ledge of the Colonial Office that a Bill RETIREMENT OF BISHOPS.-QUESTION. for the withdrawal of public Grants for SIR MASSEY LOPES said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the expediency of making some adequate provision for the retirement of those Right Rev. Prelates who, either from their advanced age or from mental or physical inability, are permanently incapacitated from performing the duties which devolve upon them? ecclesiastical purposes in the Bahamas, after being twice carried by the House of Assembly, has been rejected by the Legislative Council, notwithstanding that in the interval between its first and second introduction, the policy of the measure was affirmed at a General Election in the Colony; and, whether it is intended to take any step to ensure that respect shall be had to the wishes of the Colony, as constitutionally expressed? He wished further to ask, What was the state of the Revenue in the Colony at the time, and what proportion the Episcopalians bore to the other inhabitants of the Colony? MR. GLADSTONE: I have observed, Sir, with very great regret, as I think all Gentlemen in the House must have observed, that, at the present moment, no inconsiderable number of dioceses are, in a great degree, deprived of the advantage of responsible episcopal government, through the illness or the infirmities of old age of several of the Prelates; and no doubt it would be desirable that some adequate provision should properly be made for the purpose of meeting the case. At the same time, looking at the effect of any such provision on the arrival of episcopal vacancies, I think it is a matter on which it is desirable that the Executive Government should, if possible, not proceed on the authority of their own judgment House of Assembly adjourned for three only. It is very much to be desired that weeks without passing the Appropriathe Bishops of the Church themselves tion Bill. The Government was, in conshould consider the matter, and, if pos- sequence, left without any funds for carsible, propose a plan, for the purpose of rying on the public service, and the Goapplying a remedy to the evil. I am not authorized to make any communication of a definite character on the part of the Right Reverend Bench; but I am under the impression that their attention has been given to the subject, and I therefore hope that some result of their deliberations on it may within a reasonable time appear. Of course, I do not mean to say that the Government are precluded from considering it, and making some proposal in case the Bishops do not; but I think the House will be inclined to agree with me, that it is desirable that the Bishops themselves should be associated from the very commencement with any proposal we may find it our duty to make. MR. MONSELL said, he would beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that, in the month of April last, the House of Assembly of the Bahamas passed a Bill for the disendowment of the Churches of England and Scotland. That Bill was thrown out by the Legislative Council. In consequence of the action of the Council, the Assembly asked the Governor to take the sense of the community by dissolving the Assembly. This the Governor refused to do, whereupon the BAHAMAS - ECCLESIASTICAL GRANTS. QUESTION. MR. MIALL said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is within the know vernor was compelled to dissolve the House of Assembly. In the month of August they again re-assembled, and passed a Bill with the same effect; but this time the Legislative Council did not actually reject the Bill, but merely postponed its further consideration until next Session. Meanwhile, a new Governor had gone out to the colony, and the Assembly had met again in February; but he (Mr. Monsell) had no further information of any further action with regard to Disendowment Bills. As to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member, he might state that the present revenue of the colony was about £30,000; but the colony was spending about £40,000. With respect to the proportion of Episcopalians to the whole population, the hon. Gentleman would find the information in a Return which had been moved for; but, according to his (Mr. Monsell's) own recollection, the proportion of Church of England members was about one-tenth, and the endowments of that Church were about | Resolution did this, or whether it would £3,700 a year. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. -QUESTION. VISCOUNT BURY said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table the answer given by the Hudson's Bay Company to the proposals of the Government respecting the cession of territory heretofore held by them? MR. MONSELL said, in reply, that whenever the answer of the Canadian Government was received the whole of the Correspondence would be laid upon the table. WORKSHOPS REGULATION ACT IN MR. AKROYD said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Workshops Regulation Act, 30 and 31 Vic., c. 146, has been enforced by the Local Authorities at Birmingham; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to fulfil the provisions of the said Act? not be necessary to effect it by a Supplementary Resolution? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If it were necessary to propose any Supplementary Resolution it would be done; but we think there will be no necessity to do so. It is the intention of the Government to abolish these Duties. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. QUESTION. MR. WALPOLE: Sir, before we go into Committee of Ways and Means, I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is, Whether he will give the particulars of the Duties to be paid in January next, under four heads-namely, Property and Income Tax, Land Tax, Inhabited House Duty, and Assessed Taxes? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER: Sir, the property and income tax, which will be payable under the scheme of the Government, will be 1d. less than I took credit for, because in stating the matter that credit MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he was was taken when I assumed the income sorry to say that the Act had not been tax to be 6d., and we propose to reduce put in force in Birmingham, although it to 5d. Therefore the amount of the he believed there was no great town in property and income tax from Schedules the Empire that required the application A, B, and D, which we expect to receive of that Act more strongly than Birming- in January, will be £1,500,000. As to ham. The Secretary of State had no the land tax and the house duty, compulsory powers to enforce the atten- which, as my right hon. Friend knows, tion of the local authorities to the Act. come to pretty nearly the same amount All he could do was to remind them of -namely, between £1,000,000 and their duty. He wished to defer answer- £1,100,000-we expect to receive the ing the Question as to what steps he intended to take until the Government had had an opportunity of discussing the whole subject more fully, which he was happy to say would be shortly given. IRELAND-HACKNEY CARRIAGES IN DUBLIN.-QUESTION. MR. VANCE said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he intends to take in respect to the Duty paid to the Crown by the owners of Hackney Carriages in Dublin? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon, Gentleman will find, if he looks at the Resolutions before the House, that it is the intention of the Government to abolish that Duty. whole of them pretty well in that time. This is an excess of what they would have been if received in April of £950,000. As to the assessed taxes, the Excise licenses which are substituted for them, will amount, in round numbers, to £1,000,000. These are all receivable in that quarter, but I do not expect to receive above three-fifths, amounting altogether to £600,000. The three sums receivable in that quarter above the ordinary revenue will be £1,500,000 for property and income tax; £950,000 for land and house duty; and £600,000 for Excise licenses, which are to be paid instead of assessed taxes; amounting altogether to £3,050,000. DUTY ON CORN.-QUESTION. MR. VANCE said, he wished to know whether he rightly understood that the Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe Committee. ther the Government will allow a draw- THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEback of the Duty on Corn which may have been paid after the announcement of the abolition of the Duty and the passing of the Resolution? QUER: Sir, I am sorry that I am not able to go into the details of this matter, but I have referred to the Department of Customs, and am informed that sta THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-tistics can be obtained under the pro QUER said, it was not the intention of the Government to allow a drawback on corn now in the hands of importers. Corn arriving in our ports that day would be, so far as he knew, subject to the duty, and he presumed that, according to the usual practice, it would be subject to the duty until the Resolution was affirmed. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND) BILL. OBSERVATIONS. posed system with almost as much accuracy as under the present, which renders it necessary to look very much to the merchants' accounts. As to the precise manner in which it is to be done, I am sorry to say I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman. MR. NEWDEGATE said, the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for repeating the Question, having been, as the right hon. Gentleman would, of course, remember, somewhat intimately acqu acquainted with the origin of this charge. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to as to the nature of the proposed regulations, and on a future day to give the information to the House. make inquiry lay upon the MR. DISRAELI: It will, Sir, per- WAYS AND MEANS. COMMITTEE. (In the Committee.) MR. CORRANCE: Sir, the discussion upon the Budget has been somewhat protracted, and to those who have felt bound to listen to it throughout sufficiently wearisome, no doubt. I will not add to their sufferings at any length. It is exceedingly clever, and if I may judge by the observations made, somewhat unintelligible to most. It is an experimental Budget, and as such, upon the responsibility of the introducers, it must be tested by that best argument Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the articles under-mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine, viz.:-Corn, Grain, Meal, and Flour, and articles of the like character, viz.:-Wheat; Barley; Oats; Rye; Pease; Beans; Maize or Indian year hence; and the necessity for general Corn; Buck Wheat; Bear or Bigg; Wheat Meal fact. This we cannot arrive at for a Cassava Powder; Maccaroni; Mandioca Flour; to me pretty broadly that the right hon. Manna Croup; Potatoe Flour; Powder, viz. Hair; Powder, Perfumed; Powder, not otherwise purpose as Starch; Rice Dust and Meal; Sago; Semolina; Starch; Starch, Gum of, torrified or calcined; Tapioca; Vermicelli." enumerated or described that will serve the same criticism may also be conveniently postponed until that