The Express. — London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—FainAr, MAY 2. The LORD CHAIICILLOR took hi. +rat St flft u'Clotk. PETITIONS PRESENTED._ _ _ _ Itzni los or AVIV . • . Um. By Lord FA VENSIIAN from the attonsess of York aimin•t thi.. bill. PAPAL AUlllo s o4lo,l.—By Lonl .TAN LEY. from Bath sad .rural other ptie,...; Lord CAMPBELL, from various plan.. is Fire. soot itimirron.ly NOTICE OF 3IIITION, • • N.. a“. • .... LAM STANLEY Nave notiee that on 3liinday he would pra..nt petition. from Liverpool and Sin. Ids on the subject et tlwr 31eresatile }lrvine Bill. Their lortlAisothi a adjourned at tlminate. past 5 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FurnAT, MAT 2. The N1.1(.1111E11 took the Muir .t 4 o'clock. NOTATE BUSINESmI. TA following iiill:;;;;;esct;ir:rda third time and pos.-.1 -London and Blackenll K (branch to Hay don-Nicire, Whit. chapel. Ile.) bill ; (Amendment. to he Pr'yo" ,l .) ; Maylield Railway (No. 2) bill: Honkland Hsilroi• bill. The following bill was considered and agreed to :—Hud &Esti. Id and Nrar Hey District Turnpike Road bill. PUBLIC BUSINESS. NEW MEMBER. Mr. WIIITTAIDZ took the oath. and hi. •rat foe Enni.- killtn. The hon. and learned q , ntlemat Wl3 introdueed by Mr. Napier and Lord llotitarn. MrIItOPOLITAN WILDING BILL. Iu r , ply to a pl.-4;u. put by Sir 11. lI.tLL, NEVNIOCIIt odd that it wa• hi. intention tq with draw th.• present b 11, it requi, finch a variety of ahem and to introtinee a enond ont., having a similar *Nett. ADIoURNMENT OF Tiff. lIOVSE. 1.nr.1 J. UJJSiikiLll. 7 2.l at it. r. ii .do a•ljnurn to Monday nett. KENSINGTON GARDENS. ... Mr 11117 ME rall.d atteutian to the inroads lately made by ttriettriasir into these garltnr. lle was surprise , ' that the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forest. had din eted the routtruction of a new entrance tor horsemen into theso seders, reserved at they were for the accommodation of ,tri.g.r,uiyr and children. lie sub. mitt' it to the good xnn• the siolil•• lord, the f.r.t mi nister of the crown, wh. thtr or not he would allow a place la hit a hod hi tr. to much v.du•al by a large portion of the mmulation of that district to be I 111er,01,4 UP"' in such main r. (near, hear.) It was only a few hours • • tlcit he hail a memorial placed in he. hands, signed mart nnrw rood; by the household, r. and reriilialts of l'ad•ling. to n , tin,. attatiall great important, to the aceonimislation iilf•trileil by these garden., in oho the perfect safety Injoy••,1 by their n in yititing thin,. The state in which he. nsimitroa._• troltor war Mid war very crillitabla to the country, and war the admiration of foreigners; nod he hop. .1 that the got-tram , sit would he able to latplain why they interfered with the coon:tittle° and privacy which th.. 101.thidi pow affinalell. - lard NEV.:I‘ 11: It mid that one of tlw• main objections to th,• !matting of the Kaltiltltisia in it• priiitit toe dity was, that it would iottefere with the ride, and it was thou undcr anel, and 1.. 'alkyls' gruyrally uryui. seed in, that u ride should I.• mule in Kensoy.ton-girdiws or .1..•- where. It saw in eon•. mutation to forts the ride iu liple-park, but the commander-in-Chia said that a rill.- Amsted in Ily.ly-pork would very much interfere ith the en. ft+.c troops. Nu alit r place then was kit Lat tirn•ington.trawdyni. A ride ow, r the a...m.lll4li tied rook or 1tya.1.C.....ark would he thowtht la• c. ry unut t..Nen,ey to the pa 1..., .1+ to the uhirctiurt or the rid.• 1, in.: dang. rout tql 14 and children, he thought that the no wnt reclusion slat wick• out it. danger to frut.alt (Much laughter.) 11r thought that rid.• i,y the hon. gentleman in thcse gardens would Iw• lb. ae frinult, for whom he anrima tb-u. their present (laughter.) Tll l'ltOPOStill Null IN TIIE 1110CliriE OF ......—.... x In reply In a question put by Mr. Ca If-aritts, as to the inti ideals of the aevertiment with rt*pett to the diocesan nod annonartal 17 the hi.bnp of Footer, I 0.r.1 J. It l: H.id, for upiiiion of the law officers nl tlw roan het his n P.L. n this subject, and they were ••f "phew. that, a. di...ram %posts did plot, like pro lamin! .311,15, reitnin• tlie meal writ, nail te. tar Ifi.hup of ):deter 11 et I spnesly declared that it was not int. mksl that the :es. add, of kis • 1.1%7 should nact canon. or ordi- Moires limiting lopm the church, or do anytime! that could b.. 'rued iuto ace or deri-ipo towards the emwn, the noetitina wnu4l not he unlawful by. iintraceniva tin' estate Z. 4 Henry VIII.; though, the term " 'loud" was a yr. oafertunatr Pee (to use no harsher word), tau] en tie 1) iinknovrn a. I. niploy“l by the bishop, to thi I.lle of th, i s , o ,f. With c ro p" t to the lan:lama. which hail Li-en v 1140.7,11 by the Iliuhup of Exeter in hi. pasbiral letter and of her deettllP-11t, towards the Arelilliallop of Canter bury, ta hit-h lir. I.'lllliter* had refernid, Lunt John oil,- sive il, it was well known that that mast revert II I pre- Litt' M. 1.• a milt of peculiar =Mai vi and truly Christian s;iirit, hurl hr 1(1,44 Jahn . , was assunst teat, with cot the interp•eiitii•is of parliament or the geeerll - he weulil enaduct himai'lf r. to serif that Reseed veneration which be hal Lida eta secured; and that, whilst h would firmly us-ert his own awl imaint.lisi what he believed to he the ilisrtrincs Id his chureh, he would never depart (nun hi- character by .if unworthy lanamsnfi•. Of the tilt, ri lianas, of epi thets d nmutirry to the purity and which belonged to lii• Ogee. Mr 111)11SMAN w0r"..t..1 whrthrr, in , l•';M•ndrntly of Ihr .• dole, it Ma. , INK Oh Ail for thy a lergy to ru., t fu eon rl ts.• ..nywitiir, to smsk, n thaltratiott of olittiou., without Ih. • •• n«•nt of Ih.• morn. 'lb vrrou EY-OEN.% It.tl. said the In.hap die aen•• d any int,ution td diwobeving either r:un•n or .tatute, and all the law "Hirer. mold •ay at present wa. that, a•wannag the etatena at of the bishop to he true, the w.wisiloty era. not illegal. T.I.SSPORTS. Lord PALMERSTON, In answer to a question by Mr. J 11. Smith on the *abject of pasep,rt., stated that in Eng land tt . po...port wu. n•quired of a fineigner fur the t.. 1 what,' it w to 3.kl mi abroad, nor tea. a pussport I) nsptin•d at all. It wee demanded that a tarvigner el lit 'Wye hi. ram,• MI arriving hen•, and far the better a..-rt.Otting that. his leo.port, if he hail one • was ;asked of Lou. TREATMENT OF \IIORANT.t. Mr. lIMVI'LLAfIII called attention to the treatment t.t paue noel, tin board the emigrant *hip Waehin,ctou, the .1.. m• wLieh have been published some of the daily Plumate. ntr t F.Y had fetal the publi.hod etatementt (which tle•.e wa. no rse.on to doubt) with Emit nurrt, but bared tL st then• eei.t.tl no anthoritv here w hiela ...Debt reach the ott, n.unc partic.. ,tlteratittu sal the law woald, he said, IS very desirable. Mr. MANGLES then tried to renew the Evler Synod rpt .tany declaring that he himself was ;agar...v.ll,y the met of the bishop, but hie aeldrum was cut short by the streaker. • MODEL moors° norsEs. Mr. KWAiti. in 11111,11:101, of notice. the Chan- Whir id the Eacheijuir 1011,1111. r louildieno into da•rent MAO and houws 013 . 111. i. 4 in flat*, or portions of ILits, al in built ductliiiitv living valued under 211/. aivar, and r.ited •nlia ruttly, will b rulikrt to the bowie duty. 'l'h , •unANcku..on of the EXCHEQUER said the questim would be lie•t answired iu connuitt..e. lie had had the natter tinder rntuder.ition, and he wureseed he (tit unut difficulty in dealing with it. Th. motion W4O thin zizrivall to. PItOPEIITY TAX BILL. On the order of the slay for goin; into committee on this Colonel RIBTIIORP moved that the committee should have power to intnslue.. amendments. 'UM CIIANCELLOIt of the EXCHEQUER said he could not object to the 1114161.111 in point et form. It was neeonlingly agreed to. Mr. W. 1V ILI.I.VMR then rose to more : " That the pro s istons of the said bill. as far as regards the imposition of that tax un the interest of the public debt, salaries, and emoluments of public of fi cers, pensions, and sineeures, Is estendesl to lrelassl." The tir KKKKK having been appealed to on the point of order by Mr. HAMILTON, de ssukd that the motion could tot be made in that stage. Mr. W !LUAUS said he wentld at bastes!' the attention of the house to the sub;. et. Nothing tended more to per petuate the dissensions b tar n Englasul and Ireland than the continuance of differeot systems of taxation for the two countries. Ile hod rusty heard any sufficient reason why the income las should not be extended to Ireland as well as to England. The nun who had 110/, a year in Ireland ought to pay n 3 less than the man who had the !AMC amount her•. Ile proposed to limit the extension of the income tan to the receiver* of intent from the public funds and to public officers. 4,000411M1! of the annual interest of the sl. to was paisl in Ireland ; while the debt owesl to the Bank of inland by the government was 2.6341.tX)0/., fur which inte rest was paid at the rate of 31 !we cent. per annum. Why did not the Lord-Liitenant. with his 20.0001. a year. ,TM the income-tax ? pensioners in Ireland received tr . 