MR. CRUM-EWING moved the addi- | nues of India will not destroy the equilition of the following clause: brium 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? "It shall be lawful for the Board to grant licences to any charitable institution established for the care and training of imbecile children, and supported in whole or in part by private subscription, without exacting any licence fee therefore, and such licence may be in name of the superintendent of such institution for the time being." Clause agreed to. SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWART moved the insertion of the following clause: "With the sanction of the Board, agreements and arrangements may be made for the reception and detention of all or any of the pauper lunatics of any district, county, or parish in any public, private, district, or parochial asylum or hospital within or beyond the limits of such district, county, or parish." Clause agreed to. MR. MURE said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause for allowing persons to enter asylums voluntarily. COLONEL SYKES: How can a madman enter an asylum voluntary? Clause agreed to. House resumed. 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 fxed 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. 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. 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 131d., "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 impeach ment 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. 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 He would next, in pursuance of his scrupulous veracity on all occasions. That notice, call the attention of the House to was the secret of his strength; and therethe action of the income tax upon the fore it was no light censure upon a scheme landed interest. It would be in the re- when his right hon. Friend denounced it as collection of the House that on the 14th injurious to the State and to the interests of May he made a Motion upon the sub- of social order. He did not complain of ject, when his right hon. Friend the the terms in which his right hon. Friend Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, had conveyed his censure, so long as those asked hon. Members not to be led away terms were but the expression of his own by plausible appeals, but to attend, above opinion, but when he passed from the all things, to the interest of justice; im- region of opinion to the region of facts and pressed it upon the House that he spoke figures, the case assumed a different comfrom the actual calculations of the Board of plexion, and one of much greater gravity, Inland Revenue, and did not rest upon an and he must be allowed to say that imaginative estimate of the magical results in the debate to which he referred which would follow an improved morality; his right hon. Friend was led into stateand declared, that although he was reputed ments which were inaccurate, and thereto be an enemy of the landed interest, he fore not applicable to the case which they would not do them so great an injury as were put forward to meet. The first prowould result, especially to owners of en- position 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. 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; (3.) The abatements before assessment proposed 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 cach 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: quer was that the adoption of his plan found to [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 Tax thrown upon the portion of Land Rent remaining after discharging the annual burthens and 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 11d. 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 incomo tax, and an impeachment of the Government for the mode of raising money adopted by them in order to provide for the for tifications. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that business could be very conveniently conducted by the House if attempts were made to combine subjects between which even the ingenious mind of his hon. Friend had failed to show any natural relation beyond that they both related to figures, nor would he follow the example set by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend complained, in the first place, that the Government had provided, or rather that the Legislature had ordered, that provision should be made for the expense of certain fortifications by means of annuities instead of by the more usual method of borrowing and creating a funded debt; and he also complained of the mode in which the money had been found in order to take up those annuities. As regarded the first point, if his hon. Friend objected to the proceeding of Parliament, he ought to make a Motion to alter the provisions of the Act. The Government had no choice but to obey, but yet they thought that the mode proposed by the Act was the wisest way of making the necessary provision. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey), who was not then in his place, had on a former occa sion shown conclusively that his hon. Friend opposite was entirely inaccurate in his statement that raising money by annuities was in all cases a wasteful method of borrowing. His hon. Friend complained that the Government had made sales in the open market, but had not made the buyers of stock acquainted with all the circumstances under which the stock was sold. Now, even assuming that the facts were so, he was not aware that it was the custom of those who sold stock to make known the whole of the circumstances which might have induced them to sell; but, however that might be, his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken as to the substratum of his argument. The sales in the open market, which he had so severely censured as contrary to prudence, and even morality, had not taken place. He did not say absolutely that since those annuities were first created there had been no sale in the open market; but if there had been, it was of an entirely trivial character and by way of exception. The money had been procured by Her Majesty's Government not by sales in the open market, but by way of transfer from their buying to their selling account. The principal of the accounts with which they had to do was that for creating life and permanent annuities. |