The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 13. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. An HoN. MEMBER stated that he had received a note from the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, (Mr. G. Bankes,) stating that he had unfortunately been con fined to his bed by severe indisposition, and that the medical gentleman who had attended him was ready to give evidence to that effect, at the Bar of the House. ' Mr. Jackson was then called to the bar of the House, and stated that he had !attended Mr. Bankes professionally, and had found him labouring under a bilious, attack, accompanied with fever. In his opinion he was unable to attend to his duties at the House yesterday, and would be so for four or five days to come. Lord G. SOMERSET then moved that Mr. G. Bankes be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms without payment of the usual fees. Sir G. GREY thought the Hon. Member should have communicated the fact to the House. Great care he thought should be taken to prevent inconvenience from such causes. Mr. BERNARD thought that Members who were too unwell to attend ought to pay the fees. Mr.. W. PATTEN was quite willing that Mr. Bankes should be excused after the statement which had been made ; but very serious notice should be taken of any absence on slight pretence. Lord G. SOMERSET said he believed he could state that it had been the intention of Mr. Bankes to attend yesterday, and he was only prevented by se rious indisposition. Mr. LABOUCHERE could see no reason why Mr. Bankes should not be discharged sunder the cir cumstances; but he thought it was highly desirable to prevent Hon. Members from availing themselves of frivolous excuses. The motion was then agreed to. SECOND READINGS. The Sudbury Improvement Bill was read a second time. The Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool) Junction Railway Bill (No. 1) was read second time. WAKEYHILL INCLOSURE. Mr. BAILEY brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Wakeyhill Inclosure Bill. ROCHESTER ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the House that the pro ceedings on the petition against the return for the borough of Rochester had been abandoned. WAKEFIELD ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the Members chosen to try the merits of the Wakefield petition, that the 'rouse dispensed with their attendance for the pre sent, but it was probable they would be wanted to morrow. NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND.) Colonel ACTON presented a petition from Wick against the system of National Education in Ireland. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a pe tition agreed to at a conference of Delegates of the Middle and Working Classes of Great Britain, held at Birmingham o n th e sth an d 6 t h o f A pr i l and the following days, signed by the Chairman, on their behalf, Mr Joseph Sturge. He stated the following abstract :—The petitiopers state that, in their opinion, every member of society has an equal right to a voice in the making of the laws which he is called on to obey, and that it is the true principle of the Constitution that no man should be taxed except by his own consent or that of his representatives--that, therefore, every man not deprived of his right of citizenship by a verdict of a jury, is entitled to .the elective franchise. That in order to secure the free exercise of the suffrage, the system of vote by ballot should be adopted. That election districts should be rendered as nearly as pos sible equal in proportion to the number of electors. That all men chosen by a majority of votes should be eligible as a Member of Parliament, without respect to qualification by property. That all legal election expenses, and a reasonable remuneration to Members of Parliament, should be paid at the public expense. That in order to secure and maintain the responsibility of Members to their constituents, the petitioners recommend annual Parliaments. Petitioners pray your Honourable House to take these premises into immediate consideration, and adopt such measures as shall secure a full, fair, and free representation of the people in Parliament, according to the principles stated in the petition. Mr. CRAWFORD would move the consideration of this petition on Thursday, 21st of April. The SPEAKER said that the petition should be referred to the General Committee on Public Petitions. THE TARIFF. An Hort. MEMBER presented a petition from Ox ford against the alteration of the duty on leather. An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Lin colnshire against the reduction of duty on live stock and-provisions. • Sir J. HANMER presented a pkition from Hull, against certain portions of the tariff. Mr. T. DUN COMBE presented a petition from a certain individual at Birmingham, praying the House to pass the financial measures of the Government without delay, inasmuch as he thought there was sufficient spirit in the country to drive the authors of such mean sures from the Government in the event of their being carried. REPEAL OF THE UNION. Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Pres ton and Bolton, praying for a repeal of the legislative Union with Ireland. COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL. On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TENNENT, the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Copyright of Designs Bill was read, and ordered to be postponed to this day week. CARDIGAN ELECTION COMMITTEE. The SPEANER inquired whether Mr. M. Blake who had been nominated on this Committee, and had, in consequence of non-attendance, been ordered to he taken into custody, was in custody ? The Sergeant-at-Arms replied that the Hon. Mem ber had not been taken into custody yet. The SPEAKER then called the Members of the Committee to the table, and informed them that they :were discharged from further attendance, on account -of the non-attendance of Mr. Blake; also, that a ne w Committee would be app o i n t e d on Thursday or Fri day next.—The Hon. Alembers then resumed their Seats. On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. Grogan and Mr. Irving were added to the Select Committee -on Post -office Communication. • On the motion of Mr. E. TENNENT, the name of Colonel Connolly was added to the Select Com mittee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill. THE TARIFF. Mr. MILES gave notice that in Committee on the tariff he should move that the duty to be levied on Me stock imported from foreign countries for the purposes of food should be taken by weight. Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, seeing the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in . his place, ha beggeA leave to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether there was any objection to furnish the in formation required in a notice of motion which he (Sir 11. Douglas) gave on the 12th of last month, for the production of a return of all foreign wood entered for home consumption, for the year ending the .sth of January,._lB42, classifying every article according to its value. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man, whether the calculation by which the average of 41s. was struck, included all descriptions of wood, such as fire-wood, which would of course materially affect the average produced ? Mr. GLADSTONE said there could be no objec tion whateirer on the part of the Government to the production of a return of this description, unless he called its impracticability an objection. It was not in the power of the revenue department to take cognizance of the species of wood imported. With respect to the publication to which his Hon. Friend had alluded, he thought it was stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern ment that the duty on all kinds of timber would be between 41s. and 425. With respect to the latter part orfris Hon. Friend's question, he had only to say, that undoubtedly inferior descriptions of wood were in cluded in the averages—(l - lear)—the effect of which was to lower the averages by about 3s.—(Hear.) It had been 'ai first intended to tax timber and deals in two separate clauses, and to tax lath and fire-wood at 203. the load ; but in the amended tariff it would be seen that these smaller woods had been differently classed. RIGIIT OF PETITION. The Hon. W. COWPER, seeing his Noble Friend the A ember for North Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton) in his place, begged to ask him whether it was his in tention to persevere in bringing forward the motion which he spoke of last evening? Lord, P. EGERTON said that he would put the motion on the books of the House to-morrow evening. Ca F OF RICHARD GIBBONS. Mr. T. i)UNuI)MBE in rising to bring forward the motion of which be had given notice for the discharga of Richard Gibbons, stated that he - wished,' in the first place, to present a petition signed by several most respectable individuals in favour of the motion. The petition which he held in his hand, was the humble petition of certain inha bitants of Great Marlow. The 'petitioners stated that they had known Gibbons for several years, and they believed him to be totally incap a bl e of wilfully committing perjury, for th e purpose of misleading the House. The petitioners prayed that the House - might visit with leniency the error into which Gib bons had been betrayed. That petition was signed by several respectable gentlemen of both political prties, and among them by Sir George Nugent and Sir Wm. Clayton. The - petition having been ordered to be laid upon Abe table, The HON. MEMBER proceeded to say that he brad no personal accquaintance with Gibbons, arrd he would not have brought forward the prevent motion, if he did not feel perfectly satis- fled, from the representations made to . him,. that the error of G to ibb b o e n li He had reason beenthat individual unin tent T a l s . s eve ha th d at totally incapable of wilfully committing the offence with which he had been charged, and