman who had been in the habit of supplying some rich ecclesiastical establishment. The Commissioners would carefully examine any case that might be raised.

said, he would withdraw the clause, hoping that the Government might find it possible to adopt it in sonic amended form providing for extreme cases.

said, he had communicated with the Attorney General for Ireland relative to the clause of which he had given notice for admitting the proctor of the diocesan court of Ferns, a solicitor. He understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Bill for transferring matrimonial causes to the Probate Court would shortly be introduced, and therefore he should withdraw it.

, in moving after Clause 65, to insert the following clause—

(Annuities not to be forfeited because annuitants do not consent to alterations in articles of Church.)

"No alteration which may be made in the present articles, doctrines, or formularies of the said Church shall be deemed binding in law upon any person entitled to an annuity under this Act, who shall not consent thereto, or agree to be bound thereby, so as to render him liable to forfeit or be deprived of his annuity, in case of his not conforming to such alteration, and by reason thereof."

said, he should be disappointed if any objections were raised to the principle which it embodied. Nothing could be stronger or more sincere than the declarations which had been made that in the view of the Government it was strict right and mere justice not to take away the vested rights of individuals without giving them full compensation for their life interests. As matters at present stood, no life interest of a clergyman could be taken away except for non-compliance with the conditions upon which his emoluments were held, and no one could deprive an ecclesiastical person of his freehold by imposing upon him new terms of ecclesiastical communion. The House had declared that the present life interests should be respected, but subject to the condition that the discharge of spiritual duties was also to be continuous. It was provided by the Bill that the present rules and ordinances of the Church should continue, subject to a power of alteration after the 1st of January, 1871, by the new Governing Body which was then to come into existence. Such a power of alteration was, of course, perfectly good as regarded those who agreed to be bound by it, but it should not be exercised to the detri- ment of those who had acquired life interests under the existing condition of things. Power ought not to be given to the new Church Body to compel clergymen to perform duties different, in a religions sense, from those which they had undertaken, or to submit to new terms of communion, as the condition of continuing to receive the payments to which they were now entitled. Originally he had given notice of this Motion in somewhat wider terms; but as it was apprehended that difficulties might, perhaps, be raised by unreasonable persons as to the exact meaning of the words "discipline and ordinances." it was thought better to limit the wording of the clause to "articles, doctrines, and formularies," because these were distinct and intelligible, and comprehended everything that could be matter of conscience to an individual in the discharge of his spiritual duties. He need not vindicate the use of the words articles and doctrines, and he need not say much as to formularies; but it should be remembered that formularies might operate as exclusive tests. Take the case, for instance, of the Ordination Service, or of the Offices for the administration of the Sacraments. A change in any of those formularies might be considered by those disapproving as involving important points of doctrine. It was quite right that the future authorities of the Church should have the power of making arrangements with regard to the government of the Church; but it would be most improper that they should have the power of introducing changes, so as to take away the livelihood of men who conscientiously objected to those changes. It might be said that it was not likely such changes would be made; but there could surely be no harm in guarding against the possibility of terms being imposed which would alter the spiritual conditions of tenure of an ecclesiastical office—changes which, as matters now stood, could not be introduced. He trusted that, the House would not permit such gross and flagrant injustice to be inflicted upon individuals as that they should lose their annuities, not in consequence of any breach by them of the regulations of their Church, but because they were unable to comply with alterations of substance in those regulations which might be made without their consent.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in supposing that upon the main principle which formed the foundation of his argument, the Government were ready to agree with him. It was not to the principle, but to the mode of applying it suggested by the clause, that they objected. The Bill would, undoubtedly, effect an immense change in the condition of both the Irish Church and its clerical officers, and in their endeavour to carry out that change the Government were bound to the observance of two points which it was not very easy to reconcile, and the difference between which the clause of the hon. and learned Member brought out in its sharpest force. The first of these points was the protection of the individual rights of the clergy, whether as regarded pecuniary matters or their status. The second point to be kept in view was that this great change should be effected with as little shock and disturbance to the general community of the Church as possible. In framing the Bill, these two points had been kept in view as far as possible. The hon. and learned Member had argued with perfect truth that by this Bill they were going to place the clergymen in a position in which they would be liable to have the terms of their communion altered without their individual consent. They were subject to that liability at the present time, under the authority of Parliament and of their ecclesiastical constitution. Under the Bill, however, a new ecclesiastical constitution would be created, and the argument of the hon. and learned Member was that they should not be made liable to the action of an ecclesiastical constitution without their own consent. Some time since, in answer to a question put by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), he had stated that in the whole of the communications which he had had from the Irish clergy no de-sire had been expressed for the particu- lar kind of protection proposed to be given by the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the feeling of the House would be that it would be better not to disturb the action of the new Body by recognizing unnecessarily an element of dissent. The truth of that statement had since been modified by what had occurred. One single clergyman, whose attention had probably been drawn to the matter by the debate upon it, had written to him asking that some protection might be afforded the clergy against the possible intolerant action of the new Body. Under these circumstances, when the hon. and learned Member placed his clause upon the Paper, he had laid that clause before persons of the greatest authority, weight, and judgment in the Irish Church, and had invited their judgment upon it. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's clause, in the opinion of the Bill, was to allow persons to join the new Body, to take part in its proceedings, to make laws binding upon others, and then to dissent from those laws themselves, and to agree to some laws and to reject others. There might be 100 clergymen, each dissenting from 100 different parts of new regulations relating to articles, doctrines, and formularies, so that there would be a different state of the law for every clergyman in the disestablished Church. This would be to carry the principle of anarchy and confusion into the new Church: toties quoties, a man might be able to obey and disobey, to assent and dissent. This, it appeared to him, would be a principle of anarchy in practice. He could understand that an existing clergy-man might lake part in the general action that would be binding upon all those who should become clergymen after the passing of this Act, and yet that he was to be at liberty not simply to retire and withdraw, but to remain, and yet dissent, from particular acts of the Body. It now appeared to him quite plain that some small portion of the Irish clergy were anxious that they should have some protection against a possible spirit of intolerance that might prevail in the disestablished Body; and, therefore, in his opinion, those who wished to do so should be permitted to sever themselves from that Body, and to give them such security for their pecuniary rights as Parliament might think just. Some persons had suggested that the dissentients should be allowed to go on receiving a proportion of the commutation money of their annuities, while others had proposed that they should receive the whole of their annuities. Upon that point he was indifferent as long as some clear, definite, and intelligible principle were adopted. The question was not one between the State and the Church, but between the Church and its own clergy, and therefore, in no way, involved the principle of the Bill. Having submitted the clause of the hon. and learned Member to the consideration of those whom he believed to have most weight and authority in the Irish Church, he had been informed that the general opinion was adverse to it. They were of opinion that some provision should be inserted in the Bill, but that it should be of a nature to enable those who desired it to discharge themselves of their own obligations, while, at the same time, they were to have sufficient security for their pecuniary interests. Undoubtedly that was the opinion held by persons of weight and authority, and who. he felt bound to say, had been objecting parties to the Bill from the first. In the teeth of such an opinion, it was not possible for him to agree to the clause proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. On the other hand, if there was a general opinion among the body of the clergy that such a clause should be adopted it was no part of the duty of the Government to oppose it. The question raised by the clause was not one of disestablishment or disendowment. The conclusion to which they arrived was this—that there was another branch of the legislature in which the Church was far more fully represented, in which there were Irish Prelates whose own interests were involved in the clause; and probably the ultimate form of any provision to be framed would be more satisfactorily considered there than in this House. At the same time he did not decline to entertain the question in the House of Commons if it was expedient to entertain it there. He spoke in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and he alluded more particularly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin—who, he believed, were of the same opinion as he was, that the question was not ripe for decision in that House. He could not there- fore accept the clause of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, the Prime Minister had accused the hon. and learned Member for Richmond of attempting to introduce an element of confusion into the future Church Body. He wished to call attention to the postulate -which the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to as- sumo in order to maintain that proposition. It was that the laity had no concern in the effects of this measure. Now, the terms on which the clergy hold then freeholds and their salaries as curates were that they should abide by the discipline and teach the doctrines of what was at present the United Church of England and Ireland. By these obligations they were bound by the law. as it now stands. These obligations were enforced by law upon the clergy for the protection of the laity from the inculcation of unsound doctrine by the clergy. The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to entertain the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was equivalent to a declaration that no legal security was to be given to the laity of the Irish Church that the clergy who enjoy the benefices of that Church—or if this Bill pass, the clergy retaining their position for life—should not hereafter depart from the doctrines and discipline of the Church. The postulate of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not one recognized by the Church of England, but. it was one on which the Church of Rome relied, because in the Church of Rome the clergy governed the laity, while in the United Church of England and Ireland the clergy and laity were considered equal, in their relative positions, as members of the Church, and were relatively bound by the same laws. Nothing could more forcibly illustrate the disorganizing character of this Bill than the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond. It indicated that the Church was going to be made over to a Body, of whom it was hoped that, they would depart from the doctrines held by her at the present time. It might be right to give a new Church entire freedom; but they were not dealing with a new Church. They were dealing with a Church whose clergy by their ordination vows were bound to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland. Compensation was to be given to that clergy, and therefore he thought that the refusal of the Government to agree to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman afforded the strongest evidence that the intention of the framers of this Bill was not only to disestablish and disendow, but also to disorganize the Irish Church.

