ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE or LORDS, Monday, May 12.—Distress in Lancashire : Lord Shaftesbury's question.—Shannon.Navigation Marquis of Clanricarde's motion.

Tuesday, May 13th.—Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill : Second reading. Thursday, May 15.—Registration•of Voters' Bill : Committee.

HOUSE or COMMONS, Monday, May 12.--Customs and Inland Revenue Bill: com- mittee.

Tuesday, May 1315.—Income Tax : Mr. Hubbard's resolution.—Sailors' Homes : Mr H. Stracey's motion. Wednesday, May 14.—Abolition of Church Rates Bill: Motion for Second Reading rejected, and Mr. Sotheron Estcourt's Amendment carried.

Thursday, May 15.—Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill : Committee.—Cus- toms (Inland Revenue) Bill: Re-committaL—Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill : Second reading.—Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill : Second reading.—Retiring Pay, ac. (British Forces, India) Bill: Second reading. IN the House of Lords on Monday night, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY called attention to the distress in Lancashire, and after referring in terms of high praise to the patience, good sense, and manly conduct of the sufferers, asked whether it was the intention of Go- vernment to advise any temporary relaxation of the poor law, especially as regarded the labour test. Various means for relieving the present distress had been suggested, but all who were acquainted with the subject would prefer to see it done through the agency of the poor law. At present, how- ever, the application of the labour test to those who were willing to work, but could not obtain employment, was cruel and injurious. To put men, whose hands had been accustomed only to delicate operations, to break stones on the road, or to expose to cold and rain those who bad been accustomed to work in overheated rooms, was simply to deprive them of their future means of livelihood for the sake of temporary relief. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that Government would assent to the proposed relaxation of the labour test. Earl GRANVILLE said that, after anxious consideration, Government had arrived at the conclusion that it was not advisable to offer any extra- neous aid to the people of Lancashire, their unaided local means being, he irtie convinced, quite competent to cope with the distress themselves. The

annual value of the property of Lancashire amounted to 7,000,0001., and the rates were not yet extraordinarily high. As to the labour test, it was already in the power of boards of guardians to relax it in certain cases, provided that they reported such relaxation to the Poor Law Board within twsaty-one days.

The Earl of Danny joined in Lord Shaftesbury's expressions of admira- tion for the patience and submission with which the Lancashire operatives had met an almost unparalleled calamity, while, on the other band, the great majority of millowners were carrying on work, at a loss to themselves, sitnply for the purpose of affording employment to those around them. It had been said that the present distress was not so great as on some former occasions. This might be true as applying to Lancashire as a whole, but in particular towns, such as Manchester, Blackburn, Preston, and Wigan, distress had never been more pressing or general. He approved of the determination to use, as far as possible, the Poor Law machinery for relief, but for the thousands who would not submit to the degradation of applying for relief, private charity must be called upon, and, he was convinced, would not be wanting. One thing must be borne in mind, that the need for subscriptions should not be unjustly gauged by the sums publicly an. flounced as subscriptions by Lancashire manufacturers, who had been de- voting themselves with the utmost liberality, to private and local efforts for the relief of the sufferers.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved for a Committee to inquire into the causes of the inundation of the river Shannon, and, in rather strong language, laid almost all the evils complained of to the charge of the Irish Board of Works.

Lord GERARD seconded the motion in the same spirit, and after some farther discussion, a suggestion made by Lord Derby, to the effect that the proposed inquiry should be entrusted to two engineers, was assented to by Government, and the original motion was withdrawn.

In the House of Commons, The Customs and Inland Revenue Bill passed through committee, clause 7, rendering a license necessary for private brewing, being negatived with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All the other clauses were agreed to, and the House adjourned.

In the House of Lords,

Lord TAUNTON moved the second reading of the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill, which he contended would do away with a Dissenter's grievance without exposing the Church to any possible injury.