date. Nevertheless, there may be some points which admit of reasonable doubt, and it may be permitted to us to express this. It seems Gentleman having got 2d. out of us for the Abyssinian War, is going at some future time, like an honest man and a good financier, to give us 1d. back. I speak generally when I say this. Of course, as he cannot keep it, he will give MR. NEWDEGATE said, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the other to somebody else, and my the Exchequer. Under what regula- doubt is founded on this. Passing over tions, penalties, and inducements, he minor details of hair powder and puppy wished to know, was the registration of dogs' tails, the real application of this corn imported into this country to be tax is to the remission on corn. Well, carried out in future? The question let me remove the right hon. Gentlewas an important one, and in the House man's manifest assumption that I am generally he noticed a disposition to going to contest the propriety of this insist upon more accurate statistics than upon the ground of class interest, at had yet been furnished. least. Let it be broadly admitted, that under existing circumstances, and in pre- | of 18. per quarter upon it than it is to roast a pig sent times, the agricultural classes want no shreds or rags of Protection. They want Free Trade, and they are also determined that this doctrine shall be fairly carried out. I admit that under present prices the claim could not be set up. But if I entertain doubts they are of another class. To them I call the attention of the House. I confess I was insufficiently satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's argument upon this. He assumed too much and proved too little in this case. He held that without doubt the remission would reach the consumer. Now, is this the case? It may be one of the new lights, but upon no mean authority it has been held not. By Sir Robert Peel, and if I mistake not, by the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Treasury Bench, it was, I say, held that this small duty could be levied for purposes of revenue, and that it did not in any way affect the price. This may to tyros seem a paradox, but the right hon. Gentleman, as it seemed to me, explained it himself. What did he tell us in another case? Why, that as regarded currants whatever we remitted would, of course, be put on by Greece. Well, the principle is the same, the only difference may be in the condition of the case. None but doctrinaires expect to find such absolute rule, in practice at least. But, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that it was curious that Sir Robert Peel should hold such language as this— "Sir Robert Peel seems curiously to have thought that a tax of 1s. per quarter on corn, or of 3d. per cwt., as it is now paid by weight instead of by measure, was really no tax at all. For so great a financier the language that he holds upon this matter is very remarkable. In his speech in 1846 he says-' I propose, therefore, that one article of grain, which I believe may be applied to the fattening of cattle, shall henceforth be imported duty-free; I mean maize. I propose that the duty on maize shall be merely nominal.' "[3 Hansard, cxcv. 386.] He means, I presume, that it was curious that Sir Robert Peel should have differed with himself, and that of course he is right; but we may not all see it in that light. Nor do I think he did justice to the argument of Sir Robert Peel when he speaks thus "That this duty is something more than a mere registration duty is evident, I think, from two considerations. The first consideration is that it is perfectly easy to register the arrival of corn without it; in fact, it is no more difficult to register the arrival of corn without levying a duty without burning down a house. Again it cannot like tapioca, arrowroot, sago, flour, meal, and so "You may put a duty on these articles for the protection of the Revenue; but why should you do it for purposes of registration, which can easily be effected without it? It was clearly the intention of its founder that it should operate only as a register; but it really is, and it has now come to be regarded as, a source of Revenue." - [Ibid., 386, 387.] This much we can admit, and it is, perhaps, upon this very ground that we may entertain doubts whether or not it is wise to remit such a tax. What, however, does the right hon. Gentleman say of this? "And what sort of a source of Revenue is it? It is impossible to imagine any tax which combines more of the qualities that make a tax odious -that is, it is a duty on an article that is produced in England with no countervailing Excise duty upon it; it is there effectual as a protective duty-that is to say, it not merely raises the price of the portion of the article that pays it, but also raises the price of the portion of the article that does not pay it." - [Ibid., 387.] Well, if one-half of this was true, no doubt; but it is mere assertion nevertheless. The right hon. Gentleman did not offer one tittle of proof. Does it raise the price here? this is what we doubt; indeed the right hon. Gentleman almost admits as much. He says "The consumption of wheat in this country is about 22,000,000 quarters annually; the imports are about 8,000,000 quarters, and the home I do not growth about 14,000,000 quarters. mean to say that the price of the whole 14,000,000 quarters grown at home can be sensibly raised by this tax, but I feel no doubt that the price of a considerable portion of it is, and no one can exactly say how much." [Ibid., 387.] He believes upon ground of belief, he neither supports by statistics or facts. On general principles he claims assent to this. He says "Although in the case of a small duty of this kind we cannot trace its exact incidence or measure the exact amount of the mischief it does, surely there is such a thing as faith in politics as well as in religion."