The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-11 00:00:00

Pk•'"' weex" War c e 0 p e r perhap s emergenc i es equal to war i n a t i me of t aa xatio nd that might was h fall on e duty of e txhat enditure, House to and fall on it form a sle n gp manner hat all might contribute their just a,portion. Ile would include in the tax on expenditure o l es ,,ed taxes, land -taxes, taxes on houses, and so , t1t :l'? would put as large a proportion of it as he could within luxuries of the rich, but that must also be kept due limits. His limit would be the point of production.—(Hear, hear.) He would not ad t.atliQe beyond the point a t w hi c h i n di v id ua l s wou ld which s b ubmit to c e rt a i n pr i vat i ons t h an reta i n l uxuries ce l 'h9Y Miht otherwise enj point which thought The the tax t;xliries sho g uld reach thatw ''xPerienee to be the point of greatest production. Ytion co uld not a vo id a tax on artic l es o f genera l con rap tlicy because when they wished to r a ise a revenue oo Must tax those arti c l es w hi c h were th e mos t l arge ly ( 1 , and th ere f ore t h ey taxe d the art i c l es most lvaerallY consumed by the lower classes. But if they thetV,thernselves of that opportunity—if they availed revised elves of the large surplus in the revenue—if they lh. v , this tax, and based it on sound principles— rilight raise a tax for the service of the State with full with'hY ex traordinary pr: sure on the lower classes, and assurance .hat at the end of three years they tat',.rget rid of that mo-t oppressive and most unjust h 4 ,- h ey might have done this, if, in the first place, Plid, a u dealt with protective duties. On the night of tion:Y, the Hon. Member for Stockport asked a ques `t'l which he got no reply. He asked the Right iniott,,,le Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the htitr o :' of taxes, not for the benefit of the Exchequer, g eni a l ,the real and not merely nominal benefit of co the „_Plaaters, charged to the people of this country by dErriLl'utective duties. lie (Lord Howielc) did not won leo,e'rt the members of the Government shrank from Ihey e , ) lll g that question, because it was impossible that t ot be 111,1 Make any calculation of the burden which wo u ld tli dkot i P ° lting to the publi c f ee lin g . But though they athm,, e4 rn what the Ministry calculated the amount Sion ' 4 X to be, th ey l earne d t hi s b y t h e un i versal con liotis; i t) ! every G ent l eman on t h e ot h er s id e of the Isi',Tkt all p ro t ect i ve taxes, or, i n t h e l anguage of teti o :uie Lord the Member for Liverpool, " all pro thl47°lred a tax on the community." They learned ` , s _,ltight Hon. Gentlenem the late President of kio 4l ; t 4r n of Trade, and he could not give the actual t 75, 1)0 0 - 4 ° f the tax up on sugar , b u t . he said this—that 1,,e to this as the maximum thus obtained—that it might but that he did not think it would. The 1 4r 'in. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Excise t°etheßight Hon. Baronet the First Lord of °n at faSur Y , had been afraid to state the actual ~tleulati°rthe information of the country ; but if the t.a te t : i n s of the Hon. Member for Stockport were ex -1:4 to t i l ' e lhy did they not submit their own calcula f - louse ? They did not think proper to do CA, ° r,. a Very good reason they did not think proper , t , i 'at course, and they, therefore, tacitly ad 'ttwe._'•uat a tax was levied upon the people, beyond the sat into the Exchequer, upon the article of sugar. oe, : h ie Principle they levied a tax on coffee, on - hbe the fact—they L'gyk e n tobacco on butter, and above all, on corn. eW thi • t o - knew it, to be so, t, °set t c 'ed Howick) did not hesitate to avow his firm that if they had been prepared on a careful °' the amount of the burden so imposed, N'Peci a e l ' 4 , not for the public service, but for k,,,Str et i °enefit of a particular class—if they had been k' d 'vei t ° t ,look on the amount of this burden, and to k ~thoy„ hey might have given relief to the consumer, t a all, to the industrious classes of this country, , It qa, t t ne time leaving the tinanet s of the empire in ei lo 4 ,, te L its to give every reason for a well grounded 1 4 4 • t uats before the expiration of the three years, s e s i u t , h eY in the revenue.would be fully covered. He Iri`qth 'd that this result would follow ; and lie befor e the next general election, the electors t sx d Would well consider this—whether this n{ — a tax for the purpose of maintaining the ket, Protecti on , b ecause , di sgu i se i t h ow t h ey e. tt ,,, t Y came to that at last—whether the 0 ph ' should b e t a k en on t h e i r s h ou ld ers i i r P ° se of bolstering up, for a f ew y ears 11."er s '" system of protection which even the S eui lttir ''f the Government were fain to admit the principles of reason and of common i t ki :i t t z it his„ principle of common sense they must e u thdi ks " , Instead of as at present attempting to cor k,,tlo (tl Prove the income-tax, which, after all they ktlitlit;,wolild still remain oppressive and obnoxious. .:,,t,that the time was not far distant when they 1;s t r3: 1 1 3 " common-sense necessity of relieving the 10% , taking of a tax which produced nothing to lei l ' e c l . ller and was most obnoxious to the feelings of ,„ Gus said that the speech of the Hon. Member for Liskeard was not so He t asked have been expected from him. He asked I.j'har s ci t ° record their opinion of the income-tax. Ito 4-tterized it as odious and unjust, but he did not. })otAl4s •4t , trier that m ore tol e r a bl e whi c h w as t o b e per t (Sir R.H. lnglis) believed that there was th'lf,'' o ot , h House but who thought thatthe property e'te o ,' ) be a tax renewable for three years but a is~eelf' they thought that were a tax merely ' e L a ts, they would bear it as an inevitable of' R u nt the case was wholly different, for in the x'4 o of last four weeks, not one individual had `I.A. be 1 ,` 515 his own personal opinion that the tax io ,`,lhoved at the end of that period. Let it be lOth Lae to do so—let them 1 )0 ,. Power of Parliament ,lj k , 4o tt,, L "er of removing it at that period, but let 1 , - "e the dicta of the Treasury benches on that ` f ite Y ought not to be contented with the t sti o N' h _ti any Minister. They should, under these "'ke - ' 4 4! l C l ' Make the Bill as little oppressive and ob tk„Plssible lie did not agree with the Hon. e he Meru . ber for Sunderland that it was itn :l4Nie, ‘',,inake a tax on property either efficient or '*. q , l l . I .e did acknowledge, that a. tax on property Lort,ilicult than a tax on income. But when the u asked his Right Hon. Friend the First ,: r reaSury, " How will you measure the in rti4 annuitant ?" He (Sir R. 11. Inglis) I„Yr--If the heir apparent derived a life il•e c i r j. r n a freehold, or from the funds, to him, for the mere purposes of taxa klt4l4,l6, t - ,:uell of them' he derived it, as he paid the 1 , 4 P0rl both. The Right Hon. Baronet then o k 6 l "ltt th e tax s h ou ld b e l ev i e d upon incomes Vl)i rit „ v e 15 01., and that some improved system of t, he incomes of the individuals o taxed aFnt tee o Pted in order to do away with the Go krPtation to fraud. He did not believe that ,4,tlatti. r eductions on the 420 articles named by Baronet would so materially benefit the th,„ ° trle lion Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. tight stitykeduction, would be of some . service to the th o " thought there were higher considera- Ol o ,„No s , which actuated the Right Hon. Baronet ',1' 4 4 11 (1. 0 7: t °1 this surplus.. The Right Hon. Ba tlltv "'bl e b "fly that he might have made other re `•t" might have proved of more value to the N' I . l tirpl. Bight Honourable Baronet had a i cli /l i'", 3 than was ever possessed by any l.kLltile :ft—indeed he believed at no period lig"ent generation had a Minister been able o . f t t to that House, and state that he was in lit ll , s ti o - tt ,a Clear surplus of 3,500,000/. Now he N. ) av, think that a certain portion of that sum tNr„, be, t which" --n thrown back upon the country in a of t 6, would have :tended more to the general ng s s • .9° lnnaunity. He could have wished that o,Nicelof,l%ht have been done to relieve the spiritual /to ll , t he Country which, he contended, was as ,', t tl i' s l e ,ted with the social ill feeling which at bL"'°, as any two of the propositions which i'llir,vlo,Pght forward by Gentlemen sitting on the k k 4-11 tif t he Rout t there was another consi us, 5 se. u 0 ) ,"lt tureuniary nature which induced him to I:qty'rs egestion. An impediment some thirty or tnd t if!' Was thrown in the way of spiritual ' l 'td is impediment h a d bee n continued down to 441iRiaYtnotwithstanding it went in direct opposition ab Principles of the country. The House f r ." n ot aware of the amount of money .„(tiVy ,i )t n charit a bl e sources b y t h e operat i on o f c t t:4 i li n t Y. The sum raised by this tax was wte btr i eb national point of view, but still suffi -14 , th ( „ ! B che channel of spiritual charity. In tish and Foreign Bible Society, the \ht Yea r du ty upon legacies bequeathed in the was 2,900/. But perhaps, in the case th, Missionary Society, the interference had tliat v r ection of spi r it ua l c h ari ty. Th e amoun t 5 4 ' ) ° 1 sty i n t h e l ast t h ree years h a d b een it ao4verage of 5001. Now, he did not think the s e olitical economist who would object to th'rt.,)itlek,tie_harities from, in a national point of lingly low duty imposed on them. No l) ';',A l , 4 tif that the amount was sufficient in the tit.;- 1 1 , i 'ls tile Chancellor of the Exchequer in con while, on the other hand,. did . not the it, /ti e k t , toe amount justify its being withdrawn? ‘ 4 4 stit ° ll llt did not, he believed, exceed 50,000/, qe t tif It h e of argument he would say 75,000/. per l i s i ,„"tt exceedingly small sum, in a national I ja e k r , ,"t when applied to purposes of spiritual that became became of some importance. He wa e k had any further suggestion to make to h ue Could not conclude without stating It; 41 1 4) 4 b een and very different arguments than those ktki have a dduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman N, P 'lV l A PP, () (;rt e ' t f h t he Exchequer, he should feel it his •Iffttc,"e amendment. l ''t tor it v , /v itli c , l : 4l oN said if the income-tax could be L'tklitii,i,°lll(l, tliniinishing the receipts of the E . xclie true.ta° donbt, be an improvement in principle l' L '4, 4 . IL's' But he thought the arguments of the ylp,n-rutlet were fallacious. Time principle he It: 4 t o t , r ierst, w hich they ought to levy the income -lit.c't three dto be this :—lf a person possessed an 4ild of h Years, he was to be taxed to the same t, th, 1 7. 