said, that before coming down to the House to-day, he had had an opportunity of learning the opinions of persons of the highest authority, and it was in favour of the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). Since he came down the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had communicated to him the opinions which he had received, and he felt bound to say that they were those of persons of the greatest authority. This showed that on the question of the clause there was a difference of opinion among persons of the greatest weight. His own opinion was that the laity would be perfectly safe without this clause; but as the incomes paid to the clergy were paid to them for the benefit of the laity, he thought that in this case each member of the Church was entitled to say non hœc in fœdera veni, and to ask that the Church Body might be afforded the protection which the clause would give them. There was, however, a good deal of force in what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in reference to the clause being discussed and considered in "another place," where great experience and knowledge could be brought to bear upon it; but for himself he must say that if there were a division he must, in deference to those with whom he had conferred, vote for the clause.

thought the less this Bill interfered with the future government of the Church Body the better. He did not agree in the opinion that this question should be left to the decision of the right rev. Prelates in "another place." The Church of Ireland was in a very different position to that of Scot- land, and his opinion was that the more they were permitted to settle their own matters the easier it would be to carry out their intention of disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church without injury to the Protestant faith. Let there not be a new Church with old laws. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the laity was not concerned. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Except as part of the general body of the Church.] He had, however, very great doubts whether they would be able to form a Church Governing Body at all; and, if they did, he should be still more surprised if they did not fight over every point that was under their consideration.

said, he did not think that the hon. Member (Mr. Bagwell) had solved the difficulty, for if no Governing Body were got together it could not matter whether the clause were passed or not. Agreeing as he did with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond as to the necessity for securing a provision for the clergy of the Irish Church, and strongly desiring that the present articles, doctrines, and formularies of the Church should, be regarded as binding on the Church in its new condition; still, he felt considerable difficulty about this clause, because it appeared to him to go to rather an extreme length, and because it might possibly give rise to difficulty where none would otherwise exist. The use of the word "formularies," which might, for instance, embrace alterations in the Prayer Book, might possibly afford an opportunity to some persons to avail themselves of the provisions of this clause in a manner which was not intended by his hon. and learned Friend and those who agreed with him. He was, however, rather inclined to ask his hon. and learned Friend to assent to the course which had been suggested, and to allow the clause to be dealt with by the right rev. Prelates, when the Bill came before them for their consideration.

remarked, that the compensation which, under the 14th clause, was to be given to the clergymen of the Irish Church was intended, as he understood the Bill, to continue as long as they performed the duties at present in trusted to them. If the clergy had not sufficient protection in this direction, he should be glad to assent to anything which would tend to give security to their position; but he could not help thinking that this clause would also open the door to those clergymen, who felt disposed to do so, to retain their money and do the duty of another Church. Though desirous that the clergy should be protected from any attempts to force religious changes upon them, he should feel safer with the 14th clause as it stood than with the clause now under discussion.

thought there could be no mistake in supposing that the duties they would have to perform would be to teach according to the doctrines and formularies of the Church of England. There was a discrepancy between the 14th and 20th clauses, which could only be explained by some such clause as that moved by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.

thought, that after the opinions which had been expressed on both sides of the House, it would be wrong in him to do otherwise than defer to the suggestions which had been made, and to allow the matter to be considered after the Bill had passed through this House. He must, however, express his surprise at finding a man, of the great acuteness which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Henley) possessed, so misunderstanding the clause and its connection with the Bill. If his right hon. Friend had read the clause in conjunction with Clause 20 of the Bill, he would not have made the observations which had fallen from him.

rose to move the following clause:—

(Benefices of Saint Mary, Saint Thomas, and Saint George, Dublin).

"The Commissioners shall ascertain whether the Prebendaries of Christ Church, Dublin, are entitled to any right of succession in the benefices of Saint Mary, Saint Thomas, and Saint George, Dublin, and if so, shall award to them respectively such sum in compensation for the same as shall seem to them just."

The Chancellor of Christ Church had a right of presenting himself to a benefice in the county of Kildare, and the three prebendaries had the right of presenting to the benefices mentioned in the clause. That would not at first sight appear strictly to resolve itself into a right of succession, but they invariably exercised these rights of patronage in their own favour, and there was not, he believed, a single instance on record of their having conferred the benefices upon any but themselves. The three Commissioners who had been appointed were persons in whom the House might have perfect confidence, and this was a matter that the House might safely leave to their discretion and judgment.

accepted the clause, and suggested the amendment of it by the insertion of words to make it read, "are or are not entitled" and "if so entitled." He said there might be a risk of doing injustice if they were to settle the matter, and he wished to hand it over to the Commissioners without prejudice.

said, the clause was a proper one, and there was no objection to it.

, admitting the fame of the observatory, regretted that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal. The trustees of the observatory could not be dealt with otherwise than as trustees of Church property; and, if compensation were given to them on the principle contained in this clause, it would be hard to say why it should not be given to every tenant holding under any see in Ireland. To carry out the clause would almost amount to the dreadful act of sacrilege. If the observatory suffered any pecuniary loss, that might be a good ground for claiming for it a grant from the Government as for a scientific institution. To do it by this Bill would be foreign to its purpose and contrary to its principle, and for these reasons the Government regretted that they could not accept the clause.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear in mind this suggestion, in case the observatory should hereafter make application for a grant of public money.

rose to propose the omission, from the 10th line of the Preamble, of the words "nor for the teaching of religion." He said he could quite understand that those words had been put in the Preamble for good reasons. The Members of the Government had given certain pledges to the House and the country as to the principles on which the Bill was to be framed, and it was very natural and perfectly justifiable that they should put on the face of the Bill and in the Preamble the strongest possible expressions, to show that they intended to adhere strictly to the engagement which they had given, which, indeed, they had done. But these words grated strongly upon his feelings, and he could not help thinking they must grate on the feelings of many others. The peculiar circumstances of Ireland might be such that it might not be desirable to apply the surplus funds for the maintenance of any Church or clergy; but it was certainly not necessary for any practical purpose to declare that the funds should not be used to teach religion, as if that were a thing bad in itself. His objection might be considered a sentimental one. They had heard a good deal about sentiment during the discussion on the Bill; and it had been justly regarded as a matter, which might sometimes have substantial weight and important consequences. But if the Government did not agree to the omission of the words he would not ask the House to divide.

said, he hoped the Government would; assent to the proposal; it would be more consistent to do so because, funds having been given to the Presbyterian Church and the College of Maynooth, it could not be said the funds were not devoted to the teaching of religion.