were it other wise he would be ready to admit that a man of Gib bons's respectability should be punished ten times more severely than an individual in an hum ble station. In .the petition which Gibbons himself had addressed to the House, he stated that he was called upon on Tuesday the sth April, to give his evidence before the Committee, relative to the vote of a person of the name of Charles Gibbons. Having given his evidence in reference to that vote, he was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Counsel for the petitioners, in the course of which he was examined as to the canvass of other voters, which was not material to the issue before the Committee. lie was examined with reference to his canvassing for two voters named Pusey and Povey, upon points whi.,:h did not in the slightest degree affect the vote of Charles Gibbons. On the Thursday fol lowing—this happened on the Tuesday—he gave evidence in the case of Povey ; and it was not likely that he would have done so, if he was conscious of having committed perjury before. He stated that he was unused to examinations in courts („f justice, and had confounded the cases of Povey and Pusey. He had no intention, he said, of giving false evidence, though h e mitted that his statement was contradictory; and he begged the House to take his case into their consideration. He (Mr. Duncombe) felt convinced that any gentle man who read the examination and cross-examination to which the witness was subjected, would be sur prised that he should have come so clear out of the examination : there was quite enough to confuse any man. If it could be proved that an individual had been guilty of wilful perjury that was calculated to mis lead the Committee, he thought the punishm e nt th a t the House would inflict on him, by sending him to Newgate, was not sufficient. The Attorney-General ought to proceed against him for perjury, and he should take the consequences of his conduct. He would now read almost the concluding question that was put to him on the last day when his attention was called to the conflicting evidence that he had given on the day preceding. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought that the Counsel himself was quite as much confused as the witness. Mr. Duncombe was proceeding to read the evidence, when The SPEAKER was understood to say that the Hon. Member would be out of order if he read evi dence that was not included in the body of the petition. Mr. DUNCOMBE could only say then, that the witness was examined and badgered for an hour and a half, and Gentlemen who were not accustomed to be examined in that way should allow for him. What had occurred on the occasion was this—he was asked if that was a true answer, and if he ad mitted that it conflicted with the reply he had given on the previous day. He replied that it was a true answer, and if he had answered differently the day before he must have been misunderstood or misrepre sented. The room was then cleared, and the Com mittee immediately, and without giving any notice to the witness, came to the decision that the witness hail been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, and com mitted him to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms. He thought the Committee ought to have given the witness an opportunity of explaining, as, by the Act of Parliament, the Committee were directed to report the misbehaviour of witnesses to the Speaker. It seemed to him that the Committee had gone out of its way, by saying that he had been wilfully guilty of giving false evidence. That might have been their opinion, but they went out of their way in giving it. The witness, without being given time to explain, was laid hold of by the Sergeant -at-Arms, brought before the House, and sent to Newgate, while he had no opportunity of explaining his conduct to the House. He (Mr. D.) offered his explanation to the House, which would deal with it as it thought proper. He knew nothing of the indi vidual himself, but many Hon. Gentlemen who were acquainted with him, considered him incapable of the offence with which he was charged. He confessed that he had prevaricated, but he stated he had no inten tion of defeating the ends of justice. The Hon. Gentle man concluded by moving :—" That Richard Gibbons be called to the bar, reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, and discharged." Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion. The motion having been put, Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he was sorry he could not concur in the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He was sorry he could not do so, because the Committee were unanimous in thinking that this gentleman, respectable though he might be, had given his evidence not only incorrectly, but that it was given wilfully. He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Gibbons was .brought before the Co mm itt ee w h en he was calmly composed, and not when he came up in a hurry from Marlow. But if he were inclined to speak the truth, he need not be afraid whenever he was brought before the Committee. Truth was but one, and what was truth on Tuesday was truth on Thursday. With regard to the point of mistaking the name of Povey for Pusey, and which was material to the vote under consideration, he was sure that if the question had been asked him, he would confess that he had made no mistake re specting the names. He could not but regret that a person in Mr. Gibbons's station should be found guilty of giving false evidence , but if that wer e so it was an aggra va ti on o f the offence. With regard to the word " wilful," it might be considered too strong a word to use, but the entire Committee were unani mous in the opinion that Mr. Gibbons did to a certain extent know that he was not speaking the exact truth. There were only two ways of dealing with Mr. Gib bons ' • the one was, th e pl an w hi c h the Committee had adopted; and the other was, to order him to be prosecuted for perjury in a Court of Law. He was not prepared to recommend the latter course to the House, because he did not know sufficient of the law to be able to decide whether there I would be evidence sufficient to convict him in a Court of Justice. But he was sure that Mr. Gib ' bons had not suffered sufficient punishment for his offence by remaining only one week in Newgate. It was 'absolutely necessary for the House to make an , example, because when they looked at the loose manner in which too many persons were in the habit of giving their evidence before Committees of the House, they would see that it would be wrong if the House were to pass over a case of such a flagrant description. He (Sir J. Buller) was sorry to be obliged to oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. COWPER had been a Member of that Committee, and felt bound to oppose the motion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury.—(Hear.) Mr. Gibbons had given his evidence with great deli beration, and there had been no appearance whatever of confusion in his demeanour. In his (Mr. Cowper's) opinion, Gibbons had committed perjury, had w ilf u ll y given false evide nce to deceive the Committee. It was painful to him (Mr. Cowper) to have to make this statement regarding a men of Mr. Gib bons's apparent respectability, and he commisserated Gibbons's pres ent situation ; but that was no reason why the House should deal too leniently with him—(Cheers)—and considering the spirit of parti sanship by which too many witnesses were actuated, a spirit which not unfrequently induced them to give false evidence before Committees of that House, he thought it was the duty of that House, when a case of this sort came before them, not lightly to pass over so grave a crime. As a Member of the Com - mittee, he (Mr. Cowper) had no doubt but that Gibbons had stated that which was false, knowing it to be false, and the respectability of the man was only an additional reason for not passing over his offence without the infliction of sufficient punishment. He thought that one week's imprisonment in Newgate was not punish ment sufficient for th e cr i me o f perjur y.—(Hear.) The House ought not to decide on this case until after the evidence had been printed, and had been placed in the hands of Hon. Members. Mr. HEATHCOTE said he had been a Member of the Committee before which Mr. Gibbons hadgiven his evidence, and he felt bound to say that it was impossible for any person who had heard that man give his evidence, to doubt that it was given in a most indirect manner. To upwards of twenty re plies which he had - given to questions on one day, on the subsequent day, when he had forgotten what he had previously said he gave the most direct contradiction. What aggravated the offence was, that this man, who, in a petition had thrown himself upon the mercy of the House, and expressed his contrition, yet endea voured to justify his conduct by stating that it could not have any effect upon the issue of the case before the Committee. In his (Mr. H.'s) opinion, they ought not to discharge him from custody. Mr. LABO COHERE wished to state the grounds on which he would give his vote on the present occasion. He placed the greatest confidence in the decision of a Select Committee of that House. He felt bound so to do. It was scarcely possible for those who were not present to know what was the real con duct of this witness, from what was stated in the House . He felt himself unable to come to a correct conclusion upon - the matter, upon the simple ground that the Committee Having reported that the conduct of this man had been ex tremely improper, the Members of that Committee ex pressed the same opinion in the course of that debate He thought it most desirable that all Committees should be armed with a kind of summary power with regard to such cases as the present one, and it was most essential that any decisions they might come to should be supported by the House. On these grounds he felt bound to vote against the motion. Mr. CHILDERS, as a member of the Committee, would support the decision, and vote against the motion. Sir R. P EEL said that he should vote in concurrence with the o pi n i on of these gentlemen who had fat on the Committee. The gentleman who spoke last said, it was a case of the most impudent and determined perjury. They who had seen the man in giving his evidence, were the best judges of his conduct. With respect to the intelligence.and station in life of the man Gibbons, he (Sir R. Peel) agre e d w ith th e Hon. Baronet who spoke on- that-(the: Ministerial) side of the House, that his respectability and educa tion greatly aggravated his offence.