44 an income for life. But if the sug- I 'lr t 'Zt . , tho"gt lieu. Baronet were adopted, they :', l l i ( i 4 hi s ilierPeinant at the time when he had te a nt est to a third party—a man who NPOlt of e nUity. for three years was to be ,th o th4t an r ate as a person Viso possessed the re 'll%tbk),!)es,o-rl'lliltity for twenty, or, in fact, at a time rj t l l :,e o i t ßr s „ entitled to the reversionary interest, h •lktle ilt tet ' il e poion of the burden. Now they two the reversionary interest constituted .114„eritieths of the whole value of the per mtylett,ak u po it therefore, could not proceed with a 1 Z0,, t ) 4, 1 ' 4 4 1 : t he principle of capitalisation. They ree„'",nee, impose the tax upon the party en reid - 3 sl °rls because he would very reasonably ?1, 4 , 4 , 04 4 .2 luk had no property whatever in pos ik,44sths,,t4e-te,rear.) Now, with regard to the laying - .'cus not, if he thought they could get ; 4 14N t ttunable taxes, such as the protective interest,lndia t ' or the protective duties ZtL Ito b e rest, which Hon. Gentlemen who sat "4,1" itt o les particularly represented, by re. , 44;0(at • °Me. t (14 1 ' 4 tr, 0 , 11 ax; he would gladly do so. But still av er " net rectobetter to continue a property-tax be• iosk,r,re those expensive establishments 1 0 , (jrruhle from the taxes imposed t)t her articles. It was a much abetter THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 11 , 1845. system of taxation, to raise what the State required di rectly, than resorting to en indirect method which was attended with so much expense ; and he thought that when the matter was fully and clearly explained to the great body of the people, direct taxation would be more popular than any other. He was sincere in the expression of this opinion, and although, in his own town, the largest portion of the population were shopkeepers and tradesmen, he would sooner lose Lis election than mis-state the matter to them. With regard to his vote on that occasion— (Laughter)—he certainly could not support the propo sition of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, because he did not tell us in what it was the inequality of the property tax consisted. According; to his conception the prin ciple of an income-tax ought to be to make every person who possessed the means to contribute to it, and while they possessed large incomes let them pay the tax. He would deal the same with the professional man of 12,000/. a year. Let him pay his income-tax so long as his 12,000/. a year lasted. Mr. M. MILNES, after giving the best consideration I to the subject, had come to the conclusion, and to which conclusion he hope d to adhere, that the operation of direct taxes was the best, and at the same time the most economical way of raising tke revenue of this country. He came to this conclusion, because he believed that by di rect taxation they could get larger sums from the rich classes than they could by indirect taxation from the poor. With respect to the Noble Lord the Member for Sunder land laying down ca-tain propositions, which he might or might not believe, he (Mr. Milnes) adopted that large assumption upon which the greeter portion of the Noble Lord's speech was founded, that it was impossible to raise the necessary revenue of this country simply by taxing what the Noble Lord called expenditure, and without any income-tax, but he differed with the Noble Lord, and he believed other Members would do SO with him, when the Noble Lord anticipated that an income tax would relieve the country from the burden of protec tive duties. The question of protective duties was the one now in dispute. It was the question which at pre sent divided Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches from the Noble Lord, and those who supported him. It was the great and prominent question, as to whether or not it is better, in the present complication of the national interests, to support what were called the protective duties on the land of England and other protective duties on the colonies of the West Indies. He believed upon that principle the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government came into that position which he now occupied, and he be lieved it was a proposition which he had adhered to, and a proposition to which he would still adhere. It was not agreeable to the common sense of the country, that the income derived from trades and professions, and under uncertain sources, should be taxed as much as permanent property, which was enjoyed without toil and without risk. He thought it would not be difficult to establish a satisfactory distinction, for the country would not look at very nice points of gradation. Sup pose there were a per tentage of three or four per cent. on trade, professions and annuities, and a higher tax upon fixed property, the country would be satisfied., The Right Hon. Baronet had formerly said that nothing but the greatest emergency would justify the imposition of the income-tax. He had since changed his mind on that point, and now thought it a good tax to continue three years longer without an absolute necessity. Perhaps, then, if he s h ou ld come to change his mind again, and to think it a tax that ought to be continued, he would also think it would be well to modify the imposition, and to regulate it by the principle of equity. He was sorry the Hoc. and Learned Member for Liskeard was not in his place, as he wished to ask who would vote with him (Mr. C. Buller) ? The lion. Member for Kendal could not vote with him, as he was against direct taxation ; and other Members were in an equally difficult position. He (Mr. Milties) thought there was no use in the discussion. The time had gone by for it, and that was when the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) intimated his intention of renewing the tax. It was at that time the House should have insisted on modifications of the tax, to adapt it to the circum stances of the country. He, therefore, regarded the present debate as a useful preface to the future conside ration of the question. It was remarkable how few words had been uttered in the House against the tax ; and notwithstanding what had been said of its ob noxious and inquisitorial character, if the manufacturing classes thought it so much more obnoxious and inquisi torial than the excise laws, the House would have heard a few more practical objections, and would have received a few more petitions. Ile thought the assent of the public had been given to a certain amount of direct taxation. Still he did not think it would be wise to carry the principle too far, or to place the taxation of the coun try in such a position that every man should psipably feel every accession to taxation. That would place our relations with foreign nations in a hazardous position, and he therefore thought that the honour and prosperity of the country would be best secured by a combination of direct and indirect taxation. Mr. HAAV ES could tell the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract why it was that he thought the people had accepted the income-tax. The Hon. Gentle man thought it was proved by the fact that no petitions had been presented against the tax. But, in the first place, the tax was only three per cent., and it was intro duced to make up for a deficiency. Next, the people were told that other measures, taken at the same time, would cause trade to spring up, and so remove the ne cessity for continuing the tax, which should be repealed in three years. The tax being again to be imposed was accompanied with certain remissions of taxation, by which, as they were again told, the trade of the country was to receive an additional impulse, and the tax_ to be repealed in three more years. These statements in duced numbers in the House and out of it to acquiesce in the tax, who would be otherwise as much opposed to it as any one else, though he admitted that there were also many who considered it a good tax. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) thought that the tax was not necessary, but that all the important reductions of taxation could be made without it. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) stated that the revenue of the year ending sth of April, 1846, would be 55,100,0001., and the expenditure 49,690,0001., leaving a balance of 1,400,000/. The Hon. Member then read several items of the proposed reduc tions of the Customs, to show that in that department, acc3rding to Sir R. Peel's showing, there would be an increase of 300,0001. As to corn, the Right ion. Baronet had not taken that into his estimates -- Sir R. PEEL said that the revenue on corn last year was 1,050,0001„ but in consequence of the good harvest, he calculated it at a less amount by 500,000/. for next year. Mr. HAWES said that he would be content to deal with the surplus of 1,400,0001. And he thought that with that balance in hand the reduction on articles of :rade might be effected without the income-tax. The auction - duty seemed to have been unnecessarily re pealed, and he did not think the expense of collecting was a reason for taking off the duty on 430 articles of customs, for the expense of collecting remained the same. All the expense of inspection and examination must be continued the same as before. But really it was for the sake of the reduction of the sugar duties the in come-tax was continued.—(Hear, hear.) Although the Hon. Baronet admitted that sugar would be one penny per lb. the cheaper to the consumer in this country, no one could estimate the cost of protecting the 'West Indian interest at less than 1,000,0001., and now he income-tax was continued to benefit that interest further by the reduction of the duty upon sugar. He did not think that the abolition of the duty on coal exportation, on cotton, and glass, justified the continuance of the in come-tax, after the positive engagement of the Govern ment to give it up, upon the revival from the depression which rendered its first imposition necessary. He always paid the utmost respect to what fell from his Honourable Friend the Membei for Kent al (Mr. Warburton), but he could not agree with him, nor with those other persons who thought that the system of direct taxation ought to be promoted. He (Mr. Hawes) thought that the House should pause before it assented to the proposition of making the direct taxation bear a greater proportion to the whole taxation of the country than it did at present. The House seemed to him not to be aware of the pro portion which the direct taxation bore to the whole taxa tion of the country. Why, taking an average of three years, from 1841 to 1843 inclusive, it appeared that the amount of direct taxation was 20,000,0001., that of indi rect taxation, 30,000,0001. ; and if to the direct taxa- tion the 5,000,060/. derived from the property-tax were added, that would make it 25,000,0001., which was about half of the whole taxation. It was impossible to say that this tax would be removed in three year 3, and, herefore, he thought the Honourable Alember for Liskeard had a right to call on the House to declare generally that the tax was unjust, and though the country might submit to this tax under the belief that it would not be permanent, and while other taxes were removed, they would not endure it if commerce and trade languished, and profits diminished, and the means of employing the working classes les sened. He believed the tax was unjust, and that it could not by any means be made just, He was of that opinion in 1842 ; he was of the same opinion in 1845 ; and he was, therefore, perfectly consistent in voting for the motion of his lion. and Learned Friend. Unless a case was made out showing that the income-tax was not unequal, unjust, or inquisitorial, he could not vote for it; and believing that it was unjust, unequal, and inquisito• rial, nothing short of an imperative necessity would in duce him to vote for it nuw or at any future time.— (Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER said he wished in a few words to ex plain the reasons why he should vote against the motion of the Hon. -and Learned Member for Liskeard. He thought it would be much better to bring specific and definite charges against the income-tax than to bring forward general charges against it. He agreed with the llon Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir H. Inglis) that it was unjust to tax a man whose income depended on his personal exertions, the continuance of which rested upon his health, in the same degree as the person who derived the same amount of income from a permanent property, and which was subject to no contingencies.