The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-30 00:00:00

Loud , ct ion wag rail, that SEA and lic motioil ion COW brinX 4 ad looked ante with e Bribery oited, bi L be could rtancpart 611 report ibery Wal sitting tve so re wovi.,,ione r espects ; evideuca ngneees pro,ed; ly report ,t it shall with thi indidate• rovision; ck Rod, c to the iven bf in pier Ist the Made ,iaae and rd time th Cnal me a nd No. 1) t 3 read it was ids Bill flibers. )- aces is Ist the • - our of , s and 201111 W 1 other ig that be In- eti fiat► from iester. to ear- 91 the )f the rgy of from labi a tile lit Le altar shot dutf y the) Ike* strao place a the for Pre . gford the I n of nd of a the utiv° late. co ,kiilg 110CIC Liig' 4 vat or , is ys UAL vfl t:ut rre ~1 !II 11_ - went, and that it was now time to recommend him to !''the lenient consideration of the House. He should not anticipate any opposition from any Member at the pre sent time. Mr. S. BARRY as one of the Members of the Marlow• CommitteQ, was willing to second the motion. The SPEAKER haying put the question declared it to he carried. • HOPS. Mr, DENNISON wished to know what operation it Was intended the .new tariff should have upon hops. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that next week he was to be attended by a deputation from the hop merchants, . end before he had that interview he should not like to give any opinion,, upon the subject adverted to by the Hun. Member. BRAZILS. . Mr...MILNER GIBSON wished to make an inquiry of the Right lion. Gentleman at the head of her iajesty's Government. on a question regarding our relations with the Bruziis. The Right lion. Gentleman had given the country to understand that his chief, if not his only objection, to a reduction of the duty on sugar; was the fear that he should by so doing encourage the slave-trade in the *Brazils, and he had understood the .Right .Hon. Baronet to say, that if he had not telt em barrassed by the slave-trade question, he should have fet it his duty to propose a considerable reduction in the duty on sugar immediately; but that he had not done so, because he thought it might tend to render abortive the efforts that her Majesty's Government were making to restrain slavery. • Now he wished to ask the ltight Honourable Baronet - whether, at the pre bent moment, he was making any decided effort to restrain slavery in the 'Brazils, and inasmuch tts there was at present existing a treaty between this country and the Brazils, making the slave-trade illegal, and declaring it piracy, and binding the Brazilian Go vernment to discourage the importation of slaves into the Brazils, he was desirous of knowing if the Right Hon. baronet were prepared to enforce that treaty. He was also desirous of knowing:if the British Government and the Brazilian Government bad come to any uuderstand ing respecting the period of the termination of the treaty of commerce now subsisting between the two countries. Sir R. PEEL said, that her Majesty's Government were always prepared to fulfil their engagements with foreign nations, and to require that other nations should fulfil their engagements with this country. Her Majesty's Govern inent could not come to any understanding with the Go vernment of the Brazils respecting the period of the ex piration of the present treaty. The Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Foreign Department had always con tended, and he (Sir R. Peel) thought justly contended, that the treaty would not expire until November, 1844. sad that was the view entertained by her Majesty's Go vernment. The Government of Brazils were of a Fditterent opinion, and contended that the treaty would , expire in November of the present year. Communica tions had taken place on the subject, but he was not able to say 'that the Government of the Brazils acquiesced in the construction placed by her Majesty's Government {nethut treaty. With respect to the subject of the restrain ihg_more .effectually the slave-trade in the Brazils, com munications had passed between the two Governments, hut es.yet this had; led to no result. Lord PALMERSTON• wished to put a question to the Right lion. Baronet, which he hoped it would be in power , to answer: .He' (Lord Palmerston) was well aware that it was objectionable to ask, and improper to state, the . nature — of propositions which were an discussion between the Government of Great Britain ,and a foreign Government, and therefore inquiry upon such subjects ought in general to be met with a refusal. But questions relating to slave-trade treaties were not subject to the general rule :in that respect. He had himself -never made any difficulty in stating the nature Atf. negotiations entered . into from time to time with other countries, with a view to the more effectually completing the suppressiOn of the slave trade. He did tot know whether the: Bight Hon. Baronet would feel equally ut liberty to give him (Lord P.) the information n'hiehle.was about to ask on that occasion. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what the nature was of those further stipulations which had been proposed to the Government of the Brazils with a view to the sup- Preasiutfinf _the slave-trade; and whether they would g i ve ci ee o,lßritain increased powers of action, or whether?they were merely engagements entered into 1 , ? . y the Brazilian' Government. He should be glad to find that increased powers were given to our cruisers engaged in the suppression of the slave trade ; but he was sorry to say that .he should not attach much importance to any additional engagements into which the Brazilian Government might enter, relative to the question of slavery and the slave-trade. Sir 'ROBERT PEEL said, that he very much doubted whether the Noble Lord would have answered such a question as he himself had put.—(A laugh.) The British Government was engaged in communica tions with the Government of the Brazils on the subject of slavery, to which no answer had yet been re ceived. He was sure that under those circumstances the Noble Lord would not press his question. r • , .ELECTION COM MI ['TEES. Mr. WYNN, who was heard very indistinctly in the gallery, said, he wished to call the attention of the House to an Act which was passed in the last session of Parlia ment, in reference to Election Committes. That Act pro tided that the Committee in making their Report should state whether.. or not the sitting Member had been guilty of bribery : As cases of bribery might occur in which .. the sitting Member would not be * liable, and.; :Commi ttees wero still engaged in in vestigating, such matters, he had certainly thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to the provisions :of•the Act.—(Hear, hear.) Colonel VERNER said the Honourable and Learned Member for Cork, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, had a few days ago presented a petition from certain persons in the county of which ho (Colonel Verner) had the honour to he one of the representatives. The Hon. and Learned Member having also given notice of his inten tion to move that that petition should be printed with the Votes, he (Colonel .Verner) had attended in his place for the purpose of meeting the allegations set forth by the petitioners, but the Hon. and Learned Member declined to bring forward his motion. lie wished to know whether it was his intention to renew the notice of motion ? Mr. O'CONNELL said if it was any satisfaction to the, Gallant Officer to know it, he (Mr. O'Connell) was happy to tell him that it was his fixed intention to' bring the question before the House. Colonel VERNER would like to know when the 'tight Hon. and Learned Gentleman intended to bring it for ward. Mr, O'CONNELL said at the earliest convenient Period possible. Mr. MASTERMAN wished to know whether any de s , - nuches had. been received from Jamaica regarding the ir:egularity of the conveyance of letters out to that plane by •4.lie Steam-packet Company's vessels. 4.ord ST,I. NLEY, as we understood, said that no corn plaiats had heed received on the subject. BUSISTESS OF THE HOUSE. bir ROBERT PEEL said that, before moving tllb Order of the Day that the House go into , ( ::urtunittee on the Income-tax Bill, he should at ,tensiat.:to ascertain the wishes and sentim ents of the lipase • respecting the consideration of that portion of•iht. business which originated with her Majesty's Cloverninent. He (Sir R. Peel) had proposed to take the Tuesdays following the 9th of May, for the eensideration of this Bill. He (Sir Robert Peel) should not interfere in such a matter as this, unless he ascertained the feeling of the House Upon it. An Hon. Gentleman had given notice respect ing the grievances of Catholics in the navy. Another lion. Gentleman had given notice of a motion relative to Sudbury. The two succeeding Tuesdays would be in consequence taken up with these subjects. He should therefore be glad if he could fix Tuesday, the lOth of May, for the consideration of the Bill. Of course he only threw out his suggestion in the hope That it would meet with the concurrence of both sides (4. the House. dIr...JOHN O'CONNELL did not wish to interfere with the business of the House, but the motion of which lie had given notice was one that was pressed upon him by Perhoits out of doors. The motion he had on the paper for tite.9th or May, related to interference with the religious -feelings of Catholics. Perhaps the Right Hon. Baronet Iwcatld3name Thursday instead of Tuesday. Siv.H. PEEL said he had no objection, if those who Lattlioticert for that day-gave up their claim. Me, HUME said he had a motion on the paper for Thurs,lay,• and if it were allowed by the Right Hon. titronet lie had no objection that he should name Thurs day,(Laughter.) J. OVONNELL said that as far as he was con cerned, he would not stand-in the way of the business of the House. Ile should therefore withdraw the mo tion. of which he had given notice for Monday, the 9th , of May SirJL PEEL then moved " That after Monday, the 9th .of May next, Orders of the Day shall have prece• clews. over Notices of Motions on Tuesdays, so long as th e Income-tax and Tariff shall remain under considers tionr. ' • Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the propriety of ac ceding, to the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet, as he thought it would be m uch for th e public conv enience. lie wa; glad to find that an Honourable Gentle- Wan who had a motion for the 10th of May Was ready to abandon his precedence. With respect to the motion regarding the borough of Sudbury. i t stoo d tor the 10th of May, but he hoped there would be no cbjection on the Dart of the House to give leave to bring in ate Bill. With respect to this subject, lie only washed to refer for a moment to the imputations which had been thrown out, that great delay lead taken place in the consideration of the Income tax and the tariff, through the course that had been pursued by Members on that side of the House, and a similiar accusation had been made With respect to the Corn Bill. Now what, he would auk had taken place with respect to that measure ? Why the Bill had been read a third time in the House of )..ords last Friday ; and it was not until that day it had yeceived the Royal Assent. That circumstance, lie , thought, showed what little ground there was fOr the imputation.