—(Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL perfectly concurred in what had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet, but, as the man was not always to remain in prison, it would be necessary for the House to come to some decision upon his case. He (Mr. O'Connell) would move that the evidence be reported. Mr. T. DUNUOMBE had never said that the man's respectability was a palliation of his offence. He understood that the evidence taken before the Committee had been submitted to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General with a view to ascertain whether in his opinion there were suffi cient grounds for proceeding against Mr. Gibbons on a charge of perjury. He should like to hear what was the opinion to which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had dome upon thisi übject. If the Committee were light in their view of the matter, it appeared to ;him (Mr. Duncombe) that c3nsidering the statioi of tha individual charged, the proper course would be for the House to proceed against him up.* an indictment for perjury, and not to keep him, from day to day, in Newgate, to his great injhry, whether he were innocent or guilty.—(Hear.) He had only to repeat that he had no per sonal interest in the matter, but he had reson to think, from the representations that had been niade to him, that Gibbons wa s i nca p a bl e o f th e ()Once with hich he was charged. He would move that the evidence be printed, in order that the House might be enabled to come to a decision on the subject. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a note of the evidence taken before the Committee had been sent to him, but that he had not as yet had an opportunity of reading it over, and he could not give any opinion with regard to it. He would remind the Honourable Gentle man, that though the House might have reason to think that the witness had prevaricated, there might still not be sufficient ground for proceeding against him by indictment for perjury. Sir J. Y. BULLER then moved that the evidence taken before the Committee should be printed and laid upon the table. Lord MAHON suggested, that that portion only of the evidence should be printed, which related to the evidence given by Gibbons. Sir R. PEEL said, that the evidence giveq by other witnesses might throw light upon that of Gib- ' bons ; and it might, therefore, be desirable that the whole should be printed. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that he had been given to understand that the only evidence of any importance in the case was that of Gibbons himself. Mr. COWPER said that the only part of the evi dence that bore on the charge of perjury was that given by the witness on two different days. The SPEAKER then put the question that the minutes of evidence taken before the Great Marlow Election Committee be laid before the House.— Agreed to. • THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said as the Lord Mayor of London had been created a Baronet, he wished to ask the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite whether he intended to advise her Majesty to confer a similar distinction upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin. —(Cries of " Hear," from all parts of the House.) Sir R. PEEL said ho hoped that neither the Hon. Gentleman nor the House would consider it disre- ..- • SA...MS! %OW • S. , spectful if he refrained from making any statement as to the advice which he intended to give to the Crown with respect to conferring civil distinctions.— (Hear, hear, and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) ADJOURNED DEBATE—DIVISION. Mr. ELPHINSTONE inquired of the Right Hon. Baronet when he wished to bring the debate to a close. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had no wish at all upon the subject.—(Laughter.) There certainly was a general concurrence of opinion last night that the debate should close to-night.—(Hear, hear.) He thought a legacy duty that would impose a per manent duty in the transfer of real property formed quite a separate proposition. As the Hon. Gentle man had expressed his disposition to enter into his -wishes with respect to expediting the debate, he hoped he would not delay the House by introducing unnecessary machinery. Mr. ELPHINSTONE • wished to know if he should be in strict order, if, when the Report was brought up, he should move that it be recommitted? He could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he had no wish to produce delay ; it was solely that he might ' bring forward his proposition. Sir R. PEEL asked why the Hon. Member could not bring it forward at a subsequent stagb, and in a separate form ?—(Hear, hear.) It was for imposing a permanent duty, while this Bill was temporary. A conversation ensued between the Hon. Gentle man and the - Right Hon. Baronet, in which Sir It. PEEL stated that he could not, as an advi ser of the Crown, give the consent of the Crown with respect to any measure that should not be permanent. Mr. WILLIAMS said, on bringing up the Report, he should move that it be recommitted, in order to bring forward his two propositions, which would go to the extent of suuerseding the income tax altogether. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that when last night he gave his concurrence to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he had said that he could not answer frir those Gentlemen who had motions on the paper BONDED C ORN. Mr. HUTT said he had no wish to press his Bill on this subject, in consequence of the wish expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the Hon. Gentleman would abandon his right, because if he did .not do so, it would place him (Sir R. Peel) in an invidious posi tion. As other Hon. Gentlemen waived their right, he was sure he would consent not to throw any obstruction in the way. He had consented to the first reading of the Bill, r.nd had done every thing in his power to facilitatr, it. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would do what others had done, and would not stipulate for any mr.ticular exemption. Mr. .HUrr said that if there was any advantage in opposing his request, he would not press it. FOREIGN FISH. Captain PECHELL said, previous to the recess he had pointed out to the Right Hon. Baronet that unless some steps were taken with respect to the con veyance of foreign fish, the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet would be rendered nugatory, as foreign vessels were allowed to enter our ports. He was glad that he had attended to his suggestion, and that the fish of foreign countries were not to be imported except in fishing vessels. He now wished to know, whether the Right Honourable Baronet was prepared to give pro tection to English fish, and whether there were any treaties of reciprocity with other powers on the subject. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he would give proteclion to English fish, and there were treaties of reciprocity, but he could not consent to postpone the alterations he intended till the treaties were con eluded. Mr. J. RICE thought the proposed alteration in the tariff." would lead to collisions between the Eng lish and foreign fishing-boats. RETURNS. Captain BOLDER() brought up certain returns, which were laid on the table. FEES TO SCOTCH JUDICIAL OFFICERS. Mr. • - FOX MAULE said, that certain returns had I ieen moved for on the 9th day of March, of the names of those judicial offi cers m Scotland, who had taken fees in the executia nof their official functions. He believed that those returns might have been made be fore itb is time, as, in most instances, he thought the returns would be nil. He wished to know N Awn it was likely they would be laid on the table ? Sir J:AMES GRAHAM said many of the 'returns had be en already made, and he apprehended the re maindc a- world be made shortly. IN( :0 SME TAX—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The Carder of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate having been read, Mr. A LDHAM said that in moving the adjourn ment o ft' ee debate last night, he was not actuated by any desire tp delay the measure of the Right Hon. Bart. His in ofolive for making the motion was, that there were s e' ;eral Hon. Members, connected with large constitute ncies, who had not spoken on the question, and we re entitled to be heard by the House upon asub ject of s• ach importance as , this was. Besides, the debate ii of having been resumed on last evening till eight (;( ;lock, only three Hon. Members of each side had ha d. an opportunity of speaking, and he consi dered, tAerefore, that they were entitled to have anoth( r night's debate. Hon. Gentlemen on the other rid e taunted Hon. Members on that (the Oppo sition) side with representing hole-and-corner meet ing•A as • assemblages of the public, convened to express their dis approbation of the income tax. For his own part, bye had not engaged in any agitation against the income , • tax during the Easter recess, but he had been reques to d to attend a meeting of his constituents, which ly as crowded with artisans and members of the mai idle classes in that borough (Leeds) and th to feeling of the meeting was one of uni versal t !ondemnation of the income tax.