—(bear, hear.) He also thought with the Hon. Baronet, that persons should be taxed only for the amount of their income above 150/.; that a person, for instance, having 155 t, should be taxed only on the 5/. above the 1501—(Hear, hear.) He likewise agreed with him, that a distinction should be made between annuities and perpetuities. He could not come to the conclusion to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who proposed the present motion had come, and on which he called on the House to agree with him, that there was no reason to believe that there would bp a re lief from the tax at the end of three years. With regard to the principle of taxation, he thought that that of taxing property was the best, and was one to which the whole nation was prepared to consent. He thought that the effect of the budget of the Right Honourable Baronet would be to extend the industry of the country. He had no doubt it would be found exceedingly bene itaitd to many large branches of manufacture. He would not egret, with that part of the motion which had refer ' ence to the inquisitorial pp.tpre of the tax, for if those words meant anything, they meant that the manafactur .ng, commercial, and trading interests should be exempt from the tax, for to them the inquisitorial part of the tax applied. Now he thought it would be very unfair to exempt them from the tax, especially as it was intended to increase the manufacturing and commercial industry of the country. He had a motion on the paper whieli at the proper time he would bring before the House as briefly as he could, but for the reasons he had just stated he felt bound to oppose the motion of the lion. and Learned Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME thought that the financial statement made by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ought not to be mixed up with the present motion, for the Right Hon. Baronet told them be did not want to impose the income-tax for financial reasons, and had shown that up to April, 1846, including the income-tax that would be due then, he would have a surplus of 1,400,0001., leaving a margin for the Chinese money; and that included the large expenditure of one million for the navy, which he, for one, thought was unnecessary. But the real ques tion before the House was, whether they were more willing to raise 5,000,0001., by direct taxation from pro. perty and income, than to allow the present system of indirect taxation to continue. His own opinion was in favour of direct taxation, and it was upon that ground he would give his vote on the present occasion. Ho was, he confessed, surprised at the calculation of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), respecting the amount of direct taxation. His Hon. Friend stated that 20,000,0001. were raised by direct taxation, and that 30,e , 00,0001. were raised by indire.A taxation. He (Mr. Ilume) could not find anything like that out of the ordinary revenue of the country, which was about 50,000,0001. No less than 191 millions were derived from the Customs, certainly not a direct tax; 131 millions from the Excise, not a direct tax. The Stamps duty was not a direct tax. The only direct taxes were the land and the assessed taxes, amounting to 4i millions. Including the income-tax there would be 9i millions of direct taxes, but leaving out the income-tax there were only .q millions raised from direct taxation in stead of 20,000,0001. One of his great complaints since he had the honour of a seat in that House was that the taxes were levied from articles used by the poorer classes, and that property was almost entirely exempt from taxation. In France and in Belgium the great bulk of the revenue was raised by direct taxation, but in this country it was quite different, and the consequence was that the people were divided into two classes, rich and poor. He had shown in 1835, that the amount of indirect taxation was 721 per cent., that of mixed direct and indirect taxation 10 or 12 per cent., and the rest he would allow to be direct taxation. lie did not understand that the Right Hon. Baronet put this as an additional tax, but as a change of taxation ; and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman spoke slightingly of the 430 articles which were to be swept away he forgot that those articles were generally useful in manufactures, and though they might not be of much benefit in themselves, they would be beneficial in enabling their manufacturers to compete with fo reigners. His Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said, that the spiritual destitution of the people might be provided for ; but he (Mr. Hume) thought there were sufficient funds to provide for that, if they were pro perly applied.—(Hear, hear.) But lie would also tell his Hon. Friend, that when the physical destitution of the poorer classes was provided for, they would be much better disposed to listen to spiritual instruction. 'The great point was to secure the foreign markets for their produce He thought the taking off the duty on cotton was most essential to the interests of the country, and would tend to place it in that position which it ought to hold with respect to other nations. He was surprised to think that his Noble Ft iend, the Member for Lem beth, should think that the removal of the duty on the 400 articles that had been alluded to, would be of no im portance ; for his own part, he thought the best results would take place from the removal of the duty on those articles. Foreigners thought that laws were made in this country for the interest of its inhabitants, while in fact their operation had hitherto been to check industry. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had said that if he was satisfit d that tax would benefit the country, ho would vote for it. Now to him (Mr. Hume) it appeared to be the very means of creating capital, and thereby extend ing the interests of the country. He thought that in this country, and every other, taxation ought to be direct, and it was upon that ground that he supported the plan of the Right Hon. Gentleman. As a whole, he objected, however, to the course that had been pursued by him with respect to corn and sugar. Sir R. PEEL then rose to address the House. Before he said anything- on the amendment now before the House, he wished to notice two speeches that had been made in the course of the present discussion, upon points not immediately connected with the motion. He would first allude to the speech of the Hon. Member for Lam beth. It appeared from that speech that the Hon. Mem ber did not very well understand the financial statements which he had made upon a former occasion. The Hon. Gentleman objected to the imposition of the income-tax, upon the ground that he thought there was no necessity for its imposition, because he thought that by the state ment which he (Sir R. Peel) had msde there would re main a surplus. The Hon. Gentleman had said that he (Sir R. Peel) had calculated that on the sth of April, 1846, that there would be a surplus of 1,400,0001., and the Hon. Gentleman had said that that surplus would enable the Government to remove the duty on cotton, glass, and even the duty on coals. Now the statement he (Sir R. Peel) made was this, that he apprehended that on the sth of April, 1846, supposing the income tax to be continued, that the net revenue would amount to 53,700,0001.; but in that sum would be in cluded 609,0001 to be received on account of China ; but that supposing Parliament did not grant the conti mutation of the income-tax, that then they must deduct 2,600,000/. from that amount, but they would be entitled to acid to the ordinary permanent revenue 2,600,000/., because a half year's income-tax would be received, and then they would have a revenue of 51,100,0001.—that was supposing the property-tax was not continued. If, however, the House continued the income-tax, then there would certainly be a surplus of 1,400,000/. Now the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth seemed to be bewildered about the balance in the Exchequer in April, 1845. He said that at that period the Govern ment would have a balance in the Exchequer of upwards of 5,000,000/. Now the Hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of the manner in which that amount would have to be applied, or he certainly would not have made the observations that he had made. Two millions of that amount would have to be applied to the payment of Exchequer Bills issued for opium. Another portion would go to the reduction of the National Debt, and another portion would go to the increase of the balance in the Exchequer, and in that respect certainly the Go vernment were in a more favourable position than in former years, but that surplus could not be considered fairly applicable to the services of the current year. On the whole, therefore, he thought that the Hon. Gentle man's calculations and his reasons for opposing the in come-tax were altogether without foundation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward the amendment had made a speech condemning the policy of the Government, instead of concluding with one against the income-tax. Now he hoped that the House would not commit itself in details until they heard the particular proposition,because when they came to the policy of discussing the Bill, and of making amendments in the existing law, they would be better able to consider the matter in its proper light. Now he would consider the motion of the Hon. Member for Oxford. He proposed that 150/. a year should be the zero of taxation. Now what was that ? Why the proposal meant this—that every man that now contributed to the income• tax should deduct from the payments that he made for the income tax the sum of 4/. 10s. The meaning of that was, that he should be enabled to require from the Exchequer a deduction of 41. 10s. He (Sir R. Peel) had not the means exactly of knowing, but he would suppose that 240,000 persons contributed to the income- tax, and sup posing that each of them were to deduct 41. 10s., that would amount to upwards of 1,000,0001. ; and every man in that case would be obliged to state what his income was. A new process would, therefore, hero to be in troduced. Now before the House adopted such a proposition, he hoped they would seriously con sider the course which they really ought to pursue. He now came to what he must call the main question in the case, and that was, whether they should confirm a resolution in favour of the present Bill. He Ives free to admit that it was open to the house to con sider whether the proposition should be affirmed or not, and Hon. Gentlemen opposite were wrong in supposing that he had ever objected to that question being open for the consideration of the House. lie thought it but fair that it should be considered open to the House to discuss the question ; and those who had voted against the in come-tax formerly could now fairly vote for it, because they must at once see it was necessary ; and the question then was, whether it was not better to continue this tax than adopt other means. There was no doubt that the present was certainly the best mode of taxation. It was possible, certainly, that any deficiency might be raised by other means ; for instance, they might put a tax of 2d. on letters, instead of Id. He did not - think any past experience could induce them to put a tax of 51. per cent. on income. But still there were means of taxing and keeping up the credit of the country without the income-tax ; but the question was whether the in come-tax was not the best mode. He would not revive that night the question of the sugar duties. The House had confirmed the course taken by the Government. Many had objected to it, but the sense of the House was in favour of the Government. But supposing there was a lose of 1,300,000/. next year in the sugar duties, still there would be a surplus of 2,000,0001., and it was with respect to that that the Hon. Gentleman opposite had declaimed in such eloquent terms. Now, with respect to that surplus of 2,000,000/., the Government proposed to remove altogether the duty on raw cotton, the excise duty on glass, to abolish restrictions on manufactures which prevented the application of skill, to remove the duty upon auctions, and upon 350 or 360 other articles, altogether making a reduction in taxation of 2,000,000/. and upwards. He (Sir Robert Peel) still remained of opinion that it would be difficult to apply the remaining surplus of 2,000,000/. to time revival of industry in stay other manner than by the remission of the taxes which was proposed by the Government. lie saw some Gentlemen opposite, wile shared in the waggery of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, when lie was speak ing upon the proposition for the reduction of the duty on cotton,and who laughed when he talked about those who wore " fustian," and women who " wore two new gowns in a year," and who, by the reduction of the duty on cotton, would save the enormous sum of 3Ad. in twelve months.