300/. a year—why did not they pic it ? The officers of the court, the custonsslmuse, the postmitice, and other depart-' us. its, received salaries amounting to 2.000.0001. per annum, and they were all exempt..l from this tas. lie 1.4.2,115.4 that he no. precluded then from taking the sense of Ow house on the subject. Mr. F. FRENCH hoped the hums; would not discuss the 110 , 'non when it c mid nut Ise dscishel. When the subject w as brought forward legitimately the member. fur Ireland would be prepared toe liter into it fully. The how.. then went into cononittee. Mr. FILE:3IIEIEIM then stated certain amendments which he proposed to istnxistce in some of the schedules• tss hedule C related to incotnes arising from annuities, which were subjected to a tit of 7.1. in the pound without any ductiou. lie propo."l ts alter the schedule by providing that the aUVIMIL ut in ti.. case of annuities eontilvent upon lia• should be made upon the aniumt of the annuity after deducting one-third of the amount for the premium meets,'" to provide fur the coating. ney by insurance. &leanly D had rs'er.ns to trade and professiond incomes. lie knew how difficult it was to deal %nth that 'object; but y. t he could nod help re. ling the in,justiee of dealing with unsomes derived from such sourer. to the same 1114111It't se income. derived from realised and well-sustains .1 property. A professional man was obliged to keep a large num bet at dead who yowl the isomer tail kid udituaitard was THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1851. of such a nature u to benefit the country, and he should not I feel justified in professing to relieve annuitants without ex tendiuo relief to the professional elms. Schedule E related to official incomes, and he thought it but fair that these also should be dealt with in the same manner as annuities. He could not help thinking that the insertion of alterations such as he proposed would leave any subsequent alterations that mixht he necessary in the schedules a matter of com parative facility. The hon. member concluded by pro posing the insertion in clause 2, line 7, of the words, after the a " granted," " so far 03 the same are expressed in the schedules to this art annexed, and subject to the rro visions therein contained," being the first portion of his amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that there was another amendment, upon which they could dis cuss the principle, and that it would he more desirable to take that course than to waste the time of the house in a diwussiou on mere words. The hon. member for Boston propowil to have schedules A and 11 untouched ; but with regard to schedule C would give an exemption in the case of life annuities, which he would not give in the case of lite interest out of land. Fur schedule I) he claimed a redaction of one-half, although trade could not be said to be suffering depreseion at the present moment. Schedule E he also proposed to r.oluee one half, but, taking the proposal as a whole, he Chancellor of the Exchequer) diet not think it was ono that would go down with the house. Ile certainly thought that the convenient way would be for the hou. member to liritig up his amendment as a proviso. Mr. hPOONER would support the insertion of the words, as eetteurrently laying the foundation for future alterations. Mr. HENLEY feared that if the course recommended by the right hon. gentleman were adopted, the opportunity for alteration would he lust. '1 he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared that he had suggested the count iu good faith. He thought th it if he took any advantage of it he would be unworthy of the position he held in that house. Aftt:r some further conversation the amendment was put, and negatives' without a division. Mr. HUME nose to move that the duration of the tax be limited to one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry by a select committee into the mode of a•sessiag and col lecting the tat ; and whether the injustice of levying the same rate of charge upon terminable as upon perpetual an nuities. and upon fluctuating and varying incomes from trades and professions as upon fixed incomes from real pro perty, cannot be greatly modifi e d or a lt oge th er removed. Ile said that in any ease he should have voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Boston, as he thought it would be impossible to do justice to all the great interests concerned without careful consideratior. Ilia view was that the tax should be renewed for one year, and in the meantime all its inequalities and injustice might be considered, while none of our great nomniercial transactions would be disturbed. His com plaints against the tax were non -city. In Ist!, when :sir E. l'eel brought forward his proposition he (Mr. Hume) nanplainetl of its injustice and inquisitorial character; but he was then as now an advocate for direct taxation. When last he hail made his proposition for a limitation to one year the majority voted against him under the impression that so many were the imperfections RN to necessitate imme diate inquiry by the government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer voted against him tor th a t reason. The CUANCELLOIL of the EXCHEQUER denied the motive. Mr. HOME—WeII, no matter, that was my opinion. (A laugh.) Ile wat now determined, to prevent misun derstanding, and in order to teat the feeling of the house, to propose that the tax should be limited to one year, the internal to be speut in neer...try inquiries into its inequali ties by the government. At the ',ante time he begged to repeat that he was as much against indirect taxation as ever. He objected to it, among other thin" from the various profits which its operation caused to hoe paid by the eonsumer. The neetwaity of payiug all the duties in advance placed all the wholesale trade iu the hands of large capi talists, and the several hand* through which it aubst quently passed all levied profits on the consumer. Ile was informed that 30 per cent. was added to the prime cost of articles consumed by the people by indirect taxation. Therefore it was that he preferred direct to indirect taxes. He was favourable to the removal of the malt tax, which raned the price of beer, led to adulteration of that neces sary beverage of the working mon, and promoted the con sumption of spirits. He was also anxious that the taxes on hoop., soap, paper, and all other articles of comumption, 'Mould be removed. He Was favourable to a property tax, but he would include every class of property, without ex ception, down to the lowest farthing. (Hear, hear.) And for this rms.'', that by excluding any large part of the people from the operation of the tax, and thereby making thorn indifferent to it, you gave to the minister an advan tage which he ought not to possess. Ile believed, there fore, that great benefit would arise from substi tuting one general and compreho usive system of direct taxation, which sh o uld euilorac, all davits fairly, , fur the present systi In of indirect taxation. (Hear, hea r .) I Let it not be supposed, then, that his object was to get rid of this tar, on the contrary, he would make it applicable to all. Partly, no doubt, from the increase in the national debt, but in part also from thriftless expenditure, the! public burdens had increased f or beyond what the Illa.S of : Zoe people were in a condition to hear, and the result of indirect taxation wan to like, a far greater share of such extra burden upon the middle and working claws than upon the capital of the country. lle knew it was commonly advanced as an argumeut, that the capital of the country ' having largely increased, the people were better able to pay taxes. But that was altogether a mistake, arising from the aupponition that it was the capital that paid the tax, which was nut the case. Since 1793 we had increased the' debt, 17 our inistaken policy and our military operations ! agaiust liberal principles in France, by 600,000,08 M.; but far be it from him to say, that basing incurred the liability of paying interest on that amount, we should not discharge it. (Hear, hear.) Within the aline period the capital of the , country had i nereaseal fmm 60,009,00 a to about la ouo,ooot, 1 taking it on the account of the assessment to the property tax—in addition to the large abatemeut fur sums under 156/. a year; making altogether, as he believed, an increase of two-fold. But did capital pay more than it formerly did, i except so far as regarded its proportion of the income tax? He contend, il, that to continue to levy from the working classes 31,000,0001. to 35,u0n,u00t, a year indirectly on I articles of consum p tion was a gores injustice (Hear, hear.) Ile would take orf these taxes, and siestitute for them an ineorae tax, fairly . and properly applied to the capital of th e country. 