The Press.
London, England, 1853-05-07 00:00:00

THE PONV PEEL.

Mr. Disraeli once said of Sir Robert Peel.
that he never used a iluotation except such as
had not remotely reeeived 11143 incest of Par-
liallielltary approbation. Mr. Gladstone is
more original. Who, except an Ameriestit
stump-orator, would actuuallylace pointed out.
and laid stress upon. the five hours which he
had drearily 1•1111511111141 in a financial statement
‘4l4iell Mr. 'Pitt. would have exhquated in five-
and-forty minutes, and Nit% Canning in hall
an lilpur?
so mENsi.M mpATils CON FEcIMIII N.Qt!olt."
i 11414,4.41! It would be diffieult to match
this rlu turieal absurdity even in Kentneky or
Tenessee. Dui Mr. tiladstono is CI litSiStl'ilt
in his over-educated mediocrity. lie you-
thanes his original quotation.
fa jinn t. ml repiNtit ITV
The ttl t !•04 of this 111118. would
have been !Wit to the World if We had not been
helped by our pro-Onolition eindempontry, the
Whig E.rantimer. With an exquisite appreci-
ation 04 Mr. Gladstone's real abilities, it was
the first to nickname him " 'fur. PoNv PEEL."
This equine metaphor must, therefore, in-
dicate . a flunk eonfession that the Posy hum
wits greatly fatigued by his unequal efforts in
trying to gallop in the stride of his polities' sire.
Now grateful Mr. filadstone's colleagues
must be that we have assisted them in under-
standing anything which he has ever said.

Vrotetings in Varlimnt.

TEE BIIDOZT.

The adjourned debate upon the first series of the
budgetary propositions submitted by the Government
---those, namely, relating to the income tax---was re-
sumed on Monday evening by Sir W. CLAY, who, in
the name of a large section of the trading classes in
the metropolis, pronounced the Ministerial scheme
to be " wise and beneficial as well as bold and com-
prehensive." It would be a great misfortune if the
whole budget were not adopted. The complaints of
Irish members against the imposition of a new tax
upon their much-wronged country he met by remark-
ing that the wrongs of Ireland had never been finan-
cial wrongs, and did not justify exemption from
financial burdens.
Sir F. KELLY referred to Mr. Gladstone's " gigan-
tic oration" for the admission that, under the income
tax, landowners paid at the rate of OLI. in the pound,
while their just and equal proportion was but 7d.
Yet alter this tuhnission the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, so far from °Hering them any equivalent,
actually designed to inflict upon them a new burden,
the tax on successions, amounting to at least two
millions a year. He therefore opposed the resolu-
tions, because they were "part of a scheme of taxa-
tion pregnant with new, enlarged, and intolerable
burdens on the already oppressed landed interest;
because they sought to extend the income tax to Ire-
land without justification, without political necessity,
without any necessity at all ; and because they pro.
posed to continue the tax to this country, unmitigated
and unchanged, for the unexampled period of seven
years." Upon the first of those heads he contended
that the fiscal changes introduced by Sir R. Peel
(from which the country generally had confessedly
profited) were dearly paid JOe by the owners and oc-
cupiers of land. Two and a half millions more of
remission were now proposed, from which, also, the
country might very probably secure considerable be-
nefit, but for which, as before, the same overburdened
classes were again to be called upon to pay. Respect-
ing Ireland, he remarked that at no time had that
country been included in the incidence of the income
tax. Even while England was struggling under the
weight of war expenditure, when the tax was first
imposed, the Irish were never called upon to ennui-
bate to it. When it was again revived in 184,1 a
similar exemption was mantle in favour of the sister
isle. Yet what neither Pitt nor Peel had done
during periods of intense pressure and heavy finan-
cial deficit, the present Government were attempting
to do, and proposed to extend the tax to Ireland
without inquiry, and in the absence of anything in
the circumstances of that country which would justify
the measure :---

" It was said that Inland ought now to hear her share
of the burden of the income tax, bemuse she had hitherto
participated in the advantages which had accrued to this
►xanmy from that inapant. Would nut that aroment have
been equally valid in the year ? Considering the un-
doubted fact that the land of Ireland was labouring under
heavy burdens, he did not hesitate to say thud, before the
resolutions which they were occupied iu discussing sl Id
have passed, it was the duty of s►one hon. member imme-
diately connected with Inland to move for u committee to
inquire into the capability of Ireland to Islay a harslen now
ter the first time sought to be imposed upon her."

sir F. Kelly then adverted to a multitude of injustices
and inequalities which existed under the present in-
come tax, and which justified his third position—that
it, was unwise and unfair to continue the impost mi
mitigated and unchanged ti►r the long period of seven
years. The chief argument for the maintenance of
these inequalities rested upon the alleged impossi-
bility of rectifying them. This lie denied; and at all
events contended for the propriety of making some
attempt in that direction:•--

" lb: did nut deny that the task would be a difficult one ;
hut he did not think the difficulty was of a character which
should deter the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the
tiovennitent from attempting to deal with it. ‘ltlsaigh it
would be impossible to do absolute justice to the different
panics intennitud. they might at least make a nearer ale
ptosintatiou to
ijustice than that which was at present
obtained. lie (id not say that perfect justiee would be
obtained ; but he said that a more equitable system than
the present could unquestionably be established.''
Adverting finally to the farmer's position with regard
to the tax. as enacted in Schedule 11, he declared—
" That it woul l be hardly possible to adopt u more falla-
cious criterion of income than that which was laid down in
that schedule. The criterion in question was the amount
of a farmer's rent, which it was supposed was double the
amount of his profits. Now, there were perhaps some
wenpiers of land possessed of large capital, whose profits
were equal to the entire amount of their rent ; but as a
good many fanueno-and he was afraid that during the last
few years the greater number of farmeni—matle no profits
whatever, that schedule decidedly required alteration : and
some provision ought to be introduced into future income-
tax bills for taxing the fanner, not wording to hi. assessed
profits, but according to his real profit*. In arguing fur a
reform of these schedules, he believedthe represented the
sentiments of the constituencies which sent them to that
bones; and he should feel it his duty to offer every oppo.