—(A laugh.) On this ground it was that the lion. Member for Lislseard scouted the notion of the reduction of the duty on cotton. Now, it was necessary that he should state the grounds on which it was pro posed by the Government to remove the duty on cotton. It would first facilitate its introdection at the port of import ; and it had also been stated to the Government, that there was no tax which was more unequal than the duty on raw cotton. They had been told that the duty on muslins, &c., was little or nothing, while that upon raw cotton was immense. In the United States there was no duty on raw cotton, neither was there in Ger many or Switzerland ; in France there was a duty, but thou there was a Osawback Chat made up the equivalent. He thought it wise to reduce a duty that amounted to eight or twelve per cent. on the raw ma• terial, and which would enable this country to enter into competition with foreign ones. If the House thought the remission unwise, they would propose some other which would come in competition with it as calling for removal, and if it were proposed to reduce the duty on tobacco or tea, he felt confident that the ultimate decision of the House would be in favour of the proposal of the Government. The lion. Gentleman admitted that the reduction of the duty on glass was politic. With respect to that article there had been no clamour ; and he would tell the Hon. Gentleman that he very much doubted whether the chief manufacturers in glass rejoiced in the proposed alteration. But, so far from the fact of the great manufacturers being quite willing to have the duty retained being a reason for re taining it. it was one of the strongest arguments which could be alleged for its abolition.—(Hear, hear.) lie ventured to predict that after the sth of April they would find a very extensive competition in the glass manufacture. It was quite a mistake to suppose that immense capital and enormous edifict-s were required for the manufacture of glass. lie believed that the large manufacturers would themselves derive advantage from the change. The total amount of exports in that beau tiful manufacture glass did not amount to 400.000/. By removing the duty altogether, he believed they would establish a manufacture, less important indeed than that of woollen, hut still a manufacture which would be the source of increased industry, of increased profit, and of increased commerce with other countries.— (Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman had been particularly merry on the subject of the proposed alterations in the tariff. Now he really thought it was hardly worthy of Hon. Members to select four or five articles with hard names and inquire what benefit would be derived from their free importa tion. It was very easy to ask what advantage would the public expect to obtain from the remission of duty on divi-divi.—(Laughter.) But in former days the charge brought against the Government was that they compli cated the tariff by leaving upon it 500 articles from which they derived no revenue, and they were told that it was merely the love of meddling with commercial pursuits which induced them to retain them. Well, they felt that there was force in that objection ; but now that they proposed the remission of this duty on a number of articles, Hon. Gentlemen asked, what was the use of removing the duty ? (Hear, hear.) Still, on the whole, he thought it was for the interest of commerce that the alteration should take place. In the 430 articles were included many of the raw materials o f manu f ac t ure. —(H ear. hear.) The lion. Gentleman said they permitted alum to be im ported free of duty, in order that bread might be adulterated. He could tell the Honourable Gen tleman that alum was an article which —en tered into many important manufactures in this country, and that there was no article against the duty on which there had been more urgent representations. There was a manufacture of alum carried on in China. Every one seemed to wish to extend our commercial relations with that country, and to receive from China something else besides tea in return for our exports.— (Hear, hear.) The supply of alum from China and the Roman States was very limited, and this was another reason for the alteration. Well, then, they remitted the duty on bark, on hides, on skins, on oils, on indigo, and on staves, articles which were all of great import ance to the manufacturers of this country. The total amount of duty remitted was about 350,000/. They were about to establish a traffic in these arti• cles perfectly free from Custom-house regulations. If there were any taxes which the Hon. Gentleman wished to remit in pre ference, let him make his proposal ; but after he had done so, he did not despair of receiving the sanction of the House to the alteration proposed by the Government.—( Hear, hear.) Now quite different doctrines appeared to prevail that night, from ' those which were held last year in reference to the duty on i staves. Nothing would be more easy than to show that the agricultural labourer would receive very little direct benefit from the remission of the duty on staves; and if the Hon. Gentleman would calculate the benefit to the labourer and his family, he would find perhaps that the duty was even less than the 3d., which he calculated as the probable gain for cotton-wool. But what was said last year? They were told that by retaining the duty on staves, they were plucking up by the roots an im portant branch of manufacture in this country, and destroy ing the trade of the cooper. It was said that they had opened the West Indies almost to free competition of An,erican staves, admitting them at a duty of 71 per cent., and that they were precluding all hopes of a revival of trade in that depart ment. " Remove the duty on staves." said numbers. " and your cooperage will revive, and be able to compete with Ame rica and other countries." Was it, then, any test of this be nefit of removing that tax to say that the agricultural labourer would derive no benefit from it ? Certainly not. By the re mission of duty they caused a revival of trade, and enabled the coopers of this country to compete with those of ether nations ; and, at the same time, they conferred a b ene fit w hi c h, taken in conj unc ti on w ith other similar benefits, would * re act upon the condition of other classes of the community. —( Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the duty on wool. They had heard for three or four successive years of the ad vantages which would be derived from that change, and nearly 1,600,0001. of the surplus had been applied under that head. Then, with respect to the auction duty ; while he ad mitted that there had been no clamour for the remission, he thought if ever there was a tax which was unjust in its ope ration, it was the duty paid on the transfer of property by auction; and its chief advantage was to enable persons who wished to sell their estates to ascertain their value by that means, in order that they might afterwards sell them by private contract.—( Hear.) Talk of the income-tax, why there was no part of that tax which was so unjust in principle as the auction duty, as it was at present levied. It was impossible, indeed, to look at the situation of this country, and not feel that strong reasons might be urged fur the repeal or reduction of many duties, which it was not in their power at present to remove.— (Hear, hear.) If the lion. Gentleman could show that there were other taxes which imposed greater burdens than those proposed to be remitted, that no doubt would be a good reason for re-considering their proposals ; but he must say that he thought the voice of the country was, on the whole, in favour of the selection which had been made. He could name taxes, the removal of which would be more sensibly felt by the work ing classes, hut he entreated the House to bear in mini the manupro bable effect of taxes bearing upon Use industry o f th e country. For several years the poor-rate had i ncrease d ; last year, how ever, a favourable change had taken pl ace, t h e i ncreased em ployment re d uc ti on o f d uty g population ha v i ng re dp l h o c y e m d e n t tf e bu rh might be less in the case of cott on or g l ass at first, than in the case of soap an d ot h er art i cles. Yet, it they were ensuring great bra nc h es o f manu f actures against vicissitudes , and against such di s t ress as t h at w hi ch t d h e e n . The manufacturing visited the country in 1840 and 1841 ; if, by removing the duty on glass, they were giving new scope for employment, they were taking effectual means of diminishing the risk on account of increasing charges for the poor. He would not then enter into the comparative advantages of direct and in direct taxation. They proposed to limit the duration of this tax to the period of three years ; and his colleagues and him self had the strongest impression that the interest of the country required its imposition for that period. In order that they might make the experiment fairly, they named articles which pressed heavily upon the industry of the country; and remembering that the foreign trade had risen from 461 mil lions in 1843 to 50 millions in 1844, he thought they had reason to hope that the effect would bo not only to extend the internal industry, but also the external commerce of -the coun try. A tax, on being absolutely removed, ceased to be a di rect source of revenue ; but if they increased the manufac turing prosperity of the country, it would have, if not a direct, at least an indirect effect upon the revenue, and it would, on the whole, be compensated for the loss.—( Hear, hear.) When they last proposed this tax, the Noble Lord opposite objected to any alteration, from an unwillingness to disturb the efficiency of this great instrument. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that ne petitions had been presented against this tax ; and there was ne rational way o faccounting for that, except by admitting that the burden would be felt to be less onerous than was ex pected, and that the inquisition which hadbeen conducted through the officers of the stamp department had been attended with less of injustice and of the appearance of oppression than many had seemed to anticipate.—( Hear, hear.) The assessed taxes had not fallen ; there was no appearance of a transfer of capi tal in consequence of the imposition of this tax. He admitted that the tax was open to great objection, and that the inquisi tion which it involved was painful ; but, considering all the machinery which was in force , and that n o t a s i n gle petition had been presented against the tax, he earnestly hoped that the House would consent to continue it unaltered, without mo dification. lie trusted that the House would affirm the pro posal of her Majesty's Government, that they would permit the income-tax to be continued for the period he had proposed, making it a tax upon income and not upon property.—( Hear, hear.) They should not attempt to estimate the relative value of different sources of income. If they did so it would be necessary to ascertain the particular disease under which a man laboured, and the exact reason why this temporary source of revenue was less valuable than a permanent one ; and, in order to effect that ob ject, instead of getting rid of an inquisition, they , would have to establish one for the purpose of adjusting all these details, which, if it were carried out with equity, would be ten times more oppressive than the existing inquisition was alleged to have been found.