'rho principle on which he would place the tax was, that capital and property should pay for the protection afforded to it, and in proportion according iso its , amount. If direct were substituted for indirect taxa tine, he believed the mass of the people would not pay more than half they paid now, and the effect which that change would have to increasing the income tax wool,' induce the house to interfere to prevent that extraordinary, and, as he held, in a great measure wasteful expenditure i which had been going on of late years. With proper economy ' the whole of the income tax might have been saved, a. he could prove. There would have been no necessity for it had it not been for the extravagant and useless expenditure in military preparations ' which government, u ph e ld b y t h e House of Common s , had incurred, and which, hail the tax' been levied on all persons alike, would have raised such a clamour, that government would never have betnable tocarry it on. He hail before him the account of the sums paid for military establishments fur past years, and be found that for the five years, from 1833 to 1837, the expense for these establishments was 60,804,5121., or an average of 12,163,000/, a year; and for the ten years, ending 1812, the average was 13,116,8151.; but in the tlirceyears from 1818 to 1850, the ayeragewas2l,ll9,94B/. From this it waa right • to deduct the expense of the Kaffir war and the relief of , the Irish distress. (Hear.) But there was a difference in the 1 average annual charge for these ettahlislunents in the last ! three years as compared with the previous five of (both • 1 periods of peace) of 8,956,000/. During the ten years i previous to the income tax our military establishments , had cost us 131,168,0001., or an average of thirteen mil- ; lions a year; w &Tem since the imposition of the income tax the total amount fur the eight years had been 144,866,000/. or eighteen millions a year. The t o tal re- ceipt from t he income tax fur those eight years had been 39,709,8051., while the extra expense for military establish- meats, during the same time, had been 39 931,6061. He did not charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with blame for this enormous increase in the expenditure of the country but he blamed the House of Commons which had sanc tioned it. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman moved that the operation of the bill be limited to one year. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON should support the amend ' meat. but not on the grounds taken by the hon. member for Montrose, via., with th e v i ew of substituting direct for indirect taxation. (Hear.) He thought the most convenient mode of raising the revenue of the country was by imposing a moderate duty on foreign productions. (Cheers from the protectionist+ and counter cheers and laughter from the ministerial benches.) Ile supported thy amendment, be cause he thought government had not kept faith with the country in regard to this tax. He entertained the same objections to the house tax that he did to the income tax. He'ngreed with thelhon. gentleman (Mr. Hume), that it would be possible to maintain the public faith and uphold the honour of the country without reimposing the present tax. He did not think with the hon. member for Montrose that it was possible to frame an income tax which would be just or satisfactory to the country ; but if it remained as at present in force fur another year, then let the government avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded them for the purpose of considering the hints he had taken the liberty of throwing out. (Hear.) Mr. MOWATT said that although the hon. gentlemen op posite,bympporting the amendment,might very well induce others to pause before they did anything to endanger so large an amount of direct taxation as the income tax, never theless he for one, having attentively considered the sub ject, had no alternative but to rote for the ame n d ment. Ile believed he was proving himself a greater friend to the property tax by taking that step than the government were, and, if it were not a solecism, he would add ;hat he was a greater friend to the government by acting in such a manner than the go vernment were friends to themselves. It was an abs ity to assert that be cause the income tax could not made perfectly equal in its incidents, it would be chimerical to attempt to improve or modify it. He would propose to raise, say six pence or a shilling in the pound upon all real and funded rroperty, and half that amount, say sixpence or threepence, upon profits arising from trades end incomes. It might be that even this proposition would bear harshly on some classes, but he contended that those who would suffer from its operation would be infinitely fewer than those who suffered at present. Ile was aware that it was not those J in trade only who suffered new ; on the contrary. he was , willing to admit that some hardshipa must be inflicted by , the wane in which the tax was Lorton upon the occupiers of I Bad. It was unquestionably an anomaly to take the same amount of income front the man whose profits were de pendent on his health as was taken from the man possessed of a realised estate. (Hear.) If the suggestion of the hon. member for Montrose were adopted, one of two things must inevitably result. Either the com mittee to be appointed would show that the tax might be greatly modified and improved, so as to remove many seri ous objections, or they would report that upon going into the question fully and closely it was possible to make very great changes in it fur the better. Mr. I',UCK said eh"u l 4 proposition of the hon. member fur Montrose:_believing that the Income tax was as unjust as it wa s i nex p e dient. If there was any one clams in the kingdom who ought to oppose its Ire-imposition for three Tears it was the landed intertd, particularly after the insults they had received, for that in -1 serest, though admitted by the government themselves to be in a state of the greatest depression, had altogether been Passed over in the amended budget. Meer hear. ) The income tax was one of t c most inquisitorial which could be entailed on the country. It had originated under false pretences, for it was to rescue England from financial iliffi ! cultism, and, as soon as that had been accomplished, it was to cease. Its pressure on the agricultural interest was , severely felt ; for, in addition to that of all the other imposts, the farmer had to pay from 50 to 100 per cent. on an article which the foreigner could introduce into the English markets duty free. But independent alto gether of the agriculturists he found that there were other classes at present in a state of the greatest distress. In his county (Devon) the retail trade was almost ruin. vl. Ile hoped the landlords would unite with their tenants and use all their legitimate influence in procuring relief. Let equal justice be done to all classes, and then agriculture might mate again be seen to thrive and prosper; but he was as certain a, he stood there that if the house wrseecred in their present course they would hose nothing but anarchy and confusion from one end of the kingdom to the other. (Hear.) Mr. IsIACGR EGOR expressed his belief that it was im possible to arrange the income tax schedules upon a just principle, but he contended that in their arrang emen t they m i g ht b e ma d e to approximate towards justice. The house I might, for instance, charge half as much on tempo rary incomes as they charged on permanent incomes.. The hon. member then went into some statistic,. in support of the general argument that direct taxation was the sys tent bearing most favourably upon the interests of the in dustrial and labourior classes, and concluded by intimat ing that he should vote fur the amendment of the hon. member for Montrose. The Marquis of GRANBY considered that the question really was, not whether the income tax was a good or a bad tax, but whether, certain circumstances being before them, it was most advisable to continue that tax for one year, or for three years. In other words the question was, 1111.4 the house to give most consideration to the convenience of the government, or to the interests and wishes of the community? The difficulties under which the house hail legislated in former years in regard to this tax were not diminished but rather increased: and all the objections urged when the proposition was previously made might now be urged with augmented force. There were, how ever, on this occasion, special difficulties with which they had to deal. It was a fact that under schedule 1) there had been a decrease in the incomes returned to the amount of 8,000,0001. These were the incomes of the manufac turing and trading classes, and the government was in the dilemma that they must either admit that the alleged diminution on income was real and genuine or that the classes making these allegations had had re course to fraud and evasion. In either cas:", he appre hended that a conclusive argument would be afforded against the reimposition for any lengthened period of the income tax in its present form. As regarded Schedule A, it was also a fact that there was a decrease in the