highest principles of morality. The College was created for English purposes. The English Parliament had sustained it for such purposes. As a matter of policy, it was the bounden duty of Parliament to meet the feelings of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, whose loyalty was unimpeachable, and not to insult them. Mr. Bowyer, while he protested against theological discussion in that House, replied to some of Mr. Spooner's allegations as to the doctrines of the Roman Church, and denied the charge of Ultramontanism brought against the College of Maynooth. Mr. T. Chambers animadverted with some severity upon certain parts of the speech of Mr. Roebuck, who, he said, had not accurately stated the origin and history of the Maynooth grant. He contended that this was a plain question of morals and policy, well understood by the people of England, who would insist upon the repeal of the endowment. Mr. Serjeant O'Brien said the Roman Catholics of Ireland viewed this motion as a violation of a right guaranteed to them by a solemn act of the Legislature, continued for 60 years, and therefore as an act of unwarrantable injustice, rendered more galling by unfounded charges against their faith. prove powerless but for evil, by creating in the minds of the people of Ireland a deep sense of wrong. Mr. G. Moore warned the advocates of the motion of its effects, if carried to its conclusion, upon another establishment in Ireland. This paltry grant was, he observed, only a small boon given to the Irish Roman Catholics in return for the property taken from their Church, and it was given for British purposes. Mr. Drummond said the question divided itself into two very distinct aspects. In the political aspect it was a bargain which could not be honestly broken; and was Mr. Spooner aware that he was asking the House to begin a new course of policy towards the Irish people? Upon the theological aspect of the question Mr. Drummond, apparently to the surprise of the House, pronounced an eulogium upon the Church of Rome, de claring that he would do anything rather than it should fall to the ground. Mr. Serjeant Shee asked the House to consider, before this endowment was withdrawn, whether justice had been done to the Roman Catholics of Ireland by their being, equally with the Protestants, allowed to provide for the education of their priesthood; and he showed It that before 1795 such establishments were illegal, and that since then restrictions were imposed upon Roman Catholic institutions which did not apply to those of other subjects of the Crown. could not be shown that the exercise of the privileges conceded to the Roman Catholic laity had been injurious to England; their loyalty was therefore a sufficient vindication of the character of their priesthood. He trusted that the House would not, by sanctioning the motion, reverse a policy adopted by successive Administrations, and adopt a measure that, although exasperating in its result, would Mr. Newdegate briefly supported the motion. Lord Palmerston expressed regret and pain at the renewal of these discussions of matters which ought to remain between man and his own conscience. He submitted to Mr. Spooner that his motion was irreconcileable with those fundamental principles which, as a friend of the Established Church, he could not but recognise. He must maintain that no man ought to contribute to the maintenance of a religion to which he did not subscribe. Could he suppose that there could be in such a country as this an identity of religious opinions? His (Lord Palmerston's) objections to the motion were first, that to abolish this endowment and to repeal the Act would be a breach of faith to CHAPTER II. FINANCE AND TAXATION-The Bank Charter Act-The Chancellor of the Exchequer moves for a Select Committee to inquire into its operation -Remarks of Mr. Glyn, Mr. Laing, Mr. Disraeli, Sir C. Wood, Mr. Spooner and other members-Committee of Inquiry appointed-THE INCOME TAX-Great interest felt by the public respecting the cessation of the War Income Tax-The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Financial Statement on the 13th February-He announces the intention of reducing the Income Tax for the next three years to 7d. in the pound-Observations of Mr. Gladstone-On the 20th of February Mr. Disraeli moves a resolution pledging the House to the total remission of the Income Tax in 1860-His Speech-He comments with much severity on the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who vindicates his own statement of the Finances-Mr. Gladstone supports the motion, and strongly urges a reduction of the Estimates-Mr. Wilson replies to Mr. Gladstone-Lord John Russell supports the financial views of the Government-Remarks of Mr. Bentinck, Sir F. Baring, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Cardwell, Sir C. Wood and other members-The Resolution is negatived on a division by 286 to 206—Mr. Gladstone opposes the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Tea Duties, and advocates a further remission of the dutySpeeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, Mr. Gibson and other members—Mr. Gladstone's Amendment is rejected by 187 to 125-The Bill is passed--Debates on the Income Tax-Sir Fitzroy Kelly moves to reduce the tax to 5d. in the pound, but without success-Mr. Gladstone moves a Resolution in favour of a reduction of the Expenditure-He enters into a detailed statement, showing the rapid increase of the National Expenditure within the last few years-The Chancellor of the Exchequer justifies the conduct of the Government— Debate in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of the Income Tax Bill-The Earl of Derby enters upon many topics of public interest with reference to the impending Dissolution of Parliament-His animadversions upon the financial operations of the Government-He is answered by Lord Granville-Strictures of Mr. Disraeli to the same effect in the House of Commons-Lord Palmerston's reply-Remarks of Mr. Gladstone on the connection between our foreign policy and the increase of the Estimates. HE policy of the existing laws recently undergone some discussion, and in the preceding Session a motion had been made for sub jecting the operation of the Bank quiry. The Government declined at that time to accede to the demand, but intimated no unwill convertibility of