—( Hear, hear.) lie did hope, therefore, that the House would consent to affirm the proposition of the Go vernment, and affirm it as it stood, without any alteration. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would affirm this tax without alteration. After the Right Hon. Baronet sat down the House was for some time in a state of considerable exciteme n t, an d earnest and loud conversation was carried on in every part of the House. At length Mr. SHEIL, who had for some time been in posse ss i on o f the House, rose and said, that the Right Hon. Baro ne t, th e First Lord of the Treasury, bad asked what substitut e th ey would provide in lieu of the income-tax. He should f or hi s part m sayore fair that income -tax. It tostaba tax so fo un d e d i n possibly be imp ose d wou l d he manifest injustice that he (Mr. Sheil) conceived th a t o f a ll the evidence of odious iniquity in the imposition of t axa ti on than any the i impost n e this was the most glaring and unjustifiable. They had disre garded the weights which had been imposed on those who realized incomes from professions and trades, and had attempted to realise from them that supply which ought only to be rea lised from sources which pressed in no way upon them. The Right Honourable Baronet thought to realise an amount by those very means which the Ministry had hitherto been accustomed to !oak to in case of deficiency in the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Shell) could not give the Right Hon. Baronet credit for such stolidity, and if he would only tax his ingenuity he was satisfied that he would not find it so difficult a matter as he apprehended to discover a sub titute. He repeated that if the Right Hon. Baronet would only tax his ingenuity, he would find the means of ac complishing the object which he had before him, and remov ing the obstacle which he had so painfully put before him. Now, he (Mr. Shell) thought that he would not find this so difficult as he conceived it to be. He would not hesitate to tell the Right Hon. Baronet that the whole difficulty might be re moved by a tax analogous to the income-tax ; he would im pose a tax analogous to the legacy duty on the devolution of property in land. The Right Hon. Baronet would find in this a source of income for the State which would have all the effect of an income-tax to him. He ( Mr. Shell) had heard of a legacy left to Christ Church Hospital. (The Hon. Gentle man was here interrupted by Members on the Opposition benches suggesting that he was wrong in the name.) Well, if not to Christ's Hospital, at least to some other great public hospital for 140,0001., tfpon which he understood there was a duty payable, as legacy duty, of 14,0001. Now, if there was a legacy of 14,0001. upon a sum like this , what might not be the amount arising from the whole o f t h e property on which this tax might he levied ? To this tax there could not be the slightest objection ; for between this tax and the ineeme-tax there was the strictest analogy. Thi s was a tax Which wotild in no way pets Wert the Right Hqn. Efsweilet'a opposing friends--the agriculturists. it would in no way affect rents—it would in ne way affect wages—it would only lay a reasonable impost upon the transference of land. For this tax there was every reason to be found in analogy, rea son, and plain common sense. By this means they would provide a means for utterly avoiding the income-tax. By this means they might annihilate the whole of schedule D the list, and yet secure the 1,225,0001. which now consti tuted the whole of the tax derived especially from the tax on professional labour. Some reason might be assigned against such an impost in the assertion that it would so largely affect great capital. This might be t rue , an d ' ye t he (Mr. Sheil) thought that this was no great objection when he re fleeted that it might possibly save the whole of the tax which pressed so heavily on professional labour. Now, what did Mr. Pitt do under similar circumstances? The Right Hon. Baronet had accomplished in 1845 that which Mr. Pitt had never at tempted to do. He (Mr. Sheil) would not pretend to institute any comparison between the Right Hon. Baronet and his po licy, and that of the great man whom he had named. It was unquestionable that Mr. Pitt was of a very high, ex alted, intellectual grade. But Mr. Pitt had never dared to impose an income-tax otherwise than as a war-tax. In the time of peace Mr. Pitt had never dared to impose a tax of this nature. He had been accustomed to press towards his end, and when disappointed or thwarted had never sent in a series of resignations. But then he had had no incubus of a Russell before his eyes. The income-tax had been first imposed in the year 1793, and immediately on the eonclusion of the war it was remitted ; and it was only on the resumption of the war that it had been again imposed. The Right Hon. Baronet bad said that he had strong reasons for imposing a tax which all allowed to be odious in its nature and unjust in its operation—a tax pressing unequally on every class of society, for it fell with comparative lightness on those whose property would pass unaffected by the impost, while it pressed with a terrible severity on those who were unable to pay. The Right Hon. Baronet had, spoken loudly on the gene ral prosperity of the country, but he seemed to have lost sight, most conveniently, of the good harvests with which the country had been blessed ; but in this unhappy contrast of various cir cumstances the Right Honourable Baronet appeared to have forgotten the bad harvests and the consequent difficulty which had been endured during the time of his predecessors. Had these circumstances not occurred, the consumption would never have been impaired and no deficit would have been suffere(l. But in the endeavour to repair this deficit the Right Hon. Baronet had determined to rerait the imports on glass, sugar, and restore the income-tax. And what assurance had the public that this tax would not be increased from three to six, and even ten per cent? Could the Right Hon. Baronet say that such would not be the case ? He well knew that no assurance of his at the present time would hold, and that none that he gave would hold good, if, at the end of the period for which it was imposed, any circumstances should arise to render its continu ance convenient. The income-tax had never been considered any other than a war-tax. It had been imposed in the midst of darkness and storms, when the country was threatened on every side in 1793, and immediately on the peace of Amiens it was repealed; nor did the Ministry dare, even when the power of Napoleon was swelling to its highest, to impose the tax on the recommencement of the war, and it was only at the invocation of England, he might say of all England, that it was again im posed. Yet did the Right Hon. Baronet come down to the House in the year 1842, when on all hands and in every coun try there was nought but peace and quietude, when all was se rene, when the sky was light and the breezes of prosperity fanned the sails of the vessel of the State, the First Lord of the Treasury came down to that House and proposed a tax which was equi valent to a tax for war. The horizon was clear and the air was still—the darky storms which has gathered in the distance had passed away—China, to the surprise of the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite, had become from a formidable enemy a happy ally, and had already opened such fresh and extended fields for our commerce as te cause a new establishment in the Board o Trade. France, that had assumed all the air and panoply of war, had already entered into new treaties for amity aad good will. That dispute respecting the right of search, which at one time had been likely to bring down the gloom of ruin and dis ruption every every country in Europe, had passed by like the sighings of an autumnal breeze. The Peninsular—that con stant source of anxiety—had settled into an apathy under the Protectorate of France, as submissively as if it had been only an island in the Pacific. Italy had become the amiable adopter of Conservative institutions ; and it was under these circum stances—these felicitous circumstances—that the Right Hon. Baronet, with a modesty peculiarly his own, came down to the House and proposed a war-tax. Was it to be wondered at that there was complaint and disatisfaction when the Right Hon. Baronet was doing more than ever Lord Castlereagh had dared to do in the worst period of the war, when there was such an endeavour to legislate for the privileged classes ? He (Mr. ( Sheil) believed that one of the worst of the oppres sions of this odious tax was that which fell upon those who had the tax to pay on 150/. ' who vainly endeavoured to veil their necessities and preserve their grade, through the thin tran sparent veil with which they covered their poverty and distress. What could be more unjust, then, than to impose the same tax on the product of intellectual toil, on that which might be called the strength of a man's mind, and on that produce which came from the land, income which was itself as stable as the earth it came from.—( Hear, hear.) What could be more unjust than to impose the same tax on John in the Garret and John on the Woolsack of the House of Lords ?—(Cheers. )—What could be more unjust than to impose the same tax on the First Lord of the Treasury with his 30,00/. a year, and the gen tleman who reports his speech on the income-tax in the gal lery of the House of Commons ?—( Cheers, and counter-cheers, continued for some seconds.) Those were men of accomplished , minds, minds embellished with all the beauties of literature, , dedicated to that profession in which many of the first men of the world had, at one time, been engaged. These came within the influence of the income-tax, but at the expense of great wear and tear both of mind and body. If one of these men , lost his health, he was perhaps reduced to a si tuation most appalling, and yet that man condemned to feel the gall of bitterness at home—(the conclusion of the sentence was lost in the cheering which was re-echoed from all parts of the House.) This tax.—( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") He had said nothing to wound the feelings of any Gentleman upon the Treasury benches. His comparison might be a feeble but it certainly was a faithful one.— ( Hear, hear.) If the tax were unjust, if it were inquisitorial, if it were immoral, if it held out a premium to fraud, should it not at once be done away with ? they would say that these were the visionary and fallacious suggestions of a factious man, but if he denounced the income-tax as unjust, if he de nounced it as inquisitorial, if he denounced it as im moral, it was denounced as inquisitorial, as immoral, and as unjust by the very first men of Europe. It was denounced by Mr. Baring, the prince of commerce, by Wilberforce the high-minded, the moral, the kind-hearted, and the good ; and, though last, not the least worthy among these, by the late Sir Robert Peel, and they would for give him, if lie ventured to say, that they would have reason to exclaim with him, " Patris dictum sapientis temeritas filii comprobavit." Mr. COBDEN, who spoke from the lower end of the House, and was in the opening indistinctly heard, said the income-tax was not understood. The most intelligent portion of the public were, up to this moment, unable to understand the real nature of the income-tax ; and the Members of that House had been themselves unable to obtain the information for them. It was this question of the income-tax that had brought up the sugar duties, and this measure was as incomprehensible as the sub ject they were discussing. They had tried extremely hard to get information from the Government, but neither he nor any other Hon. Member could induce them to give it. Now he ventured to say that the sugar duties were as bad as the in come-tax itself, and when the people properly understood the question, they would entertain a widely different feeling than the Government said they did now. The Government had been asked a question, but they refused to answer it ; but he could tell the House and the country, that at the end of the year the public would find that the measure now brought forward would not have ' cheapened their sugar. It appeared to him that there was a great misapprehension prevailing in that House with regard to the operation or tendency of the income-tax. He was not one of those who agreed with Hon. Members who said there had been a vast deal of evasion of the incoro e-tax, but, on the con trary, he believed a great deal more ha been p a id th an oug h t to have been paid. He had a letter in his pocket from Bir mingham odn. Member bear him ou t behindin this statement. hi (al r. Ai H n e n t h z ) a4l consulted , and he which believed to e Hon. Member could bear out the correct ness of the extract he was about to read to them. The writer said—" I know from my own knowledge that in this town with many individuals were made to pay the income-tax although they were insolvent at the time. They went time after time to the Commissioners to endeavour to get it taken off, but the only answer they could get was—you must pay the whole. The income-tax has sent many persons to a premature grave, and I know there are thousands in this town who will not expose their affairs te the Commissioners."