said, he had the deepest possible respect, in common with those sitting round him, for the hon. and learned Member, and the views he had expressed; but he confessed the reasons given for the alteration proposed were not satisfactory. Those reasons appeared to amount to a declaration that the omission would menu nothing; but it Mould be scarcely possible to make that omission without at least the appearance of a change of intention. As they had framed the Bill—not, of course, without many painful sacrifices made under a sense of duty—in consequence of a well-defined intention, and as that intention had not been changed, it would be impossible to omit the words ''nor for the teaching of religion" from the Preamble.

supported the Motion, on the ground that the clause under which the money could be given to reformatory and industrial school, sconnected with conventual or monastic institutions, was inconsistent with the Preamble.

said, that the words of the Preamble afforded a part of the assurance given to the country, and it was necessary to complete that assurance. The state of the House showed that hon. Members evidently did not expect a division would be taken on the question, nor that it would be seriously pressed.

objected to any conclusion being drawn from the state of the House, and complained that the Bill ignored all religion whatever in Ireland. He must, therefore, protest against it.

observed on the point of consistency that, although the giving of compensation might incidentally result in the teaching of religion, the Bill itself made no direct provisions to that end.

desired to limit the power of the Commissioners to some extent. At present they were arbitrary, and far greater than the powers given to any body of men in times of quiet. The Commissioners would stand in the double relation of litigant and judge—an invidious position, and unsatisfactory to those who came before them, and there would be no appeal from their decision. He hoped the House would be of opinion that this power of deciding without appeal was too large to be given to any persons, no matter how great their ability or high their character. The object of the House and of the Bill was to provide a tribunal which should command the full and entire confidence of those who might come before it, and it was with that view he wished to submit the Amendments which he had put on the Paper.

supported the Amendment, believing that such powers ought not to be conferred on any body of men. The Commissioners were empowered to decide on all matters. Powers of appeal was given to the clergy and to private patrons, but no power of appeal was given to the laity. Questions might arise as to the amount of the tithe rent-charge and the boundaries of glebes and Church lands, and it would not be fair that such parties should have no appeal except to the Commissioners who had decided against them. Unless some appeal were given, as to matters of law and practice, great injustice might be done.

pointed out that the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Neill) were merely verbal, and would make no practical difference in the operation of the Bill. He did not think that anything would be gained by those who had any interest in the Church by giving facilities for the multiplication of litigation.

concurred in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend. If power of appeal were given it might induce the Commissioners to restrain their liberality, in as much as they would have before their eyes the possibility of an appeal to a court which would be bound by the strict rules of evidence, and might therefore cut down the compensation awarded by the Commissioners. In his opinion anyone who was entitled to compensation had a popular tribunal to appeal to.

said, that Clause 10, as it stood at present, might have the effect of preventing the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops in the Disestablished Church, for the clause consisted of these sweeping words—

"Save as herein-after mentioned, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed by Her Majesty or any other person or corporation to any archbishopric, bishopric, benefice, or cathedral preferment in or connected with the said Church."

The words "save as hereinafter mentioned" related to mere temporary appointments during the two years in which such appointments might be made. He thought the interpretation clause, so far as concerned the words "benefices fend cathedral preferments," did not exclude all ambiguity with regard to the application even of those words; and, as the words "archbishopric" and "bishopric" were not interpreted at all, when they took those words in connection with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the 10th clause at it stood would absolutely prohibit, after the temporary period, the appointment of any Archbishop or Bishop of the disestablished Church. That certainly was not the intention of the Government. For the purpose of preventing the clause having the effect of prohibiting such appointments, he would suggest that after the word "corpora- tion," in the 10th clause, the following words be inserted:—"By virtue of any right of patronage or power of appointment now existing." That would comprehend every species of patronage, Royal or other, which might prevail, but would not extend to any which might exist under the new system of the Disestablished Church. Before concluding, perhaps the House would allow him to express an earnest hope, which he thought justified by the answer given a few days ago by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the Government would think it right under the circumstances in which the Established as well as the Roman Catholic Church would be placed by this Act, not only to support the Motion made by the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Evoy), to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but to appoint an early day in the present Session, or to give other facilities for passing the hon. Member's Bill into law. He thought it would be most unsatisfactory to pass the present Bill, and at the same time to leave upon the statute book a measure like the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, to which he, for one, had always been opposed, and which had turned out as useless as it was predicted that it would prove. Unless that Act were repealed, the Disestablished Church would be prohibited by law from having any diocesan titles. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the insertion of these words in Clause 10—"By virtue of any right of patronage or power of appointment now existing."

said, he was glad to say the Amendment was one which the Government could accept. It really did carry out the intention which Her Majesty's Government originally entertained in framing the clause.

said, he had originally called attention to the difficulty, but had felt himself unable to suggest words to overcome it, and therefore expressed his satisfaction at the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, and at its adoption by the Government.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had recommended that, as a necessary consequence of the passing of the present Bill, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act should be repealed. But he would suggest that before they decided on the repeal of so important a measure they should wait and see that the present Bill actually became law.

reminded the hon. Member that this was not a tithe Bill; it was a Bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, consequently they could only deal with the tithes that were in the hands of the Church. Having taken possession of those tithes on the part of the State, it was for them to settle the process by which they should make them over to the landlord; but the hon. Member referred to the impropriate tithe rent-charge, which was wholly external to this Bill. The clause, after all, would not. if adopted, settle the question, for it only provided that the Commissioners should purchase from these willing to sell; and they might still have the country patched over with impropriate tithe rent-charge, even after the provision of the hon. Gentlemen was adopted. He would not say it was not a subject fit and proper to consider, but it was a question totally distinct from this Bill.

said, the subject had been discussed upon a former occasion, and a vote had been taken upon the proposal of a right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball) to the effect that all restraint on the holding of land in mortmain by the Church Corporation should be removed. The division had then been taken on the Amendment: but the question really involved had been whether the House should or should not affirm the clause as it stood. They had then decided by a considerable majority, in a very full House, in favour of the clause, and he did not think they would, at present, be justified in reversing that decision. In looking forward to the future ecclesiastical position of Ireland, they had to contemplate a perfect equality of all bodies before the law. If power were given, as proposed by the Amendment, to acquire quantities of land, there might be hereafter a renewal of jealousies in Ireland, arising from the extensive holding of landed property by any religious community.

said, that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he thought there were very good reasons why some special provision should be made for the maintenance of some, at least, of the cathedrals throughout Ireland. Considerable sums had been expended either in completing them or repairing them by private individuals, and those persons would never have incurred that outlay if they had not been under the impression that ample funds would be available for the preservation of the buildings. The late Sir Benjamin Leo Guinness had expended upwards of £100,000 on St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. A sum of £28,000 had been expended by the late Primate on the Armagh Cathedral, and a further sum of £7,000 raised for the purpose by private contributions. The cathedral of Down had been lately repaired at a cost of many thousands of pounds; the cathedral of Cork had been restored by means of an outlay of £25,000, the greater portion of which sum was derived from a fund left by a private individual; and in Kilmore, Kilkenny, Limerick, and other places, similar works had been undertaken. It was possible that in the great cities the necessary funds would be raised by private subscription for the maintenance of the cathedrals; but he believed that in the smaller towns those edifices, not being parish churches or having any peculiar congregation, would fall into decay unless some special fund was provided for their repair. The cathedrals must necessarily fall into ruins unless Parliament did something, and he appealed to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to avert such a catastrophe taking place.

supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Armagh. The Irish cathedrals had done much for the cultivation of Church music, and England was much indebted to them on that account. He understood that Handel's Messiah was first produced in Ireland.

said, it was quite impossible that the Government could agree to this Amendment. The question had been decided in even a much stronger form on a division when the Bill was in Committee.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that this was the same question as the one to which he had alluded as having been decided in Committee. What had been decided was that funds were not to be given to the Church Body to maintain certain of those cathedrals as "national monuments." Irish Churchmen objected to receive the money on those terms; because they thought, that if they accepted the wages of the State for maintaining those el lurches as national monuments, their possession of them might be hereafter imperilled. As an English Churchman he thanked them, but the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh was not open to that objection.