—(Hear.) The pe o p le of every country, but more especially of Engl'ta nd, had naturally a great aversion to any interfer ei ice with their private affairs. This was a very .natural feeling. The result of a man's I (mbarre 14 sments being known would almost effect 1 his ruin., That House would always be subject to • - the charge of 'class legislation, unless real property was niece(' on the _same footing, as personal property. He thought that if any machinery could be contrived for discovering the exact amount of every man's income, the tax would not be so objectionable. With respect to the timber duties, he thought that the Right Hon. Ba ronet had acted with great disinterestedness, as - - he got no thanks from any class of the community. The re duction would have the effect of making houses and shipping cheap, which of course was not agreeable to those who had houses and ships, and, whose property would be depreciated. But still it was desirable to have cheap shipping to compete with other countries, and to have cheap houses for the comfort of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The latter were of more importance than many might suppose. In those countries where (as in Scot land and Ireland) timber was scarce and dear, not only were the elwellings of the people bad and comfortless, but their whole condition was miserable ; but in Norway and Switzerland, where timber was cheap, the houses were good, and the people wealthy. He objected to the ineeme tax proposed by the Government, because he believed it would place men in such a position that they would "be tempted to commit perjury. By the income tax the word and the interest of a man would be brought into direct contradiction. -He did not believe that after the machinery of the income tax came to beunderstood, that when. surcharges had been made—when the kind of, inquiry became known which the Income Tax Commissioners would have to institute— when these things became known and felt, he did not think that the income tax would be tolerated. The first assessment might be made, but he doubted whether a second assessment would be practicable. Mr. ESCOTT thought the 'Government measureione admirably calculated to meet the exigencies of the esiun try, and just the sort of measure which, under existing circumstances, the Government ought to present to the consideration of Parliament. Before going into ithe question, he wished to clear away certain impediments which had been thrown in the way by Hon. Gentleinen opposite.. They had taunted Gentlemen on his (Mr. Escott's) side of the House, with their silence. Was it extraordinary that the independent majority of the House—(A laugh)—should take time to consider the great questions which had been proposed to them, before coming to a decision ? The Noble Lord, too, had taunted them with coming to the House, not for the per p,:se of voting for what they believed to be the right, but for the purpose of voting for what they thought necessary to keep a Ministry in power. That charge appeared to him most extraordinary, when he recollected that it came' from the Noble Lord who had taken as prominent a part in reforming Par liament, and who was so complacent and contented so long as the,majority of that Parliament suited his pur pose and kept him in power.—(Hear, hear.) So far as was consistent with the respect which he felt for the Noble Lord's character, he was bound to give that charge an unequivocal denial. There was a silence which had been observed on the other side of the House as well as on that—a total silence as to the causes which had made it necessary to resort to these measures. The question was not between the old financial system of this country and the new one. The financial systems of Lord Liver pool, of Mr. Canning, of Lord Ripon, of Lord Grey, of the Duke of Wellington, had been annihilated and destroyed by the late Administration and the late House of Commons. On both sides of the House it was admitted that the old financial system could not supply the necessities of the State. The question, then, was between the system proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet and the system of last year, rejected by Parliament and the country.—(Hear, hear.) The country had, no doubt, well weighed the advantages which they were likely to derive from those measures. Witlerespect 'to sugar, they had incurred great risk to their colonial possessions, and gave a stimulus to slavery, which they had paid twenty millions to abolish. With respect to timber, he knew, from consultation with persons inte rested, that at first they were in favour of that part of the Noble Lord's budget becoming a law, in the hope of getting cheaper timber, but, on an examination of the question, they were persuaded that the only way in which they could obtain cheap timber was by giving en couragement to the importation of Canadian timber. With respect to corn, it appeared strange to him that the Noble Lord, who, in the last Parliament, was strongly in favour of a fixed duty, should, in the present one, have declared that his fixed duty of Bs. was to end in a va nishing point of Is. Ile explained that, by stating that he reserved to the Qneen the power of re scinding the duty by an Order in Council. What ! the Noble Lord, the great leader of the Whigs, make the Queen the imposer of the bread tax ? Was that the Noble Lord's idea of the Consti tution ? He knew that among many agriculturists there was an opinion that, a fixed ditty of some kind, though not an Bs. duty, would be a better protection to agricule ture than the fluctuating duty. The Noble Lord said that when the price rises he would take off the duty, and he therefore hoped that the farmers, when he ap plied to them for support, would remember that a fixed duty was to be taken off as soon as the price rose conve niently high.—(Hear, hear.) He would now say a few words on the measure proposed by the Right'Hon. Ba ronet. His measure consisted of two parts —one impos ing a tax, and the other remitting taxes. Now, what was the state of the country ?et,There was a deficient revenue- for which they must impose taxes, and the commercial depression of trade demanded that they should remit those taxes which ,pressed upon its elasti city. Both these parts must be taken together, and one was not to be considered separately from the other.—(Hear, hear.) The tax which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed was to be imposed according to the annual income of each individual to pay, and, in that respect, there was a distinction between the present proposal and any other income tax which preceded it.—(Hear, hear.) All per sons who had not an annual income of 1501. were to be exempt from the tax, and he did not hesitate to state that, by fixing the tax at that amount, no poor man in the kingdom would be liable to it.—(Hear, hear.) Th en looking to the oth er part o f th e meas u re , he thought that the remission of taxes would compensate those whose incomes subjected them to the tax.—(Hear, hear.) The income tax would fall eventually and justly on the' two great classes of the community—the owners of land and the hoarders of money. Those were classes which he believed every man in the country would wish to see made contribute to the exigencies of the State on great emergencies. He did not think that those classes would contribute more than they ought, and whatever they did pay they ought to consider it as an insurance paid on their great possessions. (Hear, bear.) He would take the measure as a whole, and he would not be captious in looking into the different articles of the tariff—whether it may not press heavily on one class or another, or that one individual might be injured by the adoption of such a measure, unless he saw there was in that tariff any provision which might be likely to cause great distress to large classes of the people. Upon this principle he must object to one part of the tariff. He alluded to the two articles of shoes and gloves. Ho was a little afraid that pushing the principle of free trade to the length to which it was proposed to push it upon those articles would do more harm than it would benefit the consumer. He thought this applied particularly to the case of gloves. With respect to the glove trade, at all events, he thought there could be no doubt that the wearer could better afford to pay a shilling more than the maker could to sell for a shilling less. Still taking the measure of her Majesty's Government as a whole, he was bound to give his vote for it ; for the only pledge he had been required to give at the last general election was that he would support the Right Hon. Baronet, whom the country at large bad pointed to as the man to whom -the Government should be entrusted. He had considered the' propositions which had been made by her Majesty's Government ; he believed it was tie nessary for the good of the country that those proposi tions should be adopted, and there was nothing in the taunts of the Noble Lord which should deter him from expressing his opinion. He thought all men of property ought to be thankful for the opportunity afforded them of contributing to the exigencies of the country ; and the Right Baronet was entitled to the gratitude of the country, for his foresight in providing a remedy for these evils. Mr. PARKER, as the representative of a large con stituency, felt that he should not do his duty to those who sent him to the House if he did not shortly state. his reasons for saying " No" to the proposition of the Right Baronet. He was ready to admit that if the likeht Hcn. Baronet had brought forward a liberal and enlarged system of commercial policy, he for one should not have objected to adopt his income tax at such a price. But the Right Hon. Baronet in his tariff had not placed upon a satisfactory basis the great questions of corn and sugar. It was clear that the income tax was a tax which could only be defensible, either upon the ground that it was expedient to submit to it as the price of some great advantage, or that it would be advisable to resort to it in order to meet some great national danger. Agreeing with 'the Right Hon. Baronet as to the expedi ency of keeping the income equal to the expenditure, and admitting the great evils which arose from a finan cial disorder, lie could not concur with him has to the necessity in the present case of resorting to an income tax ; neither, so far as he was able to judge, did the state of our foreign affairs justify the Right Honourable Baronet in asking for such an extraordinary supply. It did not appear to him a fair proceeding to attempt to justify those measures by events that had occurred since they were first submitted, to the House.