The Sun. — London, England, 1853-05-10 00:00:00

;: fort co►a' Aug' itarY np $ r the e r,3• burg h a s e di• fort'' , 01 0 Ding ,11 1•10, Ceee' the Xelic° gar' how their tion of .ok ee. ) . Ole visit to after' Lag teci t flo11: otiD el' f alce o G o°°' ,do ° 10° 1 '1 ro°r ° clO sit t • •011e` t ber Dw if i 7, c t bf k,ocrs'el :ec o : 41A' 0 CO lifilo IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) THE RULES OF THE HOUSE. f Earl FIT ZWILLIAM was about to o _ give notice Motion, when he w as met b y loud cries of " The order of to order the day." The nobl e ear l , h owever, persisted, amid calls , which completely drowned his voice. After some confusion, Lord BEAUMONT rose to ord er . H e was exceed ingly sorry to see anything like confusion in their pro t eeediegs, and he begged to r em i n d th e no bl e ear l, th at he h ouse had adopted certain rules (relative to proceed- Wit,BnB With the business on the paper at a quarter past 'lye), and though he had protested against them when proposed, still, as they had been adopted by the 11 ° 11 f4e, they ought to be adhered to. No doubt it might be inconvenient to the noble earl on the present occasion t° give his not i ce, but at another time he would probably to h find the r u l es exceedingly convenient by enabling him ~ring on his motion at an early hour. He, therefore, trusted the noble earl would now give way. Earl FIT ZWILLIAM was proceeding to state that he did not intend to make any speech, but simply to give notice that to-morrow he should move that The r ema i nder of the sentence was lost in loud cries ZOlior "Order, order, " from all parts of the house, amid ch several noble lords vainly endeavoured to gain a "a j in g. At last 1 ' nd he teMn; arquis o f C LANRICARDE exclaimed, in a o " I move th a t thi s h ouse do now adjourn, " and cal m having b een restored, went on to say that he r emark s that motion i n or d er that he might make a few on the subject, which he hoped would set this rnatter cor rectly befo re th e h ouse. ms 's then r a brief discu ssion the question of adjournment put and negatived. takeYhe Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved, that the house into consideration the report of the Select Com fl?:ittee on the Displacement of the Labouring Cluses, _ r n ou t i ri t ta lta ak t f il led ' n th a view to adopting the followin 3 resolution, founded :---`` That before the first reading of any bill any works, in the construction of which com - - t ab e i e t r ed Y Power is sought to take thirty houses or more, mby the labouring classes in any one parish or plac e, ethleerpkromoters be required in the office of the rriof the Parliaments ast a tement of the number, de- Ption, and situation of the said houses, the number p s i o ac far as they can be ascertained) of persons to be ediisn he !d, atid whether any and what provision is mad . fro bill for remedying the inconvenience likely to arise stallind,nnil displacement in order to its being made a wo u ld% order." He thought that resolution, if adopted, ge n , ra ,l° very far towards destroying an evil that was e h ad r "Y felt, and, if he might judge from the letters . h Mr. r e " from suchgre at contractors as Mr. Cubitt, eb o , v f Work Well Mr' Brassey, ad others, he was sure it would The r T he :solution was then put and agreed to. l ariat r4 " 4"urghe (S co tl and) B i ll, and Sheriffs and Commis raittee. arts (Berwickshire) Bill passed through eom- TRE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Qcf_3 Earl of AIRLIE said he did not wish to ask for _getailii of the measure intended to ben troduce u d t toeswiarrnt for the future government of India, b ut he et. ra 2ed nquire whether it was the first o f . a ata v 4 eure s. lad , ° l l that subj ect , or whether it was intended to •ng - ken e th e • Was i t j to ' be understood that, in adopt -lal% measure proposed by her Majesty ' s Ministers,r ra ne e was pledging itself to abstain from all inter mg t 7, e in the affairs of the East India Government dur tel.:74ll4od for which the provisions of the bill were opeu The o rce, or w ere t h ere any quest i ons to be left 1;i of Prin • pie ,have question he asked was, not one of detail, cland one on which it was desirable to a ear understanding.. ship s t Bari of ABERDEEN said he thought their lord- , tii ti m ..,nst feel that he could not, in answer to the ques atiria„d,"" Put to him, enter into the merits of the mea- L a j h hue to the noble earl had referred. Notice had Ind ; a that a measure for the future government of r 1 4 ,,,, 14 would be introduced into the other house of Pa earl and before the end of this month. The noble ear kid ic,l therit e what was the nature of that measure, ,°wT answered the question which he had asked. cornZit,he measure proceeding on the report of the select 4a re ,„ 4 ,,ee, of course it could not do that, at all events aad C„ ku ed Matters upon which they had not reported ; Ivo n i a ',_ could also assure the noble earl that nothing htriopdsuced into the measure which would pre tizeLletiblit°lotei_rudirtile legislation should such be found necessary. . would, however, in a short time be 4n d h e v:" J u dge What the nature of the mea sure was, 4 taw erec 7P b ed . the noble earl would then find his question Av. Y L-4113 ()11 th I MPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL. hie nt 6 order of the day being read for the r.ecommit of the Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill, _ the i•io rn rd EAGLE objected to the fi ft h clause o f 111:410kaerralhe'tturisreCIto'lljniakin the owners of property consent e, contracts entered into without their know reent.--' moved that the bill be recommitted that day ol,,Thte Li° -11 Erl f e supported the measure, ag p o ßed 61. W oNonGinionE ICKLOW ; and Earl of LIICaN ca „ -1- ne Earl of lec ted-to ia u ' eaG LINTON considered that the much- Lord BE A U te in the bill was merely nominal. g)f the bill, ag a i nst saw several defects s hish details trot st nst which he felt it to be duty to 11:Iftr:urZNheGALL considered that nothing could be objectionable than the principle of giving to power of arbitrating between landlord l ' e N li tZ it ' and he therefore recommended that the bill Ari aco ' l ed for future consideration. 13f t he 'lll4 C ANNING, in reply, defended the objects Fe h e l ordship s di v id e d , w h en t h e numcobegenwt, 5 ; ere ajorit„e am endment —Content, 8 ; not was bil l , 2 7. Th e h ouse t h en wen t i n t o co mmittee on ~en he' se veral clauses were debate d seriatim and amend- Prnposed, b u t negatived n o ark house then resumed, on d th iv e is b in ill n. was reported, t Which their lordships adjaourdned. SOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.) PRIVATE BUSINESS. ,The following bills were read a third time and passed: Adel Beck Reservoir, Madras Railway, and Belfast Ballymena Ra ilway. 1 4 . 1 1 11 e following bills were read a third time :—Austra -14'4 Agricultural Company, Dundee W aterworks, Great :rthern R a il wa y (N o . 1) ; London derry, Enniskillost, Sligo Railway ; Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly /.,nage and Reclamation ; and Lough Foyle and 4 1 g, h Swilly Railway Bills. followlng bills were read a second time :—Burton -1,74-Trent Improvement (No. 2), and Rochdale Im r4eraent (No. 2). • ROYAL ASSENT. th. 13, ,, t e Ush er o f the Black Rod appeared to summons 1, 0 ',°llllnons to hear the R o y a l assen t g i ven t o cer t a i n r o e t p h o e rt r house, a list of which will be found in Bnl t d h B OVERNMENT Lin: ASSURANCES. PELLATT begged to ask the Chancellor of the 14 4 , 1 ; e e'Ver wh e th er i t is the intention of Government to lrbelves, whether the tables of rates is completed, and ott i lie probable that such an arrangement will be car -44110 CRANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER . replied . Idt e c lause would be inserted in the Income Tax to 14 1 °flet to the intention of Government, as explained by '"114 t he ll he made his financial statement, viz., that per '', p i ,7ing assured their lives, or the lives of their wives, `%ie;cuased deferred annuities for themselves or their fled, i , would be allowed, under certain restrictions, to rye tit f ltra their taxableincome the amount paid by them tie tits wanutial premiums. Of course when the arrange eia ould come into effect would depend upon whe t her ° dept e r e , \I'M adopted by the committee ; but should . it i •e Ile should then be prepared to show the d!tails y " 14 k; h e el ,P r )Pesed the arrangement should be carried ont. COFFER AND CHICOR Y. t 4 t rti co HAMILTON the excise kre of h. labelled accor ding c leery and coffee ff e rendered the l'egulation, but sold and paid for as 0 put the question because inquirecwhe t t e her a mix e„'lder liable to penalties. He _ tati with chicory., was - Was info ed that coffee, adulterated khult(lialiu sornerineho-i„ae eoffeelbelled sere. order, ttr such a way as to deceive the P -rd "uCreohffaee and Chicory," th eofr. • .T. "WILSON replied that undertil l Tarheerlyacce! ir i s and ,41 chi mixed might be Bo ld,. penalties , out bei t° Pe cc uld be 4 t° eertainc°rrYegula Mons. If the mixture was s°lil w ! . %lid i f lig labelled, the vendors ho we w re a l n ia y b p le erson _ 0_ the gat,: labelled, he could not see Ob;;;ved, Unless they were content to quo/. in preference t o the label. NAVY. MANNING THE take the word f , s t ens had beer,f,taakeen, to.,T T 4. PECHELL inquired what of comm i ttee on rho s at ds . the publication of the report° N.1.4"e0n Tuesday last alluded tolad bee n t the eh t h • CritAlIA.M said, the paper° ifey and, w' m. ile tllleet of mannin g the navy, which had been laid n laid N, le , c table of the houso on the 3d 0 1 in the hands of me wl, 1.,,,,: ',?if expediting their being laced the Queen'a would Print 1144 2'4eY were now being printed y itiao would, the 1 ooped, be ready very f the papers had 1)%„13,t4te, that it was his intention, after in two bills Ni l ' "Night in, to move for leave to bring shortly. 11 ° o_,, d ( led on them, (Hear.) 4,3 1 es I tXCISE DITTIES ON SPIRITS BILL. 1,11 Inver to Captain JoNits, R stated, that he „enANCELLOR of the EXCHE t00,,,,,,,1'''5ed to go on with this bill --,, of the resolution on the legacy duty. Lord CHURCH RATES. after Q t U he E lionse had dis %% • .1. RUSSELL requested the hon. members otions for en thlBtock and the Tower Hamlets, .who had motions had pro feZl'etorßownethis safbject,. hi e „ l ...._ a pre erem.e arrti:"feet the Progress of public business, consent WthoichthathteuCi4:l;t7wnmould, hen the Glove' delay until Thursday, the 26th inst., I,f:4,ll:tent would give their motions precedence. 0 . to in o t r e de: kJ'. rlittraNtonE and Sir W. Clay were underste LI Trlesee in the noble lord's proposal. , EPIaTED BRIBERY OF IRISH MEMBERS. L u ll the MOtion that the Speaker leave the chair, and t he -"he resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, h o 4 I , : . BALL said, I desire to put the question to the ph,-'", w hich I took the liberty abl e to her Majesty'a Government generally. I was no . on Friday night last of tie d 3 to obtain au answer to the question I then put, but it h.. ertui t° l i mo of 8 0 important a natur involving the re trttability of so many gentlemen on the opposite side of 11°48e, that I think they will receive in kindness and Wi,lit°llr this attempt on my part to give them an opportu -443. °I refuting the statement which has been made. The , kentle pieden' °I an the member for Westmeath (Mr. Megan) reel the other ' ht that an accredited agent of the Whig l Iv • night rii inistr3, had gone to a number of Irish members titoriza°;l°llt."