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the tariff it could not but be right that every consideration tthoaid be given to the interest of the party affecttd by it. The motion was. then agreed to. INCOME TAX. Oa the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHE,QUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee On the Income. tax Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair. Upon the CHAIRMAN putting the question that schedule D., which provided " that upon the annual pro ts gains arising or accruing to any person resid ing in Great Britain, for any kind of pro perty whatever, whether situate in Great Bri tain or elsewhere, or from any profession. trade, employment, or vocation, whether the 'tame should be respectively carried on in Great Britain , )r elsewhere, there should be charged yearly for every • 2 0R. of the amount of such profits and gains, the sum of 7d.," Mr. B. CRAWFORD rose to more the omission of the words, " profession, track, employment, or vocation." He did not say that trades and professions ought to be exempt from this tax if it were a permanent one, but it was proposed only as - a temporary tax, and it ought to be accommodated to circumstances. Manufacturers and tradesmen ought, he thought, to be• exempt from the tax, first on account of the extra ordinary state of distress under I•hich they were labouring, and, secondly, because-the House had recently passed a Bill for keeping .up the prices of -corn. Now there could be no doubt that the distress at present prevailing in the manufacturing districts had been occasioned in great measure by the corn duties, which had been imposed for the benefit of a particular class, namely, the landed interest, and as long as that special benefit was conferred upon them they ought to hear the burden of the Income-tax., He knew it would be said that theSe proposed exceptions would creata a ueticiency, but that he thought would be amply made up by ex tending the probate duty to all kinds of property indiscriminately. his great objection to the present Bill was, the inquisitorial nature of its enactments. He did not contend for the entire exemption of income s derived from manufactures from taxation, but he thought the fair proportion- of taxation might be levied on them in another way. If an Income-tax were imposed upon the landed proprietor, - it would be 'equitable to tax the houses and buildings of the manufacturers; that he thought would be infinitely preferable to making a scru tiny into the accounts of manufacturers and•tradesmen. The Ho Member concluded by moving the omission of the words in schedule 1) which imposed a tax upon industrial incomes. Mr. ROEBUCK, in explaining the difference between his proposal and that of his lion. Friend the Member for Rochdale, stated that his Hon. Friend proposed to go farther than he contemplated by his amendment. Mr. HUME said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the principle on which the original Income-tax proceeded, and which, ,in his opinion; was the principle that ought now to be adopted. When the Income-tax of 1682 .was improved, the principle adopted was to tax the interest of the profits, and not the profits themselves. They had no more right to tax the capital of the pro fessional man, whether it were 3,000/. or 5,0001., or any other sum ; than they had to tax the capital of the same amount of the landed proprietor. In the case of the landed proprietor at five per cent. the land produced 1501. a year. That was the sum they would tax, and the same principle ought to apply in taxing the produce of the - capital' of a physician. The law, which was founded upon that principle, continued till 1806, when a new prin ciple was adopted. a principle of the robbery of •ca pital to a great extent. They admitted that the produce of capital wet to be taxed; but he would put a case to show that the interest only ought to be taxed. Suppose he purchased an annuity of 100/. for 20 years, it was evident that he would re ceive the first year 5/. interest on the 100/., that was in ten years he would receive 1001. with his capital; but if he paid 10 per cent. his capital was taxed, and at the end of 20 years he was deprived of all his capital. Surely that could not be the intention, and he hoped it never would be enforced. The in terest of capital only ought to be taxed, and that was the prin ciple they acted on for many years. He should therefore sup port the motion. The CHAIRMAN having put the question, Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know, if the question were dis posed of, in what position he should be placed with regard to his motion. He did not wish to be deprived of the opportunity of dividing upon it. The CHAIRMAN asked the Hon. Member for Bath what it was that he was desirous of doing ? Mr. ROEBUCK was desirous of proposing that the sche dule should be expunged. The schedule proposed a tax upon the profits or gains arising from any kind of property whatever, situate in Great Britain or elsewhere; that he could under stand. Then came the words, "or from any profession, trade, employment, or vo.:ation"—there he was puzzled. The motion of his Hon. Friend only went to industrial income, and con • sequently only applied to the latter part of the schedule. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) was desirous that his motion should go to both parts of the schedule, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet if the schedule could not be divided. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) could put his amendment when the early words of the clause were proposed, and if it were negatived, that the other amendment could be put afterwards. Mr. ROEBUCK said the amendment of his Hon. Friend did not apply to the former part of the clause. His amendment merely went to the exception of industL ial income ; uow that was not profit. It applied merely to the latter part of the clause, to an income derived from profession, trade, employ ment, or vocation. The clause referred to two classes of property; the one was fixed property, the other was an income derived from professions, trades, or vocations. Now, he wished to know if the amendment for exempting income derived from industrial sources did not apply to the latter only and not to the former? The Hon. Member wished to exempt one-half only from the tax, and he wished to exempt all. Sir R. PEEL thought that the question ►night first be put, that upon the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person residing in Great Britain, from any kind of property whatever, whether situate in Great Britain, or elsewhere, there shall be charged yearly, for every twenty shillings of the amount of such profit or gain, a sum of seven-pence; and that after wards the question might be put, that upon the annual profits or gains arising from any profession, trade, employment, or voca:- tion, whether the same shall be respectively carried on ►n Great Britain or elsewhere, there shall be charged yearly for every twenty shillings of the amount of such profits or gains, the sum of seven-pence. Mr. ROEBUCK said, the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet quite met his view. Mr. S. CRAW FORD was ready to assent, to any arrange ment that would be most convenient. _ The CHAIRMAN having put the question, that the words be inserted, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, as he understood it, they were going to agree as to the first part, and then the two Hon. Members must decide between themselves whether there should be a half tax or unue. Lord HOWICK believed, that the course they should pursue would be this—first, they would agree in charging seven-pence in the pound on property, and then they would come to the professions, trades, employments, and vte ; and with respect to those, they would divide upon the ques tion whether the blank should be filled up with seven-pence or three-pence halfpenny ; and then afterwards the niotioc of the Hon. Member for Rochdale might be decided. The question being again put.by the Chairman. Mr. ROEBUCK rose to make the motion of which ho had given notice. His proposition was that there should be levied upon professions, trades, employments, or vocations, a tax of 3 1 ,4 d. instead of 7d., otherwise it would be an unequal tax. He had suggested to the Right Hon. Baronet that some means should be adopted to remedy the proposed inequality in the different species of income. He was met . by a statement on tie part of the Right Hon. Baronet, that it would be im possible to obviate the evil ; while the Noble Lord, the Mem , ber for London, took advantage of that position, sa yi ng t h at h e perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet, that it was ut terly impossible to remedy tie proposed inequality, by drawing a line of distinction between the different classes of incomes. The Noble Lord, therefore, after he had laid down these pre mises, concluded, very properly, that he could no t consen t i n any way to the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentlem a n, which he,therefore, opposed altogether. Th e distinction between the parties was this , that the Right Honourable Gen tleman said that he had admitted that it was im possible to render that tax equal, but that he should still impose the tax, while the Noble Lord said he agreed that the tax could not be rendered equal, and that he should, therefore oppose it. Now he (Mr. Roebu c k) came forward and took middle course ; he disputed the premises, and he consequently disputed the conelusion which the Noble Lord h a d a dd uce d from those premises. Ile had three propositions to maintain; first, that there was an inequality in the mode of taxation proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet; secon dly, that being unequal it sinned against the great canons of taxation laid down by the highest authority; and, thirdly, he had to press upon the Right Honourable Baronet the adoption of a mode of remedying the inequality in question. That mode he was about to call upon the Right How urable Baronet to adopt. 110 thought he would have little difficulty in proving that this tax was an unequal one. A tax which laid the same rum upon the fee simple of land whi c h re t urne d 100/. a - year , an d u p on pro fessional income of 100/. -a-year, required little eloquence or sagacity to show that such a tax was unequal. First, it was unequal, b ecause , a s a mere money specula tion in the money market, it cost a different suns. He could -go into the mimey market, and a portion of land that returned to him 1001. a year, he could sell for thirty years' purchase. If at the age of 30, in a good state of ,healttr, he wanted to purchase 300/. a year, the purchase money would be 9,000/. ; that was the ordinary price at an insurance . office. He had taken the argument at its lowest point. Something must be added for age; and it must be recollected that the gains of trade depended not merely upon the times in which they lived, but upon fashion. He had known gentlemen in his own pro • fession, who were making a large fortune at 40, and were not worth a.penny at 60. The seasons, tempests, money-panics, the folly of a neighbour, all rendered the profits of trade uncertain. When all these things were taken into account, he thought it would be apparent that one-half was not too great a difference. He would, with the permission of the Committee, draw at tention to four propositions which marked what ought to be incidental to taxation; and when he stated that those proposi tions were laid down by Adam Smith, he was sure he would win the respectful consideration, if not the direct assent, of the Right Hon. Baronet to them. He would give these four maxims in the words in which they were laid down by that great authority, because they so much better. expressed than he could that to which he wished to call the attention of the Com mittee. The first proposition was, that the subjects of each State ought to contribute to the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities. Secondly, that the tax which each individual paid ought to be certain and not arbitrary. Thirdly, that the tax should be taken at the time, and in the mode roost convenient to the con tributors. And Fourthly, that each tax ought to be so con tributed as both to take and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what it s hould bring into the Treasury of the State. These were principles of morality which ought to govern them m who took the re i n s o f all, party men , thou g h the y were ; and.one of the first and' principles ought ncipleswt7o'that every an see that taxation upon all s h ou ld b e grandest Government, that th e t ax mus t b e leeqvuiaeldaucpcoonrdrinevg to their means. Suppos e en ues. he would say for the sake of round num bers, 100/., was the man who derived lk 0/. from land and fee-simple, capable of c ontribu ting to the State as much as the man who had 1001. income from a profession ? Of coarse, he was far more so. Every man had a knowledge of that at once . Th e landed proprietor was at least by one-half richer; arid if s o, would they tax him in only the same sum as the professional man? That was the question for the Right Hon. Ba ronet . W ou ld they tax in the same amount with the income from propriet or the man who derived his from his o wn exert i on s, who wore out his mind and body in th e most ar duous occupations in life, pressed down by the responsibilities of a wife and family.