general rental of the kingdom to the amount of 20 per cent. Did the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intend to make a reduction in the assessment to the income tax proportionate to this reduction in the rental ? If he (lid not intend to make any change, and yet admated that the decrease had taken place, it could not be denied that the government was attempting to be guilty of a aery gross injustice. If, on the other hand, the right hon. gen tleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did really intend to propose a change, then the house would have to under stand that, 20 per cent. on 45,000,0001. amounting to 9,400.0001., there would be a decrease in the product of the income tax of not less than 500,10//. As respected Sche dule 11, ho considered that the objections which had iten urged were unanswerable. But he was aware that the retort would be made, that tho farmer was not the only person taxed whose income was pre. carious. Ile conceded the whole of the argument, in this direction; and this argument, he considered, was fatal to the whole system of direct taxation. Direct taxa tion could, in fact, lamer be made an equitable system of taxation. Ile believed that the principles guiding their commercial, fiscal, and financial policy of late years, were decidedly vicious and false: and, regarding the income tax as part and parcel of the new policy, he could not support it. Ile called upon the government not to destroy the tree when they desired but to gather the fruit. Ile should vote for the amendment. Mr. COBDEN—It would be in the recollection of the house that he had some time ago taken the opportunity of publicly asking his lion. friend the member fur Moutroae to bring forward the motion which he (Mr. Cobden) knew that his hon. friend wished to make in such a precise SUN as would have enabled them to come to an exact deci sion on that which his hon. friend undoubtedly considered to be at issue in this discussion. Ile had out only in pub lic, but privately, requested his hon. friend to take such a course, and he thought that the proceedings of 1 that evening must have convinced the hon. gentleman that' it would have been better far for the cause which lie had at heart if he had consented to adopt the advice offered to him. Now, if the honourable gentleman hail I brought forward the motion in these terms—that it is ex pedient, in renewing the income tax, to impose a smaller I charge on precarious incomes than on income.: derived from permanent property—then he (Mr. Cobden) thought that they would have had a division in that house which would have brought to au exact issue that which was really ; in question. This indeed was a motion which he thought should still be made. He had consulted the Speaker on I the subject, and had found that it cou ld no t b e ma d e now . But this was what his hon. friend wished and intended ; and that, in reality, was the question now put to the house. Well everybody knew that if that question were submitted to the house there would be two to one against it. The hon. member for Cockerrnouth had brought forward that ' identical motion in '4B, and in a tolerably large house he . was on that occasion beaten by nearly two to one. Was it more probable that they would get a concession front those gentlemen who represented real property towards those comprised in the class of professional and traction rum, now after having seen so recently a division on a motion of ! the lion. member for Bucks, the result of which was that the ; government had got but a majority of 13—that majority being against the transfer of a portion of the burdens of real property from the shoulders of those who now bear them to the shoulders of the professional, trading, and in dustrious classes. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The motion meant that, or it meant nothing. It meant that, or it waa adman. It was, in fact, nothing less. The n , h e m i g ht be asked ' when he knew the division would be so heavily against him, what advantage would there be in persevering in bringing the proposition forward. There would be every advantage. He was not one—whatever the hon. member for Bucks might be —to cushion a question or to evade debate upon it when he knew that he had right and justice on his side, merely because he apprehended that he should be left in a minority. Ile wanted to sec the minority ; still more he wanted to see the majority. Ile always wanted a division on a question pure and simple ; and when he had right on his side he would trust to the country to assert that right and to remedy the injustice against which he remonstrated. Now, was hi. boo. friend the member for Montrose accomplishing his object ? His motion was to limit the income tax to one year. He (Mr. Cobden) should not be surprised if 1.10 members from the other side of the house voted with his hon. friend in favour of the terms of that motion. But would they (the protectionists) tell him (Mr. Cobden) or the country that they voted with his hon. friend because they desired to remodel the income tax, and, in remodelling it, to relieve the trailing and professional classes from undue burdens ? He would include the farmers in the trading classes. (Cries of " Oh !" from the protec tionists.) Yes; he would show them the difference b. twecn landlord and farmer before the session was over. Ile had done it before, and he might find it necessary to do so again. But that was not now the question put by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume.) Did the hon. gentleman expect that the 150 gentlemen who would vote with hint from the other side of the house would vote with him because they believed with him that the tax ought to be re adjusted in the sense he meant? The hon. gen tleman might perhaps have suffered from the delusion until that night; but the speeches of hon. gentlemen oppo site on this occasion must have completely undeceived him. The noble marquis (Granby), for instance, had frankly de clared himself against the very principle of direct taxation. The noble marquis and the hon. gentleman were, there i lore, the antipodes of finance ; and if they went into the same lobby together, it was to accomplish no common end. (H. ar.) And supposing the hon. gentleman to be successful, and to return with a majority, the fact would only increase the antagonism between him and those to whom he would be indebted for that majority. (Cheers.) The hon. mem ber for Montrose had already said that there were 20,000,0001. of revenue now paid in import duties. And be (Mr. Cobden) would ask those gentlemen, who talked so much of the great pressure upon the real property of this country, and who were constantly bewailing the weight thrown upon the landowners, if they had ever had the cariosity to compare the amount of customs duties paid in We country with the amount paid in any other country of fie? Forty per cent. of the whole of our revenue was &deed from customs duties. About 10 per cent. to 11 per cent. of the revenue of Franco was derived from that source. About 8 per cent. of the re venue of Spain was derived from that source. Austria ami Melia contributed in the same proportion. Therefore 5w..... it the British people were already paying three VOW 1111 much in customs duties towards the revenue as any serf European nation. (Cheers.) But they (the protec tionists) were not satisfied. They wanted to throw a still =Mr proportion of the reveries upon th e indus population. Apia, there were the excise du ties which came in the sane category; aad_ , altogether , It would appear that, o u t o f the whole taxation,' 30,000,000/. to 34,000.0001. were paid by the great mass of the people who consumed the necessary articles of subsist ence. Those, therefore, who advocated indirect taxation, and who wished to incream the amount of indirect taxation , in this country. meant, whether they knew it or not, to in -I crease the burdens of the mosses of the people while relieving thom beam able to bear them. (Chest, and outlaw deal.) For, if they wanted to levy taxes in the way most likely to be oppressive to the labouring portion of the people, let them levy those taxes upon articles of con sumption. (Hear, hear.) In no respect is the labouring man so much on an equality with the wealthy man as in respect to what he consumes of excise and customs duties paying articles. The labouring man swallowing his beer was in the same position as regarded taxation as the wealth ' man drinking hi. claret. But did they (the protectioaiste) intend to bring the eireunt,tanc, 4 of the two to a level I (Hear, hear.) Certainly not; what the honourable ute:u fier f.: : : Montrose alleged, and whet ', ge (Mr. u,',;:).en) alleged, as the strongest objection to indirect taxes was, that whilst they mulcted the labouring man of a larger share of his earning than could have been extracted from him by any other process, the y, at the sante time, put ob stacles in his way and c Manually retarded his pro ' gress in doing that which would the better enable , him in the end to pay the heaviest amount