said, the Government adhered to the decision on this point arrived at in Committee by a largo majority.

complained that the Bill, as it at present stood, made no provision for the continuance of the salaries of the Professors and officials of Maynooth in case of illness or accident—a provision which was always secured in the case of Presbyterian ministers, and which, by an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, was made for the ministers of the Irish Church. The Trustees would feel themselves prohibited from doing more than what was strictly enjoined by law, while the College, with its diminished revenue, could not afford to be so liberal as it hitherto had been.

said, that in the communications which they had had with the authorities of Maynooth no demand of this kind had been put forward. The Government could not assent to the clause because it created rights which at present did not exist. An allowance of this kind was secured to the Presbyterian ministers by a regulation of their Church, and to the clergy of the Irish Church because they possessed a freehold, but to accept this clause would be to give the Professors of Maynooth an entirely new tenure.

contended that the terms on which by the 49th clause laud was to be sold were too severe to allow the present holders in many cases to become the purchasers. He therefore moved the following clause, in which, he had adopted almost verbatim the words employed in the tithe rent-charge clauses.

said, that to give a purchaser who purchased under the right of pre-emption a positive preference in pecuniary terms would be selling to him upon terms different from those in which they sold to anybody else. That was an exception which it would not be safe to adopt; and. above all, they could not accede to the Amendmendment because it required no deposit. They had required that one-fourth of the purchase money should be deposited, and it was going beyond the ordinary rules of mortgage to say that a man should become a purchaser by undertaking to pay small sums annually.

declared his intention not to persist in a Motion of which he had given notice. He had some doubts about there being a surplus; but if he saw any chance or mishap come to the Bill in "another place," he would take care that a better chance was given for the interests of the rate-payers in Ireland being looked after.

said, that all the Amendments of which notice had been given having been disposed of, the House might wish to know the order of business in reference to the further progress of the Bill. It would be necessary to introduce a clause with respect to stamps upon vesting orders, and for that par-pose there must be a limited re-commitment in the Friday after the Recess; and he proposed to take the Order for Recommitment for Friday, May 28, so that it would not interfere with the third reading on Monday, May 31.

said, he had placed some Amendments to this Resolution on the Paper. They were apparently about trifling matters; but they affected the comfort and convenience of many persons in the country, and he therefore hoped the Committee would think them worth discussing. This Resolution carried out the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to substitute license duties in the case of articles which heretofore had been liable to assessed taxes, and he approved the principle of that substitution; but the question of the scale of duties that was to be adopted in the case of the new licenses was quite a different matter from the general principle. In some of the propositions he made the right hon. Gentleman sacrificed a great many people in order to have a simple and uniform system. No doubt a simple and uniform system was a great convenience to the tax-collector, but it did not follow that it would suit the tax-payer. The right hon. Gentleman was not the founder of the school of simplicity and uniformity, because it was instituted by a gentleman named Procrustes, who, if a bed was too short for a patient cut him shorter, and if it were too long stretched the patient. He had received a few letters from his own constituents, and a good many from different parts of the country, from persons of all politics, and they all concurred in describing the Budget in this part of it as a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's Budget. There was truth in this description, for. in order to have a uniform and simple system, the right hon. Gentleman had lowered the taxes which were paid by rich people upon their establishments, and he had raised the taxes paid by poorer people. Many illustrations had been sent to him, and he would give the Committee a comparative statement of the effect upon certain establishments in one of the Midland counties. The head of one large establishment paid, under the present system, £49; under the new system he would pay £32; so that he would save £17. The head of a still larger establishment was now taxed to the amount of £76, and would save £30. In a third instance the owner paid £51; he would have to pay £36; so that he would save £15. These were the establishments of noblemen and gentlemen; and he now came to the establishment of one who might be a tenant of a noblemen. In this establishment there were a servant under eighteen and a two-wheeled carriage and a horse; and the taxes now amounted to £1 16s.: but under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman they would come to £2 0s. 6d.; so that the State would gain 4s. 6d. A country coal-dealer having one horse over thirteen hands and two ponies under thirteen was now taxed £1 1s., but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition were adopted he would be taxed £1 11s. 6d. Such cases might be multiplied, for he had received numerous letters from country doctors and others, complaining that their richer neighbours were being relieved of taxation at their expense. It was rather hard that the coal-dealer and tradesman should have their taxes raised to enable the Chancellor of the; Exchequer to reduce the duty on the saddle horses of rich men; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not presume upon the fact that there was not much chance of any great outcry being raised against the change. Pleasure horses formed a very fair subject for taxation, and there was no reason for reducing; the taxation upon them: but taxes upon servants were altogether objectionable. They had been regarded as taxes on luxuries, but he would avoid them as taxes on the employment of people. The reduction in the taxes on carriages would be a relief to the carriage making trade, because people resorted to all manner of shifts at present in order to make one carriage servo the purpose of two, and tints save the tax. But there was no excuse for altering the duty on servants unless it were by way of clear remission. He thought it bad enough to tax skilled domestic labour; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise the tax on unskilled domestic labour. This alteration in the duty would prevent persons from taking young persons into their establishments, and he might mention that he had more letters in reference to the difference of tax upon men and boy servants than upon any other thing. Now what was the amount of the gain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by raising the tax from 10s. 6d. to 15s.? According to the Returns published last year there were 85,881 as to whom the tax was to be altered, and the addition of 4s. 6d. in each instance would produce £19,323. He believed that this increase of tax would tend to prevent boys being taken as servants in places where they might learn a business, and that it would be a hardship upon employers where they were so taken. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could dispense with this £19,000 altogether; but if not, he hoped that at all events he would revert to the old tax of 10s. 6d., instead of having the new one of 15s. In conclusion the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to the Resolution, which would have the effect of preventing male servants under eighteen being taxed more than 10s. 6d. each.

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee, but the country had heard so much about economy, cheap breakfast tables, cheap newspapers, and cheap all sorts of things for workpeople, that he wished to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the practical effect of his Budget, and the enormous decrease in the revenue he was making by remitting the taxes of the rich. The right hon. Gentleman was creating considerable dissatisfaction by proposing in this, the people's House, to sacrifice the poor for the benefit of the rich. A Return recently presented to the House on his Motion (Parliamentary Paper 161) showed the proposed remissions of taxation for the benefit of those who could well afford to be taxed was much larger than hon. Members had any notion of. The male servants on whom duty was paid last year numbered 274,000, and 173,000 of these being above eighteen brought £1 1s. each to the Exchequer. On these 173,000 there would be a loss of 6s. each, or £52,000. In the case of carriages, which were certainly luxuries, he found 32,000 having four wheels and two horses, upon which, the proposed remission was £1 8s. each, or £45,000. The reduction on horses would result in a loss of £102,000: because there were 195,000 horses, and the tax upon them was reduced by 10s. 6d. each. On hair powder there was a clear loss of £1,000. The proposal respecting armorial bearings was a case of peculiar hardship, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had claimed credit for procuring a gain to the Revenue by his changes. Every man who kept a carriage; with four wheels and two horses obtained now a reduction on his taxes of 10s. 9d., and that would bring a Joss to the Revenue of £8,000, which would have to be made good out of the pockets of the poorer classes. Armorial bearings had been taken to mean any sign or device; which a person happened to wear, whether on a seal or otherwise; and for these he had to pay a tax of 13s. 2d. Now, adding up all the items, it appeared that there was a total of £207,000 a year remission of the taxation falling on the richer classes in regard to assessed taxes. But these classes were well able to pay, they had made no complaint, nor had they grumbled. He was quite aware it might be said that, as far as servants were concerned, Many persons not wealthy—some professional men for instance—paid their £1 1s. for a man-servant. Well, he was willing to make the necessary allowance for that in his calculation; but he found by the Returns that of all those who kept men - servants there were only 144,000 with one. That would yield about half the amount, and deducting on that head £26,000, there remained a clear remission of taxation upon the rich, who were well able to pay, of £181,000 by this Budget. He did not think many of his constituents would be gratified at that, which was a different state of things from what the Prime Minister, when among them, had led them to expect.

