The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY, EVENING, MARCH 28, 1848.

proceeded with. He moved that the bill be read a second
time that dal sir months.
Kr. HLM supported the bill
, contending that a majority
were in favour of the dissolution.
Mr. ELLIOT also supported the measure.
Mr. BRIGHT said the bill came before the house under
false pretences ; its object was merely to transfer power
from one set of directors to another, and there was no bona
fide intention of abandoning the line.
Mr. HUDSON believed that the bill was not promoted
by the shareholders generally. He, therefore, thought the
house ought not to went to it.
Mr. FOSTER and Mr. AGLIONBY supported the second
msdinThe house divided.—For the second reading 76
Against it 74-2
The bill was then read a second time.
NORTH STAF RDFOAT WSHIRE RAILWAY (DEVIA-
TION ELLINGTON ) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of ibis bill,
Mr. HINDLEY moved that it be read this day sir months,
OD the ground that it would do an injury to an individual—
Sir H. Every—without conferring any public advantage.
Mr. COLVILE seconded the amendment.
Mr. RICARDO said that the line which was before thehouse was the very line proposed. by Sir H. Every himself
when he proposed one in opposition to the North Stafford-
shire Company.
The howe divided.—For the second reading ..143
Against it
The bill was then read a second time.
SLIGO ELECTION.
Mr. GRANGER, as chairman of the Sligo election
committee, reported that Mr. J. P. Somers was not duly
elected at the lust election, and that the said election was a

void deotion.
Sir H. BARRON moved that a new writ be issued for the
election of • member for the borough of Sligo in the room of
Mr. Somers.—Ordered.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
In answer to Sir J. DIJCILWonTH,
Sir G. GREY said that he could not hold out any hope of
bringing in a bill on the subject of turnpike trusts with an
expectation of p.ssing it through the house in the present
session. A bill was prepared on the subject of highways,
and it would also include turnpike trusts. It was not in-
tended to have the same separate control which caused the
rejection of the bill tut session.
COMPULSORY ENFR
OPYHOLDS.ANCHISEMENT OF
C
In answer to Mr. Aoetorsiz,
Sir G. GREY said that a bill was prepared on this 'ab-
ject. and was now in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. He
hoped to introduce the bill at an early period.
IRISH REGISTRATION AND GRAND JURY BILLS.
In answer to Mr. Itocne,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the government had prepared
bills on these subjects ; but he must state that it would be
only misleading him, when there was no chance of • day for
bringing them forward, if he were to say that he would soon
bring them under the notice of the house.
EXPULSION OF TENANTRY IN GALWAY.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know if it was the intention
of governmeat to prosecute the perpetrator of the outrages
which he brought before the house on Friday T
Sir G. GREY said that he immediately communicated
with the Lord-Lieutenut of Ireland on the appearance of
Major M'Kie" report, with a view of calling the attention
of the Irish government to it, in order to take such imme
diate steps as the law would allow. He was informed, how-
ever, by the Solicitor-General that, in the present state of
the law, • criminal prosecution could not be instituted. The
subject, howeverovas under the consideration of government.
Sir R. PEEL wished to know from the right hon. gentle.
I man the Secretary for Ireland whether it was not the duty
of the police in the county of Galway to make a report of
the circumstances to the government, and whether they were
not guilty of a dereliction of duty in not reporting the facts T
Sir W. SOMERVILLE could not say why the polioe had
toot made a report. lie would make an inquiry on the
subject.
Dr. POWER wished to know whether Mr. Blake was
still in the commission of the peace ?
Sir W. SONIERVILLE was not able to say.
IRISH POOR IN EDINBURGH.
In answer to an lioN. Measliest,
Sir G. GREY said that he had received a representation
that two Irish families had been sent out of Edinburgh, and
referred the matter to the Lord Advocate, who directed a
strict investigation to be made into the circumstances. Pend
ing that he could not pledge himself to produce any cor
respondence on the su
THEbject.
MILITIA.
Ise answer to Sir W. J °lmre,
Sir G. GREY said that ample notice would be given when
the government intended to introduce the measure for elm.
bodying the militia.
ELECTION RECOGNISANCES DILL.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he had given notice of his inten-
tion to move the Election Recogniminces Bill before the
other orders on the ground of privilege, but, as it might be
inconvenient to the house to proceed with the measure to-
day. he would suggest that it should be taken on the same
ground before the notices of motion to-morrow.
Sir R. H. 'INGLIS could not admit that this we, a mea-
sure of privilege at all, and intimated, that when brought
forward, he should oppose the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the measure should
stand for consideration to-morrow, and this was understood
to be agreed to.