—( Hear, hear. ) Now, Hon. Gentlemen could gather from this the feeling which prevailed in Birmingham with regard to the income tax. But the House had lost sight of an important fact. Those persons who were charged under schedule D are sub ject to the scrutiny and the catechisation of a Board of Com missioners ; and he ventured to say that if Members ;of that or the other House of Parliament had to go before commissioners to be scrutinised, in the same way as tradesmen, the income tax would not last a month. Why they had lost sight of . the most important, the most obnoxious, and the moo..iexatious part of the income-tax. It was not the athoUnt that the people complained of—for he would venture to say, if they would this the th t e a t,. uponx opuono tprlye would h oo en nu dd d pn u e s or t t r at i :ablen permanently only modify the tax so as to inflict only a f a i r proport i on of submit dle classes ie t of otlad t x h t. e h—e c i n( o n u t n eh t ae r r y y, and d y to m it, B w ere deceiving themselves, if they fancied that the p eo pl e o f hear.)' They went under the provisions of this Act to a tradesman in Cheapside, or a banker, a n d as k e d him to submit, a t the London Tavern, to the scrutiny of a body of gentlemen, who were his neighbours, his last balance-sheet. What was the answer the messenger generally wasthis :—" r• I got to this appli ca ti on ? Wh y it have been afraid to let my wife see it, and, indeed, I never let my sons see it." Als, but the law, said the messenger, had power to compel the tradesman or banker to submit for inspection his balance-sheet or accounts ; and if he refused, what did they do? Why they levied a fine of 501.—and the tradesman paid it, in preference to exposing his affairs. The Noble Lord the Hon. Member for Sunderland need not give his warning, for they might depend upon it that, at the next election, they would find that both Whigs and Tories were averse to submits ting to this tax. They might depend upon this, although no outbreaks or tumults had taken place out of doors. Men could not petition against this law, because the tendency of the Bill itself was to prevent the people getting together and talking the matter over. Nay, a man absolutely did not like to consult his neighbour upon this subject, but they felt the grievance never theless. In London, certainly, they had had very little surcharge ; but they had heard what had been going on in Bir minghara ; and he could speak of the North of England, where there certainly had been a good deal of surcharge. In some part of England parties who had been surcharged had been subject to insults which were becoming in no men, much less public Commissioners. Ile knew a case himself, in which a surgeon was surcharged, and had to go before the Corn. missioners to be examined, when such questions as the following *sere put to him :—" How much profit do you get from blue stone ? We understand you keep two gigs ?—does your wife sometimes use one of them? You keep two horses too, and sometimes ride them with the saddle ?—does your wife some times use one of them ?" Then again a hair-dresser had te go before the Commissioners.—( Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the hair eiresser had a vote. Well, he went before the body of Commissioners, and was examined some thing in this style :—" You have a room ? What use do you make of it?—l use it for the purposes of n.y business. How many people's hair do you cut in the course of the year ?—So many ladies, and so many gentlemen. What do you charge them ?—Perhaps a shilling. Then you get tenpence at least of profit ? Do you not use your public room sometimes for domestic purposes ?" That was the sort of questioning to which these people were subjected. But before they could make the appeal, they were called upon to state their profits, whether they had more places of business than one, and whether they had more partners than one, and how many. What was the amount of capital employed in each house, distinguishing the amount which belonged to each partner, and detailing the annual in terest and the amount of profit due to each. He knew a gentleman who was surcharged 5,000/. ; notwithstanding he had honestly made a return of the amount of his profits. lie consulted a Member of that House on the subject, but nothing could be done for him, and he was told that he would have to take his books before the Commissioners. He referred, how ever, paying the fine to disclosing the secrets of his trade. Now he thought this was a grievance which lion. Gentlemen did not well understand in that House, or they would not have the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Govern ment making merry on this subject, and asking whether the people would not be so enamoured of this tax as to require its continuance for a further length of time.—(Laughter and aheers. ) He wished as a free .trader on that occasion to state that as far as the Right Hon. Baronet's measures of this ses sion went, he totally repudiated them as far as the free, traders were concerned. They were merely brought forward to keep up the delusion out el doort, that they were free. traders on the Ministerial side of the House, and thus enable them to continue the existence of monopoly. What did Mr. Macgregor say of the amount of revenue they might obtain from sugar? Since Friday last, he (Mr. Cob den) had asked two gentlemen more likely to be acquainted with the subject than any men in London. He had asked them this question. "If you wished to get the largest amount of revenue from sugar, giving sugar at the same price as the Government intend the people to have it, how much revenue would you get, and still give the sugar at that price ?" " Six millions sterling," was the answer. He believed that if they were to put a duty on all foreign and colonial sugar of 235. per cwt. they would get more than six millions, and the people would get their sugar at the same price as under the proposed law, in addition to which they would be opening a channel for increased trade. A good deal had been said out of compli ment to the Right Hon. Gentleman from his measures having a tendency towards free trade. He ( Mr. Cobden) could not see the wisdom of the Right Hon. Baronet's policy since he had been in power, for instead of opening new markets, he had shut up two of the greatest markets of the world—North and South America. The one by imposing a duty on corn, ab solutely prohibiting and shutting them out by an unstatesman like scheme in the markets of Brazil. How a Government could have the courage under such circumstances to put them selves forward as free traders passed his imagination altogether. Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to say a few words to justify his own vote on this question, especially as the Right lion. Gentleman had alluded to an observation which he had made in one of the debates which had taken place on this sub ject. This tax might be imposed on various occasions, and for various reasons. One case was exigency of war, when the country was in great danger. Now he ( Lord J. Russell) readily admitted that that was a fair occasion for the imposi tion of this tax; and he conceived that that was a fair reason for not attempting any modification in it. Ho thought it rea sonable to say to the farmer, " You must supply your horses for the army, because that is the way the demands of the army are supplied throughout the country." Another mode of using the income-tax was that which the Right Hon. Gentle man had proposed in 1842, when lie said, " There are taxes which press very much on the industry of the country, that we hope by imposing an income-tax for three years the in dustry of the country will be so far recovered that the revenue will be equal to what it has been in any former year." But neither of these modes was that upon which the income-tax was now proposed. The ground now taken of imposing the tax was the commutation of other taxes. lie (Lord J. Rus sell) thought they were bound to consider whether this tax was as just, as equal, and as little vexatious as they could make it. They could no longer say that they had a great public exigency ; they could no longer say that they were imposing it only for a short time, and that all the inconveniences would depart with the tax itself. They were imposing it on grounds which made it almost impossible for them to take it off at the end of three years, and on grounds upon which it must be renewed again and again. He (Lord John Russell) thought especially, after hearing the statements of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport—those forcible state ments of the inequality of the tax—that it would be but fair for that House, before they finally agreed upon it, to examine into all the conditions of the tax, and attempt to remove some of those objections which were applicable to it in its present state. He could not understand for a moment the objections of his Hon. Friend the Member for Kendall, who said that when the income-tax ceased the inequality of the tax also ceased. Why if a man who obtained his income from a pro fession were to be completely paralysed by disease, no doubt his source of income would fail, and there would be no income tax; but they had already received the tax from him at the same rate as that from a person who had an estate from which he would receive his income although he might be in such a state of health as not to be able to leave his bedroom. It was impossible by any sophistry to show that there was equality in that mode of using the tax. But then the Hon. Member for Montrose, to his great surprise, gave a most curious reason why they should not enter into this investiga tion. The Prime Minister had been asked if he would con sent to any modification of this tax. The lion. Gentleman thought that great modifications were required, but as the Right Hon. Gentleman would not make those modifications, it was, he said, no use bothering him any more.