events, for some period of the debate, it required no support from any of his Colleagues or my hon. Friends who sat near him. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has reduced his objections to what he called one fundamental point. He says the whole foundation of my right hon. Friend's argument was that an exemption from taxation was equivalent to a grant from the country. Well, I maintain that that rished in this country all our local associations all that veneration for the principle of inheritance to which we have so long adhered. We have heard arguments to-night which have been a denunciation of endowments, and almost an appeal for confiscation. That this proposition should have been introduced as part of a financial scheme is indeed amazing; that it should have been introduced for so slight a financial object is still more as-is perfectly sound. As long as your extonishing; but when it was in the power of the Government, not of their own happy imagining, but following the strong sense of the country as represented in the House of Commons, to effect those great reductions of taxation which our advice and public opinion had indicated that they should have thought fit, under such circumstances, unnecessarily to introduce the discussion of principles which disturb almost the foundation of society, does appear to me to be a course of conduct which the most brilliant rhetoric cannot justify, and which I think may lead to consequences which the Government may hereafter regret. Sir, I shall only hope that this remarkable proposition, introduced with so much pomp, and withdrawn in a manner so unpretending-may be the last of the endeavours that will be made to attack the endowments of this country, which the wisdom of the times in which we live may improve by the application of the principles on which they are founded. Commissions and Committees have already produced ample suggestions for that object, but the endowments themselves are founded upon a principle that has contributed to the greatness of this country, and which I trust this country will always cherish. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I will venture, Sir, to answer the question which I understand for I was absent when he rose to address you-the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) asked at the commencement of his speech namely, whether the proposal made by my right hon. Friend was his own proposal singly, or was one in which his Colleagues also concurred. Sir, I am happy to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the course pursued by my right bon. Friend, and the proposal he made, were entirely concurred in by all his Colleagues; and if none of those Colleagues rose for some time to support him, it was entirely because they felt that his admirable and most convincing speech was both unanswerable and unanswered. At all penditure is a fixed sum, it is demonstrable that if you exempt a portion of the community from contributing their share to the taxation by which that sum is to be raised, you do virtually grant them a part of the fund which comes from the rest of the public to defray your expenditure; and therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite talks of a fallacy, I must say I never heard such a fallacy as he has sought to establish by denying that an exemption from taxation is equivalent to a grant of public money. The right hon. Gentleman argues, indeed, that it is not so, because he says that the fact of the exemption implies that it is just. But that is begging the whole question. No doubt, if a person is justly entitled to exemption, when you concede a right to him, you do not confer a boon. But we deny, and no man has yet proved, that these charities are justly entitled to exemption. My right hon. Friend has been accused of pouring forth invectives against these charitable institutions. Why, the most severe things which fell from my right hon. Friend were his quotations from the Reports of the Commissioners who were employed and authorized to inquire into these charities. It was the passages he read from these Reports that contained those condemnations which hon. Gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to represent as having been the simple expressions of my right hon. Friend's individual opinion. I say, then, that we entirely concurred in the proposal, and I think my right hon. Friend has demonstrated that it was founded upon justice and good sense. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has given the key to the whole secret; for he has said that "local associations" are adverse to the proposal of my right hon. Friend. Why, Sir, that is really the fact; and it was very candid in the right hon. Gentleman opposite so openly and broadly to acknowledge it. But that, Sir, is not only a motive for individual votes and opinions; it is also a ground upon which the Government are entitled to take, and ought, I think, to take their line; and if we find that a proposal however just in itself, how ever demonstrably true, is opposed to "local associations" of the most extensive character, not only in this House, but all over the country, why, we respect those prejudices and bow to them. We do not, on that account, believe them the less to be prejudices. That being so, I think my right hon. Friend has exercised a very wise discretion in not pressing upon the House —as he had stated at the outset he did not mean to do a proposal which, upon discussion, should appear to be adverse to its general opinion. Although we think the proposal right and just in itself, and although we believe that when the arguments of my right hon. Friend shall be read by the country, opinion out of doors on this subject will undergo a change; yet we bow to the present state of feeling and to "local associations"; and I think my right hon. Friend has exercised a sound discretion in withdrawing the proposition. MR. HENLEY: Sir, I will not now enter into the question whether the Government have not made a blunder in this matter but as the noble Lord has spoken of the feeling of small associations or of local associations, I would just say that I believe they comprise the whole country; because the whole is made up of parts; and if there is one thing more true than another, it is that the entire country does not take the same view which the noble Lord and his right hon. Colleague think to be so just. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done me the honour to say that I use very mild language. I suppose he alludes to the opinion I expressed the other evening that it was a queer sort of justice to rob the poor. I was informed on that occasion by a right hon. Friend of mine who sits near the right hon. Gentleman, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the last man in the world who could be supposed to do any such thing as that, as the financial and commercial legislation with which his name had been identified would prove. Now, I am one of those persons who, in an ordinary way, look at the measure which is before this House, and I do not trouble my head or care a halfpenny about the motives or antecedents of those who propose it. It is quite enough to do to see whether the measure itself is good or bad, according to the best light one can get upon it. But the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of Oxford naturally set one a thinking. Now, what has happened? No man is more ready to admit than I am that the species of legislation to which my right hon. Friend alluded, which has been carried on for the last fifteen or sixteen years, has been adopted for the best of motives, with the great hope and expectation and, it may be also, with the result of increasing the material wealth of all classes of the community. But what else has been going on during the same period? Material wealth, deck it out as you will with flowers of speech, means money, and money is Mammon. Well, to secure those results and carry the same principles further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined hand-in-hand with those who made an attack-under the name of reforming them-upon the old endowments of the university which he represents. What was the main thing that he did there? He destroyed the Christian character of the education. ["Oh! oh!"] I will say what was done, and then you may say Oh, oh!" if you please. He compelled, and those who acted with him compelled, the university to give her education and tender her honours to Jew, Turk, Heretic, and Infidel. ["Oh!"] That fact cannot be denied, and I say it destroys the Christian character of the education. What followed? In 1860 and 1861 an attempt was made by the Government to change the character of the education of the lower classes, and to dissever the Government from the religious education of the people. This House then rejected and forced you to take back your proposition. Well, let those two schemes be viewed together. I am not going to draw the conclusion, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must set people thinking whether Mammon, guided by the tree of knowledge, will not bring us to this simple principle-Rem, quocunque modo rem. We could not have had a more striking instance of this than the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The principles he has laid down are nothing but "Mammon and the tree of knowledge," and they are utterly inconsistent with any other principle of any kind. I am extremely glad that this clause is withdrawn, for I think it was exceedingly objectionable in every respect. MR. LOCKE said, this was not the first attempt to tax charities, for in 1858 the then President of the Poor Law Board, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), proposed to rate charities to the poor and other parish rates, and that proposal was supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite need not express quite so much indignation against the present proposal. Charities might, he thought, be properly subject to the income tax; but there was great difficulty in distinguishing between those which ought to pay it in full and those which should only be liable to a diminished rate; and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present proposition did not do that, he was not disposed to support it. Clause negatived. Clause 4 withdrawn. Clause 5 (Exemption of Persons whose Income is under £100, and Abatement to those whose Income is under £200 a year respectively). MR. HUBBARD drew attention to the fact that this was the first attempt to introduce a graduated scale for regulating taxation upon incomes. It was proposed to grant a certain exemption in respect of incomes between £100 and £200. He en tirely agreed in the exemption so far as it affected industrial incomes. MR. HUNT said, he should not, under the circumstances, move the proposition of which he had given notice, but he must say that he did not understand upon what principle it was that the deduction of £60 from taxation should not be applied to incomes larger than £200 a year. MR. PEACOCKE presumed that the principle upon which incomes under £100 were exempted from the income tax was that £100 was absolutely necessary to sup: port a family; and therefore, if he should receive any support, he would move that from incomes under £200 there should be no tax upon the first £100, instead of the deduction of £60 only. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCIEQUER said, that the reason why they proposed to deduct £60 from the amount taxed was that there was a great advantage in standing upon tradition in taxation. Down to 1815, £60 a year was the amount at which the income tax commenced, and this was the reason why they had now fixed upon £60 as the amount to be exempted from taxation. There was another cousideration—that if they allowed persons to deduct £100 from the amount taxed, they would then have to levy the tax on such small amounts that the sums received would hardly pay the cost of collection. For instance, an income of £120 would only pay upon £20. Another circumstance was, that by extending the exemption from £60 to £100 there would be an additional loss to the revenue of from £250,000 to £300,000. MR. PEACOCKE said, he should withdraw his Amendment. Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to, as was Clause 6 and the Schedules. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. STOCK CERTIFICATES TO BEARER BILL-[BILL 100.]-CONSIDERATION. Order for Consideration, as amended, read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had to propose the omission from Clause 4 of the words relating to the printing of certain notices on the certificates. It was thought that those words would be of little advantage as a security, while they might tend to embarrass the question of title. MR. HUNT said, that the print of the Bill was only delivered on Saturday, and he observed that some of the Amendments introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not correctly given. Besides, he had Amendments of his own to propose on the penal clauses, and seeing that the Attorney General had promised that the Bill would not be hurried, he moved that the debate should be adjourned. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, they had not yet come to the penal clauses; and as his Amendment was one of no great importance, he hoped it would be agreed to at once. MR. LYGON reminded the House that the Amendments introduced the other night were adopted on the distinct understanding that ample time would be given for considering the Bill as amended. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted the Motion for adjourning the debate, he would teach the House never to allow any Bill in which he was interested to pass through Committee without full discussion. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, the hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing any. thing had been done pro formâ. Amendments in the penal clauses were of n immaterial character. The MR. VANCE did not see any provision for including the certificates of the Bank | partly on terminable annuities. This proof Ireland. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that was so; and as notice was necessary, he would consent to the adjournment of the debate upon that ground. Debate adjourned till Thursday. SAVINGS BANKS BILL posal was not liable to the objections made against Mr. Pitt's sinking fund, which compelled the Government to be buyers and sellers of stock at the same time, with the moral certainty that they would buy the stock on worse terms than they sold it, independently of the cost of the operation. In ordinary years the Government would [MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER]-[BILL 79.] not be buyers of stock, and they would COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Treasury may cancel additional Amount not exceeding £5,000,000, and create terminable Annuities). MR. HUBBARD moved that the clause be struck out. In dealing with the deposits of savings banks they ought to secure a safe investment, an investment which paid a good interest, and one which was easily salable. With a view to those requirements, nothing could be more undesirable than the investment in terminable annuities. It would impose the necessity of constantly buying and selling in the money market by the Government, and would entail a loss upon the community, for which the Government were trustees. The object was to pay off a portion of the National Debt, and really to create a fictitious sinking fund, to which the right hon. Gentleman had in former times expressed his objection. These terminable annuities were to absorb the £100,000 which was to be obtained from the tax on charities, and, under the altered circumstances of the Budget, he thought the proposal inconvenient and unnecessary. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, his hon. Friend had a great aversion to terminable annuities; while he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the contrary, thought they were of great advantage to the country, and that they supplied a steady and quiet machinery which was always at work with a view to the gradual liquidation of the debt. The great objection to their extension was the difficulty of disposing of them in the open market. It was not proposed now to do that, but to make a purely financial experiment, which, while leaving ample stock for all the purposes of savings banks, would give an extended operation to this very salutary principle. It was quite true that he opposed a proposition for re-establishing a sinking fund, and he had not changed his opinion; and he had been a party to raising a loan not be sellers of stock. He was sorry to differ from his hon. Friend, who was s0 conversant with subjects of this kind, and though he would not enter into the general merits of terminable annuities, he would remind him of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. T. Hankey), who, in 1860, completely answered the objections of his hon. Friend, and with great ability stated sound reasons for regarding with favour those securities. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY wished to know what would be the effect of converting £5.000,000 into terminable annuities. What would be done with the income derived from them? He feared the Chancellor of the Exchequer was laying the possible foundation of a very serious deficiency in the Savings Bank Account. He thought more time ought to be given for the consideration of so weighty a principle as that involved in this proposition. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE hoped, that in the case of these annuities, interest and principal would be kept separate. There was a great deal of force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), and he hoped they would receive due consideration. The best mode of reducing the debt was by keeping the expenditure below the revenue. Even in favourable years, however, if they took into account the borrowed money expended on fortifications, the outlay generally exceeded the income. As long as that was the case, it was a mistake to attempt to reduce the debt by artificial means. At the same time, he saw no grave objection to the creation of a moderate amount of annuities, and therefore hoped that his hon. Friend, having uttered his protest, would not press the Committee to a division. MR. THOMSON HANKEY approved the clause, as it involved no more than an ordinary banking transaction. There was always a certain, though limited, market for annuities, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in availing himself of it whenever he had the opportunity. MR. AYRTON expressed a hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not take the sense of the Committee on the question which had been raised. He, at the same time, must beg to enter his humble protest against the Bill, upon the ground that it contained no clause whereby the National Debt Commissioners, as bankers for the savings banks, could raise the capital which they might be called upon to pay. It was, he thought, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a clanse entitling the Commissioners to raise the stock if demands should be made upon them beyond the funds in their hands. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE Remaining Clauses agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND [BILL 93.] SECOND READING. LORD CLARENCE PAGET moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to make it compulsory on the trustees to invest the funds. That the Bill be now read a second time." Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." QUER said, there was no distinction between that portion of the annuities alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, which MR. LYGON said, he doubted the proconstituted capital, and that which constituted interest. The stocks realized and priety of disturbing the arrangement made the dividends went indifferently into a cerin 1861, which was of the nature of a tain fund, liable to meet the demands of compromise, and intended to protect the the trustees on behalf of the depositors, interests of the minority. In order to and such portion as was not required for enable the noble Lord to give some exthat purpose it was the duty of the Go-planations, he should move that the Bill vernment to invest in the best manner be read a second time that day six months. they could. In answer to the hon. and Amendment proposed, to leave out the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets word "now," and at the end of the Ques(Mr. Ayrton), he might observe that the tion to add the words "upon this day six advantage which the Savings Banks Fund months." would derive from the working of the Bill would be that by the return annually of a larger sum into the hands of the Government ampler means would be afforded of meeting the demands of the depositors from time to time without being compelled to sell their stock. The power of purchasing annuities the Government had set about using; but latterly they had been unable to use it to so great an extent, for the simple reason that the savings banks took more money away than they put in. When the savings banks began again to put in COURTS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND the funds, the Government would, he trusted, be enabled to make more profitable investments in their behalf. The fortification loan had, he might add, answered very well for those institutions. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, it was a serious matter to find that the amount of savings bank money paid in was less than that paid out. MR T. BARING considered the Bill rather a complex measure, but expressed himself in favour of the creation of terminable annuities as being the only practical way of diminishing the National Debt. MR. HUBBARD said, he would not di vide the Committee. Clause agreed to. MR. COLLIER hoped the hon. Gen tleman would allow the Bill to be read a second time. The machinery of the former Act would be at a standstill until this Bill was passed. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. BILL-[BILL 92.] SECOND READING. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he would not oppose the second reading, as the Church of Scotland was in favour of it; but he should probably have to call at tention to the second and third clauses in Committee. Bill read 2o, and committed for Thurs day. Bill considered in Committee. SIR ROBERT PEEL trusted that the |