of taxes. (Loud cheers.) This was no longer any mystery. AU ; this was very well known to tl people of this country. (Iliac, hear.) If lie (Mr. (Vein) could tied a motion coming from the other side of the house,' which might join hon. go :admen opposite with bon. gen tlemen on that side, for a haws fide reduction of expencli• titre, his vote would be ready for any such motion. Nay, more: if he saw that hon. gentlemen opposite were engaged in opposition to a tax of an obnoxious kind, which tax, if repealed, would lead to a re duction of expenditure, he should feel very much dis pesed to go with them—the tax assuulted being, in his viaw, a tax inconsistent w ithsonnd principles. But, if they asked him to go with them in abolishing almost the only tax they had which was sound in its character, though faulty iu its details, he was bound to decline their off-r; because, even if they were going to carry with it a reduction of expenditure in order to enable them to effect the re peal, it was his duty to tell them honestly that there were other taxes which lac would wish to see re pealed before they touched the incom e t ax . (Cheers.) lie rould not join with them in abolishing or endangering the income tax on any grounds which he could accept as justificatory. First : not because it might lead to a reduc tion of expenditure enabling them to dispense with that tax, inasmuch as he sought the repeal previously of other taxes concurrently with reduction of expenditure. In the next place he cou:d not join them, because duty wanted to compensate for the abolition of this tax by putting on other taxes which Ito considered were odious, and which, on earnest principles, he was strongly opposed to. (Cheers.) There were 14,000,000/. of customs and earise duties, any of which he would take in preference to the income tax, faultyas that was, if he could get a reduction of expendi ture, enabling hint to do away with such 1 ixes. (Cheers.) And, therefore, ou troy ground on which he could con sider this case, he must decline giving his vote to his hon. friend. (Cheers and counter clue rs, and laughter ) If his lion. friend (Mr. Hume), or nay hon. gentleman oppoite would tell hint how tiny could advance out: step towards the object which his hon. liked (Mr. Hume) had in view, vie., the remodelling, of the income tax, and placing it on a more equitable basis—if he (Mr. Cobden) mold he told how this end would he gained by joining 1.' . ..) hon. gentlemen opposite, who wanted to get rid of the income tax altogether, and substitute customs duties, including a corn law—(hear, hear)—then he (Mr. Cobden) would be open to conviction. (Hear, hear.) lie did not, however, by any means admit that the income tax ought to r•-main a permanent tax in its present form. Ile was opposed to it in its present unequal and unjust form, and be hoped that the country would have the power to reined,' it some time. (Laughter from the opposition benches.) Let hon. gentle men laugh as they might, but he (Mr. Cobden) looked for ward to the time when the great body of the peo ple would have more power in that house, mid would he enabled to modify and rel . :wild our taxes. Ile felt it his duty to oppose the tnot:ou of his hon. friend (Mr. name) ; and he would ask every one of his friends who did not wish to StV the income tax endangered to join in resisting the transparent attempt of the other side of the house—(ie:Ll, hear)—to undo a system which, what ever might be the complaints as to some of its details, had been eminently adventageons to the great mass of the com munity. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Mr. J. DELL felt that those hon. members whose general policy was to support the government were in the present instance placed iu the m o st unpleasant predicament. ((treat laughter from the opposition I: itches.) They must either vote fur the continuance of the tax for three years, and not he able to look their friends out of doom in the face—(t. Hear, bear," and Laughter)—or oppose the go- , vernment at a time wh, n the great majority of people con sidered it exceedingly improper to endanger their tenure of Miler. (lAught r, and "Hoar hear.") Ile (Mr. Bell), chi refine, asked the noble lord (Lord J. litiNwll) whether that were a fair position fur his friends to wimpy ?I i (Laughter.) If he (Mr. He'll) should on the present occa sion support the government, it was only because he saw the matter being made a party question. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the opposition benches.) Mr. S. 111E111:EltT urged irecity reasons why the income tax ought not to be considered a permanent source of re- venu, . Ile objected to many points of the ministerial ' budget which this tax was nose required to square, but at I the same time found n. arty as much dissatisfaction with I the financial policy indicated by the protectionista. lie should vote against the a:uenclineut. 1 ... ... 3lr. W. 3.1111.:S remarked that the case of the tenant . farmer hail been overlooked by the preceding speakers, and in their name advocated the limitation of the income tux to a single year, hoping that hi the course of next session the , revenue might be in a state to afford them sonic relief from the impost. The (fIIANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said he cer tainly felt some difficulty when the hon. member for Mon trose sat down, to know what course he should take— : whether he wits to agree with the speech, or with the motion with which the hon. gentleman conelutled, because it appeared to him one had little to do with the other; and he placed him and the house in colisiderable diffi culty as to whether thee would deal with the income tax to modify it or to renew it foe one year. Ile confessed he was not in a much better situation in dealing with the vicious other speeches which Lel been made. lle confessed that his honourable friend the member for Montrose was just as obnoxiou s t o th e o b servat i ons ma d e b y tho meshes for the West ]tiding. Ills hon. frieutl declared that the income tax should ho made permanent, and ho thought it desirable that it should he modified. What was the course which his hen. fri e nd would take to effect these objects? The first thing he wished was that it should be nualified, and that he did not even propose. His great object, the one which ho thought mint important was that, whether the tax was modified or not, it should be made a permanent tax, and the course be took in order to attain that object was to propose it fir the very, shortest perial. Why, if Ilk lion. friend succeeded i n getting a majority to-night, he would not get one step towards the modification of the tax, and he might go a considerable way in making it nut a permanent tax. lie would not advance his object a Single step, but he might advane, the object of tho-c from whom he differed more widely than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did, though he had never advocated the modification of the tax. If the hon. gi atleinan had taken the same course that was taken by the hon. member for Cockermouth and proposed a modification of the tax, and taken the sense of the house upon that, he might have had the subject fairly discussed ; and he might have attained h s object, and, at any rate, his motion would have been consistent with his views. But the course lie took was furthering the views of those who differed from him as widely as pos sible. There was nothing new in any of the proposals. There was no intonation that was requinal upon the sub ject. The objections which the hon. gentleman had taken to-night were perfectly well known and stated i n 1812, i n 1841 , and in IhlB. Th e identical proposition which the hon. gentleman made to-night was made and negatived in ISIS and on previous occasions. He did not know where he got the notion which was referred to by the hon. member fur Falmouth, that he (the Chancellor of thoExehequer) was in favour of a modification sof the tax ; because he stated, as distinctly as words would enable him, in 151 2, that he thought no modification of the tax was possible, and he repeated that on subsequent occasions. The hon. member for Falmouth and the lion. member for Glasgow said Sir Robert Peel would have modified it. Now he would say that hr attached great importance to the opi nions of a person who, like Sir Robert Peel, had given great attention to questions of this kind. What did Sir Robert Peel say in ISIS, when he was not hampered by bearing office, and when he had none of these difficulties upon him, and when he had had the experience of six i to eys er t t o enable him to come to a deliberate opinion. Sir Pecl then said I most my, riot haying given the subject repeated reauldwatlee, f wok the tax ougLt to be on income, anti that there 'lona be so dietioetlon mid- in the amount o f the tan on amount of tho oillerent spumes from which the incomes are derived. 