--(Hear, hear.) Whether right or wrong, they were propounded before the melancholy news that had recently been received had reached the borders of this country, and must therefore be considered without reference to that intelligence. He saw nothing, therefore, to justify the House in resorting to an income tax. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had alluded to an ob servation of' his Noble Friend, to which he thought too much importance had been attached. He believed that it was applied to a class of gentlemen in that House who had certainly thrown the first stone at the Noble Lord, and if they entered into a crusade against the Noble i Lord in this style, th ey cou ld n ot complain r his Noble Friend did that which he was perfectly able, though not always willing, to do, and gave them as good as they brought. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the merit of this property tax was that it would give an increase to the buoyancy of the mercantile interests of the country. But how did it stand with regard to mea sures in themselves 'creative as to commercial, and productive of a revenue at the same time, while they did not make any demand on the pockets of the people ? In other words, he begged to contrast it with the budget of the late Government, which would have produced a large revenue from sugar, corn, and other articles. He regretted that he had come to the conclusion of voting against the propositions of the Right Hon. Baronet. Lord SANDON remarked on the frequency with which the budget of the late Government had been re ferred to, after the ,condemnation it had received from the former House of Commons, whose verdict was con firmed not nio edbyth r e e t p h people itple at ni etrhieted ; general election. He b e li eve d that the condemnati on w hi c h wa s given to th a t b u d get nay, he believed that it was hardly equal to it. As a measure of commercial re- form, it might be open to dispute, but as a measure of finance for supplying the deficiencies of the revenue, it was perfectly worthless. What single item could they rely on to make up the deficiency ? They touched corn, timber, and sugar. Take the article of corn—on what could they rely fora revenue from that ? Did it not depend entirely on the coming harvest ; whether it was a good One or a bad one, they, would get nothing, as if it were good, they would not have occasion to import, and if it were not, the:price:would probably be so high that they would have to take off the fixed duty. In the article of sugar there would have been a t o t a l uncertainty, depending on the extent to which foreign sugar displaced our own. And in timber - the same uncertainty would exist, their getting any revenue arising entirely from the proportion in which the Canadian timber displaced the Baltic tim ber, which had hitherto paid the highest duty. As a means of supplying a deficit, the budget was totally worthless, and was it now to be called from the sepulchre in which it had- been entombed, and have a new life breathed into its body by those who were the most interested in opposing the present propo sition ? An attempt was made to prop it up by vague and general allusions to other kinds of taxes that hail been repealed since the end of the war. They then relied upon the revival of taxation for meeting the deficiency. Would they thenhave increased customs for the purpose of reviving the languishing trade and manufactures of the country ? , No. Would they in crease the excise or the assessed taxes ? What class would find the assessed taxes wore burdensome than pro fessional men did ? With respect to all that was said about the effect of the income tax on the commercial com• munity, he would state, one fact which would show the fallacy of those arguments. In Liverpool a petition was got up against an income tax, and laid on th e t a bl e o f t h e Exchange for signature, ut after lying there for some hours not a single signature was added, though the petition had been read by several merchants. The disasters in Affghanistan were not to be estimated by the mere loss of men ; they should also take into ac count the circumstances under which these disasters had occurred. It was not like the case of a loss in a victory, because the 10,000 men who had perished in Affgha nistan might require 30,000 or 40,000 men to replace them. Whether any portion of the expenses in India • were to be borne by this country, or whether we should come to the assistance of China merely by a loan, in either case it was fitting that the country should know that England would, in some way or another, guarantee the payment of those expenses. It should net be for gotten that the effect of our resources in India might be deeply felt iii China, and might necessitate increased expenditure in that quarter. In any case the Chinese war was a heavy burden upon the nation. He thought the evils of the income tax would be compensated by the improvement which it would enable the Govern ment to effect in our commerce. For his part, he hoped, that the tax would realise a larger sum than that antici eated by the Government, and w Juld enable them further to diminish the restrictions upon commerce. At all events, he believed that they should not hesitate to support the temporary pressure of the tax in the present circumstances of the country. Complaints had been made of the severities with which the tax would press upon men of professional incomes ; but, it appeared to him, that it would be impossible in a matter of the kind, to take into consideration individual exceptions. It should be recollected, at the same time, that the large inroad which was made upon the protective duties would tend greatly to, reduce the expense of living. He should not have expected so badly of the reformed House of Commons, as that it would present the aspect which it did at present. The large constituencies of the country said not a word about the tax, whilst their representatives in that House were doing all they could to paint it-in the most odious colours. He believed that the first impression made upon the House, by the an nouncement of the Right Hon. Baronet, was the most correct—(Hear, hear)—for no one could deny that there was a distinct acquiescence of the measure.— (Hear.) The Morning Chronicle hesitated for some days to give any opinion on - the income tax, and then that organ of the late Government thought it convenien t to en ter a protest against it. But the example of that Journal had not been followed by the Whig papers in Lancashire and Yorkshire, whose editors had praised the tax as worthy of the occasion. —(Hear, hear.) Before he sat down, he must beg leave to say a few words on the pro posed alteration of the sugar duties. The most distin guished advocates of the abolition of slavery, Dr. Lush ington, Sir F. Buxton, and Lord Brougham, had ex pressed, at different times, views in accordance with those of the present Prime Minister, and were of. opinion that nothing could be better calculated to induce Martinique and Guadeloupe to follow the example of this country, than showing them that free labour could compete with slavery. Without admitting foreign sugar they had gained as much revenue in their 40,0001. as had been calculated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as the amount derivable from his proposed alteration. This was not beside the question before the House, inasmuch as Hon. Gentlemen opposite had taunted the Government for their conduct in reference, to that question. He felt it necessary to make this re ference, and he thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him. Sir C. NAPIER said, it he believed an income tax was necessary for the interests of the country, it should have his immediate support ; but he believed that sufficient might have been derived from other sources to supply the deficiency. With 'respect to the sliding scale, which was part of the plan of. the Government, he did not believe that that was at all calculated to re lieve the distresses of the country. He could not believe that it would have any tendency to remove the old evils. The Right Hon. Baronet, in taking off the duties upon live cattle and meat, said, that that proposal need not excite the fears of the agri culturists. Now, he (Sir C. N.) was not at all of that opi nion. He thought that establishments would 'be formed abroad to fatten cattle, and to introduce them into this country. That measure, however, would, he thought, do good to the consumer, and he should support it. He thought the Right Honourable Baronet was right in his plan with regard to the timber duties, and would support it.—(Hear, hear.) He did not look upon the disasters which had occurred in India as a light matter. Nothing had happened since , the mutiny at the Nore likely to be of such disastrons con sequences to this country. The disasters of Monte Video and of Walcheren could not be compared to them, and he hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet, in the mea sures which he was about to take to repair those disas ters, would send out a sufficient force • that he would remember those words of the D u ke of Wellington, which Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so fond of quoting, and not engage in a little war.