---(hear)—and had stated to them that he was it the iris d'rt behalf of the Whig and Peel parties to say, %N. ""4" zakbers would assist them in turning out the ofnLord Derby, that when they Were rein" stated in power they would not impose a property tax on Ireland. (Opposition cheers.) This seems to me a trans action so iniquitous in its character—(laughter and cheers) —so directed against the principles of the British constitu tion, and so contrary to the practice of the house, that some further notice ought to be taken of it. A member who had given only 12s. a-week, for which ample work had to be done, was held guilty of corruption ; and the hon. member for Bridgenorth, who had 22 charges of bribery through his agents brought against him, was exonerated from them all, except one, which was a charge of having through his agents paid a bill due on account of a former election. Purity is expected in the system of election — uprightness and integrity on the part of the electors ; and the electors are justified, if there is so keen a serutny as regarded the constituencies, in asking that the members shall not be found guilty of taking anything in the shape of a bribe, whether place, pension, or money. This case is especially one of those gross cases with which hon. gentle men opposite would, I think, have been revolted. ("Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) The earliest opportunity should have been given to Ministers of repudiating, ex plaining, or denying the charge. I would, therefore, re spectfully ask the hon. member for Westmeath, whether he will state that such an overture was made as he alleged on Friday, and that such a promise was given as that no income tax should be imposed on Ireland if the Whigs received the loaves and fishes by the votes of certain mem bers of the Irish party. I hope I have not taken an unfair advantage ; but there was an objection to the notice which I tendered. Captain MAGAN.— -I believe, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no strict right to put this question to me at all. The rules of the house are, I believe, that the question should be put, by order of the house, through you. In the second place, I think I am un fairly treated by the honourable gentleman ; for if he had considered one moment he would at once have seen that a question of this sort, involving such grave conside rations, ought to have been placed openly and fairly on the paper. If it had been so I should have answered it. I can assure the hon. gentleman that he is completely mistaken in all the facts he has stated with respect to this matter. Lord J. RUSSELL—After what the hon. gentleman has stated, I think it right to say a few words in consequence of an impression which appears to rest on the mind of the hon. gentleman. He seems to think that some person was authorised by the Whig party, when the late Government was in power, to make some contract to the effect that they would not try to impose an income tax on Inland if those Irish members would vote against the late Government. I have only to say that, according to my knowledge and be lief, there was no person authorised to make such a con tract, and no such contract was made with the Irish party. Lord A.VANE—As the subject has been commented on in the public prints, I must submit whether , in justice to the Government, the hon. member for Westmeath should not assign the grounds on which he made that statement, and also name the accredited agents to whom reference was mai*. Captain MAGAN—I did hear there was an intention to bring forward the question, but a notice should have been put on the paper. None has been so, and therefore I should have been placed in the awkward position of being called on to give the names of gentlemen who might be absent, if hon. members could have found me stupid enough to strike a man behind his back. Colonel DUNNE—I don't think the scene very creditable to the house. As an Irish member, I have folt deeply the observations made in various newspapers with respect to the conduct of Irish members. If Irish members made such a bargain, it would be nothing disorderly. If I were going to support a Government, I should like to have some knowledge of their intentions. The way in which the Irish members have been spoken of is most shameful; there is no libel so base that a man will not write it for pay. All the Irish members are lumped together ; no exceptions are made. Mr. MALINS—I think the credit of the house is con cerned. I heard the hon. member for Westmeath state that a party of Irish members sitting abovestairs had been waited on by accredited agents of the Whig and Peelite party, and had this proposal made to them :—" If you vote to turn out the Government of Lord Derby we shall engage to keep the income tax off Ireland." If that be a correct statement it conveys a grave imputation on the great party which is now the Government of this country. (Hear.) Is it decent or proper that such imputations should pass unnoticed ? There is not an hon. gentleman who does not know who those accredited agents are. It is due to all parties that the imputation should be verified or repelled. Lord J. RUSSELL—I stated, that to the best of my knowledge and belief, no accredited agents of the Whig party made such a proposal. I ask the hon. member who has just sat down whether he believes me or does not be lieve me ? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Does the hon. gentleman mean that accredited agents of the Whig party made such agreement or bargain ; or, if he does not mean that, let him state who it is that he does mean ? (Hear.) Mr. MALINS—The noble lord's statement is, that he did not authorise such an offer. The question, however, was, whether such accredited agents made it. Mr. G. MOORE—We are unnecessarily beating about the bush. I myself know nothing about the transaction, and was in no way influenced by any declaration of the kind. I shall go directly to the point by asking the hon. member for Wells what he has to state on the subject. Mr. HAYTER—I am extremely obliged to the hon gen tleman for bringing this question to an issue. I certainly have some reason, to complain of the hon. member for Cam bridgeshire. I saw him as I entered the house. I asked him if he was going to put any question on this matter. He told me that he had submitted a notice, that there was an informality, and therefore he was unable to ask the question in the form and the terms in which he originally designed to ask it. I begged him then to put the questicn in a formal manner, so that I might be enabled to give a plain answer to a plain question—(hear)—and, if the hon. gentleman had had the courtesy to comply with that request, much of that which has painfully passed in this house would have been altogether spared. The hon. gen tleman, when I was not present, took occasion to refer to that matter, and I trust the house will not for a moment believe that I in the slightest degree shrink from giving a positive answer. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for the county of Wicklow also came this evening and said lie was about to ask me the same question ; I told him I should be obliged to him if ho would defer it till to-morrow, be cause then I should know what the distinct charge was, which up to this moment I don't know. (A cry of "Oh !") I told him also that I was desirous of communicating with another hon. member before giving an answer to a charge apparently involving some question relating to him. (A. cry of "Oh !") No arrangement seems to have been made between those two hon. gentlemen. I never yet had a positive, distinct question, put to me. But I now under stand the hon. member for Cambridgeshire to say that some person, alleging himself to be an agent of the party now called the Whig party, some time during the financial statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, took on himself to attend a body of Irish gentlemen, and state that he was authorised to make this proposal—namely, that if they gave their votes for the purpose of over throwing the late Government, the Government likely to be founded on its ruins should undertake not to impose an income-tax on Ireland. I never was authorised by any person or any body of perfons to make any such communication to any person or any party. (Hear, hear.) I never did attend any meeting of any kind in my life of the Irish gentlemen. (Hear, hear.) I never stated to any person, at any time, that I was authorised in any manner to state, that in the event of the Government of Lord Derby being overthrown, the Government to be substituted in its place would under take not to impose an income tax on Ireland. If the hon. gentleman had put the question plainly before me, as he ought to have done, I should have given him an answer before. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. BALL—I did put the question fairly and fully last Friday. Captain MAGAN—The mistake made is in taking for granted that I mean the hon. member opposite. (Great laughter.) The words were these :—I spoke in the plural number. I don't think the hon. member is in the plural number. (Laughter.) I spoke of gentlemen usually called accredited agents. To use " accredited" was a stretch of conscience. They were three private Irish members of Parliament. (Name.) I will not name ; I will put a notice on the paper, in order to give them an opportunity of offering explanations. As regards the hon. member for Cambridgeshire, lain not surprised at the sen sitiveness which that hon. gentleman has evinced, for nothing can be more odious or detestable than that persons having gained an object by making promises should after wards refuse to carry those promises out. (Hear, hear.) When we look back and observe the way in which the late Whig Administration was displaced by Lord Derby's Go vernment, on the strength of their promising to a particu lar party that they should have protection ; and that as soon as that noble lord and his friends obtained power those promises were abandoned, it was enough to make men sensitive as to the conduct of men who have once placed themselves under pledges. (Hear.) Mr. G. MOORE—After what has just taken place, I think it right to say that, having heard that the right hon. member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) was the hou. member re ferred to in the course of this discussion, I thought it but fair to appeal to that right hon. gentleman in order at once to terminate the debate. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KNOX had understood that three Irish members had waited upon the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Hayter) by way of deputation, and that they were authorised by him to make the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire. Mr. HAYTER—I wish the hon. gentleman who intro duced this subject had mentioned what has now just been stated by the hon. member for Marlow, that I might have answered it. I will answer it now, and say that no such circumstance ever occurred. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WORTLEY.—I think the House ought to feel much obliged to the right hon. gentleman for the explana tion ho has given, and I do trust we have now done with this unworthy matter. (Hear, hear.) I think every gen tleman who has a regard for the character of this House can entertain but one opinion as to this story, which, as it turns out, is utterly unfounded. (Hear, hear.) I hope the question will now bo put an end to. (Hear.) - Here the subject dropped. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN HER MAJESTY'S DOCKYARDS. Sir F. BARING, seeing that his noble friend (Lord J. ni.n a bill to dockyards dtomi re a rl i vt l y d e askte evidencewhther Russell) had a notice to move for leave to disable persons employed in her Majesty's gun wharfs and other civil establishments of th and Ordnance from voting at elections of memb ' e A r in Parliament for certain boroughs, wished to it was his Intention to make that motion before taken by the dockyards committee was printed? The house knew nothing of that evidence yet. He had reason to s o ul e pose that the measure to be proposed by the noble lord was -- actually founded upon the evidence given before that com mittee. If so, then it would be impossible for the house fairly to discuss the subject without referring to that evi dence. If he were to refer to newspaper evidence before the oommittee made the ir re p ort, he should be very properly called to order. He considered it unfair that any steps should be taken to disfranchise these persons until the evi dence bad been , produced ; and therefore he thought that the motion of the noble lord ought to be adjourned till the committee had made their report. Lord J. RUSSELL begged, in the first place, to say, in answer to his right hon. friend, that the bill he (Lord J. Russell) intended to introduce was not all founded upon the inquiry now going on before the dockyards committee. With respect to postponing the motion, the only objection he should have to it was, that it must necessarily protract the business of the session. The boroughs which he in tended to include in the bill were Chatham and Rochester, Gre(nwicb, Sandwich, Portsmouth, Devonport, Plymouth, Harwich, and Pembroke. He would postpone moving the introduction of the bill till Friday 60'111141st, COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS, Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to put a question to Lord Palmerston. Numerous deputations had waited upon the noble lord respecting the management of the Commissioners of sewers. He wished to know whether it was the inten tion of the Government to appoint new commissioners to carry out the plans which had been designed. Lord PALMERSTON admitted that complaints had been made of the management of the present Commis sioners of Sewers. Those complaints principally arose from the circumstance of a want of drainage required by the metropolis. That want was chiefly, if not entirely, owing to the fact that the funds at the disposal of the 'commissioners were insufficient. Therefore, much that ought, perhaps, to be done, was necessarily left undone. The commissioners would do their best to make the drains where most required, as far as the means at their disposal would enable them to do it. The com mission would expire in the course of this year, and it would therefore be necessary this session to introduce a bill on the subject. It was not, however, intended to make any new arrangement. What would be proposed was that the present arrangement should be continued until better grounds were afforded for bringing forward a new system. Lord GALWAY, on behalf of Lord A. VANE, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there were any returns, or other official documents, on which his statement of the expected amounts to be derived from the succession duty (as proposed) was formed ; and if so, whether he would have any objection to state those sources of information, and to lay any documents from which they were derived on the table of the house? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that there were no documents whatever such as the noble lord referred to in the possession of the Government. THE BUDGET. RESUMED DEBATE. The house then went into Committee of Ways and Means. The first resolution as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer having been read, Mr. PALMER moved the folloWing amendment : " After the words for every 20s. of the annual value or amount thereof,' to insert 'such annual value of any lards, tenements, or hereditaments, being the net annual value thereof, after due allowance made for repairs, insurance, and management. " He assured the committee that it was not his intention to raise a new debate upon the general sabject of the income tax, but to confine himself to making the few observations that were necessary in support of his own proposition. Considering that they were now called upon to sanction an income tax for a much longer period than was ever pro posed before, it was necessary they should endeavour to mitigate its inequalities. With respect to the permanency of the tax, ho entertained considerable doubts whether when the year 1860 arrived they would find it likely to terminate. He must be a bold man who would venture to prophecy that the tax would cease in 1860. It appeared to him that in the budget there was one class to whom very little relief was afforded--he alluded to the class in sche dule A. It was to that class that his amendment applied. He thought his proposal was but an act of justice to the persons included in schedule A ; and he assured the Chan. caller of the Exchequer that he would not have proposed it unless he believed that it was a proposition that could be borne out in argument. He need not waste time in at tempting to prove that the nominal value of an estate or of houses was any criterion of the income which the proprie tor received. Very considerable reductions must be made from the gross receipts. It was the income of the indivi dual they ought to tax, and his proposal was, that in order to arrive at that income they should deduct certain charges such as repairs, insurance, and cost of management. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that real property was now paying 9d. in the pound instead of 7d., a fact which he had adduced as an argument why the taxpayers under schedule D ought not to complain, but which was also, an argument why the taxpayers under schedule A should be considered in the manner now proposed. (Hear.) Previously to this admission of the right hon. gentleman, the landed interest had innocently supposed they were under the operation of an act of Parliament requiring them to pay 7d. in the pound and no more. (Hear, hear.) The tradesman, under schedule D, was allowed a deduction of income tax in respect of repairs of his premises occupied for the purposes of his trade on an average of three years. If the right hon. gentleman would make the same allowance in favour of the landowner and land occupier, whose claim to that allowance was precisely analogous in this respect to that of the trader, he should be quite satisfied. (Hear, hear.) He was not prepared with any clause to carry out the principle for which he contended ; if the right hon. gentleman would admit the principle, there was no man more competent than he to carry it into effect. He did not conceive there could be any difficulty as to the mode of effecting it. There might be an objection on the ground of practical inequalities to the allowance of a uniform percentage of deduction, but he thought it would be quite practicable—the Chancellor of the Exchequer having con sented to make an allowance to landowners and occupiers under the heads which he had himself specified—to permit all-such persons to go before the commissioners, claim such deductions as they could fairly demand under those heads, and have those claims allowed. (Hear, hear.) If it were suggested that be had no precedent for this proposition, he would refer to the Parochial Assessment Act as affording a precedent perfectly in point ; under that act, the assess ment to the poor-rate was made on the net annual value that the land or house assessed might be reasonably ex pected to let for, deducting the cost of repairs, of insurance, and—an expression, certainly, of very wide and somewhat vague import—of other expenses necessary to maintain the property in a state to command a rent. The way, how ever, in which this provision was practically carried into practice was, that there were two columns in every paro chial ratebook, the one exhibiting the gross, the other the rateable value of each property to be assessed, and the rate was made upon the rateable value so set forth. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that precisely the same prin ciple might be carried into effect with regard to the assess ment of the income-tax under schedule A. In making this proposition, he was actuated not so much by a desire to relieve the larger landowners, though the largeness of a man's property afforded no reason why he should be un fairly taxed—(hear, hear,)—as with a view to relieve the small owners of land, and the owners of houses on a small scale. lie had been informed that as to the latter class, one-third of their rental was swallowed up by repairs, insurance, bad debts.— The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—The de falcations of absconding tenants are allowed for. 3^Mr. PALMER was glad to hear that, but he hoped the number of absconding tenants was li - nited. Still, there was no doubt that the inevitable deductions from the gross rental of those persons were very material, and ho trusted the right hon. gentleman would take those deductions into his favourable consideration. The noble lord opposite had the other night, be believed, expressed an opinion that the amendment which he (Mr. Palmer) had announced, and which he was now submitting to the committee, was at direct variance with the proposition of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had expressed thereupon his wonder that such an amendment should proceed from any gentle man on that side of the house. He did not propose to discuss the alleged direct variance—the right honourable gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could, no doubt, settle that point with the noble lord=but at the same time he would beg the noble lord to bear in mind that at the period to which he referred there was no such thing in existence or in proposal as the legacy duty on land new before the house, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward as a kind of compensation to schedule D. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman would hardly contend that schedule A could, in fairness, be called upon still to pay 9d. in the pound instead of 7d., having in addition the legacy duty imposed upon it by way of a satisfaction to schedule A. He trusted the right hon. gentleman would give his proposition a serious, and favourable consideration. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ALCOCK, though he had voted generally in favour of the budget, was not prepared to say that be was quite satisfied with the income tax portion of it. Not that he complained of it, so far as it wont ; his objection was that it did not go far enough. He had, before the Christmas recess, given notice of a motion to extend the income tax, at 7d. in the pound, to all incomes in Great Britain and Ireland, wages—even the wages of the labouring classes— being included. At present but lin6s of the population of the country contributed to its taxation, that 65th man paying on an average 13/. ; whereas, carry his principle down to the labourer at 12s. a week, and 5,000,000 of per sons would contribute to the taxation beyond those who now contributed, each of those 5,000,000 contributing, as his data taught him, 30s. per annum on the average. In other words, whereas of the 440,000,0001., which were the estimated property of the country, 250,000,0001. now escaped taxation, his proposal was to make those 250,000,000/, contribute their fair share. (Hear.) Effect this object, and instead of the present income tax of 5,500,0001., you would realise 13,000,00 M, per annum, and the 7,500,001. beyond the present amount would at once enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal the en tire duty on malt and hops, to repeal the soap duties, to reduce the tea duties as now proposed, and to reduce the tobacco duty to ls. It was said sometimes that this would be all very well if the money could be raised from the labouring classes. He believed that there would be no difficulty in this, because—first, it would be a just mea sure, and one to which he was convinced, therefore, they would not object; and because, secondly, it would prove of the greatest benefit to those classes, inasmuch as they contributed at present an infinitely greater amount to the revenue, in proportion to their incomes, than any other class. To show by ono instance the amount to which they would be benefitted by the measures which he proposed, he would take the case of an ordinary labouring man, with a wife and three or four children, receiving, say, 12s. a week. Supposing, then, such a person to consume. 