The Express. — London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

IMPE 2. IRIAL PARLIAMENT. MO OF LORDEL—FRIDAT, MARCH 3. The Loan Crustroation took kis seat at 6 o'clock. PUBLIC WealdESA THIRD te.ADlSO.—Ccaeolidated R Ried LA el% IRISH POOWS. Berl FITZWILLIAM had given notice of a motion for eopies of reports made to the Poor-law Commissioners b the vice-guardians of the several salons in Ireland in which the boards had been superseded by paid °nicer', but he would defer it it the noble lord oppoete (Lord Lyttelton) intended to bring on a motion of which he had given notice. The Marquis of LANSDOWN E said, the papers would be laid on the table in a few days, and, therefore, he thought he might save his noble friend the necessity of moving fir them. Earl FITZ WILLIAM wished to state a fact is moving for the papers, of which he had given notice, and would still take the opportunity of doing eu—namely, that the poor in Ireland were meintairod on the miserable pittance of Sid. a week, and he wished it to be understood that it was a great mistake to suppose that the present poor law in Ireland would either be effectual there, or would relieve this countey of the index of Irish paupers, as the fuel now paid for their subsistence could not maintain life, although it might pro tract existence. Ile would, however, withdraw his motion, after the statement of the noble marquee (Hear, hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested that it would be desirable to add to th - return, it the information could be obtained, the periodical prime of food in Irelan Lassnowtra, d. After a few words from the Marquis ef which were not heard in the Artillery, the su!ject dropped. EDUCATION. Lori LYTTELTON, in presenting the petition from Worcester on the management clauses required to he in serted in the trust deeds of schools receiving parliamentary grants, Ti ad the document at length, but in a manner and tone of voice which rendered it impossible to understand the nature of it. lie did not wish interfere withect the coarse which the government had pursued on the suhj of education, but he wished to know whether they intended' to make the management clauses, to which the petition re ferred, eoinpulsory or not? If they did, he though[ it de sirable that their operation eh - cold be pietooued for two years, in order that all parties might have due notice of them. The' Bishop of WORCESTER complained of th e e manner in which the petiti on had been got up, no not baying been given to all the members of the Worcester diocesan board of education. It was a part and parcel of an agitation which had been most needlessly raised on the *ob ject, for anything more entirely harmless than these clause* he could not conceive. Nothing was more reasonable than that laymen who contributed towards these grants .hould have a share in their management. The church would never be in danger so long a* she commanded the sympa thies and affecti o ns of the great MIAS of the people. (Hear, hear.) Lord LYTTELTON :said the pc titian was agreed on at a regular meeting of the board, and the observations of right rev. prelate would not &Met the substantial merits of the clause* in question. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said. if the public money was to be granted witheut the manner of its appro priation being secured by a deed, the si•heols would fail in their great object. It war only of late that anything had been beard about the exclusion of the laity from a share in the management. (Hear, hear.) The aid given to the National Society bail been upon the understanding th..t the clauses complained of were to be the terms of union, asset that there were to be no other. The lets Archbishop of Canterbury admitted the propriety of the-e elauses, after an amendment which the committee had pro posed, to the effect that clergymen were to have the excel live intern recce "with the moral and religious instruction of the children." It was said that these clauses had pre vented the increase of schools; he c uhf only say, however, that the number of applications from the clergy themselves was very great, and that they were coustant y increasing. If any question arose upon a religious subject , it the to cle he said, rgyman decided without reference to the laity. Was then, that this was not enough fur the cl er gyman to claithem, and that the layman was vs be deprived power in management which he wasjustly entitled to ? (Hear, bear.) He considered this was a grievance without a foundation; but when the next grant was made, the matter should again be taken into consideration. He could not, however, admit the principle of the clergy having the power of overruling the opinions of the lay roan agere. (Hear, hear.) h Te Bi-h• p of CH , h was no wish on the part of t h e clergy to exc.ude said the laity ere from co-operating in the management. The Earl of ILCHESTER said a few words which were quite inaudible, in any connected form, in the gallery. The Bishop of OXFORD regretted that this discussion should have taken place, considering it altogether untimely. As it had been introduced, however, he begged to add his assurance that there was deep and wide-spread jealousy, alike among the laity and among the clergy of the estab lished church, en the subject of these schools. It was felt, and. felt as a great injustice, that while dissenting school* were allowed to be conducted on dissenting principles, church schools were only allowed to be conducted on principles ball church and hat diesentieg. The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S considered that the alarm and jealousy to which his right rev. brother had refereed were not altogether without foundation. There was reason to apprehend that sufficient power was not given to the church schools to conduct their education on church princi ples, yet be did not believe that the alarm was so general or so vivid as was, imagined by his right reverend friend. The Earl of DELA . % ARR was anxious to inquire whether a printed report of an interview between the noble Marquis and some members of the dissenting body was cor rectly reported The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, from his seat, said he would reply presently. Lord•STANLEY thought it would have been more con venient had the noble lor d re p lied at once. The principle involved in this dieetnalon appeared to him to be a most ma terial eine. The question substantially was, if any govern ment should b • entitled to alter, at its pleasure, the system on which church schools were to be governed. It was stated that there Wu nothing novel in the conditions now imposed: But how had it ever been laid down before that with the clergyman Ofthe parish and proprietor of the estate there should be &Doodah d a body of enuel farmers or any ethers who were subscribers to the schools ? How had it ever before been declared that without compliance with such a condition no grunt should be made for a school front public funds? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was from no reluctance that he had not risen before, but merely to sieve their lordships the trouble of hearing two speeches. He argued that there was no necessity for any alarm whatever at the regulations of the Educational Committee ; and he denied that there was any novelty its their principle. With to the report to which the noble earl opposite had regard n d, the report war in substance cerrect After a few words from LIM LYTTISLTON is reply, the petition was ordered to lie on the table, and the house ad journed at twenty-five minutes to eight. ROUSE OF GOMMONS.—FRIDAY, MARCH 3. The Brasilia took the chair at 4 o'clock. PUBLIC beslNS:ii. FIRST BESDLNG.—Dfstic relatione (Court of Rome) Bill. SECOND READING.—e• of stone (helmet) hill. A ar 00iDdirTEL—Joeit sled' Companies Bill. BEWDLEY ELECTION PETITION. The following members were sworn in as the committee is the Beadle, election twirl Coodlereach, Sir T. Birch, Mr. Hutt, Mr. W. T. Egerton, and Mr. W. B. Wrightson (chairman). CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS. Mr. W. MILES postponed, until after Easter, his motion ea the subject of schools in connexion with the church of England, of which he bad given notice. ROMAN CATHOLICS. Mr. ANSTEY, in answer to a question put by Lord Arundel, said that on Wednesday next he should proceed in his turn with the bill for the removal of Roman catholic penalties, in preference to hie motion on the treaty of Adri mop's. HARBOURS OF REFUGE. The CHANCEL,LORof the EXCHEQUERsaid,in reply to a question, that the government if:vette , d to propose in -, the miscelleneous estimates, a sum of money for the continu ation of the annual grant made for the purpose of construct ing harbour' or refuge. DUTY ON COPPER AND COPPER ORES. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHECIU ER, in reply to a question, said that the du, on copper tree would not be entirely repealed, hut that the duties levied on copper ore and on raw copr SIRE wouIdARDLEY he reduced to a low degree. Mr. LABOUC H ERE, in answer to a question from Lord MAHON, sta - ed that the government bad disapproved of the displacement of the six members of the legislatiee council by Sir Smedley Wilmot, the late governor M Van Diemen's Lend, and had desired Sir W. Dennison, the present governor, to reinstate them in their former functions, but that some difficulties had oci.urred to prevent this. A dispatch had arrived stating that, in consequence of this irregularity, the governor►had suspended the legislative cout.cd and he trusted that, from the arranaements that had been made, no inconvenience to the public business would result. BAIL IN CRIMINAL CASES (IRELANDi. Mr. FOX wished to Lnow whether it was the intention of government to bring in a bill extending the po wer of Irish magistrates to take bail in criminal caste? Sir G. GREY was not prepared to state that any online Lion in the law WO rentemplau-d. PAID GUARDIANS (IRELAND). Mr. A. STAFFORD begged too repeat his question of a former evening, respecting the sasher of uniocs in Ireland in which paid guardian s ba d been a pp ointed ? Sir W. SOMERVILLE did not know whether his hew friend had *Nu the return which had been laid on the table of the HOLM of L ids ou the subject. In that statement it appeared that twenty-four unions had been dissolved, to which be hod to add three recent cases—Ennistymon, Gort, and another wo did not catch the name ef. WEST INDIAN COMMITTEE. Mr. HUME (seeing the noble lord the member for Lynn in his place), wished to ode him whether it was intended to print the evidence taken before the West Indian committee, end, if so, whether it was intended to priut it without cur tailment? Lord 0. BENTINCH was understood to say that a por tion of the evidence had deco expengtd by order of the , tomnuttee. WAYS AND MEANS.—INCOME TAX. The CHANCELLOR of tee EXCIiEQU ER moved that Ike miler of the day f r a committee of ways and means be road. HORSMAN rose, pursuant to notice, to move " That if the income tax be continued it is expedient to amend the mt, and not to impose the same charge on income. uioing ikons prohseicesal and Femmes seeress . as en those derived toe% real property." lie said th:s tho utequality of the tax 1•07 u. o I ' venient b i involved I atrial one meat sinit l on which stated di/ • imposed: with the c there she ethers wb before be condition hands / ' The * reluctance their lord argued tkc at the res A denied th. to MIL, t After 1 petition 1 I, ruined . HOU. The 81 FITUIT I ; ; SECONI 001M1 The hi ' ea the B Birch, I i 1 Wright& I / Mr. Ni i ' on the et. I England i •• Dlr. A Arundel his turn I penaltia =op's. 1 ,1 The ( to a /pi the ram ation of t Wig bar 1 11 D I I The • quest entirel3 I ; and on .1 Mr. Nano' display by Sir Land., to rein / diffieul . 1 • arrived • govere trust« keen/ 1 Mr. goven magnt Sir i Lion it Mr. brain l it in whi i Sir ' Mend • LI, of the ?Ira ' 1 and 111 lii i Er. in his print and, i 1 1 1 1 team Lei Yon so= . • i . Th • • ' I ilts • I 1 1 *a mi d 11 1 if the ask • i il km DVS 41 / • ' ' THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1648. wee so bytesepsiest sad sew 4 wsiekkola et be alleada be pHis maks ha stasill salsa his sessadaise that this should at mos Wishes ins esegiiseation. He felt, however, that the gusetles sew ems fishes them in the iona of • tax of a pernesslot dissegoar. sad that it was the bounden duty Wale WOO , be ilea the eulty from which they had hitherto perighant shamolves lo be diverted, sad to bring the tax at Mee 1,1. a Meal bmsbollellollke and a more practicable form. Ho wash not say anything of the income tax or its prinoipls. d what was necessary to strengthen his positioso erbW:leas that the more a tax was bjectionable in iuelf the more care ought to be taken io render it as little es possible unnecessarily vexatious. It had been admitted by every public man and writer that an income tax was the last that should be imposed in any eountry , that it was an arbitrary tax eo un mairto al and inquisitorial in its nature that every doing mi. ought defer it to the last emergency. By se he would, when the e mergency . did arrive, render it the most power: ul weapon in his political armoury, and a better system of national defence than all the late fortificad we tions he uld contrive. (Hear. hear.) Until a perio mo Would as little have thought of a minister imposing this east of tax as of his pro posing to disband the army, or to dia -1 mantle the navy ; b ut un happily it was now established by the authority of the right halo member for Taaiworilia budget 1042. lloweeer, the proposal of the right bon. baronet was based on such an e mergency, and was recommended by such large promises of concomitent advantages, that the country went slung with him, and the tan became law without any serious opposition. But the right hon. baronet's proposal of that dote was merited by two extenuating or rathercom re commendatory features. In the O rd place, it was ac panied by a large remission of taxation. The income tax of 1842, and its renewal in 1845, produced anus ly about 5,000,0001. in round numbers, while the taxes remitted came to no less than 7,000,0001., , i that taking the tax merely as a pecuniary transaction the public were gainers by the change. But even that would not have reconciled them to so odious a tax, had it not also been looked upon as a means of trying a great five d experiment, and as a tax which was only proposed for •limited period. Such had been the extenuat but iug circumstances attending the first proposn of tbe tax, now they were asked to retain it under other and very different circumstances. Sir It. PEEL was understood to intimate that it was in tended to last for five years. Mr. HORSNIAN —ln introducing it the right hon. baronet had used the terms three or probably five yearn, the latter having been generally understood to be the longetost possible duration. No w, however, it was proposthe first ed be renewed under different circumstances. In place, instead of the proceedsof the tax going to the remission of other burdens, they were to be employed in the current expenditure of the country ; and, in the next place, inatead of being for a period of linaPed duration, it was generally understood that the country might look upon it as a Too -pe ewit burden. (Mar.) They had had an acknowledgment from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that effect. (Hear. hear.) Lord .1. RUSSELL —lt is proposed for three years. M r . HORSMAN.—The right hon. gentleman hid said three yeses ; but be had also intimated his belief that the tax would be perpetual. They knew it was ono of the established taxes; that was the general feeling. In fact, it did nut depend on tLe will of any government, for the ge neral feeling of the country was in favour of direct taxation, and their only wish, that its burden should be renered as equal and as littl e oppressive as pesaille. If, then, i d t was to be pemanent, the busmen of parlia - oent was to out it into a business-like and workable shape. As to its inequality and injustice, every one was familiar with so many cases that they might be set down as going through all the industrial occupations of the country. Merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen, and even persons of vested capital, all had reason to complain of the operation of the tax. lie would not weary the hove with details, but would merely take these examples of familiar cases, which every one must have seen ur at their different periods of life. Thu first was an annuitant, say a retired military or naval officer, aged 55, and living on an income of 4001. a year. He was taxed at the same rate as the fundholder, who derived the same income from the funds. W, re their fortunes, then, the same ? The an nuitant had his income merely for life, subject to large de ductions for insurance and savings. The probable dura , ion of life at that age was 16 years, and his annuity, a , calcu lated by the English tables, was worth 4,3(101. But the man who drew his income from the funds had a capital of 10,000!., subject neither to diminution nor deduction. If he died, his riches survived him ; and )et, in both these ewes, the same burdens were inflicted. Take anothi r cue, that of a physician, aged 45, and enjoying a practice of 5,0001. a year. Fifteen years was the longest period that could he taken for the probable enjoyment of such an income. The third was the ease of a man who had neither capital nor as certained income, the man enteric g upon a profession in which he was to struggle for a livelihood. This man's email income was taxed three per cent. ; and what was it that was taxed ? It could not be called income, because no one could tell whether the gains of to-ilay would be supported to-morrow, and it was perhaps that on which his hopes of further advancement emu I. In his opinion the aim of the legislature should be to relieve as much as possible from taxation the poor man of letters, the artist, and the professional beginner—men whose in comes were of all others the most precarious. lie believed it to be the fact that there was no country in the world where genius leagued with poverty endured more privations than in England. (Hear, hear.) Sometimes it did happen that the extent of such endurance was brought to light, as in the case of that unfortunate artist, the late Mr. Haydon. (Hear ) With the story of that unfortunate gentleman the public sympathivid, when a melancholy accident brought to light the extent of his