ISSUING OF NEW WRITS.
Mr. HUSIE moved—" That in all cues where the seat of
any member has been dec'ared void by an election commit-
tee, on the grounds of bribery or treating, no motion fur the
issuing of a new writ shall be made, without previous notice
being given in the votes." He observed that he moved this
now as a matter of privilege, and he urged the adoption of
the r solution so calculated greatly to convenience the haus.
The question having been put,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said it was the duty of the house to
issue a writ where I,4l3llCies occurred unless good cause
were shown to the contrary, and in his opinion such a gene-
ral resolution as this might in certain instances operate very
prejudicially.
Mr. B. COCHRANE rose to order, and asked if this was
a question of privilege ?
The SPEAKER said the question had been put from the
chair, and therefore it was, compe'ent now for the house to
consider it.
Sir R. H. INGLIS bad spoken upon that assumption. If
the question were pressed he must divide against it.
Mr. HUME thought there would not be a single member
opposed to this resolution ; of course, if opposed, he should
withdraw the resolution.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the practical convenience
of this rule would be eery great. The house was now fre-
quently placed in very awkward predicaments by racitions
being made for new writs before evidence was before them.
The delay which the rule would occasion would only be a
delay of one day.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he feared this resolution could not
be pressed to a division now, but certainly, whenever it was,
it should have his decided support. He agreed that great
practical inconvenience resulted trout the present system.
The motion was then by leave withdrawn.
Mr. FOLLETT'S CASE.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to ask • question of the
Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference
to the case of a Mr. Pallett, who had been incarcerated in
Whitecross-sweet Prison for non-payment of a debt of 21.,
recovered from him in the Whitechepel County Court. The
hon. member stated that Mr. Pollen was • clerk upon the
London and Brighton. Railway ; and he then read from the
Daily News a statement of the hardships and indignities
which the gentleman he referred to underwent, rind to
which attention has already been called in this journal. He
proceeded to sly that alr. Follett had lost his situation, his
character had been ruined, and, in tact, all that occurred
was mere like a 'erne under th e Sultan than under a free
government.
Sir G. GREY said the statement referred to had appeared
in the Daily News of the 17th of March, and immediately
on seeing it he had directed an inquiry, but up to the pre-
sent time he had not received any report on the subject.
Mr. B. COCERANE said it would be a g. at consolation
to Mr. l'ollett and his friends that the matter was undergoing
inquiry.
INCOME TAX BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved
the order of the day for the committee of the whole house
upon this bill. lie observed that the member for Montrose
proposed to refer it to a select committee. This was a very
unusual course to pursue, and one attended with great dab-
entities, and he h'ped it would not be persisted in.
Mr. HUME said the course might be unusual, but ties were
all the proceedings upon this bill ; indeed, they were mote
than
put it Ha
to tsual,he h they
ouse, m
n were oow uthat ncons
ittituti become ••had onal. (Hear.) Ile
cer-
tainty that this was to be a perpetual tax, whether
they would not endeavouPto secure some modification of its
provisions, so as to make it more generally acceptable. He
appealed to the house now for the last time. He hail sup
ported this hill when it was first proposed as en experiment
and as a temporary measure of finance. But circumstances
were now altered. The principle of a direct tax was esta-
blished, but it was found to be levied unfairly acel unjustly.
The whole country cried aloud against it, and he trusted
the government would take this, the last, opportunity of
meeting the people's requirements. lie wished to say some-
thing as to the character of this bill in respect ef erneof its
details. In all other casee, taxes were levied by
officers directly responsiWe to the crown. The
machinery under which this tax was levied was, however, of
a very different character. The commissioners appointed to
carry it out were appointed by the land tax comraiesioners,
I who were themselves appointed by members for counties.
What political in:luenre enlist not this arrangement give to a
particular party ! Let them look at the questions which
these commtssieoersmade people answer. Why, if a merctiant
could get appointed'one of these income tax commissioners
he might make himself acquainted with every detail of a
competitor's business, and do him infinite damage in hi*
trade. He denounced the machinery. of this bill not alma
as inquisitorial—it was oppressive—it was cruel. If they
sent the bill to a committee up stairs, something might be
done to reader it more just and less offensive. What he
wanted was to save the capital of the country. Leave the
goose, be said, to lay the golden eggs ; take To:ashore of the
eggs, but leave the 'OM.. (A laugh.)