-- would they tax the 100/. derived by such a man from his labour, to the same extent as they would tax t h e 1001 derived by a gentleman from a fixed and a certain sum? Was the merchant, whose gains were dependent on the seasons and the winds, to be taxed at the same rate as he whose income was derived from land ? Were they who toiled for bread ul the same condition, and were they possessed of the same ability, to contribute in the same degree to the necessities of the State? If so, let them go downwards, and they would at last come to the labourer, who they all allowed was not able to contribute. He derived his daily bread from his daily toil ; and he was not able to pay with those who possessed land; and therefore he would ask whether they whose labou r was more burdensome than the hardest manual work—whose spirit, not whose mus cles, was labouring, were to be taxed to the same amount as those who were better able to pay ?—( Hear.) A great num ber of other objections were made—that the tax was a direct one, and one which the people did not like ; but he thought it would be improper if h e then entered into the principle of the Bid. He would, therefore, confine himself to the matter in hand, and he thought he could illustrate it in twenty thousand ways, and bring them to bear in a variety of ways. The issue w:s, that the . tax w as an un equal one, and if it was an unequal one it was opposed to some of the canons laid down by the great masters of politi cal economy. And now, he would ask, was there any diffi culty in apportiOning the tax? Where was the difficulty? Every person who derived 1001. from any vocation, trade, or profession, had to declare if he dew:od it from fixed property. if he derived it from land, it was known ; from the funds, it was known ; from annuities, it was known ; but if it was derived from any trade, vocation, 'or profession, it was known . also ; therefore he did not see any difficulty, no matter from what source die it.coine was derived. He would suppose a professional man, forty years of age, who had laid up 10,0001. in the funds at three per cent , New Consols. He has 10,000/. as far as - fixed in. come was concerned. Now the tax-gatherer comes and asks hire what property he has got, and he answers that he has 10,000/ in the funds, and 1,000/. a year by his profession. " Very well," says the tax-gatherer, " I will take.ithree. per cent. on the return made from your 10,000/., and I will take one-and-a-half per cent. on your professional gain." 'fhb Right lion. Baronet hail tried to (hive him to a corner when he first propcuneed his views; he (Mr. It.) had answered him'as well as he could, but he met him now by saying, It is true in this case you are right, but there are other people that I could point out that shall be equally hardly dealt with, and I will net make any distinction. Now, he would answer that by saying, that it was; not a worthy answer to say that because they could not do all justice they should not da some— that because they could nut do perfect justice they should do injustice. He wanted to approximate as much as he could to truth ; the administration of justice was but an approxima tion to it, and he was content that it should be so; and when he showed them a clear way to approximate to justice, he asserted that on the head of him who would not adopt that just and clear remedy would rest ail the odium and responsibility ; and that odium and responsibility would be greatly increased by the powerful situation in which the Right Hon. Baronet stood, if he unjnstly taxed the people of Eng land. He hoped and b'lieved that the Right Hon. Baronet was desirous to relieve the people from all inequality in taxation, and he wanted him to show what there was to prevent him from doing so.—( Hear, hear. ) But it might be said that the matter itself was not a perfect approximation to the truth. The question between him and the Right Hon. Baronet was this : taking the man who de rised his income from a fee simple on land, taking him as the representative of a class, should he do more or less injustice by bringing all persons up to his unit—make , them pay up to his unit; or should he do more justice by making others bear one fraction of that unit, and taxing hint upon those units ? Ile only asked for rough justice to a large class of the community. He made his pi oposal on the ground of expediency. 'I he Right Hon. Baronet might say that the proposal could not be carried into effect. He might say that " fools rushed in where angels feared to tread.' Let the Right Honourable Baronet show them that there were obstacles which could not be surmounted. If he could not show that there were such obstacles, would he • be prepared to take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting a just and practicable measure? There was nu quarrelling with party interests, here were no "horned cattle," here were no Corn laws to interfere with the principles of justice. The simple paint in dispute was, whether the House was prepared to tax equally persons of unequal incomes. Hon. Gentlemen who opposed him should show either that the proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet was not unequal, or that although unequal it was not unjust, or else that, even though unequal and un just, it was impossible to amend the measure. He would now move that 3id. should be substituted for 7d. in the clause. The amendment having been pit!, The CHANCELLOR • of the EXCHEQUER said, he was sure that, however Hon. Gentlemen might differ from the Hon. and Learned Member who ha I just addressed the House, no one could find the least fault either with the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, or with the manlier in which- he had urged them. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man had set an example, by the moderation of his speech, which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be happy to find more frequently followed in that House. He would, as well as he was able, state to the House the reasons which had induced him to take a totally different view of the subject from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hen. and Learned Gentleman had justly observed that in all their attempts at legislation, however much they might endeavour to approximate to perfection, they could never hope to attain it ; and he ought therefore to recollect that when he called upon the Government to propose a tax which should press equally upon all parties, he proposed to them to do that which no 'Government before had ever been able to accomplish. If in this tax the Hon. and Learned Gentleman discovered inequa lities which he could not reconcile, he should remember the inequalities of the taxes for which this tax was proposed as a substitute. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn a contrast between a man deriving an income from the exercise of a profits: ion, and a man deriving an income of equal amount from landed property, and had told them that the interest of the one man in his income was very different from the interest of the other, and that the professional man ought only to be taxed on the amount of one half; but they ought to consider whether the taxation levied on articles of consumption pressed equally upon these two persons. The professional man was at least called upon to pay equally with persons of the same income in the other classes of society. He did net maintain that the tax was perfectly equal in its pressure, but he did maintain that on that account the tax was not unjust, and not one of which the public would have reason to complain. The tax which they were discussing would draw from the income of all a certain and limited portion, in ex change for other taxes, to which, if the Income-tax were not imposed, they would necessarily be subject. .The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had drawn a picture of the risks of trade from the changes of seasons, tempests, and other causes. He was willing that the cultivator of the soil should pay the same amount of duty as the owner of the inheritance. He had not taken into account theblighting effects of tempest upon the crops —(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to the compa rison instituted between landed, and professional, and trading income ; he was quite teady to admit, that the uncertainty in the case of trades and professions was much greater than in the case of land. But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had for.- gotten to notice that there were instances in commerce in which men inherited capital, reputation, and habits of business from those who preceded them, which were equivalent to the advar.- tages connected with land. If they looked to some of the banking-houses in the city of London, they would find that they had descended from generation to generation, bringing to those who succeeded large profits in addition to those which were the fruits of their own industry. Would it be fair to tax such houses as those of Snow and Child at 3d. in the pound, whilst landed property was taxed at sevenpence ?—t Hear, hear.) The public could not approve of that distinction. The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Roebuck) would guide taxation according to the maxims laid down by Adam Smith. , Now the proposed tax would be brought into operation ac cording to those maxims. It would produce more revenue to the State in proportion to the amount it raised from the poc kets of the people than any other tax, and it would be in proportion to the incomes of the parties f. om whatever sources they might be derived. He did not agree with the lion. Gen tleman that it would be right to c'saige professional incomes at one half the amount proposed to be taken from.the incomes of the other classes of the community. That would not be, according to his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) view, taxing according to the means of the parties. For those reasons he would vote against the amendment of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. WARD appealed to the Committee to say, whether the Right lion. Gentleman, had in the least degred answered the speech or shaken the arguments of the Hon. Member for Bath. There was an injustice in direct taxation, and yet it was proposed in a new tax to follow this injurious system. 'the Right Hun. Gentlemen had picked his examples, and had taken the cases of the best paid professions, and the regular returns of certain banks ; but why did he not take the cases of almost all the pi ofessions of life, all those which were struggling for existence, and on whom the Income-tax would press heavily. Professions were extremely uncertain; a physician could not reckon on more than fifteen years of professional existence, to remunerate him for the outlay of his education. He thought his Hon. Friend the Member for Bath, had suggested a com promise between two conflicting interests, and he was sure that an acquiesience in the motion would reconcile many per. sons to the tax. They should expect from the Right Hon. Baronet a better argument than had been brought forward yet. His Hon. Friend had not been touched in any one of the points of the proposition he had propounded. had produced great effect its that House, and it would no doubt produce a great effect out of doors. He hoped to see the motion carried. Mr. STUART WORTLEY differed from the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Bath and the Hon. Member who had just sat down. The views taken by the lion. Member for Bath had been grounded on premises altogether false, and if adopted would lead to great injustice. He would ask the Hon. and Learned Member, could the owner of a life interest in land —for after all, under the circumstances in which land estates were usually held, there was nothing but a life interest—could be go into the market and sell it for the same price as he could a terminable annuity derived from other sources ?