embarrassments. When too late the public made a generous effort the family were relieved, and the right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had the comfort of knowing that his benevo lence had somewhat assuaged the bitterness of sad and bitter moments. (Cheers.) In that case circumstances brought to light the full amount of misfortune ; but there were many cases of nearly equal pressure, where the parties were loth to complain of what they felt most acutely. But it might be mid that it was more easy to criticise the tax than to improve it. He admitted that. But he came forward on the present occasion because he felt that the difficulty was not insurmountable. He thought that the tax might be made far more just and efficient than it was at pre sent. (Hear, hear.) The present inequality of the tax had never been justified, even by its proposer, except on one ground, and that was, its temporary character. li had stated that, if it was intended to be a pertwnent messa e re, the country ought to be salted to submit to it in its present shape ; but that, being merely a temporary measure, he preferred facing its difficulties for a short period to attempting the task of equalising taxation. That being the case, be thought it right to assume, that if it had fallen to the right hon. gentleman's lot to make it pe r ms. neat, he would have proposed some amendments in the details. Sir R. PEEL made an observation which did ask melt the gallery. Mr. 11ORSMAN said he could point to various oesselose on which the right hon. baronet had said that the measure being merely temporary he preferred allowing the unequalities to remain to facing the difficulty of equalising them. lie came now to the question of whether the difficulty of equalising was insuperable in the case of the present go vernment. In their case he was fortified with arguments which he thought they would find it very difficult to answer —argum eats furnished by themselves, and also precedents which were perhaps of more importance. In 184.5, when the renewal was propertied, the hon. member for Liskeard proposed the following resolution : That the circumstances under which the renewal of the Inealleallllll la at present proposed are such as to render it exceedingly imprileks that parliamentwill have the power of dispemang yith cite continofuance at the end of three years, and that it ia therefore th duty thin house to take care that the tax be Imposed in a form in which its ope ration shall he less unequal and inquisitorial than it now la. On that occasion the 'proposal was merely for three years, and almost every gentleman oocupyiog a prominent position in the house took part in the discussion. Oa that mession the noble lord the present Prime Minister, expreeed himself with peculiar clearness. The following were his words I have always been of opinion that inequa li ty, vexation and fraud were inherent fa seek atam It la bnposle te deny its Ineluality, far=m en wary slid It Is scud a person who has wane derived trim a lookaud erste, or hem She Ards, which be could leave to his anabolism's's, Is la we same =lea aeveon in a profess asompon, or d ras Wink wart u pon his health viiiftr of Ws orfars. srlis,rbe Wes of s re a defect of' eyesight, swat my nesmeat be detrlved of the enamel earning any inseam at si. late irsa au my that there two persons were similarly ribtaisa. NAY. sr any person fairly deny that rest relates Is awn this tax. leo one can deny that a person wise is is ins* and who must either submit to the payment et bile, ar Mow all bin accounts and expose all the Inseams N whisk les Is swiss to the Inman appointed by the sea nosy that such person le not en .jest ir 1 1 7 16- 7. ne Ves t Medea. And then, with regard to fraud sal swarkia.—l believe so man who has been concerned In the ce lestine dads tax will lbw that his experence hew shown that great banal wactised under thin, tax—that the man of the most Ude paid the =embower, and who gave his returns fairly, was sub tie ignsesst loosoßlss of the tan ; while those who wished swim the noteither fawn the sirens of doing so, or entangled lhalmosives mid tM Oneenatlnt IS tee most expensive proceedings. kendiptithilllN Of dr las. and having heard from the right ses *SW might that they were faults inseparable feces I sled base issteind that by ditlerent modifications, midi by stliassloss Ida sow* to susertals Incomes, and by (bang. bar perelent vaunt ton bard upon particular classes, the tax aslebt_ls aide mars stud 'MI vexatious. Thus had the noble lord is 1845 objected to the inequality of the tax, but the noble lord took an the objection of still greater importance, which, looking upon exigency of the present time, might be taken as a prophecy. What security, Salted the noble lord, that in two years a strong and general outcry might not be raised, for its retest, and then how was the revenue to be provided for i The noble lord had con tended that under these circumstances the tax should be rendered as little vexatious es possible. His (Mr. Hors man's) fear was, that the inequality of the tax was creating a reaction against direct taxation. But the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in the same debate expressed similar views. The right hon. gentleman in come , " That with regard to the arguments against the tax, no attempt hail been nature to answer them. It was arbitrary and unjust in its , and unequal in its pressure." So far for the injustice and inequality ; but on the question of placing it on a more equitable footing, the right hon. gentleman had said, " Al though the income tax might be pared bo persons ignorant of its nature, yet it could not be so mamtained ; and would it not be dangerous to peril the credit of a country by placing it on a basis which could not be maintained ?" He thought that those opinions showed great sagacity, and he trusted that he would not find them altered on the present occasion. He now came to the means by which, in his opinion, the difficulties attending the permanent establishment of the income tax might be surmounted. He found that in 1845, the returns from the income tax were as follows. The last year of the eerie' in the return No. 100, was 1845, and from it 1846 did not materially differ. The returns were as follows : schedule A. 2028,721 2 1. • B, 324,3391. •C, 744,0191. ; 1,678.6951. ;E, 37:7691. Total, 6, 603,4431. This being 3 per cent. on the income, represents the whole Meow as follows : 6 6 , 698 , 1001 . 181 11,120,2901.; C,26,609,200 1 . ; D. 67,611,7001.• /1,11,237,8001 , • so that the whole profits under there flu schedules amounte d to 192,077,009 1 • in round numbers. Now that being the whole penile of the country— /dr. COBDEN.—lneusse. Mr. HORSMA.N.—He called them profits merely as a general terns. Now if he could find any means of eapio Wising these profits., it would at least help them eo far in areivinn at the relative proportions which should be paid by the different schedules. Taking Schedules A and . C at 26 years purc hase, end considering B, D, and B as the annuitants, the average value of all lives above 26, being at four per cent. with 12 years purchase, and classing farmers with trades, de., the result would be as follows:—Schedule A, at 25 yean purchaee, 2.167,452,5001. ; schedule C, at 25 years pur&ese, 637,730,0001. The other three sections he should put down as life annuities. Taking them as wort on the average, 12 years purch tee, they would stand .— B, 133,442,4001. ; D. 637.730 0001. •, E, 134,8.53,6001. Se that ! calculating the incomes on rea ieed property at 25 yeus pur -1 ,nue, and thou derived from precarious sources u tile annui ties, we should arrive et the e .nc usion, that the whole captt..l of the country falling under the income tax was 3,763,618,0001. And if they tested it by other returns and calculations which had been given of the capital of the country, they would not, he believed. find this conclusion to any material extent in- I correct. His object in making throe calculations was to Its certain whether they could nut arrivc at some sort of jude : ment as to the relative proportion in which the tax should be imposed on preeerieua and perrna , ent incomes. (Hear, hear). The present income to of 4,600,0001. being paid on capital in the way he had just stated, woe I qual to a payment of rather less than one and a holt' farthing. in the pound of ca pital. Now, one and a ha lf farthings per pound of capital was 371 farthings, or rather more than 911. of inceme,or 31.16. per 1001., calculating always at 4 per cent. for schedules A and C. According to this calculation, if they took the relative values of permanent property and pree,rious pro perty—the one as being worth 25 years purchase, the other as an annuity . of 12 years' purchase, about 9 I. in the pound became the our share of the permanent property to the tax. And for precarious property, or thou incomes charged under schedules B, D, and E, one farthing and a half per pound at 12 years purchase is 41d. of income, or 11. 170. 