total repeal of the advertisement duty. The motion, in
fact, was simply meant as an attempt to subvert indirect
taxation, and he warned hon. members that if they
assented to the amendment, they would shortly find
themselves called upon to go much further in the same
direction, and that all the indirect taxes thus repealed
must, of course, be re–levied upon the valued property
of the country. The surplus now left upon the estimates
of the year, amounted only to about £252,000 per
annum, and it would be dangerous to reduce it any
further at a time when great financial changes were
being carried out. The motion was, in fact, a trap for
the substitution of direct in the place of indirect taxation,
which he looked upon as "a delusion and a snare,"
and for which he had no desire to prepare the way, and
against the consequences of which he warned the
committee to be on their guard, if they sanctioned the
amendment by their votes.—Mr. COBDEN accused the
Chancellor of the Exchequer of having evaded and
misrepresented the question. The right hon. gentleman
had introduced various subjects for the purpose of
mystifying the matter, and by threatening hon. members
with further additions to direct taxation, in order to
effect a repeal to the extent of £60,000 a year, although
he had boasted of having repealed £3,000,000 of taxation
in his budget, and had himself occasioned the pecuniary
difficulty in the way of the total repeal of the advertisement
duty, for which there was a general demand, by
making a change in the supplement duty which nobody
asked for. The tax was something more than a tax
upon trade and labour, since it struck at the very foundation
of commercial transactions, and restricted the
intercommunication of wants and wishes. It operated as a
bar to free competition amongst newspapers, and was
advocated only by the larger and most prosperous of
the public journals.—Mr. SPOONER would vote against
both the resolution and the amendment, hoping to see
the advertisement duty maintained without reduction,
believing that it was neither oppressive as a tax, nor
objected to by the country.—Mr. J. M'GREGOR
supported the amendment.—The committee then divided,
when there appeared;—For the amendment, 99; against
it, 109; majority against the amendment, 10.—In
answer to a question put by Mr. Milner Gibson, the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax would be
levied only upon those advertisements which were at
at present liable to it. The advertising van system was
about to be suppressed, and placards would, not be
allowed to be carried through the public streets.—Mr. M.
Gibson then moved that pamphlets and literary works be
exempt from the operation of the tax.—Mr. BRIGHT,
in opposing the resolution, said the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would receive more than his miserable
"sixpence" from the letters passing through the Post–
Office, which the advertisements would occasion. He
hoped, when the report was brought up, that Mr. M.
Gibson would again take the opinion of the house
upon the subject, and ask for the total repeal of the tax.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed his
acquiescence in Mr. Gibson's amendment relatng to
pamphlets and other literary works, provided they were
not continued periodically.—Mr. Crawford moved
that in place of "sixpence" in the resolution, the
cypher "0" be substituted.—Mr. Hume, Mr. Baillie,
Mr. Cobden, and other members recommended the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to the proposal
without further opposition.—The Chancellor of the
Exchequer declined to adopt the suggestion.—Lord J.
RUSSELL thought that the proposal of his right honourable
friend to repeal two–thirds of the advertisement duty ought
to have saved him from the reproaches which had been
showered upon him. The committee had decided in
favour of that proposition, and the attempt to produce
a second division was most unfair, especially in the
absence of those who had previously voted. Should the
amendment be carried, it would be necessary to bring in
a bill for the entire repeal of the duty. The immediate
effect of the amendment would be to retain the 1s. 6d.
duty instead of 6d., as proposed by the resolution. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that he
would not alter the resolution.—The committee divided,
and the numbers were—for the amendment, 68; against
it, 63; majority, 5.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
then said that he would take the sense of the
committee upon the amended resolution.—After a short
discussion the committee again divided, when there
appeared—for the amended resolution, 70; against it,
61; majority against ministers, 9.—Mr. HUME wished
to know whether the committee was justified in adopting
a resolution with a "nought" in place of 6d., the sum
originally proposed.—The SPEAKER decided that there
was no informality in the proceeding.—The Chairman
reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

The house then went into committee on the
Succession Tax Bill, Mr. Bouverie in the chair. The
several clauses down to 29 were, with some verbal
amendments, ordered to stand part of the bill, when the
chairman reported progress, and the house resumed.

On the motion for the third reading of the Westminster
Bridge Bill, Mr. FREWEN remarked that there was a
strong objection to lowering the headway of the bridge
from 52 feet to 20 feet, the effect of which would be to
prevent vessels of large size from passing up and down the
river.—Mr. ALCOCK said that to lower the bridge would
be to inflict serious injury to wharfs on both sides of the
river.—Sir W. MOLESWORTH replied that the proposed
alteration would be found to be highly advantageous as
regarded land traffic, the ascent being rendered more
easy, whilst arches of twenty feet high would be quite
adequate to all the purposes of river navigation.—Mr.
HENLEY said the promised bridge would be a permanent
barrier across the river, for no other purpose than to
afford a better view of the Houses of Parliament.—Mr.
C. BURRELL, after expressing his disapproval of the
proposed bridge, moved that the debate be adjourned for a
week.—The house divided:—for the adjournment, 29;
against, 34; majority 5.—The house again divided on
the same question in another form. The numbers were:
—for the adjournment, 26; against, 34; majority, 8.—
The bill was then read a third time.

On Monday, July 4, the Succession Duty Bill was
discussed in committee, and several amendments were
carried upon divisions.

The second reading of the Assistant Judge of Middlesex
Sessions Bill was moved by Mr. Lowe, who
explained that its object was to increase the salary of
the judge from £1200 to £1500 a year, an addition stated
to be well merited on account of the great amount of
duties discharged.—Lord D. STUART made some
strictures upon the judicial conduct of the present
holder of the office, and thought the public would be
dissatisfied with an addition being made to the salary of
that individual,—Mr. BOWYER opposed the bill, and
urged that the County Court judges, with more numerous
and more difficult duties than an assistant judge,
were content with a smaller amount than that proposed.
—The ATTORNEY–GENERAL urged that this question
ought not to be decided on personal ground, and he
remarked upon Lord Stuart's detaining the house with
idle gossip against an absent man. He defended the
proposed addition on the ground of the important and
numerous duties thrown upon the judge—duties which
had been largely augmented since his acceptance of
office.—After some further discussion the house divided,
and there appeared—for the second reading, 61; against
it, 47.

On Tuesday, July 5, Mr. COLLIER moved for leave to
bring in a bill to Transfer the Testamentary Jurisdiction
of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Courts of
Common Law and to the County Courts. He adverted
to the great number of ecclesiastical courts, the uncertain
nature of their jurisdiction, their increased expense
their deficiency of machinery, their abuses, such as
sinecurism, and their deficiencies as regarded the
registration of wills and provision for their safe custody.
His object was, that all wills with regard to which there
is no dispute shall be proved in the County Courts, the
circuit of each County Court judge being formed into a
district for ecclesiastical purposes. The will to be
proved within the district where the testator dies. The
same courts shall provide registration, and custody shall
take place in London. In cases of disputed wills he
proposed that where the property does not exceed £300,
the dispute shall be settled in the County Court of the
district where the property is situated. Where the
property exceeds £300, he proposed that the case should