—(Cheers.) He must, at the same time observe, that the little wars which the late Administration had engaged in had all been success f u l . With regard to China, he thought that if in the begin ning of the contest with the Chinese there had been a little more expenditure of powder, and a little less expenditure of ink—(" Hear," and a laugh)— the Chinese affair would have been settled long ago.— (Cheers.) He hoped we should make our war with the Chinese strictly a naval war —take possession of their coasts, and declare our intention of keeping possession until our demands should be satisfied. That he thought would be much better than undertaking any expedition into the interior of the country. It would be much better for the interests of the country if the two great parties would consent to a compromise. If the Right lion. Baronet had accepted the Bs. fixed duty in corn, the sugar duties, . and the legacy tax, he (Sir C. Napier) believed he would have been able to have done with a tax of 2 per cent. upOn property, and 1 per cent on income. Nevertheless, if the present proposition should be carried by a large majority, and he believed it would be, he trusted that his' Noble Friend would allow the Bill to be brought in without further obstruction, as he thonght the time of the House might then be better employed than in discussing it night after night.—(Ministerial cheers.) He did not think that too much time had as yet been devoted to the discussion. The Hon. Member for Winchester had just told them that he had felt it necessary to take time to consider the subject ; yet after all his consideration that Hon. Member had not brought forward anything very extraordinary.—(A laugh.) In allusion to the proposition made by the Noble Lord to give her. Majesty the power under certain circumstances to do away by an Order in Council with the corn duties, the Hon. Member said, " What, will a great Whig Lord ask the Queen of England to put on a bread tax ?" Now, the Noble Lord's proposition was, that the Queen should have the power to take the bread tax off—not to put it on—so that in his (Sir C. Napier's) opinion, the Hon. Member had not benefited much by his consideration.—(Laughter.) Mr. TROTTER regretted that the Noble Lord should have indulged in the language he had done when speaking of some of the agricultural supporters of the Right Honourable Baronet. Whe ther or not the agricultural Members had excited the in dignation of the country, he would leave the Noble Lord to deternmine. For himself, hedid not fear the decision., He (Mr. Trotter) had full confidence in the measure of the Right Hon. Baronet. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Co- lonies, that the war in the East was of great magnitude, and required the deep consideration of the House and the country. Great expenses would inevitably be en tailed on the ,country by the war. From what he knew of India, and from what he had heard from persons who had been connected with India, he believed that when they conquered in the East, then would their difficul ties commence. This war would hang. as a min..: ton• about their necks. With respect to the pro posal of the Noble Lord opposite, he must say that if those proposals were calculated to make up the deficiency in the revenue, he did not see how it could be necessary to have recourse to a loan at 3 or 4 per cent. interest, The table of the House had been loaded with petitions as to the distress of the manufacturing coun ties, but those petitions also went for the repeal of the tax, as it was termed, on bread, and he believed that this would have the contrary effept to that sought. Ile believed that the distress would not be relieved by the repeal of the duties on corn. With respect to the in come tax, he must say that he was compelled to vote for it as the best measure that could be brought forward. A large meeting had been held at Guildford, called by the enemy, if he might say so, for the purpose of addressing the Queen and the House of Lords in deprecation of that income tax as proposed by Sir Robert Peel. At that meeting, instead of deprecating the proposal, a resolution was passed, thanking her Ma jesty for consenting to bear her share of the burden of the State equally with her subjects, and the meeting concluded with another resolution to the effect that, con sidering the - circumstances of the country, the income tax, as proposed by Sir Robert Peel, was the best mea sure that could be propounded.—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) He trusted that Hon. Member: opposite would allow that the opinion he had expressed was not an individual opinion. Mr. O'CONNELL said, he did not think that the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down was ; any powerful reason why they should resort to an in- i come tax. If this were a tax bearing upon Ireland, ! he should demand the liberty of expressing his l' sentiments upon it ; but he did not •thinli he needed the slightest indulgence in addressing the House on that occasion. It was his duty to give the reasons for his humble vote in favour of justice to Eng land. Having arrived at the conclusion that the income tax was unjust - and. oppressive to the people, he was bound to give it all the opposition in his power. He said income tax, because if they had a property tax pro posedthere was no one in that House that would sup port it more strongly than he should, for lie might be said to carry his views on that subject to an ex travagant height. The results of labour should not be taxed until they assumed the form of fixed capital. He was not, therefore, aguing against a property tax, considering as he did, that a property taxwas powerfully contrasted with an income tax. He should - endeavour to compress - the arguments which had convinced him of the injustice of an income tax into as small a compass as possible. The first of those arguments he derived from what was ad mitted on the other side of the [louse, viz., that to im pose an income tax, they must have a case of urgent necessity, that there must be a most stringent necessity, -to justify such an imposition. He confessed that that necessity had not been made out. The alleged case of necessity assumed a double aspect—first, the want of money; next, the want of means for supplying that slant. The money that was deficient was fire millions in the course of two years. Hari they no other mode of making this, what he should term for England, paltry defi ciency, than that proposed ? That was all they wanted— how, then, must they. supply it ? • Was it necessary to have recourse to an income tax' to supply it ? He could not believe tharsuch a necessity existed until it was de monstrated. The Noble Lord, the Member for Liver pool, said, talk of sugar and talk of timber, the revenue from these articles was not productive. Now, there were no two articles so certain of consumption as these, and when the Noble Lord talked in this way, he should bring a practical demonstration. He (Mr. O'C.) believed they might make up the deficiency by these two articles. Why not make the experiment—why not try these means ? There was no tax oftener spoken of, and more frequently heard of in that House, than the probate duty. They had an instance of a Nobleman who had lately died leaving a million of motley, on which duty was paid, and landed property worth 100,0001. a-year, on which there was no tax at all. Was this fair, and in the face of it to resort to an income tax ? It was net right to give a preference to a single class, and to tax the labouring industry of the country. It was not just to resort to an income tax until they had tried the other experiments. They had taken off 24 millions of taxes, and was here not one of those that would raise the five millions of deficiency ? They had taken off 24 millions, and was he not therefore safe in saying there were oth er rosources from whi c h t o o b ta i n this dficiency ? Why could they not revive some of them ? He said that one• sixth of what had been taken off would prevent tho necessity of an income tax, so that it seemed to him that they had made out no case for the necessity of this income tax. For his own part he never would consent to an income tax short of real war. He thought it ought to be a war tax, but not such a war as that in the eastern dominions. He was sorry to hear the Noble Lord exaggerate, he hoped, but described, he feared, the perils that attended that war. This might be supposed to make out a case, but he (Mr. O'Connell) did not think that for such a war as that they need resort to an income tax, more especially as they themselves owned the defi ciency, even with this war, was only what he named. He thought it Was Lord Brougham that first said that England was bound in her Own recognizances of 800,000,000/. to keep the peacewith all the world. He (Mr. O'Connell) had heard Mr. Hume repeat that sen tence, whose voice he hoped soon to hear again.— (Laughter.) This debt showed to the world the weak ness of England, and prevented her from speaking in that authoritative tone in which she should Speak to the na tions of the earth. He thought their policy was to slims; to the world their resources, and not their weak ness.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He thought they might have occasion for their resources, and they ought to husband them. Were they safe with Russia ?—(" Hear, hear," from Col. Sibtliorp.) There would be the perils of real war. Were they safe with France ? He had heard the King of France lauded in that House until at last he felt dis gusted. He had heard him praised because he was not a war maker. But they were not safe with France,— (" Hear, hear," from Col. Sibthorp.) They were not secure in their lauded King. They had great peril, too, in America.—(Cheers from . Ministers.) He understood that cheer, and he expected it ; but he repeated they were in peril in America, and they were in greater peril because they were in the right in the present dispute of the right of search. In the case of the Creole they were most unquestionably in the right---(Hear, hear)—but they were not on that account one bit safer from Ame can pride and American jealousy.