6d. per 1001. would be the just prop . rtion. The slight discrepancy be tween these proportion's end the previous one, of from 12 to 25 years' purchase, arose from one farthing and a half not being the exact sum, and the decimal multiplied by millions affected, though not materially, the result. If they com pared these rates of charge with those paid under the pre sent act, then, as 9d. in schedules A and C was to 7d. and 41d. in 13, D, and E to 7,1., so the autos received, under the neer and old charge in eat schedule would be to one another • and, they would *plum' as follows: Old kale. Schedule A 5:2,52e,721 IS 324,339 744,019 1,675,195 327,:ti9 New Neale. 02,251,170 208,510 51',0,600 1,0'10,7 00 210,710 £5,603,113 £3,707,720 There would, therefore, be but little difference between the new scale and the old. He felt, however, that there were many objections to the imposition of the tax in the way now proposed. It altered, unnecessarily, the present charge on farmers. and adopted the . rror in the present act of chanting alike all incomes under schedule D, whether from trade and manufactures or proftosions. It might be assumed that the incomes in schedule A arose wholly from capital. Th. se in schedule B arose from profe.sions which represented skill and labour only, and from trades, manutec , ures, end corn , teem, which represented I ,bour and skill, combined with capital—he would anomie that these latter represented half labour and half capital. Now it was trident that it could not he an equal tax which should impose the same rate on thew two classes of income. He calculated land income therefore at 25 years purchase, professions at 12, and com merce and manufactures heween the two (intermediate), or at 18 years' purchase, end leave schedule B as at present. The following would be the result : Schedule A. at 9d. B, unchanpd 324,339 „ C, 9d. D. take 6d. ma • wean B. 41d. Total Present 1/1001:00 the tax in the way proposed should the house be of *pillion that such a tax ought to be imposed. The principal fu ror wash the honotuable gentleman against its present funs was that it pressed unequally upon the different chases ot the community. He did not deny that it did so. That such would be its effect was admitted when it wea intro duced, end again when it was renewed. But he did not admit, the objection to be valid against It as a measure of revenue, because the semen bjection applied to every other tax. (Hear, hear). Th never yet was denied the ta: which could be made to press equally upon all classes. (Hear, bur). They could only counteract the pressure of pressure of ant ather—(iroincal cheers and laughter)—and so balance the whole ta xation that it should onepnresse u s by equally the on all. The land tee pressed unequally on one class as controdistinguisht d from another. Ss with the es messed taxes. Taking the favourite example of a physician who kept kep y t bori kis es h r ea rieg ni e y e u n p d on h o h ru i, : i ti, co te ptsarlihe.fiothu foundthe f noble menoe an to whom it win merely a luxury, with which he might easily dispense. He maintained therefore, that to say that a tax was unequal in its operation, when dis cussing the general question of the revenue of the country, was no conclusive argument Rimiest it. But unelual as he aditted theoperation of the i n come tax to m be, he would not admit it be so to the ex , tent alleged by those parties who felt particularly aggrieved by it. Tne honourable gentivmin said that those in sche dules A and C being owners of what he called realised pro , perty were paying a comparatively small proportion of the tax, contrasted with those specified in echedulss B and 1). I But he should consider that there were countervailing circum stances of inequality, which ►really did tend to me te up the difference between the two species of income. The landed proprietor, who derived an income of 6,0001. a year fr ntom his property, not only paid the income taz on that ameu, bat had to pay a large sum for repa.re, together with certain rates and other taxes, which were not paid by the physician, and which consequmtly tended to equalise the general burden of taxation on each respectively. Besides, no matter what Mppened to the landed proprietor, the assesement was o f t rued, while the phyeician, if he found at the close of the year that his income was only 4,0001. indeed of 6,0001 , had only to go before the commiseioners and obtain the repayment of the tax on the additional 1,0001. He was pre pared to defend the tax in its present shape, even after the speech of the hon. gentlemen (Mr. 'foramen), wham know ledge of the subject and great attention to it were insufficient to get rid of the accumulated difficulties which must attend any attempt at rendering the tits equal in its operation upon all classes. The hon. gentleman proposed a charge of bd. spun schedules A and C, and, dividing schedule D into two puts—one applicable to professions,—proposed a charge on them of 4d. and 61. respectively. The first objection he made to that proposition was, that it wan not only a total deviation from the principle which had ever actuated those who had proposed a tax of this kind, but that it was utterly inconsistent with our obligations to the national creditor. (Hear, hear.) The proposal was, that mosey vested in the funds should be charged B d. in the pound, while money vented in other ways should only be charged 6d. ; thus directly imposing a charge upon funded property of one.third more than was imposed upon other property subject to this tax. This was a direct violation of the auurance which had been given to these who had lent their money to the public—namely, that they ehould only be subjected to rquel taxation with the rest of the com munity; and the legislature had no more right to tax funded property at a higher rate than property vested in other securities, than it had to say to the funded proprietor, " You shall give up a portion of your property ter the benefit of the nation." Mr. HORSMAN Then the exemption applit s where the amount of stock held produces under 1 , 501. a year ? I Mr. GOULBURN said, that exemption equally applied I to other property, and, therefore, could not be urged as en argument for taxing funded property at a higher rate. This very point had been contested between Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Addington proposed an income tax in 1803, and proposed to withdraw the exemption which funded proprietors had enjoyed. But Mr. Pitt demolished that part of the plan in ten minutes, and the house unani wittily confirmed the principle which he (Mr. 0 ,ulburn) now contended for, that fuud..d property must be dealt with the same as other property, and not charged a higher rate of taxation. (Hear, hear.) Next, the hon. gentleman had. complained of the hardship inflicted on annuitants, and per-oats wheee incomes were only of limited duration, com pared with that inflicted on thou who had more durable incomes ; and be had proposed to charge Bd. in the pound on ell incomes derived from landed property, as in schedule A. But the hon. gentlemen seemed to have a very inaccurate idea of the nature of incomes derived from land in this c 'wary. (Hear, hear.) Take any gen tleman's landed estate., or even those of very small extent, and they would be found saddled with pay ments to widows and children, and the interest of money lent on security of the estate ; and on evi ry one of shoes charges, according to the plan of the hon. gentleman, Bd. is the pound would be levied. The poor widow, with a most limited income ; children deriving from land scarcely suffi cient to defray the expense of their education, all would have spay Bd. in the pound. Such a regulaii .n would involve eases of greater hardship than any to which it was proposed to apply a remedy. It would affect clergymen, the whole of whom, deriving their income from tithes or compositions were chat gad under the schedule A. Then he propseed to subject realised property te a higher charge, contending that its endurance and capability of being transmitted to childree ought to regulate the amount of charge thereon. He pea posed that sixpence in the pound should be charged out all property in schedule 1) not derived from professions. Surely the hon. gentleman could not have reed the act. It provided that every man living in England who derived an income from possessions in Ireland should be assessed under sehedule D ; and did the hon. member mean that a gentle man deriving 10,0001. front Irish property skould be subject to a tee of 4d. in the pound, while an English gentleman deriving the same amount from property in Yorkshire should be charged 8,1. ? The same argument would apply in reference to colonial property—if indeed estates in the colonies could be called property at the present moment—(hear, hear) ; but perhaps the hon. gentleman had nut thought that worth consideration in his plan. With characteristic fellow-feeling the honourable member had shown great ten deniess for the gentlemen of the legal profession, and pro posed to tax them at one-half the rate imposed on than who had property in the funds. He (Mr. Cioulburn) would suggest whether the payments made to physicians and lawyers—not small in general—were not mad i e n me degree with reference to the limited period during which so those profits were enjoyed. When au eminent lawyer, prac tising befure the committees of parliament, could make in oneyear, by payments from his clients, 20,0001. to 30,0001., was it not probable that thou payments