1 never would consent to relieve from the ioc eon derived from trade and from profess aMm, for the put pt3e of taking in t nvidious and. as 1 thick, all an. Just Wainetioe by teal ing mph a tax upon Mated ce what is called realised poverty. I think en offset ought to be made to meet the as. noel demand of the country by the annal exertion of the country, Inasmuch es the animal Income of the rotary depends upon that mitten. Why, that Is really the principle upon which el your taus are tounded—oU throe taxes fur winch this income tax Is a eutetltute. Sorely all the taxes which have bon repealed equally hardy upon the profemittr.al Imo as upon the man of te.diecd property. You make no oistinetion as to those who pay taxes on articles of luxury or Who pay the amend t are, wilrike they he rrotersional men or son reshaed prirerty. By reredunit the tam on articles of poe.. MI Wasik ell ponies equally, end therefore It seems to me that the um albs tax wahli you substitute for those you aye repealed, ViMOM to ho borne equally by et, whatever mg a the source uf a sheir a. Ups. were to iittein;.t to mate the moo:et:no such the hos. MOW be Chekeeenutitb has ...greeted, It would be fallacious, W the same ditlleuaic. whiAt ,ere now pointed riot in respect to the homes of protes-icnd men and men of real property would oocur. ' Ihe principle can 11 guy opinion, be d ev i se d wh i c h would be more just, or, I woodraher sly, would he more free hem objection, than that which you ere desirous of seeing removed. It mu upon that principl e that 1 proposed the imprint:on of the income tax In lee and Its renew.) in 1 1.3 ; and su b sequent eonnideration ban ennflsmed ins bete opinio that any attempt to nape', grelier annual towdm rwforinsoims d eiced from remised property would, apart front the that the public faith is plormil to the contrary In the ease of the 104 lead to connequenzen which I am not prepared tO tonteM- Ilillis Mot which I atone, dread to see accompashed. He thought it was impossible, after reading the speech, Is say it could have oven Sir Robert Peel's view to moodily the tax, either in the way suggested by the hoc. member for Falmouth or by the lent. member for IMcmtrose. But the hon. member for Montrose had told 'them what it wa s h e l oo k e d f or, and allow him to point out ' to the house that it was no trifling modification of the tax an one party or another to which the hon. gentleman di rected the attention of the house ; but he was prepared to deal with the great question which he (tho Chan fore cellor of the Exchequer) thought he ought to bri ng be the house not on some me asure o f d etail, but on a principle whi ch they should be called upon to decide. The hon. member would takeoff a great portion of the cut tOrna and exams dads% Dad Would make up the difforouce, 848 for t land, and funds. Why talk of referring a question of that kind—having —having ullowed the tax to be renewed in sort to a select committee. Would the hon. gentleman throe years, and not having proposed any inquiry in 1849 or not by an income tax but by a direct tax on capital, on . inquiry . But now, having declined to do anything of the come down and propose that Indirect taxes to the amount 18.10—he now came forward and wished for inquiry. of ten or fifteen millions bo rep ea l e d, and that and would have the ta x vot e d on such a tax as ho had referred to should be imposed. in order that that inquiry might be made . (Hear, hear.) 1 for one year, That would be the obvious course for the hon. gentleman to The course the hon. member for Montrose" had pursued in pursue—to obtain the decision of the house nut upon petty proposing a moulitication of the tax, heretofore had led to details, but upon a great and important principle, leaving this absurd consamence—that he wished the tax to bo a the details for future consideration. The hon. member for permanent one, and was supported by those hon. gentle- Falmouth had said at once that his object was to impose , men who wished to do away with it altogethee. tee e ar, twice the rate on real property. (Hear, hear.) But surely hear) They were exceedingly anxious for direct taxation that was net a point to be decided on in ti select corn- in thew: days of indirect taxation. (Ikar, hear.) The hon. mitten. It must be decidedon by the vote of the whole ment ber for Montrose wished to make the tax a perinuneut house, and in that v e ry comm itt ee i n w hi c h t h ey were ono, an d was su pported by those who would de away with now considering the subject, if the hon. gentleman it at the first opportunity. However, the hon. gene felt dispood to appeal to it for a decision, but let hint not tleman could nut help being greatly alarmed at ride otl upon questions which did n o t b ear u p on th e ma tt er . seeing the care that was taken of his child by those who (Hear, hear.) Let him not suppose that he was advancing , were oppoecel to him in all other political views. the cause of direct taxation by restricting the continuance I (Hear, hear.) During the whole course of the do of what they had already got; nuor talk of matters ut detail bate, the fondling and itursiug that had been applied loth's when he was aiming ut the only class which was now suf- , offspring of the 1 . gentleman, by those who were opposed feting distress , and seeking to increase their burdens under to its very existence, must, he thought, alarm the hon. Schedule A analW schedule C. ear.)) The hon. member parent as to its future fate of becoming the just and perm- far Montrose had avowed that his obje et was to mak e the r ent t ax h e w i s h e d it. C• Hear, hear," and a laugh.) There fficome tax, or rather the property tax, as he would have it, were other ground., on which hon. gentlemen the d eb a t e, &perpetual burden, but it would be obviously better fur very considerable numbers, during the course o f him, then, to retain as lung as he could what they supported the proposition of the lain. member fur Montrose; already had, rather than seek to limit the continuance of a and, however much the lion. gentleman who last addressed, portion of that which he wished to retain. For his own them endeavoured to conceal those grounds, yet it was evi part, he (the right hon. baronet) differed from the hon. dent that the object was to get rid of the income tax with n gentleman. lie had never proposed the tax as a perma- view, finally, to the re-imposition of import duties neat one. lie had always propos. cl it, as had been said by on ar ti c l es o f foreign produce. (Hear, hear.) An the lion. member for Hoek. ( 8 r. Disraeli), as a tax oathr honourable alderman, in the vicinity of the hon. member, ' the cover of which certain changes in our fiscal system for Bucks (Alderman Thompson), acting as the fugleman of might be made changes which he thought far his party, rose to support the imposition of duty on forei a n more desirable to maintain than it was desirable produce, that foreign produce generally being known to be to relinquish a duty upon income. ( blear , bear.) iheides, corn. (" Hear, he a r, • and cheers.) But the hon. number he would remind those who eon ed with him in his views of for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) could not bear the eagerness with COMM( reel' pulley that it was un ensible to carry out those which certain members of the party rushed !Inward on the views unless a large portion of the revenue was certain. several questions of local taxation, the malt tax, and every Ile had been twitted with having proposed the re- ether question affecting the general taxation of the country, newel for three years because he thought it would then and declared that, after all their studied concealment, their last out the existence of the present government; but, if real object wa% the restoration of protection. (Minis such a petty and mean motive had really been that which tonal cheers.) The hon. member for Bucks invo ked actuated hint, he should rather have acquitoced in ready followed with a dissentient deelaratiou ; but ho the amendment of the hon. member for Montour. thought the hon. gentleman would WWI grow tired of (Cheer%) But whatever changes might take place in the exercising control, and advising more prudence in the way government he would put no man in a worse situation of their nut marching forward when he told them to keep than that in which he stuud himself. (Cheers.) Nu man back. (Ileur, hear.) They would still go on breaking the looking at the course which events had taken Inc the last line, and tiring off their muskets when he wished them to four years could env what might happen in the next six reserve their tire, until at length he would be compelled en or eight month.; and he die nut wish that either he or say to them, " You are too bad, I really cannot march his successor should have to deal—whatever circumstances through Coventry with you." (Cheers and laughter.) might he taking place at the time—should have to deal The hon. member far Bucks next charged the hon. Ineril• with a matter of such importance and magnitude. her for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) with the dreadful (Cheers.) By proposing the renewal for three years, offence of making speeches in other plate a Now, there he did not preclude the consideration of the quer were lulu rs as well as the hon. member fur the West Riding tion the next year, if such a ere the will liable to thatcharge.