--(Laughter.) He (Lord J. Russell) had heard the Right Hon. Gentleman described, on the other side of the House, as the Petruchio of Liberalism, and if that were so, he thought the Honourable Member for Montrose might be looked upon as the Katharine —(Laughter)—certainly the Hon. Member had been com pletely tamed by the discipline which had been used. He (Lord John Russell) agreed very much with the Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stockport, in what he had said with re spect to free trade, and, admitting the figures that had been used the other night, he could not but say that, looking to all the benefits which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give to the public on the imposition of the income-tax, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that this tax might have been imposed with less severity on precarious incomes, if the tax paid to the West Indian proprietors had been diminished. The Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stockport had said that 6,000,0001. might be obtained for the revenue from sugar, and the price not raised beyond that which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give it. Now they had given 750,000/. a-year, in per petuity to the West India proprietors by giving them 20,000,0001., and if they gave this country, 1,000,0001., they would still have 5,000,0001. out of the present tax on sugar, without making the sacrifice of 1,300,000/., which, it was acknowledged, would not benefit the people, in order to give 2,000,000/. of benefit to the West India planters. Those who had suffered from that income-tax must justly com plain of it as a grievance, when monopoly and restriction were kept up. He was perfectly satisfied that it was in the power of the Right Hon. Baronet, if he chose, to deal with those great articles of timber, sugar, and corn, to relieve the public, and to give a still greater impetus and vigour to com merce, and to make a just and fair modification of the tax. Ho was not at all insensible to the benefits that would be de rived from the abolition of the duties on 430 articles. He re gretted, however, that the great articles which constituted the food of the people had not been dealt with. The Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had referred to Mr. Deacon Hume. He (Lord John Russell) thought that Mr. Deacon Hume had stated that there were two modes of proceeding with regard to restrictions on commerce, The mode was that which had been mentioned by the Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Kendal, and the other was with regard to those great articles to which he ( Lord John Russell) had alluded. He thought the first mode of proceeding for a Minister to take would be to establish a free trade in these articles. That might be the course the Right Hon. Gentleman intended to pursue.— ( Laughter.) Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montrose was in die secret. —(Renewed laughter.) But he (Lord John Russell) thought that if that was to be the course, the Right Hon. Baronet had better declare it, and get rid of the diffi culty at once. For his ( Lord J. Russell's) own part, on the ground the Right Hon. Gentleman himself had stated more than once, he was ready to say that he would give his vote for the property and income-tax for three years, seeing that great benefits would be derived from taking off duties which were very oppressive to trade ; but in voting for it on this ground, he, at the same time, thought they ought to consider what modifications could be made, and even if those modifica tions should lead to a reduction of the amount of the duty, if they took off one million of the five, there would be ample compensation for adopting the principles of free trade, while it would place the trade of the country on a sound foundation. , Mr. VILLIERS did not think the Hon. Member for Lis keard would take the advice of the Llon. Member for Pon tefract, and withdraw his motion. He (Mr. Villiers) fully anticipated that the income-tax would be continued, and for that reason he thought they were bound to see that the tax was made as little odious as possible.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the best recommendation of this tax was, that it was a direct one. lie thought that a direct tax was far better than an indirect one, as it interfered less with trade, and less with that activity and enterprise which were the means of accumulating wealth. Nothing could be sounder than the opinion which prevailed out of doors, throughout the country, on the subject of taxation. The people were not at all op posed to taxation that was necessary. They did not wish to repudiate liabiliity. All they required was, that the taxes that were imposed should be just.—( Hear.) But the people wanted to be persuaded that the revenue thus obtained from the income-tax was properly applied ; he did not think this was shown, he did not think this was the case. The recent discussion on the sugar duties was calculated to create great dissatisfaction. It was calculated to show that the people were required to submit to an odious impost, to a tax generally disliked, without having any advantage from it. Were it pro perly applied to a reduction of duties which interfered manufactures and commerce, he did not believe it p-' •d cause any dissatisfaction. Thi s was not t h e ground had been pretty clearly established tbs' at present. It now, because they had to ean , e_:: the tax was imposed of which the depresaioa , a recurrence of those periods, se was the cause of its b e i ng fi rs t im pod• Ther e , 7-ras not the slightest d ou bt or quest i on, i n the mind any person, that the cause of the decline of the reve nue, during the two or three years before the present Govern ment came into power, was occasioned by bad harvests and the corn-laws. That was a settled conviction in the public mind, and he did not know that a greater fraud or imposition had ever been attempted to be palmed upon the people, than to make them believe it was the existence of the late Government, and on account of the policy it pursued, that the revenue had fallen off, and that because the present Gentle men had succeeded to power, the revenue had been recovered. The revenue declined at that time in consequence of the defi ciency of food and higher prices; and it recovered simply in consequence of good harvests, which meant abundance, which meant cheapness, which meant the power on the part of the people of consuming the articles that were taxed.—(Hear.) This could not be repeated too often ; it must be impressed on the Gentlemen in that corner of the House ' they must be told of it every wee k o f t h e sess i on, t h ey must be constantly re minded that they were the real causes of this additional tax ation. This was what the people did not like ; for this tax was first imposed in addition to all others from a deficiency cause by the corn-laws and bad harvests. Those Gentlemen, there fore, who supported the corn-laws, were strictly responsible for the continuance of this tax. This would, perhaps, be proposed in 1848, when they should probably have had soother set of bad harvests, when it would be necessary to continue it ; and those Gentlemen would have to answer to the country for that continuance. His Hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had alluded to the evidence of Mr. Deacon llume and Mr. Macgregor before the Import Duties Committee ; According to this evidence, if they did not recover the revenue by reducing their expenditure, they must do it by giving greater power to the people of consuming taxed articles. If their Customs and Excise were to produce 75 per cent. of the revenue, they must increase the consuming power of the people, and make articles more cheap and accessible to them. He should not trouble the house with many figures on this point— ( Hear, hear)—but he would cite a few in order to illustrate the evidence given by these gentlemen, and of the justice of the view of what was really the cause of the deficiency of the revenue when the harvests were bad, and of what had really been the cause of the improvement in it since the harvests had been good. The net produce of the Customs and Excise in 1836 was 36,392,000/. ; in 1840 the net revenue produced from these sources was 35,536,4691. ; there was a reduction of upwards of one million. And what occurred between the years 1836 and 1840? There were 1,400,000 added to the numbers of the people, and 5 per cent. additional placed on the Customs and E xc i se d u ti es ; an d yet there was a falling off t of a million in the revenue. New, he would just ask the atten tion of the House to the difference in amountth i e msn paid by the people for food , at h the three years, 1834, 1835, and 183 6 , the cost c e ost pr ofe In the three the wheat consumed by the people was 107,135,0001. years, 1837, 1838, a nd 1839, the wheat consumed by the people coat 152,806,465/. In those three years fifty-two zillions more were paid by the people for the necessaries of life than there had been during the three preceding years when the harvests were good. They had heard also what was corresponding falling off in that time of that portion of th e the revenue that formed 75 per cent. of the whole amount. Would any one doubt, after the experience not only of these but of other years, that whenever food was dear the revenue fell off ? Ilad not the people a right to ask why they were taxed in this extraordinary way on the first necessary of life, and then re quired to pay a most offensive impost to make up the deficiency in the revenue caused by it ? He could understand the inten tion to keep up the protective system if the Hon. Member for Somersetshire or Dorsetshire were in power, but after the Speech they had heard that evening from the Right Hon. Gentleman, he could not understand his persevering in the system. That speech was a perfect free trade argument, as good a free trade speech as those his Honourable Friends were accustomed to address to public meetings, and he could scarcely believe his ears when he heard the Right Hon. Gentleman ask what had happened in the case of wool, and showed that all the fears of those who declared the English grower would be ruined by the abolition of the duty were groundless. fle thought he was every Imo. Tt ment going to declare that what had happened with atoor , A would happen with corn—(He ar , h ear ) — b ut he said some. If 0, , j‘ thing else—not corn.—(Hear, h ear .) A n d when he (Mr. ' Villiers) brought forward—as he should do—hie motion for the repeal of the corn-laws, the Right Hon. Gentleman would • find some peculiar circumstances that distinguished wool from corn.--( Hear, hear.) He hoped the public would read that part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, which was as good a free-trade argument as he had ever heard, and satisfy themselves whether there was any justice in continuing this additional tax, and whether or not they ought not to resolve, with his Hon. Friend, that as the tax was to be perpetual-- and perpetual it must be if the corn-laws existed—they ought not to make it as just and as little odious as possible? Mr. MIJNTZ said the Hon. Member for Stockport had referred to him to confirm a statement contained in a letter from Birmingham. He could not confirm' it further than this, that he knew there was such a person living in Birming ham. But he could confirm the assertion, that from the mode of proceeding, the income-tax was not very popular in that town. The income-tax, if not to be eternal, would evidently be of long duration, for they had heard that if it was not im posed, they must raise three millions another way. When it was imposed, the Right Hon. Gentleman hoped that the elasticity of the country would enable him to dispense with it. He was always frightened when he heard a Minister talk about the elasticity of the resources of the country. But it had not come into operation ; and without the income-tax there would not only be a deficiency, but the revenue would be in a state of great depression. The diffi culty was the taking from one class to give to another. If the Right Hon. Baronet could do that, he would do a great deal, but he doubted, even with the property-tax, whether the Right Hon. Baronet, with all his ingenuity, would be able to effect it. Another reason for his rising was to notice what seemed a wilful misrepresentation in one of the evening prints —the House would stop hire if he were irregular. It was there stated that he said the Right Hon. Baronet had improved the condition of one class of society by taking from another—taking from the rich to give it to the poor. He distinctly stated that the Right lion. Baronet had taken from the agricultural inte rest to give to the manufacturing. By the agricultural interest he did not mean the landlords, but the working class, amongst whom the greatest distress prevailed. He was still of the same opinion. He would not keep the House long, but it was necessary for him to say some. thing.