—(Hear.) Aud he was told that having shown their perils, they ought therefore to lay on an income tax. Not so ; they ought to hold back that income tax as a weapon which they could hold in terrorem for the enemy, to which they could re sort if necessary, and show their capabilities for defence when actual dangers arose. It would be an answer to their 800,000.0001. argument.—Hear, hear). Let them not, then, throw away that tax now, butretain it for the perils which might happen. When that tax 'shad have been laid on, when the burdens were felt, when the operation of it on the intellect, and on those who had but life annuities and precarious incomes, did they think that the knowledge then that they laid it on when it was not necessary, when it was not required, coupled with its own injustice,would not make them many arid formida ble enemies, and raise a cry which was raised before. too loud and too universal to be stopped, when the people gained a ReformParliement?—(Hear,hear.) And let them recollect that those who would call out would be men of intelligence and understanding, active and industrious, who form the most formidable . leaders and fomenters of - public opinion in Europe. That cry would go abroad, and with that' cry, raised so' powerfully, would they throw that weapon away which would be magnified in reality even beyond its own capacity, if they kept it in their armoury for active war. He had opposed this tax for two reasons, because there 3vas no necessity for it, and because no necessity short of actual war should induce them to rescrt to it. He opposed it also from its vexa tious nature, its inquisitorial, prying nature, which would be made use of in many instances fur the purpose of gratifying idle curiosity, and in others to exercise a power of despotism Over private property. Their accounts were subject to be examined by the surveyors, the in spectors, and 'then there were additional commissioners, and general commissioners ; they were authorised to inspect hooks, to require statements, to demand accounts of profit and: loss, at their own discretion and caprice ; they would reject any statement, and make estimates of their own ; they would take the clerks of mercantile . men, and question them. This tax was of that species which this House should be exceedingly. loth to intro duce into the country, and he (Mr. O'Connell) repeated . that it should not be introduced except at a time when actually required, a state of war, at which he hoped this country would not soon arrive. He had objected to this tax as unnecessary, as being -not justifiable except in the case of war, because it ought to be a war tax; because or its inquisitorial character ; and lastly, because of its arrant, gross, and palpable injustice. What injustice could be so great as that of the unfortunate clerk with 300. a year, whose salary is not worth an hour's pur chase, whose dependence rested upon the caprice or ill temper of their masters, whom ill health or a hundred other accounts might deprive of their situations, should be compelled to pay, as long as he holds that precarious subsistence, the tax upon 300/. a year. Take the man with 30011 a year fee simple estate—he would pay no more than the -clerk ; yet if he were to die to morrow, there would be 9,0001 worth of pro perty at least for his children. They might call that justice if they pleased; in the name of common sense he denounced it as arrant injustice.—(l-lear, hear.) These were the -reasons which conv i nce d him that he ought to oppose this tax ; he opposed it, therefore, as being an income tax, and not at all as mixed up as a por tion of a property tax. He considered this as a struggle to•maintain the landed aristocracy alone, to enable them to keep up their rents at a period when destitution and distress existed in every other branch ; it was a tribute to the landed interest, and they must accede to it, be cause the landed interests were the masters. At a pe riod like the present, when so much distress existed, was it well to declare that they were legislating for a single class ?—(Hear, hear.) Every one of these propositions went to support the aristocracy in their wealth. For his own part, he was unquestionably an advocate of free trade, but not for basthrt free trade—not free to le in one article and restriction in another. Show him free trade in corn and he would support it.—(Hear, hear.) Lord ELIOT said the Hight Hon. and Learned Gen tleman commencad his address by apologising for speak ing on a subject which referred only to England. He thought such an apology was quite unnecessary. In the observations with which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman followed up his argument relative to the budget of the Noble Lord last year, he followed the course of the Noble Lord, of studiously avoiding to mention what taxes might be instituted for the income tax. They did, indeed, mention the pro bate duty on landed property. After what the Right 'Hon. and Learned Gentleman said relative to the perils of this country he was .surprised at the deductions he had drawn ; he (Lord Eliot) thought they were never better prepared to meet perils than when the credit of the country was sound.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded to the inconveni ences of this tax, but in his (L o rd Eli o t' s ) o pi n i on, hi s Right Hon. Friend had essentially obviated that by the machinery he proposed to employ.—(Cheers.) But the occasion of their discussion now, was, for the bringing up of the report only, and would it not be much better to discuss that part of the question when they were made acquainted with the machinery?—(Hear.) He (Lord Eliot) had, in the course of this debate, been made the subject of :one misrepresentation. His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Liskeard, did not allude to him personally, but he spoke of all the'repre sentatives of the agricultural counties who opposed the Noble Lord last year, and supported the Right Hon. Baronet now. He certainly did, in common with others, condemn the budget of the Noble Lord, and he did now object to the principle of a fixed duty because it did not benefit the consumer, neither was it beneficial to the producers of corn. He told his constituents that, and he did exhort them to resist the proposition of the Noble Lord ; they concurred with him in his opinion, but he did not know whether that was the reason why they sent him to Par liament. At his own hustings he was asked by Sir W. Molesworth how he should act if a material alteration in the Corn-laws were proposed by the Right Hon. Ba ronet ; he said he was inclined to stand by the sliding scale, but he was not prepared to support that altera tion, which was not calculated to benefit the agricul tural body.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman op posite had talked about class interests, and yet they told him that he had been inconsistent. He thought those two statements could not agree. He always had voted for support to the British farmer. He did not think that a man who had entered his fortunes in a Government was justified in giving u p hi s s i tuat i on u n der that Go- vernment, and theref ore h e did not t hi n k it r ight to e eei up his pl ace an d go b ac k t o his constituents e bete►ee go to his most influential constituents, and said e ff thought that he had deceived ,them he was reedi t :oi up his seat i n Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Therl t ill‘ all replied, t h at h e had not been guilty of a i l they all approved of his having supported tlinenfol e Hon. Bar onet . Wi th regard to the tariff he m e ° he was not a t t h at t i me able to give an ' tls on the subject., but he would say "eel . se' many of his constituents had expressed gre_ e. e t e 2 . we at certain p ar t s o f i t, which he thoug"e entirely with out f oun d ation ; more particular.re . es9 regard to the importation of cattle and meat set thought their f ears were qu i te ungrounded, he teee ee believe that the i m p ortat i on for many years .`f.kir,g' would be such as t o i n fl uence the marl i ets of this e . 00 dom. With regard to th e i ncome tae; he theugetobi not necessary to say much on that question, he te ll T i e it would be better for H on . Gentlemen, who had a ll mated that some tax w as necessary, shoul d have 1103 out what tax was better- —(Hear, bear.) T h ee of pointed out the assessed taxes ; but he thetee' ore had been shown by his Hon. Friend to peeete e e unequally than the inco me t ax o n the poorer ee'efisi hut as tke main objection to this tar too that it wa s i nqu i s it or i a l, h e t h ought it wou ld hsvere 0' better that they should have waited till they ret e ere qeaieted with its machinery. He believed that te position had g i ven great ancrgeneeral satisfaction. e s y Mr. HAWES said it afforded him a great deal l e e tisfaction that the Noble Lord who had just sat e pee and who ans were d t h e Ri g h t Hon. and Learne d G the man, who spok e so we ll an d so pert i nen tly to the question, sho u ld h ave g i ven so l i ttle of k i s spee ch "eed important subject. His speech was purposely oe t e e el in defendin g himself from some charge which had eeesetl made against hi m re l at i ve to the Corn Bill. Bu t - e di g' the Corn Bill was not t h e quest i on they were ne i y rce gb cussing he (Mr. H awes ) s h ou ld not fo ll ow him a t s that part of his speech.. He would beg to Pe ttl :e strange .inconsistency between the Noble Le eerl the Right Honou ra bl e B aronet. The Nebteesed said to his co ns tit uen t s t h at he d id not 0 that there would be so large an importation of es, el lul be, to affect the prices a t h ome . H e (Mr. Hawes ) sheen eteene° glad to kno w h ow th e sav i ng then was to be 0 the which the Right H on . Gentleman, the First Lord I'' Treasury, held out as the inducement to accept °foie, of the tariff.