The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

APRIL 1, 1854,

duties, he insisted that the Government must have
then foreseen war, but had rashly repealed those im-
posts for the sake of a little temporary popularity,
and were now supplying the deficiency by an attack
upon property. He had no amendment to propose,
and his pasty would offer no opposition to the Mini.e
try so long as they carried on the war with vigour ;
but they felt entitled to demand that the resources of
the country should not be wasted by unskilful hus-
bandry.
Mr. CARDWELL submitted that the negotiations in
April last exhibited only a difficulty, by no means
warranting the expectation of war. Briefly noticing
the critici-w, upon the financial policy of the Govern-
ment, he maintained that the income tax was not more
unjust in its operation than other taxes, and that the
reductions on tea and soap were beneficial in them-
selves, and not inexpedient under the circumstances
in which they were proposed. The result of the
Ministerial policy had been to inaugurate a period of
unexampled prosperity, and to give the country the
pride of knowing that all the war expenses which the
house had hitherto found it necessary to sanction
would be defrayed without adding to the burdens of
the great masses of the people or to the amount of
the national debt.
Mr. MALINS believed that the finance system of the
Government was most burdensome and oppressive.
They had taken off taxes which no one felt, and im-
posed taxes which every one could not help feeling.
The principle of direct taxation was thoroughly vicious
If persisted in the Ministry would first exhaust the
resources of the country, and then, should the war
continue, be forced to require a loan.
Mr. LAND denied that the income tax was un-
popular, or would make the war unpopular. He saw
no reason why the calamity of war should be rendered
doubly calamitous by our retracing the steps we had
advanced towards freeing industry and removing
burdens upon the necessaries of life.
Mr. VANSITTART remarked upon the injustice and im-
policy of raising all the war supplies by direct taxation,
and followed the operation of that system into various
consequences seriously affecting the comfort of indi-
viduals or the stability of commerce.
Mr. GREAVES commented upon and blamed the
Stock Exchange operations of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
The motion was then agreed to, and the bill read a
third time and passed.
SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL BILL.
The adjourned debate on the second reading of
this bill stood for Monday evening. Before the order
of the day was read, however, Mr. WALPOLE, referring
to what had passed on the previous Friday with regard
to the bill, inquired how the Government meant to
treat the question of Scotch and Irish paupers, and
whether, under the circumstances, they would not
postpone the second reading until the house had had
time to learn and consider their proposition upon that
branch of the subject?
Lord J. RUSSELL promised, on behalf of Lord Pal-
merston, an early announcement of the Ministerial
intentions with respect to Scotland and Ireland, but
submitted that there was no reason to delay the pre-
sent stage of the measure, as there would be sufficient
opportunity for discussing the subsidiary questions
before the bill was brought up for committal.
The motion that the bill be read a second time
having been put,
Mr. PACER briefly remarked upon the unsatisfactory
conditions under which the question must be discussed,
so long as the promised bills affecting Ireland and
Scotland still remained in uncertainty. He moved
the further adjournment of the debate until after
Easter.
A division was called without any reply being
offered from the Ministerial bench; but Mr.W.teror.e.
interposed, deprecating a hasty decision, and entreat-
ing the house not to pledge themselves to the bill
until they had ascertained not merely the nature but
the probable fate of the Scotch and Irish bills which
were to be engrafted upon it.
Mr. BAINES contended that the bill stood on its own
merits, embodying the great principle thatdestitution
and not residence constituted a claim to relief, and
offering a solution to a very serious difficulty. There
was no just cause for delaying its progress ; but, if
they intended to throw it out, he called on its op-
ponents to propose a direct vote to that effect, and
not attempt to accomplish that end by circuitous
means.
Mr. R. PALMER considered that the interests of the
three sections of the United Kingdom were so com-
pletely intermingled in the question that it was im-
possible to legislate with regard to one only.
Mr. H. HERBERT remarked upon the injustice
which Irish paupers would suffer under the con-
tingency of the present bill becoming law, and any
accident happening to the promised measure for
Ireland.
Sir J. PesnoTos believed that in all attempts to
reform the law of settlement the Irish part of the
question presented invariably the greatest difficulty.
He argued that the Government, by pressing forward
an English bill before deciding how they were to