—( Great laughter.) He meant necessary for him to set himself right before the public—net to enlighten the British House of Commons.—( Hear, hear. ) A disease per vaded the benches upon which he (Mr. Muniz) sat to a great extent. There was a free trade mania, which raged so tre mendously-that the very men ti on of the word free" was eagerly caught by Hon. Gentlemen near him, and he verily believed that if the Right Hon. Gentleman had declared they were free to hang themselves, these gentlemen would say it was a step in the right direction.—( Roars of laughter.) They caught up those declarations with great avidity, and did not give themselves time to consider the real tendency of the mea sures proposed by Government. Regarding the tax itself, he was now of the same opinion as he had expressed the other eight—he would vote for a property-tax, but was entirely ad verse to an income-tax. lie thought a pfoperty-tax a salu tary measure under existing circumstances. The House then divided, when these appeared— For the amendment Against it Aajority against the amendm en t .. -128 THE POWER OF APPEAL UNDER THE INCOME. TAX. _ _ On the gallery being re-opened, Mr. MILES was moving his amendment, " That from and after the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for all persons assessed under schedule (B), should they feel themselves aggrieved by such assessment, to appeal to the Commissioners for General Purposes, ten days' notice thereof in writing being given to the assessor or surveyor of the district; and the said Commissioners are hereby empowered to hear and determine such appeal, under the rules and regulations for appeals under schedule (D), in the aforesaid recited Act ; provided that no person so appealing shall be charged by the aforesaid Commis sioners more than the sum of threepence-halfpenny in England, and twopence-halfpenny in Scotland, for every twenty shillings of the property he occupies." The Right Hon. Baronet had taken from the agricultural tenantry of England the profits they , had till that time enjoyed, and yet he added to their burdens by the present income-tax. If the tax were proved to he bad, why should they not amend it? What mattered it whether it were to be continued for a longer or shorter period? He could give them an instance of the operation of this tax on tenant-farmers. He knew a friend who possessed six or seven hundred acres of land, and upon every hundred acres he had expended a capital of 7001. Whil e he was in possession of this farm he married a lady possessed of considerable property in the funds. He paid the income_t ax in the first year without disturbing this property, but in the last year he was obliged to draw 6001., and this year he would have to draw other 6001. from money which he intended should remain to accumulate for the benefit of his children. It was right and just that they should have the allowance he required, made to them, and he therefore asked that a power should be inserted in the Bill to enable them, when they were surcharged to submit their accounts to the revision of the authorised, Commissioners. The clause was then brought up and read a first time. On the question being put of the second reading, The CHANCELLOR o f th e EX CIIEQUER rose and said, he thought he should best consult the feelings of the House at that late period of the night if he simply confined himself to the statement of his Hon. Friend, and the reasons which would induce him not to accede to his proposition. His Hon. Friend proposed that the tenants of land should be per. mitted in case of their profits being mis-stated to appeal to the Commissioners and obtain an abatement of their proportion of the tax. Now it appeared to him that the ar rangement would be essentially unjust. The House would bear in mind the circumstances under which the assessment upon tenant-farmers was made. A specific rate was always imposed upon them according to the amount of their rental. It was stated, when the measure was first introduced, that persons engaged in farming land, found it extremely difficult to keep the same books of account as traders and professional men. It was therefore judged advisable to take a limited pro. portion of the rent, and in the first instance, the amount was at three-fourths the annual rental paid to the landlord. This was agreed to in 1816, but in 1842 the amount was reduced to one half the rent, and the same provision was made in the Bill nosy before the House. His Hon. Friend asked the House to allow the tenant-farmer the right of appeal in cases where he sus tained loss, but his lion. Friend did not say that any addition should be given to the public for increased profits. He did not pretend to have a very extensive knowledge of farming, but he was perfectly well aware that a farmer often increased his expenditure in one year in anticipation of augmenting his incom e i n t h e succeeding year ; and hence, if the Hon. Member's amendment were agreed to, it would be attended with serious loss to the Exchequer. His lion. Friend would bear in mind that no tenant was assessed whose rental was less than 360/., and this was an advantage given to no other trade or profession. Under these circum stances, he must resist the second reading of the clause. The House then divided, when there appeared. For the amendment Against it Majority fur Ministers On the re-admission of strangers, we found Mr. SPOONER bringing forward the amendment of which he had given notice, relating to certain deductions to be made from the income-tax assessment for poor and local rates, and other expenditure. Mr. HUTT begged leave to suggest to the Hon. Member for Birmingham that it would be expedient to propose the amendment at another stage of the Bill, so as :not to interfere with the progress of those measures remaining to be disposed of in the Committee of Ways and Means, by the delay of which much inconvenience was occasioned to trade. Sir R. PEEL felt that the delay of the final determination of the House upon the export duty of coal, for instance, was a great inconvenience. The Hon. Member for Birmingham might allow the Committee of Ways and Means to proceed to night, and move his amendment en the third reading of the Bill on Wednesday. Mr. SPOONER did not wish to stand in the way of public business, and would act urea the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. After some cor:versation, very imperfectly heard in the gallery Mr.. WA KLEY also postponed to Wednesday (on the third reading of the Bill), the amendment of which he had given notice. Mr. Feasma and Sir R. H. Isaus likewise postponed their amendments. Mr. GREENE then brought up the report, which wLs read and received, and ordered to be engrossed. The House then went through a Committee of Ways and Means. Colonel SIBTHORP moved that returns moved for on the 7th of February, respecting the Poor Law Commissioners ; Feb. 19, Comptroller of the Exchequer ; Feb. 21, Fire In surance, be forthwith laid on the table.—Ordered. Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the orders of the Govern ment of India for the establishment of the Council of Educa tion in Bengal, and at the other presidencies ; also a return of the establishments maintained in 1843 for the promotion of education amongst the natives of British India, and the sala ries and expense of the same ; also, a statement of the funds supplied by the Indian Government, and from other sources, for the support of education in British India, and the expendi ture of the same, under separate heads, at each of the several Presidencies; also, a return of the names of distributors and sub-distributors of stamps, in England and Scotland, the dates of their appointments, the amount of security given by each, the rate per cent., and the amount of per centage paid to them severally in the year 1844 (to correspond with Parliamentary Paper, No. 364, of Session 1834 ).—Ordered. GA ME- LAWS. Mr. BRIGHT moved far the appointment of the following Members, as a Select Committee on the game-laws :—Mr. Bright, Mr. Burroughes, Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Cripps, Viscount Clive, Mr. Wil liam Mackenzie, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Etwall, Mr. Grantlev Berkeley, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. George Caven dish, and Mr. Trelawney. Mr. C. BERKELEY rose to move as an amendment— That the names of Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Gregory be inserted in place of Mr. George Cavendish and Mr. Beuverie. The Hon. Member said he thought he had reason to complain of the Right Hon. Baronet ,the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the constitution of the Committee. It would be in the recollection of the House that, during the discussion which took place on the motion of the Hon. Member for Durham, he told the Right Hon. .Baronet (Sir J. Graham) that he would accede to the appointment, provided the appointments were constituted in a fair and Im partial manner. Now he must say that a more unfair or partial Committee he could not conceive. It was perfectly true that the names of thre e gent l emen had been taken fro the list, and three others substituted. lie thought it requisite that three of those Members should be omitted and three others substituted. Of two of those three he knew nothing, but of the other he happened to k now some thing, he meant the Hon. Memb er for Lynn (Lord G. Ben tinck), of that lion. Member he must say that he deemed him a very improper partial person. H e never attended quarter sessions.—(Hear, hea r .) H e k new little and cared less about the circumstances of the country and how they were conducted. —( Laughter on all sides of the House.) He (Mr. Craven Berkeley) thought this C omm i ttee ought to be put on an im partial and equitable footing—( Hear, hear)—and he did not think that that Noble Lord's partiality for the turf and racing pent at all t o neutralze his hostility to that little animal for whose mining operations the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Bright) the other night expressed such a regard. He did not wish to see the Committee composed of Anti-Corn law leaguers and game preservers, but he thought that others ought to be added who were known for their impartiality, at tention, and ability. For this reason he should move that the name of the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock should be erased, and that of the Member fir Dublin substituted. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he did not think that there was any reason to complain of his conduct in the nomina. Lion of this Committee. It had been his earnest desire, both in public and private, and in everything he had said, that this Committee should be impartial. And he must say that in this matter the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Bright) had met him in a spirit of simila r goo d w ill an d r i g ht feeling. Ile said, in justice to that lion. Gentleman, that he had never been concerned in the formation of a committee which bad been proceeded with in so unexceptionable manner as it had been conducted by the Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. Gentle man moved the Committee. It was usual that the mo ver o f a Committee shouldjdemand that a majority of Members of his:own. way of thinking should be placed on that Committee. He (Sir James Graham) wished that a Memb , r of the Government should be en the Committee. His posii Jn precluded him.from J." 4 --s~~-~ . 1 f~ ill