—( Hear. ) Had the Hon. and Learned Member so little knowledge of landed property as to suppose that the rental of the landlord was entirely profit? There was no landed proprietor in this country who was not obliged to abandon a large portion of his rental. With regard to Schedule A, if they looked to page 33 of the Bill, he would ask why were they to make a difference between the assessment of tithes and the income of the mer chant? He could see no justice in such a distinction. There was no portion of the soh. dule that illustrated more forcibly , the fallacy of the Hon. and Learned GentlemanYs argument than that which followed immediately after, which imposed the tax upon owners of mines, canals, &c., &c. It was for these reasons that he felt justified in opposing the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. HAWES said that he thought the answer to the Hon. Gentleman who just sat down was, that the tax was in itself unjust and impracticable. With regard to the income of the landlord not bring equal to the rent roll he admitted it, but it was always likely to be more than tKe return made. But tae case put by the Hon. Member for Bath was not answered. Ile would put another case himself. Suppose a person had 10,000!. in vested in land, from which he derived 312 per cent., and that another had 10,0001. invested in trade, from which he ob tained 12 per cent. The 10,0001. invested in land gave an income of &XL, which at 7d. would give a tax of 101. But the money invested in trade gave an income of 1,2001., the tax on which ought to be only 2d., if it was intended to make both contribute equal sums. If it were said that he over stated or understated the interest, that would not affect the principle of his argument. Take another case. Suppose a physician, with a 1001. a year in the market, derived from his professional labour, and taking it at the value of the lion. Member for Bath, he would receive only 1,5001. for it., while if the same were derived from land, it would be worth 3,0001. Arid was it fair to tax property so essentially diffe rent to the same amount?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Just in proportion as they made their tax unjust, they would hold out a temptation to evade the tax ; and the greater the inducement they offered to fraud and immorality. The Right Hod. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in oppos ing the proposition before the House, took eases of a merely exceptional character, and did not look at the general principles of trade. The general trader was subject to the same fluctua tions of circumstances and climate which affected the trade its corn. He begged to say that in his belief the arguments of his Hon. friend the Member for Bath had not been closely dealt with, and, still more, had not been answered. His lion. Friend suggested a simple and practicable mode of carrying out his views ; and was he met by any proposal equally simple or equally just? No such position was assumed by the Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, or by those who spoke on the same side. He trusted, therefore, that unless the House should hear more convincing arguments than had yet been adduced in favour of the Government proposal, they would adopt the amendment then under their consideration. Mr. BORTHWICK said that it was impossible by any scheme to make the tax press with perfect equality upon dif ferent classes. In his opinion no cl.,ss would suffer so much from the unavoidable inequality of the tax as the small farmer, who, while subject to all the changes of climates and of the elements, was permanently rated at one-half his rent. The tax the Hon. and Learned Gentleman proposed would be as unequal in its operation as the tax he proposed to supplant. It would make the man who gut 6,0001. a-year from a profession, and him who derived only 1501. a-year from a profession, alike pay 41. 10s. Now, did not the former individual derive more benefit from good Government and the institutions of the country than the latter? if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had moved an amend ment to the effect that the tax should begin to be levied at 2006 a year, he (Mr. Borthwick) would support him; but at present he would vote for the clause as it was, as being nearer to justice to small farmers, tradesmen, and the holders of an : nuities? Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the principle involved in the question before the Muse involved principles of the highest importance to the whole es.untry ; and, having given it the fullest consideration, it was not in his power to vote for the THE SUN. i3ONDON, 'SATURDAY, EVENING, APRIL 30, 1842. 4 ..-f r; > motion of the Hon. and Learned Member fur Bath. In the present circumstances of the events it was running a great rist. • of shutting out the Government from resources which could be resorted to, in times of danger. In a time of diffi culty and danger, a tax like this would be a last resort. If they now had recourse to it, whst would be tbei: means of raising revenue in a tune of real difficulty. In 1-03, Mr. Adtfington proporsi, exemptions of trades and professions. similar to those procosed by his lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath. . On, that - occasion Mr. Pitt said that the House ought not to encourage one mode of employing ea pital in preference to another. Men employed capital in v..- rieus pursuits, according to their various tastes. I'he object of the exemption at that time proimsed was not so large as that which his Hon Friend, the Member for Bath, recommended. Those principles were held by both sides of the House, by Mr. Fox, as well as by Mr. Pitt ; both contended that however just and leg al it might be to tax the funds in common with all all lime - lie, the instant any exceptions were permitted, it became illegal and unjust. He did not deny that there were hardships, but it was wrong to suppose that the fundholder was always an opulent man. They might as well attempt to wash a blackamoo r white. as to make an income-tax a fair and equal tax, and that was the reason he had opposed it ; hut the House having sanctioned the principle, he could not, for one sanction any exemption, convinced as he was that if any exemption were admitted, they must end by giving it le, altoget her. Sir ROFIF:ItT INGLIS, anxious as he was that the Right Hon. Gentleman should review one portion of his measure. could not concur in the principle on which the Hun. and Learned Member for Bath advocated his motion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman's motion went to relieve one class only. His (Sir R. Inglis's) proposition went to the relief of the poor of all classes. He was desirous to begin with the sum of 1501., as the amount at which taxation should com mence. If he were to bring forward his proposition as a sub stantial motion, he felt he should do so with some prospect oft success. He was not desirous of embarrassing she Right Hon. Baronet; but he felt that it would take away a large portion of the unpopularity from this tax, if his Right Hon. Friend would accede to his proposition. One of the letters to ; which he had already adverted, stated that the income of the writer was 1551. a year ; that he had a family of thirteen chil dren; that he was seventy-eight years of age; that five of his children were dependent upon him ; but he seated that he thought the reduction in the tariff would compensate him for his charge to the Incotne•tax. The pressure of taxation was most severely felt by those who seldom tasted butcher's meat. There were individuals who had no luxur:es • there were persons whom the butlers of Hon. Gentlemen would consider had not necessaries. It was to the poorer classes that the boon of the tariff would more immediately apply. Notwithstanding that this country was more aristocratica4 than any other, yet there was a great ) subdivision of property. He considered that the Income-tax would press heavily on the snan of 200/.;, and lie hoped his Right Hon. Friend would take the subject into his considera tion. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) thought that the man of 200/. should be only charged upon the surplus 501., anti 250/. of the surplus 1001. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would adopt this course, as he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed it would relieve the tax from any unpopularity it might otherwise gain. Ile would not make a substantive motion, as he did not wish to embarrass his Right Hon. Friend. He merely threw out out as a,suggestion, and if it were adopted by the Right Hon. Baronet, he should feel extremely grateful to him. Mr. V. SMITH would not enter into the question the Hon. Baronet had introduced. If he made a substantive motion, he (Mr. Smiths) should have an opportunity of considering the subject, and perhaps of giving it his support, if he was at all willing to accept it. He (Mr. Smith) rejoiced ex tremely that this question had been raised by the Hon. Member for Bath on that occasion ; first, because he thought that of all the debates that had taken place on that subject this one was the most damaging to the Income-tax, and, secondly, because he could not agree with Honourable Gentlemen, who said that they were not to consider the mea sure in detail, but consider it as a whole. He (Mr. Smith) considered it to be their duty to endeavour, as much as possible, to mitigate the evils of the Bill. He must sa" that it appeared to him to be no answer whatever to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bath, that because there were other injustices in the Bill, that therefore they were not to consider that one. The Hon. Member for Bath had proposed an easy remedy to this evil, and if any other Hon. Member could propose as easy a remedy for another evil, he (Mr. Smith) was prepared to give him his support. Ile (Mr. Smith) could not agree with the Hon. Member for Taunton, that this was entirely a war tax. He (Mr. Smith) believed that if this country were engaged in an European war, that the country would find other resources, even for that, than an Income-tax. The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Ex chequer said that the injustice complained of by the Hon. Member for Bath, would apply equally to fixed income. To this, he (Mr. Smith) now purposed to give a distinct denial. The Right Hon. Member for Taunton had quoted the language of Mr. Pitt as his argument, but he (Mr. Smith) did not think the argument applicable to the present case. Mr. Pitt told them that there was no excuse of a violation of public faith in taxing the funds, but that of taxing all income equally. But this was at a time when there was thegreatest need of the tax. In conclusion, he must say that when the Hon. Member for Bath said that this was a bold and a comprehensive Inca sure that he (\lr. Smith) did not see the boldness of it, as it proposed to exempt a third portion of the British Isles, and lie did not see that it was comprehensive, as, according to the showing of the Hon. Member for Bath, a very small sum was raised by_ an immense inconvenience to the whole natien. Sir iZOBER'Is PEEL said he was rather surprised to find the Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last intended to vote with the Hon. Member for Bath. The Hon. Gentleman argued that there was a difference between trade and pro fessions, and that there :was an injustice with respect to pro fessions and trade in being taxed in the same rate as real eros perty. The Hon. Gentleman had founded his argument on the difficulty attending this tax. Difficulty there would be its any case, therefore it was quite clear that the Hon. Gentleman could not support the Hon. Member for Bath. He (Sir Robert Peel) thought it was highly desirable to con flee themselves simply to the matter before the House, viz., whether it was just—assuming the principle upon which the House had determined to act, viz., to raise the deficiency in the revenue by a tax or income—whether it was fitting to make a distinction according to the sources of income. He would make one or two observations on the vote the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) intended to give on this questian. He (Mr. Labouchere) assumed for the sake of ar gument, that it was right, in imposing an Income-tax, that you ought to make a difference in the sources . of income —( as we understood). He (Sir R. Neel) retained his opinion that if they had to raise three millions and a half, or four millions, under the present circumstances of the country, that there was no istea burn by which that sum ~ s tuld-lad raised with hiss iuconveni enco and embarrassment to the community than by a Pro per:y-tax, and so far from the discussions which had taken place ha v log affected the conclusion which he had previously drawn, he believed that no measure would be attended with less injustice than that wouP. The Right HOn. Gentleman hail quoted from a work writ ten by Adam Smith, This motian referred to those propositions to which the Hon. Gentleman referred, fur the purpose of showing that a tax upon income was more just to all classes, and more particularly to the consuming classes of the country, than taxes on expendi ture or any ether tax; and he (Sir R. Peel) must say that if he had attempted to increase the window -tax, or the house tax, or the assessed taxes, the peculiar class which would have been mainly subject to the burdens of those taxes would be those who derived their income from professional pursuits; and he would say that this tax was preferable to those because the wealthy man, who could withdraw himself from the country, could escape those taxes, but with regard to an Income-tax, whether he retired or no he could not escape from its operation. With that single exception, he ( Sir R. Peel) expressed his concur ' rence in the opinions of the Hon. Gentleman, and he was stye, whether the lion. Gentleman took the popular or the unpo pular course,:there was no man its that House who adopted any course with more conscientious motives. Such conduct had, marked the whole of the Hon. Gentleman's hear.) He would now address himself to the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He spoke very warmly of the great responsibility which was to devolve upon him ( Sir Robert reel) personally for the decision to which the House should come. He (Sir R. Peel) could assure him that when he had come to a conclusion on any particular course he was perfectly prepared to bear all the responsibility. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman agreed with him that an lnconse-tax, subject to modifications, was on the whole the most just tax that could be imposed. The Hots. and Learned Gentleman made a proposition fur the exemption of certain classes, but he did not propose to remedy any one of the evils to which this tax was subject in consequence of its inquisitorial character. The inquisition into incomes derived from profes sions or trades must be the same, whether they levied Zfid. or 7d. in the pound. For the purpose of levying small sums the inquisition would be just die same as for levying large- sums, and no part of the objection to this tax in that respect was remedied by his proposal. His proposal simply was that co:- tain incomes derived in a certain way should be an part exempt from the Income-tax. He (Sir R. Peel) objected to this pro position, because he believed that the plan proposed by her Ma jesty's Goversarnent was much less objectiunable than it. He (Sir R. Peel) postponed to levy a tax on the whole of the income of this country to supply the deficiency in the revenue, but at the same time to make an abatement its the cost of articles of consumption, in the hope of benefiting all classes of the ccmmunity, more particularly of benefiting these of whom the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was the advocate.—( Hear.) The other night the Honourable and Learned Gentleman appeared to admit the justice of his (Sir 11. Peel's) proposal; but if any distinction whatever could be made, it ought to be on account of the permanency of the tenure ; and when he went on to show the difference of real pro perty, with respect to the permanency of the tenure the lion. Gentleman appeared to agree with hint, but he did nut do so now ; he would not now look at the permanency of the tenure, but he said 'now that he would raise the Income-tax, but he would partially exempt those who derived their incomes from professions and trades. The Government proposed to levy 7d. in the pound on all u la .a n s d n l n o , rti vt — ,ho ( lands, tenements, and hereditaments In Great Britain. The Hon. Gentleman said, that he would take the proprietor of an estate infee simple, and he would compare the value of his interest with the professional man's income ; but the Hon. Gentleman was not at liberty to do that. He had not said to simple, the owners of fee " you can sell your estate for twice the value for which the owner of a life dit:dterneostt apply y d ; the Hon. Gentleman " no master what your interest in landed property, you all shall be subject to a rate able and equalised contribution." H —e (Sk Robert Peel) had this i t h es is t, " but N h o e t pound. He had subjected the tenant, without any reference Hear, hear)— taakteanx theof 7 in d .a who h h n e subjected sums of estate and fee-simple to notice, whose incense u to .h t o h n e t t ig en h u t r b e e o t f u h rn is ed pr o o n pe t rt a y t. ; st n x a m e, o h n e ti l t i s a , d e in his property at all—not half such a tenur e as the surgeon dheejlide his d propertyon l ie a t th vicissitudese will of his t h l or the lawyer, and he said, " You shall Pay on the assumed profit—( Hear, hear)—at the rate of 3 1 / 2 d. in the poutd." --(Hear, hear.) In the case of the holder of terminable annuities, they had determined that he should be subject to had no tenure pay 7d. in die pound. The House determined, without question, that a man who had souse 10,0001. i n th e purchase of annuity in an assurance office should be : subject to a tax of 7d. in the pound. If the Hon. Gentleman's test were a good one, he should have to go into the sr arket stn , l inquire what was the difference in the value of the various interest?. Then he was about to subject the holders of office, without exception —( Hear, hear)—to the payment of 7d. in the pound—all those holding offices during pleasure he was about to require to pay 7d. in the pound. If the uncertainty of a tenure were to prevail, he should think, , judging front the experience of late years, that those parties at least should be exempt.—(Cheers and laughter.) All those who devoted their abilities to the public service and the various civil departments were called on to pay 7d. in the U. equally with the holder of property and fee-simple. Take the ease of all military and naval officers receiving either half-pay or full pay, and it was proposed to subject them to the pay ment of 7d. in I/., on the amount of income they derived from their exer tions in the public service. Then be would say that if they did subject income of this kind so different in its tenure—if they subjected clergymen with 2001. a-year, who held property no doubt of a permanent character such as tithes, but whose tenure was short—if they subjected him also to a tax of 7d. in the IL, then in reversing all these different instances in which they subjected parties to an equal rate of contribution, he contended that there was more of justice in subjecting with them all the professional men and him who derived his income from trade, than to say ' they should be exempt. If they subject a widow with a join ' ture—if they subject the clergymars—the Admiral—the General, iand all these classes to an equal amount of duty with the holder of fee simple, he would say that, if they allowed the great physician, the lawyer, the hanker to escape, in his opinion they eould be doing the greatest injustice.—(Hear, hear.) If trade should be unsuccessful the tax to be received would not be so great ; if during the last three years the employment of capital lad been accompanied with no returns, an exemption to the lull amount would be allowed, for the imposition was to be ipon the rate of profit derived for the three preceding years. .allowances were made in the case of trade where there was eo corresponding allowance with respect to landed property. In a ease of a professional man, in the case of a physician earn ing two or Once, or four thousand pounds a year ; in the ease el a lawyer deriving an income from his profession or exer ;ions, surely they had as great an interest it. the maintenance of tranquillity and in the support of public credit as many of those who would be sub ject to this tax ; so the trader had as great an inte rest in the maintenance of quiet as a naval or military ,'firer, or other classes who were included in this tax. lie, therefore, contended that the Hon. Gentleman was not sdoeting that broad principle which ought to be adopted. The eroposal of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman mutely selected ;ter) classes, the trader and the professional man, and said that z'ney should only pay one half. He did not think such a propo sition eouid be founded on a broad principle. If they were to nave an Income-tax at all, it del appear to hiin that it was nanifestly just that all classes of income should be subject to it; and whether it were in time of war or peace it made nn iistincoon. If he professional imenne, or the income in trade, ,ught to coetribute less to the State than the income derive.{ rom land, why should not that rule be as good in the time of war as in peace? and if they permitted that exemption now, •hey were about to establish a principle which they must admit in the time of war.—( Hear, hear.) They must admit that the equality of the assessed tax in 1503 and lemi was unjust. If that principle were admitted, they might raise the duty on landed property to 12 per cent., and on professional income to ti ; and if that were not enough in the time of war, they might raise the duty on landed property 20 per cent., and on profes sional income 10 or 12. The principle they established now they must maintain in time of war. He could rather shoe why such a distinction should be made in time of war than in peace. The tendency of war was to increase the value of landed property, and to depress mimes-Mal entrrprise. And if it were just to make this dis tinction in the time of peace, it appeared to him equally just, and it might be argued a fortiori, that the same distinction ought to exist in time of war. They were not discussing a principle that was good for all times, and he must say, that it appeared to him that the propotition of the Hon. Gentleman was liable to very great objections.—(Hear, hear.) When he considered the whole circumstances of this case, he thought the effect of the commercial tariff would be. to benefit those who earned their incomes from trade.--( Hear, hear. ) '1 here would be no person, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) opinion, who would derive more advantage from the commercial tariff than those who were confined to a residence in this country, and who had not the opportunity which the mar. of wealth had. Ile hoped that the professional man, in the diminished cost of living from the general reduction of the tariff, with respect to the cost of the manufactures both of other countries and our own, would make an ample compensation, for a great part of the burden un posed upon him by asking him to pay el. per annum out of an income of 3001. a year. On these grounds he must adhere to the proposition which he originally made. He be lieved it to be mush more just than the amendment which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had proposed ; and he was not deterred, by any fear of responsibility, from adhering to that which appeared to be most consonant with justice, and best cal culated for the public advantage. Mr. LABOUCHERE explained what he had stated as to the time at which the Income-tax was imposed, and which the Right Hon. Baronet seemed to have slightly misunderstood. He perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that no more distinction could be made as to the resources of income during a time of war, than during peace. Lord HOWICK said, with all the ability which the Hon. Gentleman had brought to bear on the question, still he thought he had rested his case on an argument which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had answered by anticipation. The clear result of his argument seemed to him to be that there would still remain many cases of injustice in the application of the tax. He had certainly been success ful in showing the House that this would be the case. The man having only a life estate, and another holding the fee simple, the circumstances under which they held their property were so utterly at variance that it would be impossible for the law to deal with these cases according to the real value of the respective incomes. In proving this to be the case, the Right Hon. Getnleman had certainly strengthened him (Lord Howick) in the opinion he had always held, that the Income tax was essentially a bad and an unjust tax. —( Hear, hear. ) The whole result of the debate had been to bring back more forcibly to his mind the conclusion, that do what they would, the tax must remain an unjust one, and he was com pelled to differ with the Right Honourable Gentleman, in his opinion that a tax on income would fall, on the whole, less unjustly than any other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had urged a simi'ar argument; he had said, that if this tax pressed unequally, those that could alone be substituted fur it would press quite as unequally, and that taxes on consumption would fall heavy on particular persons, and not on others. Now, he did not believe that this was the effect of their system of taxation taken altogether. He believed that the effect of their present system of taxation was to make it fall on the available income of each different person, because it taxed necessaries, it taxed luxuries, and in whatever proportion the articles assessed were con sumed, the tax-gatherer stepped in and took his share. The general system of taxation, therefore, that they had hitherto adopted, had been to levy a tax upon what each person considered his available income. It left each individual to determine what he would spend, for himself. What he considered his available income, upon that he paid his proportion ; that was the effect of their existing system taken altogether. What was the consequence? Why, that the professional man, whose income, though large, was un certain at the best, and could not be of long continuance, con sidered that income as only a small one, and spent part and and saved part. The man of a more permanent income, spent a larger proportion ; precisely as earls man found he could prudently expend a large or small proportion of his resources, in that proportion he contributed to the wants of the State. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that this was not the case, but that other taxes would fall on the professional man, while other persons could go and live abroad. He ( Lord Howick) believed, that if they arranged their taxation in a proper manner, not unnecessarily increasing the burdens of the people, and giving up those taxes, in the shape of protective duties, which produced nothing to the Treasury—if they could so arrange their taxes, he was firmly persuaded that there was no country in Europe in which, on the whole, a person could live more advantageously than in Eng land.—( Hear.) He, therefore, could not believe that this tax was such a just one as the Right Hon. Baronet supposed it to be. It was perfectly true that this was a point which the House had decided, and he certainly did not intend to argue it more than was necessary in noticing the observations that had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. He was willing to assume that the tax was to be imposed, a tax which he contend ed was inherently unjust, and one that, attempt whatever they would, they could never make apply with fairness to all classes of the community. But though it coull not be made entirely just, the House had decided on imposing it, and he considered that they should be best discha: ging their duty in endeavouring to get rid of the objections to which it was liable—( Hear, hear)---and to make it fall with the least pos sible amount of injustice on the classes that were subji cted to it. Clearly, the question they had to consider was, not whether there would be many cases of injustice, but whether, upon the whole, and taking the broad results, there would be less injus tice, or a smaller degree of hardship, under ore system than under the other. If they took professional incomes in tha mass, and the incomes derived from real property and fixed capital also in the mass, which was the most certain, the most durable, and the best able to bear taxation ? He could point out individual ca , es of persons deriv ing income from land, which could only continue a short time, on whom it would be hard and unjust to impose the same amount of tax as that laid on persons of incomes of a mere durable kind. In the case of a dowager of a great age, it might be cruel indeed to impose the same tax as on income from land in perpetuity. It was perfectly true that the Hon. Gentleman might point to these cases of injustice ; but taking the whole amount of professional incomes, and the whole amount of income from more permanent sources, let them ask was it not fair to make a difference in favour of those whose incomes were derived from their own labours and exertions, the industry of the men themselves, and not from re alised propertry. But this argument had already been so ably stated by the Honourable and Learned Member for Bath, that it would be unnecessary for him to dwell f:rther on it. But there was another point, to which he must call the attention of the House for a few moments. The Right Hon. Baronet said if they did not apply the tax to professional incomes, there were many other cases to which they would be bound to extend the same rule. Ile had pointed out the cases of farmers who might be dispossessed of their estates by a short notice; but notwithstanding this uncertain tenure, they im posed on him taxes, even to a larger amount than on other classes. But the Right Hon. Baronet had not quite perfectly represented the case of the farmers. fie apprehended that a farmer did not quite lose his income i f he was dispossessed of his farm ; his income was derived from his capital, and though dispossessed of his estate, he might find other means of applying it. But further than that he would say that if the rule was to hold good in a future stage of the Bill, the case of the farmers would have an indisputable right to be considered, because he could not apply one rule to trade and another to the farmer. With respect to incomes de rived from mines and other sources, it might be said to be equally uncertain. They had riot yet come to that part of the Bill when they were to determine whether those sources of in come were to be included in the schedule or not; that ques tion might arise on different clauses of the Bill. With regard to the pay of the army and navy, and all those sources of in come, they might deal with them hereafter as they thought proper ; but before they did so, they must see that there was a manifest difference between such means and those derived from personal exertion. The exercise of a man's own labour, in dustry, and talents in those various professions, which were the modes of obtaining income which were neces'arily uncer tain, depended not merely on the duration of life, but a man's health, his popularity, and a thou sand other causes of uncertaiuty, which, applied to these causes, and not to others. A protessional.man, having an in come subject to all these causes of uncertainty, he thought, with respect to the uncertainty, that it was only fair and just to make a deduction from his rate of taxation. It was not pro posed to exempt income entirely; it was perfectly just that all incomes should be subjected to it. But with respect to in comes of this particular nature, it was fair and just to subject them to a diminished rate of taxation. There was another description of intermediate taxation—the salaries of officers in the public service; and to these they ought, in the future pro gress of the Bill, to apply intermedi a t e ra tes of t axa ti on . The , Right Hon. Gentleman observed that by adopting the amend ment they would still retain the inquisition of the tax, and would retain it for the purpose of raising a smaller amount. He considered the argument an objection to the whole mea sure. The opinion expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet in 1833 had great weight with him ( Lord Howick). He had said that fora sumof three or four millions it was not worth while to impose an income tax. That was the opinion he had obtained from him, and he had not changed Why not meet this objection by carrying a well regulated Income-tax from them, and relieve the community of other taxes which still press more heavily ? It had been said that the principle laid down was equally applicable in peace and war, and it was because he could not help thinking that the Income-tax would last longer than had :been expected that he was extremely anxious it should be very eat elully considered; and that they should endea vour to make it as just as theypossibly could. The Right Hon. Baronet urged, as a strong presumption in favour of this tax, that it had before been adopted, and lie believed there was no complaint against it. The Right. Hon. Baronet also said that its alleged injustice was greater if possible in the time of war than ie the time of peace, because the circumstance* of war tend to raise the value of landed property. But there were circumstances which account for its not being so ob jectionable in time of peace. They had a currency always be coming more depreciated, there was a continual accumula tion of debt, for the country was thus anticipating its resources and living on posterity. While this process was going on there was a kind of artificial prosperity which prevented any particular class from feeling the evil of that tax as much as they otherwise would. Thee the demands of the war, and the necessity of supplying the army and navy, carried away a great number of persons, so that during the war there was not that over crowded state of all professions, nor the difficulty of finding employment in every rank of business and pursuit of life which now prevailed. This state of things prevented the evil of the:tax being felt. But all this was now altered. No man could look around him without perceiving the great pressure and competition that prevailed in every trade and em ployment. And it was at that moment that they were suffer ing under that competition, with a diminished rate of profit. in every business, that the people were to be subjected to the un fair and cruel pressure of a tax levied in this manner. Before he concluded, he wuuid only observe, that if the House was prepared to adopt the principle of his Honourable Friend the Member for Bath, that the details were capable of , being subsequently modified, he thought •it well do serving of their consideration whether, in applying this diminished rate of taxation, they could not make sonic distinc tion between the mere profits on capital, and that which arises from industry and personal exertions. The principle for w h ich the House should generally contend was, that they ought to apply the diminished rate of taxation not so much to the profits on capital as to the income raised by the application of a man's own industry, the personal reward of his personal ser vices. He perfectly agreed with the Right Honourable Baronet that the amendment, in the shape proposed, would not carry out these views. But it embodied their principle, and if it should appesr by that division that the Hone was in favour of the principle; they could modify the details so as to carry into effect what was intended by it. It was for the prin ciple only that he simuld now vote in giving his sewn t to the proposition of the Hon and Learned Gentleman. Mr. E. HULLER rose amidst cries of " Divide." He said if he helievsd that the amendment would mitigate the injustice of the tax he would vote for it ; but so far from mitigating it, it only aggravated its injustice by increa:ing the inequalities that already existed, and he should feel it Its duty to Oppose it. Ile could not support the proposal of the lion. Member for Bath. Although voting agains him, he begged it to be under st•o 1 that he did not, in the slightest degree, show any dimi nution, in his opinion against a tax which he considered im moral and unjust. Mr. WALLACE rose to address the House amid cries of " Oh, oh," and "divide, divide." He had liitened with great attention to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Bath, and ha must confess, that he bad not heard one ward that in any way controverted his statements. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet, and those who had spoken from the other side of the House, had totally failed to upset any of the arguments of his Honourable and Learned Friend. He wished to know from the Right Honourable Baronet on what ground he required the mercantile interests to pay the tax upon the calculation of their income for three years, instead of one ? For his own part he could not see why they should not pay upon the last year as well as other people. He thought that those who had a fixed income ought to be placed in a different situa tion to those adverted to by the Honourable Member for Bath. He did net believe it was justice to exact from the trading in terest a tax based upon any other principle than the last year's income, and he should put a notice on the paper to that effect. He should most cheerfully vote in favour of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bath, and when he had done that, he would vote for the motion of the Host. Member for Rochdale. Mr. JAMES thought it great injustice to tax premiums on insurances. He thought, upon consideration, that the Right Honourable Gentleman would exempt such parties from the ' operation of the Act. If he did Lot, he thought he would commit a most gross injustice. He would give his vote to the Honourable Member for Bath. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the tax would be upon the profit or gains, and not upon the premiums. Mr. LEADER had listened to the speeches made in favour of his Friend's motion and aga nst it, and he must say, though he was afraid the majority would be against them, the weight of the argument was on his side of the House. The arguments of his Hon. Friend had not been met or answered. As to the course pursued by the Right Hon. Gentleman lately in the Government, and by the Member for Stafford, he believed they had adopted that course for the purpose of rendering the Bill unpopular ; they considered the tax odious, and likely to make the Government unpopular, and there fore they would not be a party to any course that was calculated to improve it. In the speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the present session, her Ma jesty stated, that she viewed, with great concern, the distress of the manufacturing districts. Now, for his own part, he could not conceive any thing more calculated to prove a dis couragement to trade than this schedule in the Income-tax Bill. There was a feeling abroad, that the dominant party in that House, being the representatives of the agricultural interest, favoured that interest, and acted unjustly towards the commercial and trading classes.—(Cries of " No, no.") The Hon. Member for Knaresborough might say "No," but he (Mr. L.) knew that such an impression prevailed in the country ; and an instance of the truth was given the other slay, in the way in which the Honourable Member for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone's) motion on the probate and legacy duties was disposed. On the present occasion, too, they would no doubt give another proof of how willing they were to do anything to remove the burden from their own shoulders. _ . Lord J. RUSSELL could not reconcile it to himself to give a silent vote on this question. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had hrought forward the questions had stated with his usual clearness the arguments in its favour, and had endeavoured to answer that which was the chief argument which the Right Hon. Gentleman had used on a former occa sion, and which he had again used to-night. The Right Him. Gentleman said that if they adopted a principle of this kind, they ought to see that they applied it in all similar eases of in come, whether they were persons deriving that income from land, or whether they were officers in the army or navy, or clerks in the public offices, so as they had an income for life or for a less lerm, no distinction ought to be made in one case without its being made in the others. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to that argu ment, that it was worthy an answer—that if they did not do perfect justice, that was no reason that they ought to do complete injustice. He (Lord J. Russell) thought, if they adopted the present proposition, they would create more injustice than effect any remedy. There were many classes of persons with life incomes, for whom no alleviation was sought. 1 hey would have a just right of complaining to this House, and any person who should bring forward a case of that kind, would have a right to claim the votes of all those who voted in favour of the present proposition—claiming an equal exemption to the amount of half their income as that which the Hon. Gentleman proposed. If that was the Hon. Gentleman's principles, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that the Hon. Gentleman was bound not only to propose this particular proposition, but to bring forward a whole series of propositions for carrying into effect the principle which he had propounded. With respect to distinctions between incomes durableand temporary, he (Lord J. Russell) felt himself unable to carry such distinctions into effset throughout their full extent. He did not say that the proposition was impracticable, but having neither from the Government nor from the Hon. Gentleman who made the ' amendment, any scheme which proposed to carry into effect a principle by which the law could be made more just, he ( Lord J. Russell) avowed that he could not vote in favour of the particular amendment now before the Committee. There was still another answer, namely, that .although the distinction existed, that persons enjoying income from land, and the funds, had permanent incomes, and those from trades and professions, only temporary incomes, yet let them take the case of an in dividual (for it was not just to take classes aicrely)— let them take the case of an individual who had 5001. a year tiom land or out of the funds for life, and whose portion would go at death to some distant relation, with whom he had had little or no connexion, if that person were to instance to them the case of a rich banker having a large income of 5,0001. or 10,0001. a year, and only charged on that income 3d. in the pound while he was charged 7d., what answer would it be to that person to say that it was true that his income was only for life, but that he belonged to a class which had generally a permanent income, and that though he had not that advantage, yet that as he belonged to a class which was put in Schedule A., he mutt be taxed to the amount of id. in the 1/., though the other persons who possessed many advantages over him were only charged 3id. They must also take into considera tion what had been done on former occasions respecting this tax. He was not now speaking of the question of emergency, nor that the former emergency was war. The House had de. tided for the present, as far as the second reading of the Bill was concerned, that there was an emergency which called for the tax now proposed ; and therefore he must take the case to be so, whatever might be his opinion in that respect. What then had been the manner in which this tax had been proposed? It had been proposed by Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Fox was in opposition, afterwards by Mr. Addington, and subse quently by Lords Grenville and Lansdowne, when Mr. Can ning and Lord Castlereagh were in opposition. On all those different occasions the Lem-lie-tax had been debated, and per sons had proposed a different rate for the members of the Bench and professions, but at no time had any of the chief authorities on the subject—neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. Fox, nor Lords Grenville and Lansdowne,' nor Mr. Canning nor Lord Castlereagh, who had taken the lead in the debates on the subject, ever come forward as the advocates of a principle by which there should be some certain classes only taxed half the amount that other classes were. He (Lord J. Russell), then, could not but come to the conclusion that they had been unable to remedy these discrepancies, and he did not see the remedy in this particular instance. At the same time he did not say that a remedy was impossible , but that there might be a tax on property and income, which was more just than the one now proposed, and which, with the greatest nicety of calculation, would apply to different incomes, a rule snore in accordance with justice than that which the present Bill applied. All he could say was, that he had seen no such scheme—that no such scheme was before him, and therefore he supposed that such a scheme could not be pro posed. There was one case, respecting which he was tint in possession of all the facts, and in which he was for further explanation. He believed when Mr. Pitt had introduced this subject, he exempted some professions with respect to the insurance cf lives. He certainly wished to have some further explanatoin on that point, but having those opinions, lie could not vote in favour of the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He did not speak thus, of course, from any motive as to this tax being more unpopu lar by imposing the same amount upon all classes, be cause he believed that the House would not, as it had been expressed by an Honourable Gentleman, disentangle itself from the labyrinth by any proceeding of this kind. If they began by taking off a certain amcunt in the present case, then they should listen to another case, and then to a case similar to that one; and, again, when they refused to admit the principle, they were more likely, by such means, to render the tax unpopular, than by pressing cases one after another to a pitch of absurdity. It was from no wish of making the tax more unjust and impracticable than it at present stood, that he voted against the Honourable Gentleman's proposition.; but the House having resolved to go into Committee on this question, they had only to discuss the details, and net the principle of the measure. He felt himself bound to vote against the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. MITCHELL considered that the measure proposed by Ministers was more just than any system of indirect taxation, still he conceived that the clause as it now stood ought to be pressed warmly on the consideration of the Right Hon. Baronet. Air. ROEBUCK replied. He would not trespass at any great length on the attention of the House, but there were one or two observations which he could not retrain from making. The Noble Lord had seemed to think that he (Mr. Roebuck) had assumed to be a Chancellor of the Exchequer : as though, because he had not brought forward a plan of finance its opposition to :he Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not to be allowed to state his views on a single point. He could not at all understand that principle. Now the Right Ilon. Gentleman's argument had proceeded on this basis. s' In this Bill there is not oaly one glaring injustice, but sells.. dole A, schedule B, and schedule C are equally un just; and toll never pointed out the injustice of those schedules, but waited for schedule D." Did not the Right Honourable Baronet recollect that schedule C was opposed ?—( Hear, hear.) The objection was entirely futile. It a measure were before the House for abolishing capital punishment in all cases, and he had descanted upon its injus tice in the case of forgery, the same objection might be urged in that case as in the present, but he conceived that in each oase it was inapplicable.—( Hear, hear.) He could safely say that there had been no case of difficulty made out, that no one had proved that his proposition was an impracticable one.. Could any . one say after the speeches which had been made that it was Impracticable ?—( Hear, hear.) The country would say that he had shown the imposition to be unjust, and that the only answer which had been attempted was that the Bill was so bad in all respects, that if they set about remedying one defect they would be called upon to remedy a dozen.—( Hear.) He put it to the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would in. flict this injustice on the country. The Right Hon. Baronet occupied a responsible situation ; lie was the maker, the creator of his party ; he was the party, and he (Mr. Roebuck) wished to make him responsible. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared — For the motion ........ 