wished to draw attention to what he believed to be a slight imperfection in the otherwise admirable Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he meant the increase of small sums and odd figures. It had been observed by several persons that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech spoke of guineas and half- guineas, though such sums had long ceased to exist either as coins or as figures of account. The duty on horses was to be 10s. 6d.; the duty on armorial bearings £1 1s. or £2 2s. In this case an odd sum, 13s. 2d., was got rid of, but another was introduced. In the duty on carnages the £1 1s. was introduced where there were only decimal figures before. At present the tax upon carriages drawn by two horses was £3 10s.; by one horse, £2; by two ponies, £1 15s.; by one pony, £1, and so on. The Committee would observe that these were round numbers. But his right hon. Friend was putting the tax upon a carriage drawn by a single horse at £2 2s. A rich man, who could afford to keep two horses and pay for them, would have a saving of £1 8s., whilst the poor man, who only put one horse to his carriage, would pay 2s. more than he did before. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was that these odd shillings did not in their net result bring into the Exchequer as much by a great deal as they took out of the pocket of the tax-payer. It cost as much to carry 6d. or 1s. through an account as to carry £1. There were many things that showed that this doctrine was very well understood by the Exchequer. For instance, the clerks' salaries were now paid monthly, but when there were odd shillings or pence they were, retained and allowed to accumulate until at last they were paid once for all in order to avoid the expense which would otherwise result from keeping the accounts; and the Secretary for War had declined altogether to pay the officers of the army on the retired half-pay list monthly instead of annually on account of the expense by employment of extra clerks. But the strongest point was this, that the Exchequer would not now receive odd sums at all from the accounting departments. All payments made by them into the Exchequer were made in thousands. He understood that since; this rule had been established there had been, along with great simplicity, very great economy in keeping the Exchequer accounts. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider this matter, and if in another year he made another step in Administrative Reform, he would strike off these odd shillings and sixpences which had this great characteristic of bad taxes, that they did not in their net result enrich the Exchequer in anything like the same proportion in which they impoverished the tax-payers.

thought the taxation of servants under eighteen most objectionable, not so much in the interest of the tax-payers as of the labouring man, whose eldest boy was often taken off his hands and employed from fourteen to eighteen.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) had characterized the Budget as being a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's, and had stated that it was viewed with dissatisfaction by his constituents. As he happened to be a constituent of the hon. Gentleman, he begged entirely to dissent from his statements. He did not gather from his hon. Friend whether he was supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), but presumed he was, and in that case his views were entirely inconsistent with the object of the Amendment. The Amendment, if carried, would exempt from taxation all male servants under eighteen years old, and to that extent would clearly be to the advantage of the rich rather than the poor. He entirely dissented from his hon. Friend's remarks respecting the Budget. When the Committee recollected that the abolition of the 1s. import duty on corn amounted to £900,000 a year, and that that import duty necessarily raised the average price of all the corn grown in this country, it must be evident that the advantage to the working classes from the Budget would be very much greater than to those who were in a better position in life. Nor was the reduction of the taxes then under discussion exclusively for the benefit of the wealthier classes. The reduction of the tax upon servants would have a tendency to increase the employment of servants: and that upon carriages would lead to a greater use, of carriages, and in consequence to a greater employment of labour in the manufacture of carriages. So far as he had the means of ascertaining the opinions of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman in Southwest Lancashire, they were decidedly in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that puppies were always puppies, and men-servants never got beyond eighteen years of age. He had seen men with grey hairs set down as eighteen. Would it not be better, therefore, to leave out eighteen altogether? He had found that there was a general objection not only to this but to all other kind of taxes. It was pleasant to hear an English Chancellor of the Exchequer recommending economy; and. when they came to one item in the Estimate he should give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) an opportunity of showing that he was sincere.

said, the assessed taxes, which (hey were considering that night, and in lieu of which his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed a system of license duties, affected a considerable number of the population. They fell upon their households, they came home to their consciousness and their intimate knowledge, and it was therefore not unnatural, considering the position which the right hon. gentleman occupied in the late Administration, that he should have received many communications on the subject of that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had made two remarks on the Budget of his right hon. Friend. He said that its policy of uniformity justified him in giving it the name of a Procrustean Budget, and he called it in the second place a rich man's Budget. Well, there was some amount of truth—and he would endeavour to show how much—in the first of those assertions; but to the second he believed there was a complete and unanswerable reply. It was perfectly true that the idea of his right hon. Friend in proposing to abolish the system of assessed taxes and to substitute for it a system of licenses was an idea of the benefit, with reference to the ease of collection and to the probable profitableness of the tax, of the substitution of a system of licenses founded on a principle of uniformity for the assessed taxes, various and uncertain in their incidence as they had proved themselves to be. Now, the right hon. Gentleman would understand that if. per se. something like simplicity and uniformity in a tax was to some, extent to be admitted as an advantage, in this case the advantage was enhanced if they arrived at the conclusion that it was admissible to substitute a system of licenses for one of assessed taxes, because in the case of assessed taxes they taxed a man on articles which he had in his possession, and which he had used under certain varying conditions that affected the amount of the tax which they were to charge him during the past year. But if, in place of that, they adopted a system of licenses, they dealt not with the past but with the future. They called upon the man at the beginning of the year to inform them, by a Return, of the number of articles, whether servants, horses, or carriages, which he intended to keep, and they required him to pay a license for them; and therefore it was extremely desirable, in order to facilitate the making of that Return, that they should simplify the incidence of that taxation, and render it as uniform as they could. There was that amount of truth in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that something had been sacrificed for the sake of uniformity. But it would be impossible to simplify and render uniform those taxes, or in any respect to change then incidence, without some cases occurring, and without some communications being made to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen, showing that some of those who paid those taxes before were likely to pay more than their neighbours in future. Now, if they entered into the comparative fairness of that Budget, and the existing state of things, at least they ought to look at the Budget as a whole; or at the very least they ought to look at the part of the Budget they were then discussing as a whole. But the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course. He spoke of the saving to the rich man possessing many horses and carriages; and the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) spoke in the same strain, comparing the rich man's case with that of those who had few horses and carriages. But all reference had been omitted to certain figures which were conclusive on that subject, showing that not only if they took the Budget as a whole, but if they took the particular part of it effecting the transformation of assessed taxes into license duties, so far from being a rich man's Budget, it consulted the convenience of the pocket of the greater number who possessed limited means. If they took the assessed taxes proposed to be remitted, they were £1,167,000; while the license duty imposed amounted to £1,113,000. The difference between the two sums was only about £50,000; but if, travelling a little further, they went on to the repeal of the post horse duty, the stage carriage duty, and the hackney carriage duty, they would find that there was a remission of no less than £293,000, affecting the convenience and relieving the expenditure of persons of limited means. Therefore, his right hon. Friend was not open to the criticism that that was a rich man's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment proposed that there should be no tax on male servants under eighteen years of age. Now, he thought the insight into the operation of the present law afforded to the Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was in itself almost a sufficient answer to that suggestion, and a proof of the wisdom of his right hon. Friend in adhering to his notion of uniformity and simplicity of taxation. The natural alternative to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to tax male servants under eighteen would be to leave the tax upon male servants above that age at £1 1s. and keep it at 10s. 6d. for those under that age. The Budget of his right hon. Friend, for the sake of uniformity and simplicity, proposed to halve the difference, and charge 15s. for male servants all round.