—(Hear, hear.) Th e Ri g ht Hon e man said that he thought there would be a saen t g o f to the tax imposed—th e N o bl e L ord, a M em ber 600 0 Government, ha v i ng access to the same i n f o rroa ej vo the Right Hon. Gentleman, said he exPee t e ical' such thing. (H ear .) B ut w i th reference to the iq'fotteo tural part of th e quest i on, the Noble Lord had fbiletbie what he said o n th e h ust i ngs. He said t h ere tei i ose was a landlord' s quest i on, and that. would justify • eeer had been said—that this was a party questionl ect iag law ought not to b e a party question, but one tt etbe the whole community.—(Hear, hear.) He en t 5 g ee permitted to state that when the Hon. and Learn,e., ~ rote' tleman pointed out th e i n j ust i ce, ar bitrary " ti e gat e . and inequality of th e i ncome tax, the Noble Ltr te no sort of an swer t o that ;• and this brought hart 0 question now bef ore the House—Was it neee'r e fele resort to an income tax ? Was. the expenditur e - Ge e country such as to justify their referriug to tlt ey the most odio u s an d unpopu l ar, and wh i ch could called for in the ti me o f great necess i ty, and 1e",,,,,ete tional danger was t o b e appre h en d e d . He thetere was most insecure to pl ace t h e fi nance o f t h e cew' e err e f a tune of peace upon such an unsafe foundation• t .,, A were now two disti nc t pl ans un d er t h e cons iderl:etil the House—that'whi c h com p re h en d e d suc h a reeeeili" of the, duty on the great articles of consumption a eie f increase our trade an d revenue; and if that shoa l ° e jee successful, other s o ur ces were open; there would be ° F ee culty in finding t axes w hi c h s h ou ld not press ne- the He contended th a t th ey diminished the Pr e , bier capital of the country by the tax, and that the ' s e e n/ had, on that account, an interest in the eP e4 e be e t (Hear, hear.) Th e o pi n i on o f M r. Huskiesson - 14 -tor alluded to, who, in 1830, said that he was adVelyo income tax, w hil e h e was i n f avour of a Feet . O il And many others drew a clear distinction-betwe7ae, both. In the y ear 1798, w h en M r. P i tt proposed ee Sir Francis Baring drew the distinction betel, ir ° income and pr o p er ty tax, an d contende d that tbeir Spector ought to interfere with those who lived by talents and profes s io ns . Th e w h o l e course of t' sent debate showed th a t t h ey oug h t not to have r° to an income tax, except on some great and P e e ew necessity. The pl an o f th e Right Hon. Bertor i r i utterly at varian ce w i t h t h e plan. of the late 113 d ue e ment, and was ve r y diff erent from what they V I down previously to the late dissolution.—{Hear' ) Pte Noble Lord, the M em b e i f or N orth Lancashire, stuff last June, what he considered to be the ere. ,0 the dissolution, and what were the expectan s tP raised ? That N o bl e L or d sa i d the V e .,e t e for the country was, w h et h er the corn monopole' %le° be done away. They certainly declined to tou ch and the other gre a t monopolies, and that was th f t he tinguishing characteristic between the plans never"; Right Hon. Baronet and the plan of the late -44 ment. Let them first seek to obtain the neee e . eir amount of revenue, by means of the removal of Pj,,iti tions on trade, and let them seek to do so b ,Y ee s away with the great monopolies. The Corn-15,,, pee the sugar monopoly were retained, and though " - „f 0 0$ vision laws were altered they had the admission l e 0 I Noble Lord (Eliot) that the alterations w °11 , 1 0 . 1 11 , 6 much benefit the consumer.—(Hear, bear.) But same time' they exposed the labourer of this o , ll _,,ar e the competition of the foreigner. He acknowleaFe'j the alterations would be beneficial, but he regre tt ert e s :e the weak, and not the powerful, monopolies tacked. Those great monopolies were. the e sti , tir, • the nation a l di stress , an d therefore it was theseeele should be attacked. The Noble Lord ( 6 , t ; l be r , said that the Corn-law of the Noble Lord, the "''„ite e l' for London, was scouted ; but by whom was it se cs eesee thase-counties which returned - Metiebers f ev° e - ore el e to the Corn-law,, monopoly, and they had ne t e pee what was the faeresentation of the Noble Lord r u ; b e , ing county conetituencies.—(Hear, hear.) B ee teil l e country he believed was beginning to open its 0 * ce ho, real nature of the question, and at a late MeetTe eli ( e at Ralston, the farmers said they preferred a fix lant' e :/ to the plan of the Government, and carried a rese t, ee to that effect. The Noble Lord proposed last year b Y nt ialb er , • duty ()les. on °ore, and by a reduction of the duties eee et re,: and sugar, to meet the exigencies of the ene e oe and the late ' Chancellor of - the Excheenereeire that he believed by th ose means h e s h o uld r e f the money enough t o supp l y t h e d e fi c i enc ies_ I. ° o be country, and t v .that he did not thi n k be vf : l ote t ; compelled to have r ecourse to an i ssue o f Elci eve le bills.—(Hear.) And if the Right Hon. Barone t , be r e ; reduction in the tariff, let it be recollected tht od e ( quired money in hand to supply the deficiency "' b eve l occasion. But the Noble Lord did not content ett with opposing the plan of the Right- Hon. B B u r° a n n e he showed there were other sources &Zan whic h "1161 mentation of the revenue could be made without bel i e y recourse to an income tax. He (Mr. Hawe s) bece . L' 4B there was no necessity for resorting to such a tax o f IR they were paying off at that moment 2,000,0 0 national debt. .Mr. MASTERMAN asked when ? Mr. HAWES would show that it was so from j e e r "e which were e qu a lly access ibl e to the Hon Diet Neu to himself. There was a paper l a id, b e fore r e on the 22d o f J une. 18 41, b y the Secretary o f t't e lea sury. which s h owe d ' t h at b etween 1831 and 1841 thtejeeti, paid 22i milli ons o f t h e nat i onal debt and th e y going on at the same rate of payment.—(Chee rs ' ea 1 0 1 amount of the debt i n 1831, was e 38,549,9-03 1. , e ce 1841, it was. 815,957,9361., m a ki ng a din er- f the 22,591,2.67/. lie begged t o ca ll t h e attention Hon. Member to that statement, and to ask hin t t eete r were not still reducing it at the sam e rate? Hie' r e t , th',l fore, asked if they had not oth er re sources w as te e , without going to an income tax ? and while that 1 1 4 case.he would n ever consent to suchan t etf e ' held in his h a nd ano th er paper wh i ch 'showed e e el which a reducti on i n t h e price of articles in gebeile sumption had i n i ncreas i ng that consumption' 'gig' the first 13 we e k s i n every year, from t h e Year eau etie 1842, and such was the regular indication of r th e in consumption when there was a Til t wee not rice, be a more accut if a baroratemeter in could be appl a "er ieue ee edel . t ee' of one upon th e ot h er. —( Loud cheer s.) we e , year 1829, the quantity of corn sold in thirteen. is tn! was 514,407 quarters, and the price was 745. tl ° year 1830, the quantity was 905,000 quarters. ; i d, price 58s. 4d. He would not trouble the Houee ee e c 0 entire statement, but the dependence of incru 4 : r a, sumption upon reduction of price, and, vice vf o t,hs invariable.—(Hear. hear.) Therefore there we r w ere e sources besides that to which the Right Hon' bu t el went to make up the deficiency of the revenue; who bt , e 4 regard to the income tax itself, every person the t ee tu, spoken admitted the inequality and injustice of the ct.. —(Oh, oh)--why, the person who commenceatbet sn u w. bate admitted it. No person could fairly saY. t to th profits of a man's skill or talents should be sn b .l ec fit de - , same amount of taxati on as t h e same amo unt of Pro ear I !rived from land—(Hear hear)—or that 1 00 h a d e rif rived from th e one was equal to 100 L a y ear .4., see' f • from the other ; but that was on ly one „ te sue e t: qualities o ut o f many others. As an l" to 0- 4e r dt s h, er of the mode in whi c h i t would operate, be "r nvl s and t example of what h a d occurred under the o ld laee t. if • House might d e p en d on the truth of the sta t e nee.n he ealeT individuals in the same business, and living in x, street, were called upon by the collectors of the t . ta e ' p at d .wit one of them paid 400/. of taxation while the ae s e' iee ers nothing at all. And he explained to the coenT d i t hat II the reason why he did not pay the tax. He said belt was not in the receipt of any profits by his busen e seee that being in possession of property elsewhere , 'e r° far independent of public opinion, and did not _eL liivs persons were aware that he was not making ane ' oes .ese. his business, while his neighbour, being 0' of no property.. was obliged, for the b s a. "_ - pro' would cc)-ie his credit, to say that he was making t l at's° l , fits which he was not. (Hear, hear.) le ()Ejected to the tax because he thought it _ en v' too be ar, muchower hear)—and in wouldth e hbaends likely of t t o he iti G a4 o ce v e er 3 t s e ; oro to e engage in war and incur expense.—(Hear, har e re late Government, then, as far as was monopolies,determitied a to nd ra n is o e t a b3 r , e a v t e t n a u ek e i b n y g st t r h i e kill w g:? s K sti :f l " l " lee : n g e r t - h:e . 1 1 ::: : . i l i, successors had done, and that was the reatuteneeoct between the plans of both Governments.. The Pv`7,," general were favourable to the alterations in the e tateleteeuld they sso altered th t tLinqai , s o i a t e ori t a h l a p t a i r t t ofra might esetive e .: . „ be ; He mould ask whether any paper in the countrynot 'ef ported the income tax in all its provisions ? In fa flare): otirl,epossuipteptltaonfatihlattbpeairpesrpewelelibcehs.didltmwoarse notfor ts7ppoororne'l.se by the Times Newspaper. He believed that ne '"" as t he would act unwisely in accepting such a measure whie b . income tax, while it rejected other massacre ountels . would necessarily promote the welfare of the L e t eo Lord ELIOT said, in explanation, that he "' THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING- APRIL 14, 1842. 3 ~'"`....