(llear.) litheArai-corn law league made of the ministry of th e day ; but he did not r en d er it imp - speeches in Covent-garden, surely the protectionists mado native to deal with a great and difficult matter whatever speeches in Drury-lane. (Cheer.) If the members of the might he the state of the country. lie did not think it Anti-ern law league carried their speeches at times be. would be for the benefit of the nation that they should yond the bounds of discretion, it surely should to reinem have a financial crisis every year. On the contrary, lie con- land that there was such language used oa the oppoeite sidered that would be most unfortunate, prejudicial, and side, that "if protection we re not reston el 100, 10 e 0 dangerous. Ile hoped, therefore, that a majority of the men were prepared to follow a leader." (Ministerial house would reject the amendment, and that th e , finances cheers.) They read these things in speeches out of doors, of the country would mein eur the future that stability and if something to the sane effect was hearth in that upon which the credit and privet of this country had bowie, how could it be supposed that anything el,. save the rested. (Cheers.) restoration of protection was the object in view ? (Hear, Mr. DISILtELI said the question before the committee hear.) After all, the character of the motion of the hon. was whether the property tax should be renewed fur three m e mlwr for Moutrose had been changed by the support years or for one. That was the real question upon which that had beim given it. The bon. gentleman wished the Min they had to decide. The intendment to the motion of the position of the LIZ for one year, and ilea theeliffieulty of ire ministry, that it be for one year only, had ikVII made by a uspiality should be adjusted by inquiry. However, the distinguished member of the gentlemen who support the supperter% of the hon. gentleman did not deelan. such to bit govenuneut—(a laugh)—and all the argument had been their object, for they wanted no inquiry iit all. (Hear. addressed to that (the iuppgaition) side of the house. The hear.) The hon. member for Buck', alone stated that such hon. member for the Weet Riding (Mr. Cobden) had said was his a b ject. He, therefore, thought the hon. member that there WWI no common object between the member for for NiollifOM, even though he shout.' succeed. would nut Montrose and the hon. members ou the proteetioniet be meter the attainment of his object than before. Ho side of the house, who had already declared their thought h on . mem b ers opposite would not go into the lobby intention of supporting him. Now, the reason t h a t w i t h a vise to 311j11.4 the tax, but to put an endto it, and ho (Mr. Disraeli) supported the motion of the create such a deficiency that their favourite view tend ola hon. member for Montrose woe, that he thought the maces- ject —the restoration of duty on foreign imports, grain es ment that was promneel under the renewed property tax peciolly—should be restored to the country. (Hear, was not fair—(cheers); and that he thought it not impos- !leer.) The language s p o k en i n that respect that night Bible to remove that unteini e ss. (Ch eers .) B ut it bad was not at all equivocal. Tho honourable number been said that hon. gentlemen had supported that uncurl- for Devonshire, in supporting the motion, l e ctured th e m meat for other reason.; but let them see if th ere was any on the necessity of following the example of the United justice in that allegatiuu. The hon. member for Wilts, Statue, where native industry was protected. But every answering the hon, member for Westmoreland, said that mason knew that the manufacturers of this country he had proposed a duty upon foreign corn ; but the worthy needed not pr utection. Wheu their protection was alderman had not, iu feet, meek. the slightest allusion to taken away they were not sufferers, lk-e111.141: they 1 the subject. The worthy alderman had, it was true, pro- went into the market.. of the world and competed !posed gaspspecific for the deficiency which the right hon. with o th er producers on equal tenni. Therefore the only gentleman ad predicted--namely, by dealing with persons requiring protection for native industry were Blob') the terminable annuities which would end between that who formerly enjoyed it, namely, the l a nd e d hitereas, period and 1860-07. (Cheers.) The hon. members fur De- ( Hear , hear.) When in 1812 the differential duties were vonshire and for Wiltshire, and his noble friend the member much diatinielied in regard to some article, of manufacture fur Stamford, had been equally inisrepressenteel. (Hear, many e. , nstituents of his (Lord John Russia's) came to hear.) The hon. number for the West Riding had said him and requested that he would not vote fur the that the conduct of the protectionists was too transparent ; tariff propoeed by Sir Robert l'eel. They represented that !and he described the income tax us the foundation of our they cued,' bear competition with the foreign producer if prosperity, and the only guarantee of our future fortunes.. not made to pay an Mere:wed price for flied in consegn e uco (Laughter.) %Yell, but h e h e ld i n hi s b aud 4 spirit, of th e aitificied scarceness caused by the corn laws. Ho nut delivered in that femme but in a place aleatat (Lent J. Russell) frankly stated that he could net comply as famous, and which had had a great influence upon their with their request, and should vote for the diminution of legislature. It was a speech, described us a speech by Mr. duty on articles of manufacture, at the sante Bute salting Cobden on the income tax iu 181.1 befere the repeal of the his opinion th•tt the country would not long submit to corn law, : "The income tax," mid he, "is a fungus foreign competition together with an artificially high price growing front the tree of monopoly"—(loud cheers)—and in food. (Ilear, hear.) He was justified in so saying, be of that great monupey the corn laws; those laws render cause in a few years protection was done away with. that tax necessary. (Ilenewed cheers.) Talk of popular (Ilene, hear.) His (Lord John Russell's) opinions opinion—ho knew itot how they could value it enough when on the income tax had been referred to in the course of the they saw that population so doctored, and instructed, and debate. In 1812 he (Lord J. Russell) oppueeel the income deluded, and yet in the main judging rightly and justly. tax, and he then thought lie was justified in that uppoei (Hear.) Mr. Cobden, in the proplte•tic view in which lie lion; for he thought that if the differential duty un corn had indulged so successfully, went on to say that with and timber was reduced then there would be no necessity free trade there would be nu income tax. (Cheers, which to iiiipate the income tax. In 181.1 he supported the tax nit Lusted some minutes.) Was it to be tolerated that the th e ;remind. of th e great benefit that would be receired as a huu. member should charge the only suffering (gees with compensation. On that occasion he admitted it was liable acting on pretended motives ? (Cheers.) The hon. to the objection of inequality, and he could not deny that member for the West Riding, playing the critic on it was still liable to that objection. Ile could not see in hi% friend and colleague, blamed hint for the course he had what manner these objections could be removed : and taken, told him that he had got the innocent member for he feared that these who thought they could be St..llbane into a serape—(greet laughter) —said that 140 removed would find, when they came to examine protectionists had come down to take the hon. mover of the the question of imposing a lesser tax on pro amendment ut his wont, and that fret trade trembled and fee,ionel men than on mall landholders, the dila tottered to its base. (Hear, hear.) lie said that had the culty to be very great, if not insuperable. (ITear, hear.) hon. member for Montrose brought forward th e question At the semi, time he (Lord J. Russell) said th a t the only properly, and tailed attention to the inequitible man- way in which the income tax could ridof by - be got ner in which' the profits on trades alit' professions were diminution of protection, opening new markets, and assessed ho would not have endangered the existence furnishing all increased demand for labour, in which case of the government; but would have been sure of they might look forward to the abolition of the tax. The being well beaten , Inceuse he would h ave t a k en a were his opinions in 1815. It was iiu lil * se past eto conceal the straightforward course. Then, why did not th e hon tom- fact that th e h on . members in opposition that night s looked ' her for the efleet Riding take that course himself ? Why f or a substitute to the income tax in a return toprotectie had ho not made that proposition? (lieu', heir.) Because duties. In former times, when these