had seme recruits to the uncertain duration of ouch emoluments, and that they were not simply remunerations for services rendered, but something beyond that, in order that provision might be made for a period when those emoluments must cease? (Hear, hear.) So that the honourable gentleman's proposi tion amounted simply to this, they were to pay the distin guished members of these distinguished professions a sum calculated to remunerate them for the short duration of their milts, and then to turn round upon the public, who paid these Liege sums, and ask them to pay a larger amount of I income-tax, in order to lighten the burden on the recipients' of those large remunerations. There was no justice whatever in such a proposition. It was true, incomes arising I from the exercise of professions were uncertain; but, what could he more uncertain than the tenure of emoluments attaching to the high offices of the state ? (Hear, hear.) Not only did a vast amount of labour attach to these offices, and a great waste of property and health, bat there was the additional uncertainty arising from combinations of parties, and from hostilities founded on different views of political questions. (Hear, hear.) But, what would have been the feelings of the boo gentleman, or of the hon. member for Montrose, or of the public at large, if a prime minister had come down to the house and said " Gentlemen, I have to propose a tax on all incomes, which will be perfectly equal, except that we, the ministers of the crown, will only pay une-halt the amount we im p ose on others." (Laughter.) The bon. member for Cocket mouth mould, doubtless, have been the filet to exclaim against the atrocity of such a pro ceeding . (Hear.) Seeing that his proposal would leave inequalities as great, if not greater, than those in the exist ing law ; and seeing t h at it would press with a degree of cruelty on some of the meet deserving and helpless clams of the community, by subjecting them to au aggravated rate of taxation ; it would not remove any of the objections which he (Mr Goelbutn) felt to a property tax, but would make lu ore reluctant. to support it. (Hear, hear.) The fact w a wa large accession of income was needed to keep up the credit of the country ; that could only be obtained b a tax imposed without any of those limitations which each class was anxious to bring forward for its own relief, and which, being founded on theory, would sever stand the test of practice. lie did not believe it possible to remove all in equality. T. e hon, gentleman's plan would be more cried ut against than that now in operation ; be must, therefore, re• slat the proposition. The continuation of the tax fur a limited period was necessary ; and if some little inequality did exist, it should be remembered how much relief had been afforded to the humbler ellaWa by the removal of those taxes in lieu of which the income tax had beee imposed. This tax of fire and a half millions was confined tea very limited portion of society, to those who were in the enjoyment of comparative prosperity ; while those who had been relieved were persons of limited income, engaged in industrial occu pations, who had not the means of baringbea burdens which might otherwise be justly imposed thm, and for whom all felt a common sympathy. The lowest individual in the empire was compelled to eat bread, to use sugar, and other taxable artieles,—the taxes on which must have been in eres,ed had not the burden been borne by the higher and more wealthy clarets. (Hear, hear.) Mr. 110ESMAN explained, that he did not mean to in clude Irish landlords ruident in England in the clam on whom he proposed to lay • duty of only 4d. in t h e pound. It had not escaped his notice that they were assessed wider Schedule D ; but he did nut think this the time for entering into minute details. Mr. HUME onsidered the income tax bad in itself. It was ridiculous to say it was anything like just and equal; but be regretted the hon. member for Cockermouth had now brought forward his proposition; for the ques tion was, simply, whether they would consent to an income tax or not ; and ii so, what should be its amount and duration, He, therefore, hoped the hon. gentleman would withdraw his proposition. (He h ar, hear. dozen lie (Mr. Hume) bad recently Iron in company wit a political e conomists; they all differed es to the plan of an income tax; and was it Seely that this house could be brought to agree on such a subject ? It had been erroaeously stated that this tax fell only on the rich and middle classes. To this amertion he would oppose the authority of the First Lord at the Treasure, who had declared, in 1842, that it was, in fact, a tax on the productive daises at large. (Hear, hear.) Nothing but the extravagance of the ministry rendered this tee necessary. It was much better to secure the welfare and stability of our institutions—aye, a the throne itself—by sAt bordeaing the people beyond their power of endumnee. (Hem.) Wmad it not have boa £4.183,761 3,600,000 Surplus These were the two cslculations he had made, but he feared he had not succeeded in making them intelligible to the house. (lieu.) The latter part of the plan, however, he thought, if the house would favour him with its atten tion, he should be enabled to explain more clearly. (Hear, beer.) It was the great defector the present act, that under schedule D. we had two different closes of laconic, viz., those arising from trade, manufactures, and commerce, and those upon professions. He propreed to retain the same num ber of schedules as in the present act, but to cast them diffe rently. Incomes arising from professions he would take from schedule Vend place in schedule E, which refereed to incomes also of a precarious and terminable nature, vie. emoluments arising from public offices, leaving " I)" entirely for incomes arising from trade, commerce, and manufsctures. And the wale of tax he would then propose would be as follows: On incomes included in schedules A and C he proposed an ad& tion of one penny to the present rate of tax, making eight pence in the pound. (Hear, hear.) On incomes which would be included in schedule F., viz , professions and emo ailments from public offices, he proposed that the tax should he timepiece in the pound—(cheen)— and upon incomes in cluded in tchedule D, viz., trade, commerce, &c., he pro posed the intermediate rate of sixpence in the pound—(much cheering)—leaving Bas at present. By this sit. ht increase on schedule A, they would relieve all the other classes, and raise a revenue more than equal to that derived from the tax, end without thou vexatious objections so which the impost, as now levied, was liable. Ile assumed that two-thirds of the present payment under D was from business end one-third from prolosions; and taking the Beds from from the present tax as a bun, the result width' be : Schedule A, at t 3 6 8 per cent., would produce... £2,894,000 at lid. B (le now) .. 321,339 C, at 3 6 8 „ 1 , 9 ... 849,363 at Bd. Dolt 210 0 „ OP ... 959,000 at lA. „ 3,st 113 4 „ ... 233,798 at 4d. Total £3,581,030 —(sheen)—instead of 5,600,0001., which had been the pro duce of the last year. But ministers calculated, in their budget for the ensuing year, the income tax as pro ducing only 6,200,0001. His plan would give them a surplus beyond this amount of 381 0301. (Much cheering.) He was aware that the plan he bad thus ventured to submit might be taken to be liable to many objections, but then what he contended was that it was far less objectionable than the present act, which imposed 7d. is the pound •zi all in comes, from whatever source arising. (Hear.) His !impo sition would at all evente fall more equally on the several classes of income than the present, and he believed the scale he proposed was so far just that it made a difference between those incomes which were permanent, and which repre sented accumulated capital—those ich which represented capital and labour, sad those wh represented labour and skill only. (Hear, hear.) It had also this recommendation, that it would relieve those who were most oppressed by the tax, as now imposed, while the only additional burden which would be thrown upon any class was the extra penny in the pound on permanent incomes —(hear, hear) —a burden which he believedwould be cheaply purchased by the large amoutit of relief it would give to other Hawes, the satiefac.ion with which the change would be received by the country gene rally, and the ease with which the tax would be collected. (Hear, hear.) The motion having been seconded, Mr. E. ELLICE roes to explain the grounds on which he thought it essential under present circumstances, even though he should be acting against opinions he had pre viously expressed in that house, to give a firm and derided support to minister, on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) While raddled that there were inequalities and anomalies in the now imposed, the peculiar circumstances of the time were such as should induce them to pause before they adopted any new experiments, or even entered into their consideration. He had supported the imposition of the tax on a former occasion as the only . mearis of placing the finances of the country in that position in which they ought to stand, and also asthe means of enabling government to make certain reforms in our fiscal arrangements--to unfetter the industry of the country, and . give a new impetus to commerce. The results he had anticipated, both in giving relief to trade and replenishing the exchi quer bad been tully realised by the tax. (Oh, oh.) He had supported the proposition of the hon. member for Bath to tax precarious incomes to only half the amount of permanent incomes, and had also supported the motion fur an inquiry, with the view of arriving at some more equitable arrangement in re gard to the legacy and probate duties. (Hear, bear.) He bad not altered his opinion upon these points, and he thought the time had nearly arrived when this boon must review the whole system of taxation, and determine what portion of it should remain in the shape of direct taxes, and what portion the industry of this country might yet be able to bear in the shape of indirect taxation. (Hear.) But he contended that this question of the income tax should be left in its present state until that time arrived. So far as was consetent with the true interests of this great country he should, in the select committee on the public expenditure, be willing to carry out economy. Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the amendment, because he objected to do anything that should give a permanent cha racter to this tax. (Hear, hear.) The deficiency in the revenue was the result of the policy in which this tax had originated, and had been foretold by him and his friends (the protectionists) at the time. They were told that the present condition of the commer cial classes was such that they could not bear the burdea of an income tax; but that was not very consistent with the declaration of Sir B. Peel in proposing it, and of those free. traders who supported it, that the new commercial policy which they had introduced would so improve those claws as fully to compensate them for this additional burden. The hon. gentlemen here catered into a statement of figures showing that while the products of this country wbl formed the elements of our exports had been depreciated fa the five years from 1841 to 1846 17 per cent , our impure had increased during the same period from 64377,0004 w hich they were in 1841, to 76,053 0001., which they weal in 1846, being an increase if 11,676,000 e Be that while war imports had increased 18 per nut., our exports, with all oar exertions, and after a sacrifice of 17 per cent. of the value, fell short of our imports, and turned the balance of trade against us to the extent of 6 per cent. He ma intained, therefore, that if they persisted in fostering imports they would not only incapacitate the merchants and ruin the manufacturers but risk the null of the country by creating a deficiency in the revenue. Mr. GOULBURN wee anxious to say a few words on the subject of the income tax, believing that its continuance was essential to the maintenance of the public credit, and with that credit the best interests of the country. He would not enter upon the considerations suggested by his hon. friend who had just spokes, but confine himself to the question be• gars rte house. which was whither it was right to modify better in From if the axing had striven to gain the ems lions of the people, instead of destroying their liberties ? Had; he done so, be would not have been left without a friend to help him in the hour el need. (Chests.) We had increased the expense of our establishments from 14 to 18 millions; the country had become more of a military country In late years than ever. (Hear.) The late Chanceller of the Exchequer bad defended the iniustios of this tax because other unjust taxes existed. He (Mr. Hum-) was prepared to prove that not a single tax existed which was not unjust ; and was this matter of surprise, after the wit dom which had presided over the exchequer of late years (Laughter.) It woo now for the house to declare—fird, whether they would have this tax at all ; and then, what should be its duration. Most important wax it to cramei pate our colonic a from the tuition endured by them; this must be done, if we would keep them our friends. Let them govern themselves in the cheapest way they could. He was anxious to see both the army and ordnance reduced ; and with these views, he would not conseut to the re impo sition or this tax for more than one year. If there were enema lies, let them remain at present e in committee he should be prepared to move as an amendment that the tax should only continue one year. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, in explanation, The Marquis of GRAN BY said there were two ways of making up the existing deficiency of three millions-either by reducing the exp-aditure, or adding to the taxation Of the first be feared there we little chance after what he had beard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; on the other hand, it appeared an ineresse in the estimates was con templated. If there we. no means of making the expen diture and the income meet except by increased taxatiou, the question naturally arms, what should be the nature of that taxation ? And he felt compelled to gay on minting upon that part of the subject, that the various budgets which they had at different time s to consider did not tend to simplify the difficulties which they had to encounter. The noble lord at the head of the government, in his speech on the budget, stated that the vicissitudes of commerce had been very great; now he was of opinion that the vicissitudes of the plans by whieh they ;wowed a remedy were of equal magnitude. His proposal was for the renewal of the income-tax for three years. Now he thought all parties in the house were agreed as to the irjustice a d impolite , of that measure. The first objection to the tax consisted in finding what was the nature of the income to be taxed, and discovering upon what principle incomes could be taxed which were derived from so many various sources. An hon. member had told them that incomes de rived from professions should not be taxed to the mime amount as incomes derived from realised property ; but he thought that en far from improving the tax by the proposi tion which he had submitted to the house, that it would aggra vate the barbarity and increase the injustice of the measure. Re felt himself compelled to remind the house and the country that the party with which he had the honour to act had not been the cause of the extravagance which had been committed. That party had told them (the govern ment) that the consequence of their removing 8,000,0001. of taxation would be, that they never could get rid of the in. income tax. However, he sincerely hoped the lime would come, and that it was not very distant, when the people of this country would consider the question of free trade lode pendently—that they would apply their free and unbiassed judgment to it, and pronounce their opinion as to whether the free-trade principle had been for the interest of this country or not. (Hear, bear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that no doubt he had himself opposed the income tax upon its introduction by the right hon. gentleman in 1842, because he thought it would operate unequally. (Hear, hear.) That, he conceived, was a good ground of opposition to the tax, but, as it was to be submitted to, he thought it best in the shape in which it stands. lie thought the circumstances f the country fully justified the renewal of the income tax for three years, and that it could not be for a shorter period. Every tax pressed unequally. How could it be otherwise ? It pressed very unequally upon a person with a email fa mily and one with a large family. That was felt so much when the income tax was originally imposed, it was found that attempts to remedy it led to great fraud. The right hon. gentleman (Sir R. l'eel) proposed the income tax in ' the most equitable manner, and upon the most equitable principle. it could be proposed—namely, regardless of the circumstances of the property of those from whom it was to be exacted. lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) firmly believed that any attempt to deviate from that system, or make the tax more just, would only lead to inextricable con ! fusion—to fraud and waste of time, while the imposition of it would be inevitably . made doubly odious. The inquisi Wrist nature of the tax, it should be admitted, was great ; but if it:was imposed with reference to the circumstances of the par ties, the inquisition into those circumstances should necessarily he more rigid, and therefore much more objectionable than the present system. When the tax was originally proposed all those circumstances were fully discussed. Mr. Pitt took them into hie consideration, and distinctly said that no one should object to the tax, whether he derived his 5001. a year from land, from his profession, from his trade, or any other occupation. Mr. Pitt held it ins posible to impose a different rate upon property derived from any of those sources, and that it would be un just to the public creditor. If that was so, how could it be just now that schedule A t the annual value of lands, tine. menu, &c.) should be more highly taxed than any other species of income ? No deductions