proviso, "not being an estuary already, lums were sometimes choked up with indefined or determined by law." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that these were the very clauses upon which the Bill of the last session foundered. He hoped his hon. Friend would not renew a discussion which was very fully gone into during the last year. MR. D. ROBERTSON said, he should oppose the clause, as it was calculated to demoralize the people, who would not take out licences to do that which had been a custom for 100 years. MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE said, he would withdraw the clause. curable cases; and if the means of removing those who were harmless existed, there would be an opportunity of taking in new cases. It was well understood, that if cures were effected in cases of lunacy, they were generally brought about within the first twelve months. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Powers of District Board, if they fail to provide Accommodation, may be exercised by Person appointed by Court of Session). MR. BLACKBURN said, he objected to the power being given to the Commissioners. It was quite a new principle, and had come upon the Scotch Members by surprise, for at their meeting on the previous day, they were told that the measure would be merely a continuance Bill, whereas the clause was entirely new. It was, he thought, unfair to override all the counties by the clause because a few of them had neglected their duty. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, the clause contained the most important provision in the Bill. The Bill was an Amendment of the Lunacy Act-and not a continuance Bill reported; as amended, to be con- Act-in any other sense than it continued sidered To-morrow. House resumed. Clause 3 (Board to Licence Lunatic wards of Poor-houses). MR. ELLICE (St. Andrews) said, that some of the northern counties had heavily assessed themselves to build asylums, in which the lunatics were well looked after, the harmless and incurable being allowed to reside with their friends. He should therefore move as an Amendment, excepting from the operation of the clause the counties of Inverness, Nairn, Ross, and Sutherland. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that asy- the existing Board. SIR DAVID DUNDAS said, that when the district board refused to build asylums, there was no means of compelling them to provide the requisite accommodation. The clause would give the desired power, and he should support it. SIR ANDREW AGNEW said, he hoped the hon. Member for Stirling county (Mr. Blackburn) would persevere with his objection. MR. MURE suggested, that the provision enabling the Secretary of State to exercise the powers given him by the clause should be qualified by the insertion of the words "unless cause be shown to the contrary." THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he did not object to the Amendment. MR. BLACKBURN said, he should press his objection to a division. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided:- Ayes 57; Noes 9: Majority 48. Clause agreed to. Remaining Clauses, with the exception of Clauses 12 and 22, agreed to. Z House resumed. nues of India will not destroy the equilibrium of Receipt and Expenditure provided for in Mr. Laing's Budget for 1862-3; and whether it is prudent to suffer the continuance of the alleged existing irritation in India arising from the pressure of the income tax to assist in the maintenance of the present large European force in a time of peace? SIR CHARLES WOOD was understood to say that no measures out of the ordinary course had been taken in sending troops to India. A certain amount of force had been fixed for that empire, and he did not believe that it had been reached at that moment. THE NEW Foreign ofFICE. QUESTION. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, What quantity of land will be taken out of St. James's Park for the New Buildings; and whether any change has been made in the Plan so far as regards the quantity of land required in St. James's Park? MR. COWPER said, he believed the Bill reported; as amended, to be con- hon. Baronet alluded to the hoarding that sidered To-morrow. SOLDIERS' WIDOWS.-QUESTION. MR. WARNER said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What is the practice in granting pensions and gifts of money to the widows, parents, and other relations of Soldiers who have died in the Service; whether such pensions and gifts are bestowed invariably according to fixed regulations, or whether any discretion is allowed in regard to them; and whether such discretion, if any, is exercised by the Commander-in-Chief, or by the War Department? SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that the law made no provision for the pensions of widows of soldiers, and he was not aware of any discretionary power on the subject. THE INDIAN ARMY.-QUESTION. COLONEL SYKES said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any foundation for the statement in the military journals that 4,000 troops are immediately to be sent to India; whether the additional annual cost of these troops, amounting to above £400,000, independently of £13 per man for Home Charges suddenly thrown upon the Reve had been recently erected, but that did not mark out exactly the site of the building. That site included 18,000 square feet of ground, which formerly was part of St. James's Park. Since the most recent of the Acts on the subject had been passed, it had been found desirable to alter to some extent the outlines of the proposed buildings with a view to architectural effect; consequently, he should propose to bring in a Bill to allow of a slight exchange of ground between the site of Public Offices and the Park; the general result of that exchange would be that 1,480 square feet would be added to the Park. THE CASE OF MR. BISHOP. QUESTION. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that Mr. James Bishop, who was arrested at Gaeta on the 2nd of April, and committed to prison on a charge of complicity in the Canaldoli conspiracy, has not yet been brought to trial, and that bail has been refused him, although Count Canaldoli himself has been admitted to bail; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Minister at Turin has been instructed to take any steps on his behalf? MR. LAYARD said, that Mr. Bishop was arrested, not, he believed, for having been concerned in a conspiracy, but for having been the bearer of treasonable correspondence. He had not found any trace of the name of Count Canaldoli in the correspondence with the Foreign Office. Mr. Bishop was arrested on the 2nd of April, and had not yet been brought to trial, on account of difficulties arising out of the introduction of entirely new courts and trial by jury into Naples. A despatch had, however, that morning been received from Consul General Bonham, who states that he had been informed by the Procureur General that the jury lists would be completed in a few days, and the trial would then come on immediately. A despatch had also been received from Sir James Hudson, stating that he had, in accordance with instructions from home, transmitted a note to the Italian Government, calling upon it to proceed with the trial of Mr. Bishop as early as possible. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE said, he wished to ask, whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay that note upon the table? MR. LAYARD said, he was not aware that there would be any objection to do so, but it might be as well to wait until the correspondence was closed. AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES. QUESTION. MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, If he is prepared to give the terms of the Motion in relation to American affairs, of which he has given notice for Friday next? MR. W. S. LINDSAY said, that if he considered it advisable to proceed on Friday with his Motion, the object of which was the recognition of the Southern States, he would that evening, or to-morrow at the latest, place the terms upon the table. THE MILITIA.-QUESTION. MAJOR O'REILLY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under the Militia Regulations, a Militiaman who is absent from રી parade is liable to the stoppage of his day's pay; and whether, as the families of Militiamen in training are dependent on their pay for support, it would not be desirable, considering the distress alleged at present to be existing in many districts, to direct the adoption of other punishments in lieu of stoppage of pay ? SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that militiamen, when under training, were subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, and by one of those articles power was given to the commanding officer to stop the pay, and there was no regulation guiding the discretion of the officer with respect to applications of the nature referred to by the hon. Member. THE INCOME TAX. RETURNS MOVED FOR, About two years MR. HUBBARD said, he rose to call the attention of the House, in connection with the income tax, to the action taken by Government on the "Two Million Fortification Loan Act of 1860;" also to the effect of the income tax on the rents of encumbered landed property, and to move for certain Returns. previously the noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed to raise, for the purpose of erecting fortifications, a loan of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 through the medium of terminable annuities. He (Mr. Hubbard) then took the liberty of submitting that no more wasteful course could be adopted than to raise money for such a purpose in such a manner, and proposed an Amendment in order to prevent the adoption of that course. The Government, however, persevered, and he was defeated. From papers which had recently been distributed he found that during the year 1861 £970,000 had been brought into the Exchequer by the sale of terminable annuities. Those annuities had not been placed in the open market, but had been taken by the Government to the account of the savings banks; and, to provide the purchase-money, they had sold Three per Cent stocks belonging to the savings banks. The terms, however, on which the annuities were placed were not stated in any paper which he could find on the table of the House; and although he found papers in which the prices were affixed to other kinds of stocks, there was no price attached to these annuities. If, however, the Government persevered in thus contracting loans in a way which was ignored by the capitalists and moneyed cumbered property, from the adoption of his (Mr. Hubbard's) proposal; adding, that as at present (owing to the payment of interest on mortgages and settlements, all of which were paid in full), when the income tax was at 9d. in the pound the landowner really paid 11d., and that this 11d. would under Mr. Hubbard's scheme be raised to 13 d., "and that (concluded his right hon. Friend, in his passionate appeal to the landed interest) was the scheme proposed to them in the name of justice and fair play." To that formidable impeachment of his right hon. Friend, grounded (as it was assumed to be) on official facts and computations, he was able at the moment to oppose nothing but a simple disclaimer, which naturally would prevail as little against the statements of his right hon. Friend as the protestation of a criminal against the sentence of the judge. His right corporations of the day, the loss would be multiplied just in proportion as the loans were multiplied. To obtain the means of purchasing the Terminable Annuities for the savings banks, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt sold Consols and other funds privately; but when they carried these sums of stock into the market, they were selling on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (or, in plain terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was selling on his own account) with an amount of knowledge which was not possessed by the individual who bought. It might be said that that course of proceeding was for the benefit of the Government, and therefore of the country; but he submitted that it was not consistent with fair dealing that the Government should send their agents into the market to sell with a knowledge which those who bought did not possess, because, had it been known that the Go-hon. Friend spoke in that House with no vernment broker was selling to provide common authority, and therefore with no money for the Fortifications, there would common responsibility. He could not, like have been a pressure on the stocks, and other men, cast his words on the air to let the same price would not have been got them die away after they had served their which was obtained under different circum- momentary purpose; the words he uttered stances. There was a degree of straight- became a part of the history of the country. forwardness in all money dealings between They were heard with attention in that individuals in this country which ought not House, and read all over the world; and to be departed from; and he submitted wherever they were read they were rethat the course of proceeding by the Go-ceived with deference and respect. Why vernment in this matter not only involved did his right hon. Friend enjoy that wonthe Government, through the savings banks, in the risk of serious loss, but was open to objection on the ground that it was not fair to substitute a stealthy sale of Three per Cent stocks for the sale of Terminable Annuities, in accordance