101 b. of tea in a year, he would save upon that article 12s. ; upon soap he would save 4s. a-year ; on beer, supposing he only expended 455. at present upon that beverage, he would save 15s. ; and if he consumed 51b. of tobacco he would save upon that lls., making altogether 21. 2s. saved. His income tax, supposing him to be charged at the pre sent rate, would be 18s., and he would therefore have a clear annual money gain of 1/. 45., in addition to getting his articles infinitely purer and less adulterated than at present. He certainly was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken this opportunity of re pealing the duties upon malt, hops, and tobacco. The former the people never would carry until they made a strong demand for it, but then they would ; and as to to bacco, it was notorious that the high duty occasioned it to be the staple of the contraband trade of the country. It was said that smoking was a dirty and unwholesome prac tice. Was i 0 Then why had they a smoking-room in that house and in all their clubs? (A laugh.) With re spect to the question at issue, he was satisfied that the general feeling of the people of this country was in favour of the budget, and of no part of it so much as that which the hon. member for Berkshire now sought to modify. Mr. MILES thought that the budget of the Govern ment dealt hardly with the owners of real property. It was' admitted by the right hon. gentleman opposite in 1849 that real property was burdened with local taxes to the amount of 12,030,0001., not one farthing of which had been taken off since then. The proposition of his hon. friend the member for-Berkshire was a fair and moderate pr p o sye p p f tth t m i oa o rft n . , and he trusted that it would meet with the m h h counw Chancellor naogrlis ,tfh er o of3a:7oooe property o Exchequer. 3.4,oo3,oool. of ofwere real possessed property was su iponf ripsuot which gave an average great wealth and large estates, but according to the Bathe and other burdens, andega7 this country was divided amougst 200,030 proprietors, of only 170/, to each. They were to assent to the thought they were fairly eil i t l itl e e l :l t s , now to subjected to the I -observed, duty in addition to local proposition 0 siti circumstances f his h hen. di o n as r k ep t ly he Chancellor e o s f , B of " poor rate an other charges on the the Exchequer e e ry (all p mSe r o o aCur s ° p .n e St at that the landed interest would wascon t friend.h Captaina t every v h land had considerably diminished • 1849, and there voted e would 1 dth e tell p r o t v h o e e m i tinue to prosper. He came into th e malt° a diffgrowe between Mod and preeal e _o cii i 2P e t i to between the arm-chair incomes and the working!b o y h e a s n — d incomes as they were called—but he was of a pliable - mind. why he hear, from hfreoemgedthheisOmppioultaionnd.) THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 16, less. tion of the Government. He did so because the right hon. gentleman convinced him that the land did not pay more than precarious incomes to the income tax. The right hon. gentleman made it out that the land paid 9d. in the pound. He (Captain Scobell) thought that Bd. was nearer the mark. Then the right lion. gentleman imposed a legacy duty on land. The legacy duty sr as not imposed for the sake of equalising the scale of taxation under the income tax, and the landed interest ought rather to re joice that they had so long escaped from the payment of that duty than complain that it was now imposed. He thought that Ireland ought to pay her fair share of the taxation of the empire, and that it would be unjust to throw on the people of England the burden which Ireland ought to bear. The object of all parties ought to be to make a fair and equitable budget. Such a subject he believed the present to be, and such also was the opinion of the country. It waz a budget of equivalents, and must be taken as a whole. He could not, therefore, support the proposition of the honourable member for Berkshire. (Cheete.) Mr. PAILIPPS said that his own feeling was in favour of a graduated income tax, but he felt there were great difficulties in the way of carrying out suck a g raduation. The various innumer a bl e p l ans suggested by those who said that the matter was easy of accomplishment, were no at all calculated to remove the difficulties he felt on the subject. The Government, however, had declared that it' was impracticable, and he could not, therefore ' refuse them, on this ground, th e means of carrying on the Go vernment. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the proposition immediately before the house, he confessed he entertained doubts whether a small concession of this kind would at all benefit the landed interest. (Hear, hear.) The true conservative policy was, he conceived, to allay irritation ; and on that ground he could not vote for the amendment. He still entertained hopes of relief to the landed interest, and he was not prepared to sell its grievances for lid. or 2d. in the pound. The injury done , to the land by the Court of Chancery and by the laws affecting real property in general exceeded, in his opinion, that which it has re ceived from the income tax. Looking at the budget as a whole, he was prepared to accept it as a choice between something and nothing— between a distinct scheme of tax ation and no scheme at all. Mr. L. HEYWORTH reminded the house that the im position of a tax of 5,000,0001. per annum had been the medium of remitting 1 1,033,G00/., and still leaving the Exchequer in a better state than it was previously. They were too apt to regard the tax as it affected individuals, but they ought to consider whether direct was not more equitable on the whole than indirect taxation ; nor should it be forgotten that while the one concerned four or five hundred thousand persons, the other pressed upon twenty five millions. After such great benefits had been realised, he trusted they would never stultify themselves in the eyes of the country by abandoning the income tax. He did not see why at the end of seven years it should not -be raised to 10 per cent. (Laughter from the Opposition.) At all events he could not imagine that the House of Commons of that day would be so unwise as entirely to remit it, knowing, as they must do, how much good it had been the means of effecting. The country, was every day becoming more and more enlightened on the subject ; and having heard 'it stated' that thd working classes strongly objected to the lowering of the tax so as to make it apply to them, he was happy to say that he had attended meetings at which, after hearing the matter put fairly before them, they had not expressed any opposition. Mr. BUCK wished hon. gentlemen opposite would, in connection with this subject, consider the case of one of the most industrious classes in this country—he meant the small freeholders of whom there were not less than 4,000 in the county which he represented (Devonshire). Here were persons who for the most part had acquired land by their own industry, and upon whom the burdens of land fell very heavily. It was said that such persons, like all who were connected with the soil, had received great be nefit from the recent changes in our commercial system. Now, he happened that morning to be looking over a valu able return made to the house last year, which specified for a number of years the amount of the poor rate, as well as the quantity of corn required to pay the rate. In 1845, when the corn laws were repealed, the poor rate was 6,765,4451., which at that period required only 2,762,433 quarters of corn to pay it. In 1851 the poor rate was 6,070,0001., requiring 3,396,533 quarters of corn, or nearly one-third more than the amount before the corn laws were repealed. He did not think, therefore, that the farmers had been much benefited by free trade in corn. The diffi culties of the agricultural interest were much increased by emigration, which had risen from 50,030 to 50,000 per annum ; and letters which he had received showed that the pressure upon the small farmers from the scarcity of labour was extremely severe, and likely to prove injurious to the country. Mr. AGLIONBY said they were told that they must take this measure as a whole ; but admitting that, he had never heard, in the course of his experience, that because they accepted a measure as a whole, they were not to en deavour to amend any of its parts. (Cheers from the Op position.) If they failed in their efforts to amend it, would still be open to them to take it with its evils. He thought nothing could be more fair and reasonable than the proposition of the hon. member for Berkshire. (Hear, hear from the Opposition.) The amendment was that the taxshould be paid upon certain property, including all real property, lands as well as houses, according to the annual value. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exche quer to say, that there was to be some distinction between house property and land ; but it appeared to him that that would only increase the present injustice. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and gallent member for Bath (Capt. Scobell) said the measure was to be taken as a whole on the principle of equivalents. He (Mr. Aglionby) was not quite sure that he understood the phrase "principle of eqiuvalents ;" but if the meaning were that parties were to get something in return for what they lost, he must say that the proposition rather appeared to be that, because they were compelled to do injustice to one class they ought also to do injustice to another. (Hear, hear.) He had always been anxious that there should be a graduated scale for fluctuating and fixed incomes, and ho had only yielded to the necessity of the case when consenting to the renewal of the income tax without any alteration in the mode of assessment. He could not view the tax as a temporary one, and should hesitate to vote for it if he thought it could be temporary —(hear, hear)—but considering it a good tax, and believing it would be permanent, he thought they should do their best to remedy whatever was unjust about it. Colonel HARCOUItT having voted for the proposal of the late Chancellor of tho Exchequer, for continuing the income tax for three years, with precisely the same provi sions as to land and houses as the present measure con tained, he could not reconcile it to his sense of justice to vote for an amendment which would, by taking a portion of the tax from land and houies, throw a heavier tax ou trades and professions. If the proposal were however brought forward as a substantive measure, he should sup port its principle as one of justice. Mr. SPOONER was not aware the house came to any distinct vote on the income tax as proposed in the budget of his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli)—and had the ques tion been brought directly under discussion he should have voted, as he had always done, against a property tax in time of peace. The tax was peculiarly severe as against land—for, while there was a deduction on account of houses for loss of rent when tenants ran away, in the case of land no deduction was allowed. Mr. DRITMMOND observed that it was admitted on all hands that land bore more burdens than any other class of property. (" No, no," from Mr. Bright.) One hon. member dissented from this view • but it was generally admitted by the house, and it had 'been acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to allow certain qualifications in imposing the tax on land, ono of which was a deduction for management. This, however, could not affect the case of the large proprietor ; the small freeholder would obtain no benefit from it. He thought it would be more advantageous to discuss these details in committee on the bill. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BRIGHT had heard the statement as to laud being so heavily taxed ever since he had been in that house, and the course of legislation had of late years been to diminish the exclusive privileges of land, and now they found the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to include a large number of farmers under the income tax, and to impose the legacy duty on real property. (" Hear, hear," from the opposition.) He applauded the right hon. gentleman for so doing ; and that, being convinced the course he took when a young man was wrong, he w as determined to abandon it, and carry out what ho felt to be the sound principle. But the right hon. gentleman appeared to be in somewhat of a difficulty in this matter. When he brought forward his budget he stated that land paid on the gross, instead of on the let income, and therefore paid 9d instead of 7d in the pound to the income tax ; but at the same time he urged that no discrimination should be made in the case of la-id, and th a t a ll i ncomes should pay a like, There was, as it appeared to him (Mr. Bright), great dis crepancy in these two statements. He however thought I the Chancellor of the Exchequer had committed a slight charged,wethat hat forgetting . tliemistake. He seemed to l oo k on l y at the mo d e i n which land was torequire take into dcwunt the mode in which other property was charged. If the right hon. gentleman would turn his attention to trades he was quite sure he uid find , an equal de duction t. land. T a k e f or i nstance the manu f a cturin g traders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re ferred to insurance as a c h arge upon land. B u t insurance was the smallest charge th e l an d owner h a d to pay. Land wanted no insurance, an d a ll he had to pay upon was the farm-buildings, an d even f or them he was exem pt f r om the stamp duty. Th e manu f acturer was equa lly c ompelled to pay insurance, and to a far larger extent, but in levying the income t ax no allowance was made for it, but he had to pay upon it as profit. In some cases the manufacturer paid 4001. or 5001. a year for insurance, and of this 1001. would go to the Exchequer. But the law regarded it all as profit, and upon every pound thus paid the income tax was charged. Again, machinery did not last for ever. After 15 years' wear, machinery was seldom worth more than the metal of which it was composed, yet no allowance was made. Then, as to bad debts, it was difficult if not impossible to obtain any allowance on that account. And turning again to insurance, the charge for insuring a cargo of cotton from New Orleans to Liverpoo was not allowed as a deduction in estimating the profit for the income tax. These were all cases as regarded trade similar to those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had set forth in reference to land when he endeavoured to show that the landowners pay 9d. instead of 7 d. i n the pound. (Hear, hear.) H e (Mr. Bright) had never been one of those who had argued about the necessity of discriminati ng between the different classes of income ; but with regard to the commercial classes, he had always bee n of o pinion that the great gr i evance was in the disputes and irritation-con sequent upon the mode in which the returns were made and the assessments fixed. If the tax was now to be con tinued for seven years longer he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily make arrangements by this : — There t w h h a i n c h i t t the s a assessment ssm present.e nt m i e t s b p e ok made e o s p e in e i u s c il h y less o f the irritating neigh bourhood in which he lived when he said that nobody everyol di strict. u d make a was satisfied with the local commissioners of income tax, o a e n u d or he o w f a t s h ri E te xo sa h t e i g sfi o c or d that from frxisitvheadt l m oc o ali re t o y !o th4Cha ulaint; upon that ground than us to the amount . . the tax. T w h a e s, as he ra h n e g li e e m ve et a h e stoh w ravt o e u y l to d hriso p f ro su Po r se ee;o w rin a g s h paid income tax in He would suggest had years—and should his list district et during the persons . the previous tax—that they should be required to make their from initials t 20 or 25 of these names, and that names again)) send round this printed list to the parties lia ble to the that in this way had the great est number of votes a com missioner should be chosen. Such an arr angement would give con fidence in the tax payer s, and o bviate much of the anno y a nce that no w existed. He should of course vote for • , the proposition of th e Chancellor of the Exche q uer, and t of the hon. member for B ks , which, if carried, Would entail upon him the necessity of submittin g ano ther amendment having reference to trades against the amendm ent er 4 if they went on in this way deducting something from lands, s omething from trades, and something from der it necessary to have a ninepenny instead of a soo n yonder hear,) seve npenny tax throughput ( Hear,t all other sourc es of income, the ion to the revenue would Sir T. D. ACLAND argued t h at if the y were to go on the vrieeiO4 ef taking a littlQ trQuA ow) and i a little from another, they would never be able to maintain auyprinciple. 1 He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal considered fairly all classes; and as it was necessary to ex tend the tax to Ireland, and upon incomes of 1001. a year, he could not, as being connected with land, ask for any exception. (Hear.) With regard to the legacy tax, upon which he did not now wish to pronounce any opinion, he would observe that a largo and liberal allowance must be made in assessing it. They must have no 7d. or 9d., but strict value. It must be remembered that land when it came into possession was very often least able to bear any burden—and while the successor to a sum of money in the funds brought an immediate income, he had known a case when a person succeeding to an estate had not t ouc h e d rent for twelve months. Then, again, the transfer of land was subjected to heavy stamp duties which the transfer of money was not. Again, land was subjected to a separate tax of its own, from which it could not be relieved, inas much as it had been bought in. With regard to local taxa tion, he thought that the land was entitled to more consi deration than it had received ; and as the landed proprie tors had, in this question, a common interest with the those tithe-owner the exactan d amountt he r a i o l railway a w y h c o o s with all could be at once ascertained—a no longer to be delayed. But, taking the budget as a whole, ea —in and as a step towards the comprehensive symmetrisation, he thought it the best which any Chancellor of the Ex chequer had proposed during the whole of his parliamen tary experience, which extended over 40 years. Sir W. JOLLIFFE could see nothing in this budget but a proposal to increase the taxation of the land. At the e e h g e p g e n n e s r e m o d f ni t i h tte e d lan w d o , which the eldheenhjeet C e h d an to celo e l l r of the E egeeydntyoxf two millions sterling, various other classes were to be re lieved ; and he thought the least the house was bound to do was to consent to such a modification of. schedule A as had been proposed by the hon. gentleman the member for Berkshire. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, be for the committee proceeds to a divison upon this most im portant question, I am very anxious to state the views which my colleagues and myself entertain in regard to it. The hon. member for Berkshire who made the motion now before us, commenced his very temperate speech by dis claiming, on his part, everything like factious or, party motives. Sir, I give tho honourable gentleman the most entire credit in that respect. lam convinced there is no man less likely to make a motion of such a character, and above all there is no man in this house less likely, if he did make a motion of such a character, to fix upon that motion any other character than that of truth. (Hear, hear.) I shall not endeavour to entangle hon. gentlemen by the discussion of details. It would be very easy for me to enter upon many matters of that description, and to that by the adoption of this motion you would be in volved in many great anomalies, and you would introduce difficulties amounting to confusion into the working of a tax which, unless you fix its detail within certain bounds, would become absolutely unmanageable. (Hear.) A great deal might be said on subjects like that, but there is more important matter before us. There is a stronger, at all events a much higher and broader ground, on which it is my duty to object to the motion of the honourable gentle. man. It is not because his motion is devoid of plausibi lity, or even is devoid of equity, if it stood as a naked ab stract prOposition. It is when we view it in conjunction with other provisions of the tax, of which it forms a part -- -when wo view it in conjunction with the present group of circumstances which bear on the renewal of the opera tion of the tax, in conjunction with the pledge given at former periods and on recent occasions—that her Majesty's Goernment feel that it would be deserting.the very - first principles of their duty were they either to consent to the motion of the hon. gentleman or to give it anything less than the most resolute and unqualified opposition. (Cheers.) I will not dwell upon the many details which have been referred to in the course of the debate. But with respect to the honourable member for Devonshire, whose sympathy has been greatly excited on behalf of the small freeholders, I may be allowed to say that we are pro posing an income tax that will leave every freeholder un der 1001. soot free ; whilst he supported a budget that pro posed to tax every 40s. freeholder—a budget which, if I recollect right, taxed all real property, irrespective of the amount of income of its possessor, and going down to a very low limit—l believe it was 501. But I will not dwell on those things. In order to understand what are the just expectations of the country with respect to the question, we must travel a little backwards. We must consider what was the situation of affairs in December last. At that time the right hon. gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the champion, the chosen champion of a large portion at least of those whose interests are connected with the land—proposed his financial plan, and I was asked to-night why it was that I had said nothing on be half of the land with regard to local taxation, and why I had proposed no reduction of its burdens. Why, sir, if I bad proposed a reduction of those burdens, I should not only have been met and confronted, but overwhelmed with quotations from the speeches of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire. (Cheers.) He, as you know—he, in your heanng—he, as your leader, your organ, your champion, consigned your claims to perpetual obli vion. (Cheers.) And yet you make it matter of accusa tion against me that I have not proposed your relief from local taxation. (Cheers.) But was that all that was done by the right hon. gentleman's budget? No ; you had then the proposal of an income tax—yon had then a resolution laid upon the table, under which that income tax was to be levied ; and the resolution laid on the table with regard to schedule A corresponded exactly with that which I now ask you to support. I know not what course the right hon. gentleman is going to take—l know not whether he means to adhere to his own propositions of last Deceinber. I will not speculate on that matter at this moment, for an hour or two will solve the question. (Hear.) But this I know, that the right hon. gentleman made this proposal, with your support, as your leader and your organ—he made this proposal with regard to schedule A which her Majesty's Government now make, and upon which you are asked to decide. Was that all that ho did ? With an un mitigated schedule A, what kind of schedule D did the right honourable gentleman give you ? Whilst land paid 9d.