-[Ibid., 388.] Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman may have more than most, but when he once, cantile class. But, Sir, let me say thismore asks us "If we can take nothing on the strength of abstract reasoning, and everything must rest upon statistics, which it is impossible to obtain in such cases, then we may as well burn our books on political economy, and economic science is altogether useless." [3 Hansard, excv. 388.] Before we can accept such wholesale conclusions as this, we must, at least, learn from whom they proceed, and the right hon. Gentleman is neither infallible nor immaculate in this case. It was to the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Mill addressed these words in my hearing in the House "In my right hon. Friend's mind political economy appears to stand for a set of practical maxims. To him it is not a science, it is not an exposition, not a theory of the manner in which causes produce effects: it is a set of practical rules, and these practical rules are indefeasible. So far from being a set of maxims and rules to be applied without regard to times, places, and circumstances, the function of political economy is to enable us to find the rules which ought to govern any state of circumstances with which we have to deal-circumstances which are never the same in any two cases. Political .. .. economy has a great many enemies; but its worst enemies are some of its friends." - [3 Hansard, exc. 1525.] if it could be proved that by such means any real or solid advantages would accrue to the consumer or the mercantile class, then, depend upon it, the agricultural interest would most willingly forego the slight advantage it can afford to themselves. The real sufferer will be the payer of the income tax. One word more upon this: there is one consequence of this Act to which I call the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has imagined a case. He says "If we want to get at the real evils of the tax, let us imagine ourselves applying to it the same rules as we apply to all other protective taxes, and put a countervailing Excise duty on the home-grown article. Just fancy the exciseman let loose upon the barns and the stores of the farmers and the corn-dealers, collecting a tax of 3d. per cwt. on their corn all over the country. What a sensation it would create!"- [3 Hansard, cxcv. 387.] Now, Sir, there is such a countervailing duty in this case, which he has forgot. The Custom House officer does come to our barns and granaries, and to a proportionate effect it does create the sensation the right hon. Gentleman describes, and it is a tax much more onerous than 3s. per cwt. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take this off? It is the necessary consequence of this Act. This Budget signs the doom of the malt tax -the right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure of that and we shall look to that the Treasury-Bench for support. I shall not go into the question in detail, but I call the attention of the hon. Member for Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) who has charge of the question, to these facts. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said that it is his wish that we should have a free breakfast table; I presume that he would not confine this to the higher and middle classes. The labouring classes drink beer, and upon that ground I claim his support. On any other ground I must object to this remission which falls to the foreign producer, and whose substitute is the income tax. But, if permitted to doubt whether any advantage to conscience will take place, I equally demur to the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion in another case. He once more assumes that a great entrepôt trade is about to spring up, and what is the nature of his proof? He says that between 1864 and 1868 the corn exported was as follows:-1864, 21,455 quarters; 1865, 10,851 quarters; 1866, 19,648 quarters; 1867, 63,453 quarters; 1868, 83,036 quarters-exported after payment of duty. But, that there were transhipped - 1864, 5,164 quarters; 1865, 9,239 quarters; 1866, 49,691 quarters; 1867, 169,467 quarters; 1868, 151,902 quarters; and upon this he argues that the obstacle in question is the duty. Is this so? I think not, for the same thing would apply to bonded goods. transhipment preferable to reshipment? Why of course it is. Ask any practical merchant this. Sir, there is one thing he has absolutely failed to point out what great advantages merchants are to derive from warehoused over bonded goods. Why cannot they be warehoused in bond? They then pay no duty when they are taken out; but, Sir, they are transhipped, or sent on without breaking bulk, and there is an obvious reason for merchants, and the first thing that had this quite independent of the tax. It is happened after the proposal of the right a mere delusion-a bait then to the mer-hon. Gentleman to repeal those duties Is MR. BARNETT said, he had heard from the best authorities that it was not at all probable that any benefit that might accrue from the repeal of the corn duties would fall to the share of the consumer. It was well known that a large portion of the corn trade from the Black Sea was in the hands of Greek |