whatever were made from the taxes to which real property or tenements were subject—oo deductions for repairs, or in consideration of the leads or tenements having been unoccupied, or that the rents remained unpaid. Landlords were not exempted on any of those grounds, either from the payment of general taxes or the three per cent. income tax. (Hear, hear.) The property included in Schedule A, in reality, paid a higher rate of taxes than any other, and it could not Justly be subjected to an increased amount of taxation now in favour of other incomes. Realised property was subject to a variety of taxes from which personal property escaped. The pressure upon the whole was much more equal than hon. gentlemen allowed; and taking every circumstance.inte account, he believed the most sceptical would be compelled to admit that this tax, as well as taxation generally, was far more equal than it was described. He did not assert or be lieve that taxation was in every individual case equal; but yet he thought no species of property should be exempted or privileged in respect of taxation. But in order to effect that object they must not look to any one tax alone • to do that would be utterly useless — they should refer to the general taxation, the pressure of which should be made to bear equally upon every description of property fairly and equitably. He would not go farther into the ques tion but he hoped that his hon. friend would withdraw his proposal and allow the house to proceed to the main business of the evening, and to decide the question whether they were to have en income tax or not. Mr. F. T. BARING would detain a house a very short time whilst he stated his views on the question. The propo sition before the house was one of great importance. He did not agree in the suggestion of the hon. member for Montrose, and big objection to it was because he coneidered it necessary that five millions and a half should be supplied by taxation, and he did not think it could be raised if the income tax were to be suppressed. What he understood the hon. member for Cockermouth to ask was, whether the house would put the tax one fairer footing than that upon which it was now levied before they consented to go into committee. He concurred in that proposal. The hon. mem ber did not salt the house to diminish the amount of the tax. All ho asked for was, that it should , be levied in a fairer manner than it now was. If the house should be of opinion that the tax could not be levied more fairly than it now was, then the only course left for him would be to sup port the revenue by voting for the tax in its present and worst shape. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was true that the proposal before the house was not without its emits, nor did he mean to commit himself to its details in all their rigour. But putting that consideration aside, it was the imperative duty of the house to devise the means of making the tax fairer. (Hear, hear.) If the house rejected the pro positiou of the hon. member for Cockermouth be should not vote for that of the hon. member for Montrose ; but he should deem it his duty to support the proposition for im posing the tax with all its present odium. (Hear.) Mr. MUNTZ said the right hon. member for Portsmouth bad done a great kindness to himself and his country by the speech he bad just made. Mr. J. WALTER, who spoke amidet much confusion, said if an income tax was required to maintain the credit of the country, at least it ougkt to be levied on fair principles. Divide, divide;" and confusion.) Mr. G. ROBINSON mmended the government to accept the proposal of the m . member for Montrose, and agree to take the income tax for one year certain. enter into an inquiry as to the best and cheapest mode of raising the revenue, with the legate incunveuience and injury to the commerce and manufacturers of the country. He would tell the government that if they persisted in their proposal to take the tax for three yearn they would drag with them many members who were un willing to vote against them, and who would thereby for feit th it p 'polarity with their constituencies, and be placed for the future in a precarious situation. (" Hear," and laughter.) Lord J. RUSSELL would state to the house what the posi lion of the ministers was. In the year 1842 parliament agreed to impose an income tax, for the double pupate of supply- toga deficiency which existed in the revenue, and of enabling the ministers to try an experiment whether the removal ell certain duties would not improve the revenue, by giving a fresh spring to commerce. Both of those obje cts were ful filled most amply, the deficiency of the income was made up, and the revenue increased in consequence of the remission of duties producing a great influx of commodities. The government in 1845 again renewed the income tax, off at the same time a large amount of customs duti t e= excise on articles of consumption. In the two epochs no less than 7,000,0001. of times aid duties were remitted. Sines that period the country had not enjoyed the same prosperity —adverse circumstances had occurred which were totally in dependent of the remissioa of taxes and duties in 1845. The ' revenue arising from the consumption of malt and spirits fell off in one year to the amount of 1,300,0001 The question now was, whether, under these circumstances, the govern ment might not very fairly and reasonably propose the renewal of the income tax for another period of three years. The hon. member for Montrose said he could not admit of the reasons for renewing the tax, because there might be reductions effected in the expenditure of the country by reducing the estaolidaments of the army and navy. The hon. member for Nottinghamshire stated his opinion to be that those establishments could not Welly be reduced, but that some other coo eof taxation might be proposed. With respect to the opinion of the hen. member for Montrose, without adverting more particularly to facts which were sufficiently notorious, he would only observe that the govern ment had not asked for more than was granted in the year 184,5, when,the greatest tranquillity prevailed on the con tinent. Such being the fact, be did not think, in the I present date of Europe, that large reduction/could be made. (Hear, Mier.) lie was glad to hear such an expression of the sentiments of the house—because he held it to be quite unnecessary to say more upon this point than merely to refer to what the sewspapen daily reported respecting the state of the various countries of Europe. (Hear, hear.) gee the hon. member for Nottingham told the house that some other mode of taxation must be resorted to. Now, !ethos* in 1842 be had been of opinion that it would be better els raise additional revenue by new duties, yet, in answer to such a proposal at the present time, he must say that he wee not prepared to reimpose or to increase duties, the reminders of which had tended so much to the comfort and enjoyment of the poorer classes. He did not think it would be a wise step foe the government to propose to raise five millions by increased excise duties. But then it wan said— 'sad to that effect the present propeiuon tended—"take the amount you require, but raise it by direct taxation only in a more equitable mode than by your present income tax. Now, he must say that the presumption existed against the proposition of the hole member for Cockermouth, that the tax in its present proportion was first steeled by Mr. Pitt. who, whatever might be the difference hetwoen himself and that statesman in respect to his foreign polic y , way, in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, one of the greatest financial state-men that had ever raised. Mr. Pitt showed, by rim soninp of great cogency, why there ought to be no dis tinctions made between income derived from differentsOurcee. In 1842—as my hen. freed tne member fie Ciehermouth has Wetted to me, I may mention it—l urged the arguments which have been qu. , ta d against the tax ; hut I stated at the same time that the rght hon. baronet's reasons were eon elusive,and ought nt themes!, s to induce the house to eecept the tax. I admit that in 184.1, I was of opinion that the tax might be modified—(near, hear) —but since them the more 1 have coneidered the subject—amt I can assure the has, ne miss r for Cocke.mouth that it is not only since Moaday Last that my right hon. fri. nil the Coancellor art the Exche quer has considered it—but the more I have considered the subject, either by myself or in communion with my col teagui s, the more am I impreered with the impossibility of ruakilig it in any degne more fair and equal by any meddle cation. I will not weary the house by going in . ° details se the subject. The right hon. member fur the University of Cambridge shooed, by arguments which have not beat answeren, that uo auth equality can be establiele d. (Hee; hear.) But let me state the principle on which the taxis four led, and why I think you would be defeated in any attempt to make it more equal. The state im poses taxes on the ground that all esesees are equally bound to bear its burthrus Suppose two pensma, t ach with an income id Nell. a year : but, one says, I am peculiarly circumstanced —mine is a presariuus income. The