The Duke of MARLBOROUGH moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. if Dissenters had no evil designs against the Church they could have no real objections to the oath ; but, on the other hand, he had recently read a report of a meeting of the Liberation Society, at which a resolution was passed thanking Mr. Hadfield for his efforts " to abolish the offensive declaration imposed for the acknowledged purpose of securing the recognition of the supremacy of the Church." He believed the measure to be simply one of a series for the separation of the Church and State.

Lord WODEBLOUSE said that though he could not have supported the bill had he believed it to be a step towards the destruction of the Church, he should vote for it on the ground that it simply did away with certain unnecessary and objectionable oaths.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 87 to 55.

A long discussion then arose as to the course to be persued with regard to the Bishop of Winchester's vote, that prelate having gone into the wrong lobby, and having left it without passing the tellers. Ultimately, it was resolved, on the motion of Earl Grey, that the Lord Chancellor should ask the Bishop which way he had intended to vote, and that his vote should be then taken. The Bishop, on being asked by the Lord Chancellor, stated that it was his intention to have voted with the non-contents, and his vote was taken accordingly.

In the House of Commons,

Mr. HUBBARD (Buckingham) moved the 'following resolution: "That the incidence of an income tax should not fall upon capital or property, and, when applied to the annual products of invested property, should fall' only upon the net income arising therefrom • and that the net profits, gains, or salaries of persons and partnerships (not being public companies) engaged in any trade, farm, manufacture, profession, or salaried employment, should be subject, previous to assessment, to such an abatement as may equitably adjust the burden thrown upon intelligence and skill as compared with property." He maintained that income, in a fiscal point of view, ought to be, not the gross nominal income, but the sum actually netted. It was highly unjust, for example, that the man who received 12001. a year from funded property should only pay the same income tax as men from whose 12001. a year had to be deducted 2001. or 3001. for repair of house property or expenses of collection. A deduction of 15 per cent. for repairs and insurance from the gross value of houses when assessed for the poor rate had been authorized, and why not in the case of the income tax ? Another great hardship 'a the present system was the incidence of income tax on fines, although it had been annually levied on the lessee of the property and on terminable annuities, mining property, however, perhaps the worst treated of any. Whatever capital was invested in a mine should be deducted from the gross returns before the earnings were reckoned, but income tax had to be paid on every penny of such capital. Another concession he asked for was that an abate- ment of one-third of an assessment should be allowed for investments in life-interests. A great anomaly, too, was, that a man with 1491. 19s. a year income paid at the rate of 6d. in the pound, a man with 1501. a year paid at the rate of 9d., and he should propose one uniform rate of 6d. After dwelling at length on the temptations to dishonesty attendant upon the present system, and the universal injustice of its operation, he concluded by urging upon the House the adoption of his resolution, as a basis on which Government might eventually found a remedial measure. Mr. CRAWFORD (London) having seconded the motion, The CHANCLLLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed that Mr. Hubbard's resolution embodied the very plan which was rejected last year by a ma- jority of 7 to 2 in a Select Committee of his own choosing, ordered against the wishes of Government. The effect of that plan would be to reduce the total produce of the income tax by something like' 2,600,000L, and would therefore necessitate an addition of 3d. or 4d. to the current rate, while any anticipation of an improved public morality in the returns from the proposed changes were utterly unfounded. After taking objection to nearly all Mr. Hubbard's suggestions Mr. Gladstone concluded by saying that whatever the acknowledged but unavoidable anomalies of the present system might be„ that proposed by Mr. Hubbard would, without removing

them, introduce fresh inequalities and fresh abuses, and, worse than all, irritations between class and class ; and he hoped the House would always have virtue and manliness to reject such a proposition.

Mr. HUBBARD having briefly replied,

The resolution was put and negatived by 99 to 62. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday,

Sir Joux TRELAWNEY moved the second reading of the Abolition of Church Rates Bill.