— I will not now go into any detail as to whether that is too little or too much, but Igo to the point that at this mo ment land and houses, including other buildings such as manufactories, paying a higher rate than other property— whilst that inequality was left unmitigated, the right hon. gentleman laid another inequality upon the back of it, for he proposed to reduce schedule 1) to 54d., and that with your approbation and your support. (Cheers.) But then, says the hon. member for Berkshire, there was no legacy duty in the case. Now, there was no legacy duty in the case ? There was no legacy duty in the . present case, but there was a legacy duty very legible in the future case. (Hear, and laughter.) lam sure the hon. member for Berkshire must have heard these ominous words, "At the same time we have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties." I believe the word "legacy" does not appear, but there is no doubt about the meaning of th e wor d s —" We have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties, and we think it not impos sible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on suc cessions—(cheers)—that will rec onc il e con t en di ng i n t erests, a nd terminate the system now so much complained of." (Continued cheering.) Now, I want to know whether these words have a meaning or not. To me they are clear enough. What is "the system now so much complained of ?" The system which taxes unsettled personalty, and complainedlaetm a e which exempts settled personalty. (Hear.) That is the which ht 0( "systemsproposalhrGovernmenteeen r s e t w h . e s o right 11 'l3 (Cheers.) f;eur theartg ai N es, o yt w he , au s r i s r y , s t t h em a cham pion, your leader, proposed and promised in the name of te n. rminate. t was the combination of events—that was the combination of circumstances as they stood in December last. But there is yet one other. You say that, although we talk about the termination of the income tax, it will not end in 1860. (Opposition cheers.) Neither I nor you are the masters to determine that question. (Renewed cheering.) But every prophet and every seer who rises on that side f the house and says the income tax will not terminate in 1860 adds to the difficulties of bringing it to a termination. I will not talk about its termination in 1860. I have given my own opinion that it ought to ba considered as a tem porary tax, and ought not to fall upon our permanent and ordinary system of finance. But while we have not talked much about its termination, we have done this — we have endeavoured to place circumstances in such a train—(cheers)—we have endeavoured, by deeds and not by .words—(hear, hear)—by bringing into play additional re sources of taxation, and by introducing the principle of gradual descent into the income tax—we have endeavoured to show by figures that we have put the question into ) andot the Y yel a aei e tnut income op n m o ou w ee e supportedcomplaintmaxbe fro. ;fora I pt eh o t r ih f i the neokdt ato hfx income tax, in such a manageable form as will enable Parliament when the time arrives to part with the income tax. con junction with the legacy duties, as it stands in our pro posal,etahs r e proposaliet y stoodea years. theniw What did tha waste did that mean.? You all know what it meant. It meant the tax in perpetuity. (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to say that it implied a foregone conclusion to that effect on the part of those who proposed the renewal of the tax for three years ; but what was done was this—the tax was proposed for three years, no provision was made for its ex tinction at the end of that period, and, indeed, the right hon. gentleman opposite might just as well have made up his mind for its perpetuity. (Hear, hear.) You cannot afford to part with 6,000,000 of revenue at a moment's notice. If you are in earnest to get quit of the tax, you must make provision and prep are th e ground. Wehave done se. You say that you are afraid the income tax may exist after 1860. That is possible—the tax may exist after 1860 ; but we have prepared the ground for its extinction, and have made such provision that Parliament will be in a condition, in 1860, to abolish the tax if it pleases. (gear, hear.) Here, then, was the combination of events in December last. You had an unmitigated schedule A— you had the principle of differentialism established against you in schedule D—you had no prospect of the abolition of the tax—and you had the promise of a legacy duty. (Hear, hear.) Well, now, it is supposed that party and factious motives alone could have determined me to resist the scheme of December last. It was not so. I opposed the scheme of December last because, in the first place, I thought its mode of dealing with 'the income tax unjust. That was my conviction at the time. I thought that the mode of dealing with the income tax which was then proposed would lead to confusion, and that impression has been strengthened since I heard the right honourable gentleman the member for Bucldngham shire say the other night that his proposal of last December was not a financial measure, but the acknowledgment of a principle. I still remain of opinion that the mode then proposed of dealing with the tax would have led to finan cial confusion, would have opened up difficult and imprac ticable !questions, and would have , produced a war of classes. I am not ashamed to say, notwithstanding the compliments of the honourable member for Manchester with regard to my change of opinion, that I thou ght plan of the right honourable gentleman the memner thefo for Buckinghamshire most unjust in its ultimate bearings upon those who are connected with landed property. (Hear.) What has been the result of the proposals then made ? We heard of it last week. (Hear.) I want to know, if o Te f h ee p h r ed opo ni sal re e A to cnd lie n v o e t thLo w tlir i e th stheheedue expiring at irin the se gm e i x n p ie e t n ry. such was the situation of last December, what was the situation of last Monday night ? We had then the follow ing motion presented to us :—" That the continuance of the income tax for seven years, and its extension to classes heretofore exempt from its operation without any mitiga tion of the inequalities of its assessment, are alike unjust and impolitic. For that motion 252 members of this house gave their votes, and it will be matter of no small interest to the country to see how these 252 gentlemen, who so dis posed of their votes last Monday, shall dispose of their votes to night. "'Without any mitigation of the inequalities of its assessment." What was the meaning of those words ? I want t% know to what inequalities those words referred. . You khow the meaning they bore, and V still bear, in the. public mind. Do you attach the same meaning to them, or do you not? There are two quite different kinds of inequalities in the income tax. First, there are those of which we have heard so much to-night. We have been told that the property 'assessed in schedule A is taxed at a somewhat higher rate than the property comprised in the rest of the schedules. Was that the inequality which was meant to be pointed out for correction by the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire ? Now, sir, I am most anxious that we should have a distinct answer to that question. (Hear, hear.) Was that, I repeat, the idea, which hon. gentlemen had in their minds when they voted for the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Hertfordshire ? Did you think that he was going to reduce the rate paid under schedule A, and consequently to im pose a new burden upon the trading and professional classes, in comparison with the owners of landed and real property ? If that was your idea, I can only say that you were most unfortunate in having adopted words which con veyed to the understandings of the community at large a meaning totally opposite and contradictory, and in having chosen for your organ and exponent upon the occasion an hon. gentleman of great ability, but one who in the speech with which he i i i,aptieduced hi s mo ti on t o the house, exhausted a ll the st:ores.nf his rhetoric in setting forth the hardships - what.hardships ?—th e h ar d s hi ps of the landed interests ? No; bu't the hardships of those whose enterprise, whose intelligence, and whose skill constitute, as the honourable baronet had said, their only property, and whose continued good health is their only guarantee. (Hear.) Now, I want to show what was the meaning of the vote of last Monday. It was meant to alter the rela tive position of the schedules. Of that there can be no doubt ; but what I want to know is, did it mean to alter the position of schedule A at the expense of schedules D and E, or did it mean to alter the position of schedules D and Eat the expense of schedule A ? (Hear, hear.) If you had in view anything analogous to the motion of to-night, then you must intend, I will not say to delude or deceive, but to mislead the country ; but if, on the other hand, you meant, what it was plain the honourable baronet the mem ber for Hertfordshire meant, and what all the speakers who followed him meant, namely, the reduction of the rates charged on trade and professions, then I say you did that which my noble friend who closed the discussion last Monday told you you were about to do—you cheered and supported, and voted for a motion diametrically opposite and contradictory to the motion of to-night. (Cheers.) Sir, I must here allude for a moment to what fell from the honourable baronet who spoke last. I would ask him what meaning he attaches to the motion last Monday night. Was the meaning of it—" We want to relieve schedule A?" or was the meaning of it—" We want to relieve schedule D ?" or was the meaning of it a latent meaning, wisely and conveniently kept back, not expressed—" We do not wish to obtain a legacy duty ?" (Hear, and a laugh.) Now, the hon. baronet says he can see nothing in this budget except taxation laid upon the land, and in proof of his assertion he says, " Why, you state yourself that you are going to lay 2,000,0001. of taxa tion upon land by exacting a legacy duty." Sir, Ido not wonder that the hon. baronet can see nothing in this budget except taxation upon land, if that is the process by which he arrives at his conclusion. The hon. baronet says I have myself stated that I am going to lay 2,000,0001. of additional taxation upon land. Why, sir, I never made such a state ment. (Hear.) I stated the very reverse, and I chal lenge the honourable baronet to show that the charge of the legacy duty will be 2,000,0001. upon land. What I stated, and what I will repeat until the honourable baronet understands me (a laugh), was, that we are going to amend the basis of the legacy duty altogether ; that we think the distinctions which now exist are unjust—especially that which exempts all settled and real property ; that we are going to take away the exemption which attaces to all settled and real property as such ; and that we are going to make the legacy duty applicable to all kinds of property whatever, not draw such a distinction in regard to the mode of levying the duty as we think would operate to the injury of property which at present bears a heavy burden of taxation. And here I venture to tell the honourable baronet the member for Devonshire, who has applied his mind with so much fairness to that portion of the sub ject, that when he sees the provisions of the bill we shall introduce for the purpose of altering the legacy duty, he will find them not unworthy of his approbation. (Hear, bear.) Now, sir, if we wore to look at the immediate financial effect of the proposition of the hon. member for Berkshire, we would see that it would deprive the Exchequer of a sum of about 450,0001. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, and of course I speak in some degree from con jecture, but am persuaded th a t, if th e h on. gen tl eman i s permitted to carry his motion, the deductions which will be made from the gross amount of the tax now levied under schedule A will be to the extent of about 16 per Cent. Mr. PALMER : The deductions will be much less than ,hat. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am sure Ido not see how they can be less. The xpense of repairs, of management, and various other items—why the honour able gentleman will find it difficult to estimate the deduc tions at less than 16 per cent. Moreover the honourable gentleman proposes to make his plan applicable to house property, and he must be aware that in a great many in stances the bond fide repairs on house property amount to 15 per cent. without any other charge. {Bear, hear.) My belief is that his deductions would deprive the Exche quer of the sum of 450,0001. Now, air, I have a very sim ple answer to make—we cannot afford to part with the money. I would return this reply even if I were to sup pose that the measure which the hon gentleman proposes was to stop at schedule A. But who imagines that it could stop at schedule A ? Who conceives it possible to vote for the motion Of the hon. gentleman with regard to schedule A, and not to carry the:principle through the whole of the schedules.? When the hon. member for Manchester said that deductions were likewise necessary under the other schedules, he was greeted with enthusiastic cheers from both sides of the house. Well, then, these deductions are to run through the whole of the schedules ; in other words, 16 per cent. is to be taken off the whole ta x. Speaking in ' round numbers, that is a deduction of 1,000,0001. from the present produce of the tax. Now, that is a most agreeable process, and doubtless we would all like to indulge a feeling of enlarged generosity, to strike off one item after another, to go home to-night after agreeing to this motion with those sentiments with which philan thropy and benevolence always distend the heart, to re peat the process to-morrow night in the case of schedule A, and so to go on with schedule after schedule, until you reduce the tax to a mere skeleton of its former self. But if you make these deductions upon the whole of the sche dules, what becomes of the financial measure ? (Hear, hear.) What becomes of the remissions of duty? (Hear, hear.) lam afraid you will be obliged to commence a counter process, and having begun by reducing land from 9d. to 7d., and effecting an equivalent deduction upon the other schedules, you will require to retrace your steps, and raise the land from 7d. to 9d., and so on with the rest f the schedules. lam not prepared to enter upon that course. I am convinced you ntver could carry through such a pro cess, and that the adoption of this motion would introduce utter and hopeless confusion into the assessment and collec tion of the tax. If you deduct 16 per cent. under schedule A, you must allow as much for schedule D. You will have admitted a principle of such a character, that it will be im po,sible for schedule D to be content even withl6 per cent. After the plans of last December, which were offered as a step in the right direction, it is impossible for you to im pose upon that process such limits as may appear to suit your particular inclinations. Indeed I could not wish you a more fatal gift than the success of this motion. We can not afford to enter upon any such process. We cannot afford it as far as regards the mere arithmetical effects upon our calculations; we cannot afford it as far as regards the prin ciple that is involved. The motion of the hon. gentleman, if adopted, breaks up the whole income tax ; and; breaking up the whole tax, it necessarily breaks up that which rests upon the tax. It breaks up the financial measures and pro posals of the Government. It is impossible for us to un dertake the reconstruction of the tax. If we meddle with it we peril that very extensive remission of taxation which we have laid before parliament, and which I think I may say without presumption has received and is receiving the appro bation of the country. Sir, we will not take the first step in such a course. What has been our position ? When we were first called upon to view the financial state of the country we found the question of the income tax under these circumstances—the right hon ourable gentleman had pledged himself to the *inciple of its reconstruction, many gentlemen on this side of the house, had expressed opinions more or less favourable to the same course ; but upon examining the question we found that it was impossible to reconstruct the tax, or to bring the attempt to any satisfactory conclusion, and that by undertaking it we would' introduce confusion into our finances, injure the public credit, set class against class, and produce mischief infinitely greater than any good which the most sanguine could anticipate. We did not conceal these convictions ; we stated them ; but we said, " While sympathising with you in the feeling that the tax presses too hard upon intelligence and skill as compared with property, we cannot encourage you to adopt - a mode of giving effect to that feeling which will be productive of far more harm than good." Well, we were generously met by the house, and last Monday night we obtained a vac) in fa vour of the general principles upon which we wore proceed ing. The first of these general principles was to take the income tax as it stands. It is in vain you endeavour to taunt me by saying I have argued for an equal tax, and now you ask me to make it so. I tell you I never argued theoretically for an equal tax, and I do not believe it is possible. What we said was, "We find the income tax defective in some points, but we find also it has achieved great things for the country ; we find it accepted to a certain extent by the nation, no doubt calling for amendment in some parts, but on the whole productive of good far beyond the hard ships and grievances that attend it." (Hear, hear.) We consequently asked you to consider the income tax as a whole. Now I ask if that was at all compatible with any intention or any willingness on our part to be pressed into tampering with the reconstruction of the tax ? Sir, the motion of the hon. gentleman invites us to tamper with the tax ; but we cannot do so without destroying its efficiency. We must keep faith Niith those who have supported us. We must refuse to commence this process. We are bound not to commence it, because itwould prove our first step in a path that must lead us upon grOnnd so insecure that we should be obliged to abandon the whole substance of the proposals we have made. From many hon. members in this house we have received support in asserting these principles. We have received that support, I believe, not simply because they recognised the impossibility of reconstructing the tax, but because in our general proposal we hold out something like the outline of a definite policy—(cheers) —tending to place the finances of the country upon a footing of security, to maintain the public credit, and to do justice between the different classes of the community. (Cheers.) Sir, having received that support, we are not going to shrink from the conduct by which it was earned. We intend to adhere to the measures we have proposed. We do not pretend to interfere with the discretion of members of Par liament in bringing forward this or that amendment; but we do ask the house to pause and consider well before it gives a vote that will deprive the country of the benefit proposed to it through the medium of our plans. I cannot help entreating those gentlemen who voted on Monday last for the relief of intelligence and skill, to pause to-night before they give a vote of a totally opposite and contradic tory character. (Cheers.) Here are words which are not unworthy the attention of the committee :—"Thereis n othing in life, especially in public lif e , more important than to have a principle." Sir, these words were recently addressed by tho right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire to his constituents. I admit that the n eotion of last Monday distinctly expressed though au erroneous one • b u t the motion i r ) o r f in es c s i i p o l n e. s a principl e , of to-night p embodies a totally oppo s it e and on The motion of last Mond a y relieved trades at the expense of the land ; the motion of to-night relieves the land at tht expen se o f trades and professions. Th ese things are perfectly disti nc t and intelligibl e to the country. They cannot be concealed or placed beyond the reach of public opinion. We have declared that, looking at the Income tax as a whole, we belie ve th at it is capable of pro t.n.cing great benefits to the community. To that d oc t r i n e w e adhere. We are prepared for those wh o thi n k th a t pr ecarious incomes ought tole relieved at the expense of pei 'in anent incomes. We an opi, ortunity of bringing ourselvespr ic o t ose a plan forplacing a givater burden upon propertwhich the cowe,dsheraalltiosonoonfh the . e under house, but I must confess it will be singular indeed if within the space of seven days the plans of the Govern ment are to be assailed by two hostile motions, each of thorn supported by a strong party combination, and each diametrically opposed to the other. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI--Sir, the right hon. gentleman has de scribed the plan which the late Government brought for ward for the continuance of the income tax, and has said that it relieved trades and professions at the expense of the land. He has also told the committee that the late Govern ment intimated their intention of proposing a legacy duty; for, said the right hon. gentleman, with logic which I could not follow, did not they refer to the stamp duty, a tax on conveyances, and the probate duty ? I protest against the use of single passages in a Ministerial statement. (Hear.) While the right hon. gentleman declares that our measures were opposed to the interests of real property, he has the candour and ingenuousness to forget that at the same time we made a proposition which woull have relieved real pro perty, especially the land, of indirect taxation to the amount of 2,000,0001. (Hear.) An hon. member told the house on Monday last, and the statement has been frequently re ferred to by the right hon. gentleman opposite, that there is no impost so grievous upon the land as the malt tax ; and he said that the principal fault which he found with the proposition of the late Government was, that it did not propose a total repeal of the malt tax. I suppose when that bon. member fills the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, we may hope that he will propose the total repeal of the malt tax. But let us look at this matter for a moment. Having called the attention of the committee to this prin cipal omission, reminding the committee that the right hon. gentleman has omitted from the enumeration of his measures a proposition which would have reduced the indi rect taxation upon land to 21 millions —reminding the com mittee also that one quarter of the Excise is raised by a tax upon a crop grown by the English farmer, let me now advert to the scheme of the income tax proposed by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman will not sanction any change in the rate of assessment of the different