with the Fortifications Act. He would next, in pursuance of his notice, call the attention of the House to the action of the income tax upon the landed interest. It would be in the recollection of the House that on the 14th of May he made a Motion upon the subject, when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, asked hon. Members not to be led away by plausible appeals, but to attend, above all things, to the interest of justice; impressed it upon the House that he spoke from the actual calculations of the Board of Inland Revenue, and did not rest upon an imaginative estimate of the magical results which would follow an improved morality; and declared, that although he was reputed to be an enemy of the landed interest, he would not do them so great an injury as would result, especially to owners of en drous prerogative? It was not because he stood in that House as a Minister of the Crown-it was not even because he had a command of language, perfect in diction, earnest, and of unrivalled eloquence; but it was, above all, because he was believed to speak with careful and scrupulous veracity on all occasions. That was the secret of his strength; and therefore it was no light censure upon a scheme when his right hon. Friend denounced it as injurious to the State and to the interests of social order. He did not complain of the terms in which his right hon. Friend had conveyed his censure, so long as those terms were but the expression of his own opinion, but when he passed from the region of opinion to the region of facts and figures, the case assumed a different complexion, and one of much greater gravity, and he must be allowed to say that in the debate to which he referred his right hon. Friend was led into statements which were inaccurate, and therefore not applicable to the case which they were put forward to meet. The first proposition of the Chancellor of the Exche be aggrieved, with earnestness, trusted not with unbecoming warmth. He desired to effect a readjustment of the income tax, because he felt that its present operation was most detrimental to the morals of a very large number of the industrious classes of Great Britain. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not think it unbecoming in him to endeavour to vindicate his scheme from impeachments which he knew were baseless, and to show that it would not be attended with those injurious consequences which his right hon. Friend had imagined. quer was that the adoption of his plan found to would cause an immediate logs of but he £2,600,000 to the revenue. The second, that on the residue of encumbered property, the tax would be raised from 11d. to Is. 1d. in the pound. With regard to the first statement, as well as the second, he was about to move for Returns which in due time would enable the House to see how the facts really were. With that frankness which characterized him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated his intention of making no objection to those Returns. In the mean time he (Mr. Hubbard) ventured to sur Imise that the sum to be lost, if the abatements were uncompensated by a readjustment, would not be £2,600,000, but very little over £2,000,000. In the next place, he was very much mistaken if it would not be proved that the opera-(3.) The abatements before assessment proposed tion of his scheme, instead of raising the tax on the residue of encumbered property from 111d. to 1s. 1d., would actually reduce it to 101d. The effect of the scheme would be to remove one of the greatest defects in the present law. In fact, a grievance might be suffered by landed proprietors from the existing state of things of a far more serious character than that complained of in the case of traders, because in the case of the latter he did not think the grievance amounted to more than fifty per cent. That would be the amount if a trader was charged on £900 when he ought to pay on only £600; but in the case of a landed proprietor charged on the residue of encumbered property the excess might be as much as seventy or eighty per cent. Where he was beneficially possessed of only ten per cent of the net rental, he had to pay tax on twenty, because he had to pay on outgoings, which were nothing but a reinvestment of capital. In such a case the landowner was charged not at 9d., but at 1s. 6d. Under those circumstances the landed proprietors, instead of being parties to whom his scheme would be injurious, were parties who would largely profit by its adoption. He did not, however, appeal to landowners on any allegations of self-interest, nor did he feel that in bringing the subject under the notice of the House he was doing so in a private or personal character. Circumstances had induced him to look very carefully into the various Income Tax Acts, and the information he had acquired had led him to advocate the cause of those whom he Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House, Returns showing, under various heads, (1.) The amounts of Income Tax charged for the year 1860-1; (2.) The annual values on which the Tax was charged; by the Chairman of the Income Tax Committee in 1861; (4.) The values which would be chargeable after proposed abatements; (5.) The rate of Tax on the aggregate abated value which would produce the original amount of Tax; (6.) The amount of Tax which would be chargeable under each head at the increased rate of Tax; and (7.) The rate of Tax on original values which would be equivalent to the charge on the new assess ments: [See Table in next page.] "And, showing what would be the effect of the adjustment of the Income Tax proposed by the Chairman of the Income Tax Committee of 1861, in the increase or decrease of the rate of maining after discharging the annual burthens Tax thrown upon the portion of Land Rent reand outgoings, assuming that the burthens and outgoings are such as to raise the effective rate of Tax upon the net residue of rent from 9d. to 113d. in the pound.” MR. POLLARD-URQUHART seconded the Motion. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that his hon. Friend was not quite correct in supposing that the Government would make any objection to his Motion as far as it was in their power to grant the Returns moved for. That part of the Motion which rested on what might be called matters of fact they would readily accede to; but as for the last paragraph, which rested on no matter of fact, but was pure hypothesis and argument, it was not in their power to prepare such a Return. His hon. Friend in an adroit manner had mixed up two subjects which were distinct, separate, and incongruous namely, a scheme for the collection of the income tax, and an impeachment of the Government for the mode of raising money adopted by them in order to provide for the for |