said, he was the last person who would object to the substitution of a system of licenses for assessed taxes, and he did not believe that anything had fallen from his right hon. Friend which warranted the inference that his right hon. Friend objected to such a principle. It was, however, an undoubted fact that the proposed remission of the assessed taxes would be a been to the wealthier class, and would produce a considerable net saving to them in respect to taxation. But he could not agree with the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) when he referred to the case of the carriage duty as illustrative of his argument. He had always been of opinion that the assessed tax on carriages operated as a very considerable restriction on that trade of the country, and that any great reduction of the tax would give a stimulus to the coach-making business, inasmuch as many gentlemen of large fortune would keep an increased number of carriages when they were no longer taxed as they had been heretofore, almost to a prohibitory extent upon that head. He. therefore, cordially approved that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he would make no change in the incidence of those taxes, and would impose no new tax on servant. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would call his attention to a word which had been introduced into the Resolution—namely, "game watcher," in the place of the word "gamekeeper" formerly used. He would suggest the omission of that word, and with respect to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), he must say that he thought the remission of the tax on servants under eighteen would be a great been to the working classes.

said, he was not inclined to quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking off some of the duty on his horses; but he would impress on him the importance of that matter, as it affected the training of young servants. All who were acquainted with the training of boys in stables knew how frequently a boy was taken at nominal wages merely to learn his business; and it was not improbable that, if employers had to pay a tax on them they would refuse to be bothered with those boys.

said, he agreed with the description of the tax as given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and he (Mr. Henley) having calculated its operation with regard to his payments he found he should save 25 per cent by the proposed change. Personally he should be disposed to take his hat off to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thank him, and say he was a very pleasant follow; but when he considered how it would act on persons in a lower position in life, and he found that it would increase their assessed taxes something like 100 per cent, it became rather a serious matter. It was hard that this increased amount of taxation should be put upon the class of persons to whom be referred. They were not the persons likely to be benefited by the reduction of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty, and he thought it was a matter well deserving the re-consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having acted as an assessed tax commissioner, and knowing the trouble and difficulty of appealing against a surcharge, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what penalty a man would be liable to for not making a return, and taking out a license under the proposed new system?

said, that no persons were more glad than the Conservative Members that the 1s. duty had been taken off corn. His objection to the Budget applied simply to the conversion of assessed taxes into Excise licenses. That portion of the financial scheme of the Government would, beyond all doubt, have the effect of relieving the rich man and imposing an increased burden on persons who were comparatively poor.

said, he could not agree in the principle enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which the assessed taxes were to be converted into Excise licenses. It might be all very well to have uniformity, but it ought not to be adopted by putting a heavy pressure on the poor man, and by relieving the rich man. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) introduced the principle of licenses he said, that in order to make the duty equal, they must put the tax at a reasonable figure, and he placed the dog duty at 5s., whereas it had been previously 12s.; but here the Chancellor of the Exchequer inflicted a great hardship on the farmer or small trader, who kept a boy. by making him pay 15s. duty, instead of 10s. 6d. The imposition of the extra amount of duty would have a great effect in reducing the number of boys kept, and it would tend to discourage the training of youths. A rich man who now kept a carriage and pair of horses and one servant paid £6 13s., but under the proposed Budget he would only have to pay £3 18s.; and if they added to it the advantage to be derived by the alteration of the armorial bearings tax the saving would be £3 5s. 9d., or nearly 50 per cent. The poor man, however, who, for the purpose of his business, was obliged to employ a lad, and to keep a pony and cart of some sort or other, would have to pay £2 0s. 6d. under the new system, whereas he now had to pay only £1, or at the utmost, £1 10s. It was therefore essential there should be some kind of exemption. His right hon. Friend, when he introduced the dog license, made an exemption in favour of puppies, and it was to be hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make an exemption in favour of the lads. Under the old system, the assessors acted on the principle that every man was considered honest until he was proved to be a rogue, but by the Excise a man would be considered, a rogue until he had proved himself to be honest.

, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), wished to state that the penalty which would be imposed under the Act on anybody violating its provisions was £20. That penalty however, would be sued for only when a person neglected to send in a declaration as to the taxable articles in his possession after a special notice had been served on him for the purpose. Then came in the General Excise Act, which permitted the magistrate adjudicating on the question of the penalty to be imposed to remit three-fourths of it, while the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have the power to remit it altogether in such cases as they might deem proper. Practically, it would not be enforced, unless in those instances where it was shown there had been a wilful attempt to defraud the Revenue. In reply to the objection which had been urged by several hon. Gentlemen to the proposal of the Government to the effect that it would relieve the rich at the expense of the poor, he might observe that one danger which must be guarded against was that those assessed taxes might become such a nuisance that they would have to be swept away altogether. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, if their permanency was to be secured, that they should be made as simple and as easy as possible, not only to the tax-gatherer, but to those by whom they were paid, while he thought it would be advantagous to the Revenue that they should be collected by way of license, instead of under the present system. The only way to attain that object was by uniformity and simplification; and in order to do that he was sorry to say it was necessary to take from the rich and add it to the poor. No doubt, that was the effect of the criticism of the Budget, and it was perfectly well founded. It had been said that the taxes ought to be apportioned at different prices for the same article; and so it ought, if they merely desired to tax each person fairly and equally one with another. But when they sought to establish uniformity, which was essential to the cheapening of the tax, it could only be done in the manner he proposed. If he had left the rich man heavier taxed than the poor man, uniformity could only be obtained by increasing the amount paid by the poor. The whole squabble was about 4s. 6d., the difference between 15s. and 10s. 6d. It was not to be supposed that his plan benefited the rich exclusively; because-its effect would be to give increased employment to the poor, and to add to the number of boys who would be kept as servants, and who did not become full-fledged servants all at once, but must learn their trade. He would much rather have attained his object in another way—namely, by leaving the rich heavily taxed, and lightening the burdens on the poor—and in other parts of the Budget he had endeavoured to do so; but as regarded the assessed taxes he could only attain uniformity in the way he proposed; and he trusted, therefore, the House would approve of the proposition.

said, he fully anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to ridicule the difference of the tax on the ground that 4s. 6d. was a small amount; but if he was so well acquainted with persons in humble rank as he (Mr. Hunt) was he never would have made that observation. The effect of the tax would be that a farmer, instead of keeping a boy to attend to his nag horse, for which he would have to pay 10s. 6d., and 15s. for the farm servant to look after the farm horses, would make the latter attend to both. That would be a very serious matter, not so much to the man who had to pay, but to the boy, who frequently got his first start in life by getting into such situations. He should take the sense of the Committee upon the point. The Third Lord of the Treasury denied that this was a rich man's budget, because he said the Committee must not look to these assessed taxes solely, but must remember the remission of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty. He doubted whether the remission of these duties would touch the class to whom the hon. Member referred. Then, it was said that the remission of the corn duty to the amount of £900,000 was in favour of the poor man; but he thought it would be found that if this amount wore divided among the number of quartern loaves consumed in the country there was no coin in the realm that would denote the poor man's share. He believed that most people who kept a servant would much rather pocket that 4s. 6d. than have their share of the remission of the 1s. duty on corn.

thought that the question for their consideration was not whether the Budget was a rich man's or a poor man's Budget, but how it affected the general interests of the country. He liked neither the proposal of the Government nor that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). He thought the tax on male servants was a bad tax, because he had always considered it a tax upon labour. He objected to the tax, either at 15s. or in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The objection might be met by reducing the tax on all male servants to 10s. 6d. He thought all exemptions bad in principle, and could not agree to exempt, as proposed, those under eighteen years of age. ["Move!"] He feared that as there was an Amendment before the Committee he should not be in Order to move another Amendment.

said, that if the hon. Member voted for the Amendment now before the Committee he could afterwards move to reduce the amount to 10s. 6d.

rose to move an Amendment in the second Resolution in line 9, after "employed," to leave out "either wholly or partially." He did not mean to challenge the merits of the Budget; no doubt it was a very good one if they could understand it, and would be very popular if they had not to pay tinder it; but he wanted to know what did a watcher of game, "wholly or partially." mean.