bank-notes. The amount of 14,000,000l. to be issued on securities was fixed because that was the minimum of notes retained in the hands of the public. He denied that the crisis of 1847 was in any way caused by the Act of 1844, the rules of which were, in his opinion, the best for their purpose, and the least stringent that could be laid down. With respect to the latter part of the motion, he thought there was a great deal of force in the objection to referring the subject of the joint-stock banks to the same committee, and if the House should be of that opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not insist upon that part of his motion. Mr. Spooner insisted that the contract of 1819, by which it had been said Parliament should be bound, was an unjust contract, which deranged bargains made in a depreciated currency, and which never had been acted up to, and never could be. He believed, if the Act of 1819 had never passed, that the currency would have been restored before this time, without the evils occasioned by that law. He enlarged upon what he held to be the evils of that law and the Act of 1844, and declared that in his opinion a plan might be devised which would secure the convertibility of notes without the alternations and mischiefs caused by the existing law. Mr. Wilkinson defended the Act of 1844, the sole complaint against which, he said, was, that it was supposed, erroneously, to raise the rate of interest. Mr. Muntz thought that after the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the appointment of a committee was a mere sham. Mr. Hildyard urged that care tee should be taken that the commiton a subject so important should be a fair one, or its opinion would go but a little way with the House or the country. After some observations from Mr. Cayley, Mr. A. Hastie, and Mr. Ingram, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to withdraw the latter part of his motion relating to the law of joint-stock banks, and in this amended form the motion was agreed to. The great anxiety that prevailed at this time respecting the financial position and prospects of the country was satisfied at a much earlier period in the Session thau usual, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made his financial statement on the 13th of February. The right hon. Baronet commenced by premising that he had taken the speediest opportunity for announcing his financial arrangements. The Army aud Navy Estimates had been presented but a few days before; and no vote had, as yet, been taken upon them in Committee of Supply. He then proceeded to call attention to the income and expenditure of the current financial year, 1856-7. The revenue of the current year, ending on the 5th of April, he had taken at 71,740,000l.; the actual amount would probably be 71,885,000l. The Customs had produced 23,600,000l., instead of 23,850,000l., his estimate; and this arose from the short stock of sugar and the check to the consumption of tea. The expenditure was estimated at 82,113,000., leaving a deficiency of 10,373,000l., including a margin of 2,000,0001. To meet this deficiency he borrowed 7,499,000l. Power was taken to borrow 4,000,000l. on Exchequer Bills; but this had been used only to the extent of 1,000,000l. The total receipts would be 79,384,000l.; the total expenditure probably 78,000,000l., leaving a balance of 1,384,000l. In answer to Mr. Disraeli's accusation that there was extraordinary war taxation in time of peace, he pointed out that the year was not a year of ordinary peace expenditure. There had been lent 1,000,000l. to Sardinia; 91,000l. paid on account of hereditary pensions under an Act of the last Session; there would be a loss of upwards of 2,000,000l. on the article of malt, by the reduction of duty and drawbacks: it was therefore incorrect to say that no reduction had taken place in war taxation. In order to show that the pressure of taxation had not diminished the resources of the country, he cited figures showing the flourishing state of the export and import trade, the large employment of shipping, and the diminution in the number of emigrants. Deducting the three years of peace expenditure just before the war 152,323,000l., from the three of years war expenditure 228,721,000l., he said the remainder― 76,398,000l. afforded a pretty close approximation to the cost of the war. Of this sum, he set down 40,362,000l. as the war taxation. The total expenditure for the year 1857-8, he estimated at 63,224,0007.; that is, interest on Funded and Unfunded Debt, 28,550,000l.; permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, 1,707,000l.; Army, 11,625,000l., Navy, 8,109,000l.; Packet Service, 965,000l.; Civil Services, 7,250,000l.; Collection of Revenue, 4,215,000l.; Superannuation in Revenue department, 475,000l.; Persian War, 265,000l. Beyond this, there were debts to be provided for amounting in all to 2,000,000Z.; which made a total estimated outlay of 65,474,000l. Sir George Lewis went into a detailed explanation of these items, to show that they were not excessive, even as compared with the estimates of peace years; and in accounting for the increase, he pointed out a variety of causes, such as the Packet Service, the transfer of the Coast Guard from the Customs to the Admiralty, and the increased charges arising from the use of steam in the Navy. Before he came to the taxation for the ensuing financial year, he made some remarks on the compact said to have been entered into in 1853 between Parliament and the country with regard to the continuance of the financial arrangements of that year. Now, to admit the doctrine of compact, it should be shown that the state of things on which the compact was made remained unchanged. But the plan of 1853 was formed on the assumption of That peace. assumption did not turn out to be correct-war, a disturbing cause of the first magnitude, succeeded, and not only increased the annual charge for the Debt, but left warloan sinking-funds to be provided for, and 2,000,000l. of Exchequer Bonds, payable this year. And on the other side of the account, we had had a loss of 150,000l. by the alteration of Stamp Duty on Bills of Exchange in 1853, a decrease of 290,000l. in Assessed Taxes, 260,000l. by the abolition of the Newspaper Stamp Duty, and 60,000l. on the Carriage Duty; total remission of taxation since 1853, 760,000%. |