duties exi s ted, the he had an idea that these terrible protectionists were not, nation was dependent for its food on the soil, and not on after all, so callous to the sufferings of professional men as foreign countries. But that state of things existed no he would have the house believe. (heer, hear.) Let the longer for the benefit of one interest in the country, enabling hen. member bring forward that proposition iu which he the farmers to pay rent to their landlords. The duty, how was interested, and state his case; but l ie (M r. Di srae li ) ever moderate, involved o ne o f two consequence., Either would not guarantee that h e wou ld b e d e f eated by that a moder a t e fixed duty did not ra i se the price of Pe - co * or it large majority which he su pp ose d. Alt er t h at fair warning, did. In ono case farmer% were enabled to r e , y high let not the hon. member accuse others of veiling, und e r a rents; whilst in the absence i of a fixed duty eliscon discuouion of the merits of the assessment of professional tent was caused amongst that clots. (Rear, hear ) income, an attack on the new commercial system. (Hear, 'They hadyesterday magnificentsight in this ' *- a hear.) Let not the house be diverted from the i s eu e . before which was Ki wi,- • yang on many accounts. (Hear, hear, and them coma the old ruse of ere iug out, " This is a reversal of " Question" front Col. Sibthorp ) It •• ' was gratifying to see our rcial policy." (Hear, hear.) Our commercial that this nation and the other - . • nations of the erode were policy, whatever its merit, or its deficiencies, was too vast a assembled in one place together,with the various products creation to be shaken by a chance veto in that house. of talent and of 'industry . e ( en, hear.) It was irretify (Hear, hear.) That was ant the way in which they hie to see that the means had been 'lined of placing in a meant to small it, should they feel it their duty to take that splendid and ma g nificent • ' • ; building those thrum. prod e course. (Hear, hem.) They should not be diverted from e' i , • u ions. ((tear, tear.) But what was the most gretifring of ' taking a frank course on all subjects in that house because all was to see the e—(elieers great mass of the peopl ) an hon. gentleman, fearing lest the government should be some said amoun . tang to five hundred thousand, whilst embarrassed, rose and (Iprotested, for the five hundredth others said it was as nearer to one . milliuu ethi time, that they were seeking to re establish the abrogated biting the utmost good humour , with contentment corn laws. ltegarding the income tax as a temporary mea- i n their countenances and loyalty in their hearts—a:lv:ere) sure and introducing a greater degree of dir ec t taxation assembled to witness the splendid spectacle exhibited he intotthe stem of this country, hon, gentl emen on both fore them. (Hear.) These people, some of them in poor sides had been induced to submit to principles on which and mean habiliments, showing that it was difficult for direct taxation ought never to have been established. For them by their industry to ecru a subeistence, saw, without those who were sincere in their support of direct taxation,• envy, without repining or complaint, the splendid equi and wished to see it enter largely into the financial system aof the rich pass before them, because as Inc believed of the country, might rest assured that unless they made it pages fel t that no injustice was exercised toward', them. I universal, direct taxation never could succeed. (near. (Ch y ' heat.) They must ?peke it as universal in its application mrs.) But if they were to be told that the rich derived as indirect taxation, if they really intended it to be a por. h their !Tomes and the means of supporting their equipages y rafting the price of their dally food, they could then no tion of the financial system. (Hear, hear.) Nothing was longer expect to see pleasing or Joyful countenances, nor more popular out of doors than direct taxation—with thew could they * who were not directly taxed. (Cheers.) 'This w as not authorities, the M ret tr enee to the their institutions; b u t un taxation, but confiscation. 'The evil was not only expert- flue contrarythey might eneed by the classes who were taxed; let the system be con- di .content following the imposition of an wallet law. tinned, and enforced on a greater scale, as was the tendency (Cheers.) lie had felt it to be necessary then * to argue ues ta present legislation, and they would attack the ton in ta' ' is manner in consequence of what had passed In capital of the country, and thus diminish the means theof the debate. Otherwise he should have been of employment. (Hear, hear.) For thole reasons he felt course content to argue it solely on the ground of theexpediency of bound to support the ;imenulinent. Were it one that wo Id e imposing the Income tax for one ye ar or for three years. On negative the imp os iti on o f an i ncome tax, he would nut that ground he should have argued that as the nation was vote for it ; but as it die not interfere with the financial one of ' • hott ins prer: l cipal powers of the world, it would hath arrangements either of this year or the next, but gave am ple time to the government to meet the difficulties, and be- of a prove a ent and uneafe to risk the duration consider ble part of its income : he should Cause he was sure that no government would attempt to have argued that as this Ur was liable to ob meet these difficulties and redress these grievances —unless • eectio which even none of its promoters could corn such a course was taken, he would support the amend . - i as • ment. (Hear, hear.) p etely gamey it was the mor e necessary that it should not 1 by year be subjeceedto popular discussion ;he should Lord J. RUSSELL said , that if the house was placed in il a e r e ' - argued that at this time, a ve all, it was desirable to any difficulty on the questiun now before it, it was owing to „h,. - • ' s ,w that their financial system was sound and solid. the course which the hon. member for Montrose had taken mar he.) These were considerations which, as they in endeavouring to promote his own views and proposi- a ( ffe c . te'd this whole house, so they should more peculiarly to m.. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentlemen said he wished air . . vet those who took a more conservutire view on the sub for a permanent tax on property, Inc direct taxation, in pr • • Jed. The noble marquis the member for Stamford asked ferencc to indirect, and for a modificution of the present pint to mark with attention the declaration of his tax on property and incline. The mineral l . usua , and par- hon friend that he wished for d' liamentary way of proceeding to ellect such an °levet, • • must universal and large in amount, because he thought it would have been to propose these modifications when the would cauet, those who were subject to it to be diseontented income tax was before the house, and if those modifications with the amount and extent of those establishments wluch were assented to, then to propose that the tax, instead of being for three ears, should be the government considered to be necessary for the safety, the honour, and power of the country. (Cheer.) Ile did of permanent duration. But the hon gentleman said he remark that observation, but the moral he drew from it was could not take that course., as it was a matter of acknow- different front that of the noble marquis. Ile did iudeod lodged difficulty to make the tax equal and just: he there- Eerily draw the moral indicated by the noble marquis, but fore called for inquiry. How came it that du •g t ` alto drew from it the moral, that it wan not desirable) whole time the income tax had lasted, from 1842 to lasli that this tax, which produced more than 5,000,0001. a year, he had never proposed such an inquiry ? should be exposed to perpetual criticam and examination ill Mr. HUME—I have done so three time,. (Hear.) the course a every lyear, and thereby running the risk of Lord J. RUSSELL did not remember any east of the having the income fall below the expenditure, or of re kind. Since he haul been in the government, since 1810, he during their establishments below what he thought to be did not remember having opposed inquiry on that subject. necessary for the honour and safety of the country. (Hear, It was quite evident that the government could not propose hear.) And let the noble lord be assured of then, that ho such an inquiry, as their views were i n con f orm i ty with was not mistaken in this, that, whatever view induced hint those of Mr. Pitt and Sir R. Peel, that the tax could not be to support the motion of his hon. friend, it would not tend made equal and just with the modifications proposed ; but either to promote the maintenanceof the establi s h men t s if the hon. gentle man was f or inquiry he should have pro- which he thought were necessary for the safety of ;Ito posed it, and should have been the person to conduct that country, nor to the . safety of those institutions which