said, he had given a sort of pledge that there should be no alteration in the law in this respect. He would restore the word "under-gamekeeper" as it stood before.

thought the words "wholly or partially" were a trap for tender consciences—possibly to catch those who sent five-pound notes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted a precise definition of these words "wholly or partially" as well as of those upon whom they took effect. It was well known there were periods when employment both in town and country was scarce, and a great many were almost entirely dependant on casual jobs. If they were thrown out of employment they became pauperized, and—under the admirable operation of the Poor Laws—perhaps for life. He had no doubt these ambiguous terms in the Resolution were very convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even his convenience must give way when placed in opposition to the social considerations involved. Let him define exactly what these words "wholly or partially" implied—if he employed a man for a week, a fortnight, or six weeks—let it be clearly understood what was the meaning of the words. He moved the omission of the words "wholly or partially."

said, the object of the words "wholly or partially" was not to catch tender consciences. According to the Board of Inland Revenue and their legal advisers there was no criterion so exact and reliable in the imposition of these taxes as the existence of the relationship of master and servant. If the words "wholly or partially" were omitted a man might be employed as a servant on a contract of service in a combination of capacities, and the question might arise as to liability to taxation in this capacity. However difficult it might be to understand the exact line of demarcation between the employment of a person as a servant and employment as a hired labourer, the distinction was known to the Inland Revenue and to the law. The object of the Resolution was to make taxation depend on that distinction, and he knew no other definition or distinction which was so exact or reliable.

said, he had no doubt the distinction was appreciated by the Inland Revenue; but he had found it exceedingly difficult, as a Commissioner of Taxes, to decide whether a man was a servant or a hired labourer. He suggested that the matter would be greatly simplified, and the principle of uniformity kept up, if they omitted the tax on male servants and labourers altogether, and left the tax on horses and carriages pretty nearly at its present amount. It would be bettor to get rid of a tax on servants subject to so much distinction, and to retain it at its present amount on such undoubted luxuries as horses and carriages.

begged to state that he had occasion to bring this matter before the Board of Inland Revenue, and he found that "under-gardener" meant a foreman under the head-gardener.

wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorsed that interpretation. If he did it would be a great relief to many people who had to employ men in their gardens.

said, he apprehended that an under-gardener was a gardener working under the direction of another gardener. However, the definition given by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Rebow) was perfectly correct.

hoped that whatever definition the House might adopt of an under-gardener would be plainly set forth in the Bill. According to the right hon. Gentleman's definition a man employed simply to dig potatoes in a garden was an under-gardener.

said, he had not said so. An under-gardener was a skilled labourer, employed under the direction of another gardener; and an unskilled labourer employed in a garden was not an under-gardener.

remarked that all he wanted was to have that definition put into the Bill.

wished to know what was the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a "game watcher;" and whether "mole catchers" and "rabbiters," employed under the direction of a head-keeper, were under-keepers?

That is withdrawn.

was disposed to move the omission of the words "under-gardener," as a great number of persons acting in that capacity were but labourers.

understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that an unskilled labourer working in a garden was not an under-gardener, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would introduce words to make the matter clear, as the construction hitherto acted upon was not in accordance with that liberal view.

said, the principle of these assessed taxes was based on the distinction between service and labour. "Service" was the employment of a person with some skill or dexterity—not merely ordinary work. It was not a question of the amount of wages or of the time when they were paid, it was what a person was employed for. He could not pledge himself as to what words would be introduced into the Bill.

asked whether a person who called a man from his farm to take a pony out of his carriage would have to pay for that man as a. helper in the stables?

said, these questions could he considered when the Bill was in Committee, He thought that it was unnecessary at the present stage to carry the discussion any further. The whole of the Resolution was governed by the leading words "every male servant employed." No one could be charged for who was not a servant.

also thought they had better not waste time in discussing these matters, as the collection of these taxes was to be placed in the hands of the Inland Revenue, and as one uniform system throughout the country would thereby be secured instead of a variable one, differing according to the opinions of different local authorities, he would suggest that when the resolutions became law the Inland Revenue Department should issue instructions explaining distinctly on what principle these taxes would be levied.

said, there ought to be some limit as to age, for it was not right that the boy who blacked one's shoes should be charged at the same rate as the most gorgeous flunkey.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the various definitions were made clearly, so that there should be no difficulty in the construction of the law. It should be made so clear that no one should be brought before the magistrates on the information of the Department when there was no ground for it, as might otherwise be the case.

, in withdrawing his Amendment, objected to any increase of taxation on unskilled labourers.

proposed another Amendment to omit the words "Under Gardener" from the Resolution, on the ground that, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all skilled gardeners, whether under-gardeners or not, would be liable.

objected to the charge which it was proposed to impose for stable-helpers.

said, that hon. Members opposite complained that this was a rich man's Budget, and yet they proposed the omission in that case of under-gardeners and stable-helpers, who were to be supposed to be kept by people in straightened circumstances. These things would be in the hands of the Excise, and a uniform construction of the law would come about, not from anything said or done in that House, but from the practice which would gradually spring up, and which would become uniform all over the country. He could not see that any good would be done by omitting what had always been in the Acts hitherto.

said, the Committee wanted an assurance that in the Bill there would be a definition of what was meant by an under-gardener.

declined to give such an assurance.

thought the words ought to be defined by the right hon. Gentleman, as a guide to magistrates who might have to deal with questions respecting them here after.

said, the clauses of the Bill would, no doubt, be carefully drawn; but, as his right hon. Friend had said, a good deal must be left to be settled by the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue. The practice would operate as the interpretations of courts of law operated in explaining statutes, and he did not think that uniformity was to be secured by heaping words upon words and definition upon definition in an Act of Parliament.

said that the insertion of the words "stable-helper" would be a serious matter to gentlemen who kept hounds. A stable-helper was not a skilled labourer, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to tax him.

hoped the Motion he was going to submit would not place him in any position of antagonism to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Budget had been received with general satisfaction. On this question, however, two opinions were allowable. The tax on male servants was one bad in principle, but if the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the tax a permanent one, it ought not to be felt to be unjust to any portion of the public. The proposal was certainly one for reduction of taxation for what might be called the richer classes; but it was an increase of taxation for the less rich class, and he trusted that the motto of the right hon. Gentleman would be justice to all. If the tax were lowered to 10s. 6d., a much larger amount in proportion would be obtained. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would treat this matter in a generous spirit. The Budget had given general satisfaction, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not include in it any alteration of a tax which would press unjustly on any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. In conclusion he moved that the sum be altered from 15s. to 10s. 6d.

said, the total amount of the tax upon servants was £220,000, and the hon. Gentleman proposed that about £60,000 should be taken off. Of this £60,000 about £20,000 would be in respect of servants under eighteen years old, and the remainder in respect of servants above that age. The Committee would, therefore, perceive the real character of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and it would be for them to say whether it should be accepted or not. He had been charged with being kind to the rich and pressing too hardly on the poor. The question was whether a tax, which had been already reduced by 6s. on every servant in favour of the rich, should be reduced by 6s. more on every servant, two-thirds of which latter sum would go to the relief of the rich and one-third to the relief of the poor. That was a plain statement of the case which he would now leave in the hands of the Committee, merely observing that if the Revenue were impoverished by the carrying out of the proposal some other tax must be found to supply the deficiency.

appealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. His hon. Friend was wrong in assuming that all the boys under eighteen years of age were employed by persons of small means.

opposed the Amendment, and thought the Committee could find many better ways of disposing of £60,000 than in relieving the taxes on male servants.

believed the reason why a tax was originally put on male servants, was that their employment in a domestic capacity deprived the army of certain recruits. He should recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit the word "male" from his Resolutions, and let those ladies who desired the suffrage and others equalize the tax on all descriptions of servants.

said, that under the proposed system a carriage with two wheels would be charged 15s., a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing less than 3 cwt., £2 2s., and a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing more than 3 cwt. was also to be charged £2 2s. The effect of this method of taxation would obviously be to encourage the manufacture and use of two-wheel carriages, which were more dangerous than those with four wheels. As an instance of this he might mention that many accidents were caused in Dublin by the two-wheeled cars, and in order to discourage their use the corporation taxed them as much again as the four-wheeled cabs. Any system which would influence the mode of the construction of carriages was a bad one. Great difficulty, he might remark, would be experienced in some country districts in ascertaining the exact weight of carriages, and for these reasons he moved to omit the words "having four or more wheels," in order to insert the words "drawn by two or more horses."

said, that the changes now under consideration included omnibuses, cabs, and other vehicles used for the general purposes of locomotion, and, accordingly, it was impossible to say what the effect of the proposed alteration would be. The results of the change would certainly be serious, for £l 6s. would be lost upon every brougham; and there must be a corresponding reduction upon flies at railway stations, a class of vehicle upon which taxation already had been largely diminished. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would entirely vitiate all the calculations upon which the taxes upon locomotion had been based, and abstract a large sum of money from the Revenue which he would not know how to make good. With regard to the weight of vehicles he had made inquiries, and found that 4 cwt. would be about the most satisfactory figure at which to place the limit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would accept that as a satisfactory compromise.