112 Against it ... Alajo:ity against the motion —l4o 111 r S. CRAWFORD then ma to move the conisp;on of the words in Schedule D, which itnyvi A c i a t ax L.ki n,,1 4 ,1 3 14 income." The lion. Member said he would divide the House on the motion, but would not occupy its time after the discus sion that had taken place. Ale. 11U 11E, considering the whole Bill a mass of ivjustiee, would vote for the motion —( Lout cries of " Divide.") The Ilothe then divided, w nen - there appeared— • For the amendment , Against it Majority .1 50 :259 209 The clause was then agreed to. The Committee next went into Schedule E. Sir C. NAPIER said naval and military officers, captains, and commanders in the navy, and officers of similar rank in the army, would be very severely dealt with by the Right lion. Baronet's measure. Almost all those officers had seen much service, and hai families, and their miserable pit tances ought not to be fleeced. The Gallant Com modore concluded by moving that the class of officers he had alluded to should be exempt from the payment of the duty. Captain CAII\EGIE opyosed the propo , al of the lion. and Gallant Commodore. Ile should b acti.unc,i to chit-A for a particular service an exemption from a }Altaic butilcii at a time of national difficult y. Lora WOHSLEY thoogilt that the Fopo,al wcs Ulu:lich otl...:10. to Le ac,ede:l Z7apiain PF.A 'IIELL said tl , as the ofii,ers of the ;err were oo:. all layou - able t. the propo,al of alt Income tax; hut ma , ,y of them disapproved of it under any circumstances. Ile sl,Add vote in favour of the amendment of the Gallaht Commod•le. Captain PLUMIIIDUE also spake in favour of the amend ment. Sir 11. PEEL said that no ore had a higher 'el - met for the class for whom the exemption was claimed than he entertained. No one could feel deeper gratitude to them for the services they had rendered ; and, he was persuaded that, if they were called upon hereafter, they would emulate the fame they had acquired at every period when th it services were required. lie could also assure the Gallant Commodore, that. no one could feel more unwillingness than he should feel to diminish the comforts of such a class. But he should say that if an im post were to be imposed upon all the incomes exceeding 1501. a year. he did not think it would be just to exempt any parti cular class from the operation of the measure. He should also say that the Gallant Meer behind him (Capt. Carnegie) had repelled such a proposal with a spirit worthy of the pro fesession to which he belonged ; and it was his belief that the army arid navy did not wish to be relieved from a burden which was to fall upon all other classes. The question was not, then, whether it was wise to impose an Income-tax at all ; but after the House had sanctioned its adoptio.i, they were to determine whether a particular body should be exempt from its operation. lie did not think the House would approve of such a rroposit ion. Sir C. NAt'IER said, that he thought the arguments of the Gallant Officer opposite (Captain Carnegie) were very far from good. lie could tell the Gallant Olilcer and the Right lion. Baronet, that many a poor officer would feel severely the pressure of the tax. If the Gallant Meer were himself a uiir of family, with au income of 150/ a year, he would cot peAto:ps feel so satisfied with the proposal of the Government. Lord INGESTRIE said he believed that if the naval ser vice were polled out, there would be a majo-ity opposed to the proposal of the Gallant Commodore. He therefore di,ap proved of the amendment. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Comm; tee divided, when there appeared— For Sir Charles Napier's motion ....... Against it 205 . . . Majority against the motion —173 On the motion of Capt. PECHELL, The CHAIRMAN reported progress and obtained leave to s:t again. Mr. BLEWITT rose amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh,' and ironical cheers. He begged to state that the Chairman had not et put the lit clause.—(Laughter and iro n i ca l chcets.) GREAT MARLOW ELECTION—THE PRISONER RICHARD GIBBONS. Richard Gibbons, who had been committed to Newgate, was called to the bar and addressed by The SPEAKER, who said—Richard Gibbons, the Election Committee appointed to determine the merits of the Great Marlow Election, have recommended you to the merciful con sideration of this House. Yours was a very serious and grave offence. It appears that it was not accidental, but that you deliberately and whilst upon your oath gave evidence before that. Committee, which was subsequently contras:lciest in the most positive manner. It is very painful to find a per son of your eespectability, and who has been respected by your fellow-townsmen, and hitherto lived with credit to ycurself, in so disgraceful a position as that which you now occupy. if you are in any way alive to a sense of honour, that disgrace is in itself a sufficient punishment. The House, therefore, con sidering the imprisonment you have already suffered, and considering the deep regret expressed in your for your misconduct, is willing to hope that that regret is sincere, and has consented to your being relieved from further continemwt, and let me hope that this len?y may not be misconstrued by others, but that it may act as a warning to them, otherwise it will be my duty to deal with.them with the utmost severity ; for the House has deter mined, under all the circumstances, to vindicate :hat privi lege which you have so shailtelessly abused. 1 have now to inform you that you are discharged. on payment of your fees. The prisoner was then removed front the bar. Sir A. PEEL rose and said—Sir, I move that what you have now said may be entered in the journals of the Ilause.— (Loud cheers. ). . . On the question being put, Mr. 'l'. DUNCOMBI rose and said, he had not. the slightest objection to the words being entered on the joterneis of the House. It was quite right that it should be, but of all the severe ieprimands he had ever heard made upon any individual in that House, he must say that the censure passed upon this individual was perhaps the most severe thst ever was .delivered in the House of Commons.-(!fear, hear.) He (Mr. Duncombe) felt, to a certain extent, compelled not to resist the motion, as it was neceesary to the vindication of the privileges cf the House; but he before stated, that he believed, and he still believed, that this individual, whom the Speaker had stated to have shamelessly abused the privilegeof the house, was nut guilty of that which had been attributed to him. He (i\lr. Duncombe) believed that the and he was not alone-he believed that Mr. Gibbons diii tint wilfully perjure himself before the Committee. If lee had, there was no punishment sufficient for the offence ;. and ife.liat individual had wilfuily given false evidence heffirg the Cons mittee of that !louse, he (Mr. Duncombe, said it was the duty of the House nut to release him, but it els their duty to in struct the Law Officers of the Crown to indict that individual for perjury. It was only a few days since that they had had before them another individual of the name of 'Wrenn. Mr. Wrenn was called to the bar, having refused -to give testimony befoic the Committee of the liouse ap pointed to try the merits of the Southampton Election Petition. lie was called to the bar ; he was asked, "Do you intend to persist in refusing to give the evidence re quired before this Committee?" Mr. Wrenn anseered, " Yet, 1 do, because it may criminate myself; becanie I !relieve %ch testimony will crim.nate myself; but if it is the desire ofThis House that I should give this evidence, Iss ill bow to ilia de cision." What happened on the following day? Another in dividual, a Member of that house, Mr. Fleming, was called upon in that house to explain why he had refused to. give before that Committee evidence that was considered of im portance, but which was liable to criminate. In answer to the question, why he had refused to give this evidence, he said, 1 did, as a man of honour, refuse to answer that question." He said it was no perjury-the man had net perjured himself at all.-(" Oh, oh. ') There were individuals, and every per son connected with that individual who had just left the bar were ready to come forward and say that he was as incapable of giving false testimony as any Gentleman in that House. On their authority he (Mr. Duncumbe) brought forward his peti tion en a torsner occasion-now a fortnight since-and the evidence had been Tinted. He should like to know how many lion. Members had read the evidence, for if they had read it lie was sure they would nut. b e li eve In us guilty of perjury. His friends would not believe.th e charge, and would not care for the reprimand of the House, But it might affect Inns in the eyes of the public, although they must see that he had not beets treated as an lion. Member of the House. He had beets taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and had been conveyed away to Newgate without being allowed to say one word in his own defence. Ho (Mr. Duncombe) said that he left that House without one stain upon his character.-(Oh, oh.) Sir R. PEEL said that he had heard with great regret the observations of the Hon. Member fur Finsbury -( Heel t htar)- in reference to the reprimand made by the Speaker ir, eur ' suanee with the motion of that House.-( Hear, hear. ) Of the individual case in question, he (Sir R. Peel) knew nothing, he only - followed the usual custom, and moved that what the Speaker had said be entered on the Jeurnals of the House. ft. was entered on the Journals that Sir J. Y. Buller reported from the Committee appointed to try the Great Marlow Elec tion, that they had determined fit st, that Richard Gib bons had been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, and the !louse determined that Richard Gibbons for the same offence be committed to her Majesty's gaol of Newgete, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. To-day the motion was " Ordered that Richard Gibbons, now in her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, be brought, to the bar of tne House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. Or dered that the same Richard Gibbons be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, and discharged." The Sp ea k er t h ere f ore o f t h e House of Commons had acted merely ministerially; if he had acted otherwise, he would have neglected his duty-es it was, he had acted in the most fitting and becoming manner.-(Hear, hear.) He did nut qu arre l w ith the Hen. Gentlemen for dis senting from the resolution of the Committee of which he was a Member ; what he regretted was, that be should have made those remarks, which he he had made with reference to the chief authority of the House. Mr. J ER VIS said he merely rose to deprecate discussions of this kind. If it were true, and he thought that would appear from the evidence, that the individual gave false evidence, in his (Mr. Jervis's) opinion no censure could be too severe.-(Hear n hear.) lie did think this was a very ill judged objection. Sir J. Y. HULLER said that he thought it would a4,pear from the evidence that the Committee had not acted eesley in this case.-( Hear.) Mr. DUNCOMBE said if he had uttered a single word which could give the slightest pain to the Speaker, he was ex tremely sorry for it. 'I he party whose conduct he intended to impugn, was the House itself; in reference to this subject. He contended that the individual who had just left the bar had not been fairly treated.-(Question, questiou.) The SPEAKER stated that the Honourable Gentlemen must confine himself strictly to an explanation. Mr. DUNCOMBE had said that he did not intend t o impugn the conduct of the Speaker; he had acted in obedience to the order of the House, amid could not do othe r wi se . I t was the conduct of the House that he wished to blame ; an d w h en the House ordered this reprimand to be entered on t h e Journals of the House, then was the time to ma k e hi s observations, lie had not had the opportu u ity,__(Orders.) Now could anything be more unjust than this? lie would sit doe n and leave the country to judge of the question, • The resolution for inserting the reprimand on the Journals was then rut by the :Speaker and carried. The Orders of the Day were then disposed of; on e, question that the House on its rising do adjourn tiil Monde ish e THESIGER said he must move as an amendment t sat the House do adjourn tiil twelve o'clock to-day -( Hear, hears. hear. ) On the discussion of the resolution committing one of the witnesses before the e6outhampton Committee (Mr. Mabson) to custody, he had ventured to express a very strong opinion of the .y o r illegality the warrant oP committal for the alleged conte m pt. Certainly at that time he aid not ma t ure ly consider that:. warrant, so as to render the opinion he expressed of very great weight. He was reproved by the Hou. Member for eSheffielth e . whom he did nut now tee in his place, for having convert doubt expressed byedge, fully consid ere d t h e su bj ect 0 f his lion, and Learned Friend (die -Solicits) General) i n t o an assertion. B ut h e h a d s i nce ca*' lt the warrant, and he hag been more confirmed in the strong opinion he expresseT last night. The forms of the Mute did not perish lion to move the immediate discharge of that individual from custody, but if the House consented to the adjournment, this person,; whom he believed to be illegally and unjustly confined, must re main in custody the whale of to-morrow, the whole, of Sunday, and the greater part of Monday. }',, was quite sure it was not the desire of the House to p e r m i t . so gre ss an injustice. If he could satisfy them that the war=s rant was bad, and no contempt committed, they Moui4ki 1 the most earnest wish to repair the injustice committed. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the House at its rising would adjourn to twelve o'clock that they, ire ordea r th at eh ev might have an opportunity of considering this no, at h apeat lt t , question-a question in which the liberty of tele subject was involved,