stale says, "We do ant inquire into your circumstances, we only want to knave what is your pre. nt income, and we take a certain portion • for the purposes of the public." Suppose you were to go on another plait, end take ed. in the pouted from the person holding land, and only 6d. and 4d. from each of the two other Coallit., the person deriving his income from schedule (A) will fairly say, " You have not treated me justly, on have added to my taxes, but you hive done so on a • supposition, because I have only a life interest." (Hese) In additiou to this some landholders might say, e ed, in come does not go to my daughters : it is strictly entailed; and for yooeeer children 1 have nothing te look to bat my savings." In the some way, the argument might be carried to much stronger cases, such as jointures. The small landowner might urge that it Me unfair to tax him at bd. in the pound, while his neighbour. the wealthy merchant or manufacturer , paid only ed. Thii instance was, in has opinion, a sufficient answer as to the in ,qu dity of the tax. You must, then, be ...wand with one um two things—either the injustice remains, or you moat set about investigating what u the exact value of every mazes income. I say, far botts risit to take the tax as it at present stands, than by attempting to render it Inure squal to fall into great. r chtficul y. Take the proposition now before us. Suppose we charge property in land 81. I think it would then be our duty to take ante considi ration all those qua tions tepee mg taxation, in which it is urged that the state burdens press unfairly on the land. There is the expense of anonyance, with the 12) per cent. charged for stamps. If you raise their income tax te Bd., you must reconsider all thew: enarges to which I have alluded. (Hear.) I come now to the observation of my hon. friend the member for Montrose as to the general inequality of theta:ea. He says that there is hardly a tax which is not un , us. ; but he is will ing to give all those taxes for a single year, it government will be prep wed to do away with al. the inequilities by the emaimencercent of next year. (A laugh.) The hon. gentle man seems to think he is doing ;something very handsome, sad reminds me, in his promised reward of the annual penes gives, by the Privy Council to the village schools. But however t. mpting, the government cannot amp , Ms liberal offer. The revision of taxes may be most desirable : that is a position winch nobody will deny. The right hon. baronet the number for Tamworth carried it to a considerable ex tent, and made many improvements in taxation ; but yet there is the rxcis. and the stamps, in which there is great MOM (Or irnprovmenu. Bat the task is not one for • year. Mr. HUME.— e There would be no difficulty about it. (A laugh.) Lord J. RUSSELL.—As for taking these taxes for on year, I will sot consent to it. (Hear, hear.) Whenever we are able, by careful review, to make propositions the effect of which will be to make taxes press lase heavily on industry, I can assure my hon. friend that 1 shall mot happily avail myself of the opportunity; but I do think that no government in the present state of aff .irs ought to aeoept a tax for a single year, and under such a promise, because I think that it they did so they would he endanger ing the credit of the country. (Hear, hear) I repeat that my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has nevi r lost sight of this subject of taxation ; but this I mat say, that the past year has been a year in which tha most extraordinary efforts were require d to meet the emer gency arising from scarcity of fool ; and I must add, teat I am not prepared now or in a week's time to propose any scheme of taxation better than that which I now propose. I therefore with confidence, knowing what the temper of the house was on former occasions, ask this house to renew this income tax, as it has been proposed by others in former times, I ask it for a period of three years—the same period for which it has twice before been granted. I ask it not for the purpe of makin new armaments or of adding greatly to our o, forces by se g a and land. I ark it for the purpose of maintaining those forces we have, and of supporting 'he credit of he country, and to show to the world, at this period of difficulty, that, whatever government we may have, we are disposed to give to that go vernment, without distinction of party, a fair and liberalfrup port. (Loud cheers.) The house divided—For the motion SI6 For the amendment l4l-175 The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers by the minority. On the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair being again put, Mr. HUME said he intended, in committse, to move that the i n c be limited to one year's duration; and unlese it wss distinctly understood that the present proceeding was merely pro jormo, he should oppose the going into committee that night.e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that the resolution he was about to propose was merely that t n w 11: shou ld t e b w r ° La r dg. satisfied ran , t ted o fixfothrealimfuinther time. The hone E be afforded of discussing the q uestion of the duration of the tan. (Bear, hear.) , provided an opportunity wo uld Mr. BRIGHT observed that, as the proposition for the five per cent. income tax had been abandoned, and as the govern ment did not intend to propose any addition to the taxes of the country, he shculd not persevere in his motion with regard to tee legate and probate duties. He could notbring forward his proposition to extend those duties to real property as a sub stitute for the present income tax, us it would nut produce one half the revenue ; he thought, therefore, it would be better to submit it as a substantive proposition at some future time. Bat should government, during the present or the next session, propose to add to the existing taxes, and en alteration of the duties he referred to should not be included in the echeme, he should then bring the subject under the consideration of the house. The house tnen went into committee of wars and means, and a resolution was paned, pro forma, for eontiaaing the present tax upon incomes fur a further period to be hereafter limited. The house having resumed, the resolution was re ported, and the committee ordered to sit again on Moseley ner ‘ t DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (COURT OF ROME) BILL. Lord PALMERSTON moved that this bill, which had been brought down from the Lords in the early part of the eveni , se be read a first time. Sir R. INGLIS did not intend to provoke any discussioa on the present occasion with regard to this measure, but as it was ono of very great importance, he wished to impress oo the noble lord the necessity of giving full opportunity for discussing it—(hear) —and to express his hope that the second reading might not be p r essed forward with undue haute or precipitation. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON proposed to fix the second reading for Monde' ee'unigbt. Sir R. INGLIS did not think there wan a possibility of government b. tug able to bring it on so soon, and suggested that a more distant day should be named, alien they might depend upnn its being brought on for discussion. Mr. PLUM Frith declared his iniention of giving his most determioed imposition to the bill. Col. SIBTHORP thought it unfair to bring on even the first reading of a measure of this character at that late hoar of the night. Mr. lIINDLEY considered the bill bad been much Improved since its first introduction into the other h ous e. (Order, order.) He still, however, entertained a great objection to it. The bill was then read a flat time, and ordered to be rued • second time on Monday seemight BOROUGH POLICE SUPERANNUATION. Mr. HUTT moved for leave to bring in a hill fur authode bag the establishment of a fund for this pientsee.—Aereed te. NAVY, ARMY, AND ORDNANCE EXPENDITURE. TheCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the lamination of the committee on this suhjict. Mr. OSBORNE objected to such au important committee being named at that late hour, and moved the adjournment of the debate. On the first name of the list, that of Lord Seymour, beiell milled over, M there were r.OSBOR n NE obo members jected to thi o s f name,the armya co"miltinver; that tamed in the list nroposed by the government. The gallery was cleared far a division, but none took place, and Lord Seymour's name was plac.d on the eons mittee, as were the names of Mr. F. Mauls, Glen Hume Si, Mr. G. Banks, Sir J. Graham, Marquis ot b W. Molesworth. On Mr. Corey's name being proposed, Col. SALW EY said, that without wishing to obstruct the appointment of the committee, he must, in return, esprit* his surprise that no military men were proposed on the committee. CHANCELLORb"TsheeO• nal men could best be elicited in the form of evidence. The names of Mr. Corry, Mr. Walter, Mr. E. Elli.:ar d. conceived that tt of the E XCHE QU ER said, it had W.Miles, Mr. J. Grotto, and Mr . Bariag wen that _ -a 00 E sow, N having JumM The the hi would with d Sir 1 The was 0 0 of Lif Mr. R Brame Arthu The L% tionen T ool p tome! exemi CA He it but d of the Tbe boo, ritall Mates The nontt Tai; (Nur /Mar _ ml z«w Tbi uP 03, bytt was