, who looked upon upon gigs as very insecure, conveyances, supported the proposition before the Committee.

said, that one effect of the Resolution would be to cause people to be deceived. They would purchase carriages upon the understanding that they were of a certain weight, and would find out afterwards that they were more.

, after what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he had already advanced half-way to meet the right hon. Gentleman; but having made inquiries through the Inland Revenue, he felt that he should not be justified in going further.

could not imagine that the Committee would accede to this Amendment. As at present proposed, every four-wheeled carriage would pay £2 2s., being but a small part of what that class of carriages had hitherto paid, but still it would pay a considerable tax; whereas every Hansom cab would pay 15s., a. very disproportionate sum. He should have been very glad if, without producing inconvenience, he could have made these two taxes approach each other more nearly. But the effect of the Amendment would be to lower the tax on Hansom cabs to 10s. 6d. That arrangement could not stand. It would necessitate a review of the whole question of the taxation of cabs in London. The truth was that there would be no great hardship in a tax of 15s. The Amendment would apply to every two-wheeled carriage—to gentlemen's dogcarts, to every gig and every cab, such as gentlemen might drive about London. The tax on horses had been reduced from £1 1s. to 10s. 6d., and the owners of two-wheeled carriages would profit very largely by that reduction without any further reduction. The Amendment would not only cause a loss to the Revenue; it would be a step in the wrong direction, because the plan that had been adopted by the Committee had been rather to raise low taxes and to lessen large ones.

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would add another column to the accounts, which it was the desire of the Government to simplify. He did not feel called upon to encourage the practice of driving small ponies. More accidents occurred to pony carriages than to any other description of vehicle, and, besides, that there was a certain amount of cruelty in making an animal that cat but little do the work that ought to be performed by a horse.

said, he had not so much morbid sympathy for small ponies as for the owners of them. There were certain persons exercising the profession of costermongers, who were very hard worked and a very useful class of the community, who were only able to drive small ponies. It would be very hard upon them if they had to pay 15s. for their carts.

said, it must be remembered that costermongers had not to pay the taxes which were paid by persons who sold the same goods in shops.

hoped that, during the Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to the Memorial which he had presented to him on behalf of a large body of cabmen, in public meeting assembled, at the Cabinet Theatre, Gray's Inn Road, who, while very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the proposed reduction of taxation, objected to the assimilation of the duties paid by seven-day cabmen and six-day cabmen. Since the time that the two scales were adopted the number of the six-day cabs had increased in much greater proportion than the seven-day cabs, which had fluctuated: thus, in 1863, there were only 1,887 six-day cabs; in 1868, 2,356. During the same period the seven-day cabs decreased from 3,720 to 3,470. The six-day cabmen were, as a rule, a more civil class of men than the seven-day cabmen. As the comfort of hon. Members largely depended on the civility of cabmen, he might, mention that the six-day cabs were all numbered on the plate in the real, "10,000," and upwards—five figures. The seven-day cabs never had more than four figures—from 1 to 4,000. The memorialists thought that a reduc- tion of one-seventh ought still to be made in favour of the six-day cabmen.

asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the promise he had made here in respect of the duty on hackney carnages in Dublin?

said, it would be carried out in the Bill.

agreed with the hon. Gentleman that brood mares were very useful animals; and, consequently, he thought they ought not to be exempted from the duty paid for horses and for other mares.

suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be advisable to have two scales of duty for armorial bearings. If the President of the Board of Trade were present, probably he would say "armorial rubbish." as on a former occasion he had said "ecclesiastical rubbish." This was a poor man's question. The £2 2s. duty would press heavily on the owners of little pony carriages who had had their crest painted on the panel, for they must either go to the expense of having it painted out or pay the duty.

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) in thinking that the new arrangement would press heavily on the owners of the humbler styles of vehicle.

said, he could conceive nothing more absurd than the present system, by which a person with armorial bearings on his ring or seal paid 13s. 2d., but if he had a carriage drawn by two horses, for which he paid £3 10s. to the State, he had to pay £2 12s. 9d., instead of 13s. 2d., and that, too, whether he put his armorial bearings on his panel or not. His proposal, which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think so absurd, was that a person using armorial bearings should pay £l 1s. and if he placed them on the panels of his carriage he should pay another £1 1s. in addition.

, though concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the absurdity of the present system, thought it was also absurd that a man who placed his armorial bearings on the harness of his carriage should pay £1 1s., but if he placed it on the panel of his carriage, where it would not be more displayed, should have to pay £2 2s. instead.

thought it a still greater absurdity that the thirteen-and-twopenny man should have to pay £1 1s.

objected altogether to the taxation of armorial bearings; he had made what, little he possessed by calico printing, and he did not see why he should not be allowed to emblazon a calico printing machine on his carriage. Why should he be taxed for it? He objected to armorial bearings being taxed, because he thought that every man had a right to develop his little ideas on his harness.

thought the proposal would oftentimes press heavily upon persons of limited means and upon widows reduced in circumstances by the death of their husbands, if they were compelled to pay £1 ls. per annum, because they desired to retain some seal or spoon upon which there was an armorial bearing. He. therefore, moved the insertion of words which would exempt from the payment of this tax those persons who did not contribute to the Revenue on account of their keeping a male servant, a horse, or a carriage.

presumed that it would be impossible to get through a discussion on our taxes without the irrepressible widow being brought forward. He would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the tax was only to be paid in case the articles were "used" or "worn;" and that if they were merely kept their owners would not be liable.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Amendment. He himself knew several widows and persons in reduced circumstances who had plate left to them, and who would feel the tax and the visit of the Excise officer severely.

, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Act, 1866, and to consider whether, and how far, and under what conditions, it may be expedient to extend its operations, said, the Lords' Committee had recommended that the Act should be extended to eleven more military stations, and several towns had applied to have the Act extended to those localities. The Government thought the principle of the Bill should not be extended without consideration, and they, therefore, proposed that the measure should be submitted to the consideration of a Committee.

said, that on the 25th of February the Government were asked in the other House, what were the intentions of the Government on the question, and the reply was that the Government would bring in a Bill. Relying on this, those opposed to the measure took no action, and now, on the eve of Whitsuntide, the House was adjourning, and no Committee could sit till the month of June. The Government should at least have taken some notice of a memorial signed by physicians and doctors, and, endorsed by the heads of Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, and the Vice Chancellors of the Universities. He hoped, however, that the measure would be passed.

also expressed a hope that the Government would proceed earnestly in the matter, which was of the deepest importance to the troops, if not to the community generally.

called the attention of the Home Secretary to the necessity, when three or four regiments of Volunteers were brought together for exercise in the parks, of having some five, six. or eight, mounted policemen, in order to indicate to the people the line of demarcation that would he required.

said, he would take the subject into consideration, and see what arrangement could be made.