schedules. Now remember that the argument with which the right hon. gentleman vindicated his policy, which he says is his great principle, and to which the Government is devoted, proceeded upon the assumption that real property was actually assessed 2d. in the pound more than the other schedules. And the right hon. gentleman, after having established that point — a point which was one of novelty, although probably it had never been placed before the house in so popular and convincing a form—(hear, hear, and laughter)—after having established that point, the right honourable gentleman, with strange inconsistency, immediately proceeded to say—" Having shown you in a manner so satisfactory, that by the scheme of the income tax, which I am now proposing on the part of the Govern ment, real property is assessed at a much greater amount than any other kind of income which contributes to the tax, we propose another measure, which is a tax of consi derable amount upon real property." (Cheers from the opposition.) Certainly his two millions were not to be raised entirely from the land. Did I say that they were ? I did not say that they wore to be raised solely from real property ; but in laying this tax upon property which has not hitherto borne it, who will deny that a much greater proportion will be pad(' by real property? (Hear.) Well, if that be the case, then it appears that the right hon. gentleman meant to affix a very large amount of a new tax upon real property. Now I say that there was very great inconsistency in the course taken by the right konourable gentleman. I say it was inconsistent to show to the house that real property was assessed to more than it was equit able that it should bear were it not for grave considerations of State, and then immediately to propose a new tax which would add to its burdens. (Loud cheers.) But is that all ? Is that strange inconsistency the only or the greatest inconsistency in the argument or in the policy of the right hon. gentleman. Let me call the attention of the committee , to an important consideration which has not yet been adverted to in the course of these debates. What was the argument of the right hon. gentleman? He says, " One of your inducements for accepting my proposal of the income tax is that you have my personal promise, and every fair public prospect, that the tax will end at the termination of seven years from the present time." Unquestionably there was some difference of opinion about that point ; but the basis of all the arguments of the right honourable gentleman has been, and the position of the Ministry has been, that we are to consider that the income tax is to terminate at the end of seven years. What, then, does the right hon. gentleman do ? Having shown that real property is assessed more than is equitable under his income tax, he says, with another inconsistency, " As you have a weakness in favour of precarious incomes, although I have proved to you that real property pays more than incomes derived from any other sources, yeti will propose a tax that shall compensate those who pay the tax upon precarious incomes in the way you desire. (Ffear, hear.) I will propose a tax upon successions, which will make the owners of real property contribute to the State, independent and irrespective of those who enjoy precarious incomes—it shall be a tax by way of compensation." But if so, it ought only to bo a tax for seven years. (Cheers.) If the tax is to be a tax by way of compensati on , it will be unjust unless you provide that it shall end at the ter mination of seven years. The ground upon which the right honourable gentleman is convinced that he ought to impose a tax upon successions, namely, that a compensa tion is needed for those who pay the tax upon precarious incomes, ought to induce him, according to his own argu ment, to propose that this tax upon successions shall be equally limited in its duration with the income tax itself. (Cheers.) I will presently show that the motion of to night is the natural consequence of the policy of the Go vernment. So I think also that the natural consequence of the argument of the right honourable gentleman on this head will be that when we have to consider the tax upon successions it will be necessary to move that that tax shall continue only for seven years. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now I come to the vote on Monday night. I confess that in deference to the feelin g s of the supporters of the right honourable gentleman I should have wished to have avoided the subject. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think there was something unnecessarily cruel in the way in which the right honourable gentleman alluded to it. should have thought that a clear announcement of what was our intention in the vote on Monday night was exactly a point on which he would have spared the feelings of those by whose assistance he gained a tri umph to which I trust they will continue to look back with a satisfaction which, however, I hardly think awaits them. (Laughter). The object of that vote was to assert a principle which we endeavoured to establish, and which was frankly and unequivocally announced by my hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire. We endeavoured to establish a principle, and we were supported in our endea vour by those agains tt, whose interests the right honourable gentleman says that policy was directed. Well, sir, there are then some persons in this house who sacrifice their in terests to their principles. (Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) But the right hon. gentleman says, "How can you reconcile the vote of Monday night with the vote of this evening ? Why, the very fact that you defeated us on that occasion is not only our excuse but is our necessity for considering your measures on this occasion. (Oh, oh, from the Ministerial benches, and cheers from the Opp os iti on .) We have now to consider the measure on its merits. I can easily understand how hon. gentlemen, especially hon. gentlemen who were in favour of a difference between the schedules, may now triumph in a majority which cannot, indeed, vindicate their conduct, although it may establish their Government. But let me ask you this—ls there any thing in the course which my hon. friend the member for Berkshire recommends to night, novel, anomalous, or un justifiable? We recommended a policy which you rejected. If you reject that policy, surely we have a right to try your policy on its merits. (Opposition cheers, and Ministerial laughter.) I should like to see that gentleman who laughs so loud rise and tell us the reason of his mirth. Is there, I ask, anything new in the policy which we are recommend ing ? According to the right hon. gentleman opposite, there is something new, startling, and dangerous. The right hon. gentleman says that my hon. friend invites us to tamper with the income tax. Well, I know many per sons who have invited the House of Commons to tamper with the income tax, and who have thought that changes might be made in it on principles of sound policy. Now I will never refer to any speech made by any hon. gentle man in this house by way of taunt—l will never refer to Hansard with the view of annoying any honourable gen tleman. That period has passed. (Murmurs.) And there fore, if I have Hansard before me, I can assure hon. members that I am not going back five, or ten, or fifteen' years, but I will just refer to a recent debate which lam to unwilling to quote from memory. The last' motion which I brought forward in this house during the government of the noble lord opposite, a motion which has been noticed as that which destroyed the Government of the noble lord, whereas I was unconscious of having achieved so grat a feat, and thought that the Government of the noble lord bad been defeated on the militia ques tion—(hear, hear)—but on that very motion—a motion which called on the house dispassionately to consider the th n at er b e e 's :e on in a vid m i e o m us b a e s r t o o f t q h u e es p t r i e o s n eu o t f loal G o vernment—l iaxatin—oo will the most countrygentleman, t i di e stinguisbed member, who is a m butlvi will say the say most in of the epresent b y my dg Government,ane dangerous s measuresextreme and ml Free-t r ader, e- t a y d danger ous erwho was frighte ned policy, which he said would disturb the financestat right of g th e t country, and bring on revolutions — why, sir, that hon. gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, made a most powerful speech in opposition to me on that occasion, denyt h thatthe lsaunbd jaencdt , h e e f landsaisaid, i s distressed"—and s"Thistr e i s s s e dnott h e"— a nd w h a e y d t i o d d n e o a t l ou will upset the who e h you do not know w at you w nf a t s h d e is e t o r t e in sz y l- - ; you must not consi der th fi e n l a o n c c a i l a t l a a x y a s t ta io m n of the country if you do I s e — ea revolution in the distance, are going to embark in. gentleman also I, tihi e u r m ig p h h t w h i e l n l . perhaps be the and t he destruction con of consequence qtuheen empire." m e p o f i r y e said, " There . are mod erate means by which you may attain h.eh itehaeseonbjjencettififoere, m a ' n h d i chwhyieohu policyhave r l ec ab o o m ur m ed en — da ura an n d s in . i which you will be supported by the voice of Parlianient and the entire country. Consider the glorious.opportunity which you will enjoy, when the subject of the income tax shall again be brought under the consideration of 'Parlia ment. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Then," said the r ight hon. gentleman, " you will have an opportunity of showing how unjustly landed property is assessed under sc hedule A ; then you will call th e a tt en ti on of Parliament to the expenses which the landed proprietor has to undergo for rates, for management, for insurances, and fora thousand resistother ; c e t h u s e e n s y ; otuhownillyohuawveiltl h he a n ve o a ue c e a o se f w e lt o n n o s a o ii s i d e me n country with you ; and then, when you demand that the proprietor shall be assessed on his net and not upon his gross rental, then, indeed, you will be doing justice to the landed proprietor." (Hear, hear. ) Why, it i s almost only yesterday th a t we h eard the right hon. gentleman from the second words o o f r e t l h o i g r u d e bench v inepe to therethe now the right h on . gentleman eielpressing himself in such proprietorsomember o f oftheth the present and Government, devoted to this great principle of denying this justice to the land—cloud cheers from the Opposition) —of resisting this act of justice which he said no House of Commons could for a moment successfully oppose. But is that all ? The First Lord of the Admiralty went on to say, " You want justice to the land ; you must not attempt to get it by these vile schemes of yours, by dealing with the local taxation of the country ; you must not stop short at schedule A ; you must not be content with obtaining for the landlord a just and equitable assessment under the in come tax ; you must go on to schedule B, and do justice to the farmer—(hear, hear)—he is assessed on a scale which is unjust, as his profits are taken at too high a rate ; you must take care that the scale on which he is assessed is better adapted to the present times and to the rate f ofprofi e t on which he lives." Sir, I recollect all this whnedn support,std right hon. gentleman, the greatest ornament, when 1 h I and bulwark of the Treasury bench ; by the right hon. gent lemanof the Exchequer says that remem ber all this, which I have no dit co n sc ientiouslyi.satnd w this i ent, be lievedand d when I find that the Chan e ct.l 4 l: v r ernment, and that the Go he is only the organ of tl2 1 lons, and if I bellow onthtehiresapreoinattilisfoml e a a m pp a e li au ttLa ibnecmreaddue , vernment is united