Mr. BUXTON (Maidstone) seconded the motion. The time, he hoped, for an equitable compromise seemed drawing near, as both parties were, appa- rently, beginning to feel strongly in favour of some arrangement. A most reasonable offer from the other side of the House, indeed, had been refused last year, but he had better hopes this session. After reviewing the prin- cipal plans for a settlement which had been proposed by various members of that House, he expressed his belief that the most practicable and the most just would be that the whole existing machinery should be maintained, but that the Church should abandon that seeming power of compulsion which

at present excited so much by an act providing that no penalty should attach to a refusal of payment. At present, however, the only course open to those who wished to see the question settled, was to vote for the bill then before them, and he hoped it would be passed by such a majority as would warn the opposition to listen to the idea of a com- promise.

Mr. SormIRoN Esrcouter (Wiltshire) said Mr. Buxton's speech was con- siderably more in favour of the amendment he (Mr. Estcourt) was about to move than of the motion he had seconded. Twenty-three bills upon the subject of Church Rates had been introduced in that House, and it was discreditable that they had not dealt with it in a business-like manner, as with other questions. The equality of votes on the last debate on the question, showed that the House was not prepared either to abolish Church Rates or to leave the law as it stood, and the amendment he was about to propose was a logical consequence of such a state of things. Mr. Estcourt concluded by moving a resolution to the effect that it was unjust and inexpedient to abolish Church Rates without first providing for the discharge of all obligations to which the churchwardens of the parish were liable.

Sir G. C. LEwts (War Secretary) opposed the amendment, which he said was simply nugatory and useless. As churchwardens had no legal power to make a rate they could not be said to be under any legal obligaticins, and the amendment simply affirmed that churchwardens were bound by law to do what the law gave them no means of performing. The only course he saw was to abolish Church Rates, and then make some provision for raising the requisite.funds from those actually attending the church. Mr. Ban= (Birmingham) said he had once proposed that everything should be left as it was, with the exception of the power of enforcing the rate, which should be abolished. He believed Mr. Estcourt would accept that proposal, and that if he (Mr. Bright) and that gentleman were ap- pointed to settle the question they would not be long in doing so. He believed that the rates could not possibly be maintained, but it was im- possible that Churchmen could refuse to do what the humblest sects did, and not munificently support their own churches. He thought it was the duty of Government to introduce, and stake their existence upon, some satisfactory measure on the subject.

Sir J. PAKINGTON (Droitwich) agreed with Mr. Bright that it was the duty of Government to deal with the question, quoted the expressed opinions of many Dissenters to show their unqualified hostility to the Church, which had defeated the attempts made by the Conservative party to obtain a compromise.

Mr. DISRAELI (Buckinghamshire) said that if legislation had been ur- gently required the House would not have wasted 30 years upon it, and made 23 fruitless legislative experiments. On the contrary, the history of the question proved that it was not ripe for legislation. The fact was that the pretext for legislation was not the object of the agitation, but it was clear that it was the existence of the Church of England which was at stake. He agreed with several previous speakers, that it was the duty of Government to deal with the question, but their system was to leave every question in the hands of private members. Sir G. Lewis had indeed sug- gested the adoption of a plan which had been recommended by the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, but he (Mr. Disraeli), with all respect, did not attach any great weight to the Archbishop's opinion. The question was not ecclesiastical, but simply political. Church rates were imposed in the ancient and constitutional manner of the country, by a majority, and to object to the system was as if a constituent were to say he felt degraded and enslaved by being represented by the member elected by the majority in his borough. Government, by the majority, was the rule and spring of our political life, and he was surprised to hear so-called Liberals speaking of it with contempt.

On a division, the motion for the second reading was negatived by 287 to 286.

Mr. SOTHERON Exrcotarr's amendment was then put as a substantive motion, and carried by 288 to 271.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday night,

The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that he had accepted a challenge for a rifle shooting match with the House of Commons.

No business of importance was transacted in the House of Commons.