Mr. ROBINSON seconded the amendment. Ile objected
to the imposition of the tax for three yearn, Lecause he ap-
prehended that the obtainment of this easy impost would
form a ground with the prernment for not going into the
question of reviewing the whole subjec taxation. t of He
h..d every disposition to give the governmentll means of
eo nducting the affairs ot the country, and least ot all would
Le cripple their energies in the present critical state of thing:
at home and abroad ,• and, among other sources of revenue,
be was decidedly in favour •of a tax upon income and upoa
property, justly apportioned ; but he saw no reason why the
tax should not be referred to a select committee, by which,
with-sut any material loss of time, its inequalities might be,
at all events, modified, and its injustice, consequently,

dindolithed. He was peseuled that ny per
adjustment of the tax, making propmty pay its
due proportion, far more than 5 millions a year could be
raised from it, and this permanently, without creating that
constant dissatisfaction which it at present occasioned.
Sir R. INOLIS *peened the amendment as ineepedient.
He urged,however, the propriety of making 1501. per annum
the starting point for taxation, so that a person having, say
2001. a year, should pay the tax, not upon the 2001., but upon
the 501. above 1501. He thought, too, that much benefit
tale= be conferred upon the poorer classes by an alteration
of the stamp duties, so that a person transferring 2,0001.
should pay a higher stamp duty, inroportion, than a per-
t= transferring only 2001. Should the goternment, at the
Oa of the now proposed three years, find it necessary to con-
done the income tax, he thought it might then be advisable
to modify its adjustment, so as to render Its imposition more
suited to what were undoubtedly the views of the general
public on the suhject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER bad been
in hopes that after the division on the motion of the
amendment of the hon. member for Cockermouth, the
hon. member far Montrose would not have brought
forward this amendment. The subject of a modified
scal had been moat maturel considered by him, but
I thee more deeply he had gone into the subject, the
more clearly had it appeared to him that any alteration
presented to his attention, or which had occurred to his
own mind, would only. render the tax still more unequal,
and still more inquisitorial than the present system. In vin-
dication of the liberal character of the impost, as now cul-
lected, he mentioned that in South Carolina, an income tax
was levied on exactly the same principles, alike from real
property and from professional and other incomes. It bad Wen
I urged that it would be very easy to smite at a just estimate
of the amount at which professional incomes should be
I peed by what was called capitalising that income ; and
ready reference bad been proposed to the actuary of any
1 insurance-office; but, however facile this might appear
in
theory, it would in practice be found infinitely more inqui-
sitorial and more a subject of complaint. Let him examine
for a moment the positions of two persons each paying an
equal amount of tr.come-tax--say 301 , one of whom was in
'ocher:tile A, and the other in schedule Dof the set. In the
first case the tax collector must direct to the landholder's
tenant, and having ascertained the amount of rent paid by
I him, forthwith levies the income tax, which is paid into the
exchequer. The landowner, be it observed. paid all the
' sums necessary towards keeping up the estate without hee-
-1 ing any deduction made from his gross rental in that case,
and even if the land should not be occupied, the tenant who
next entered upon possession was called upon to pay up all
arrears of income tax which he could afterwards claim from
his landlord when he paid his rent. Now, what, let him ask,
was the per centoge levied upon the landlord before he could
put the amount of his rental into Isis pocket ? He had s
beard it variously estimated, as low as ten per cent., and a
high as 30 per cent. But taking it at a mean of 20 per cent.
he did not think that was an Geer-estimate. If that was the
ere, the net income represented by a rental from land of
1,0001. a year could not be estimated at more than 7701. I
Whereas what did the man assessed at 1,0001. a year antler
schedule 1) pay ? He merely paid his 301. and put 9701 into
his pocket as a net income, having previously deducted bool
his gross gains all the expenses., wear and tear, and other
charges incidental to his trade or profession. In these two
eases the landholder pocketed 7701., and the trader or profes-
sional man 9701. out of 1,0001. a year ; and, makieg even
allowance fur the expenses of life instaance, &c., entailed ,
upon the tax-payer in sch.dule 1), he still thought that
2001. a year would amply balance the advantages possessed I
by the landholder over him ; to that after all the tax payer
in schedule A had no such ereatsuperiority in pointer position
over him in schedule 1). But even admitting fur a moment
tl at teaised property ought to pay in a greater proportion
than i :comes derived from trade or professions, there was
another circumstance attendant on the income tax and its
collection which must be taken into account. According to
the return moved for by the hon. member for Dartmouth
it appeared there were only 111,000 persons returned as
paying income tax under schedule D on their professional
or personal exertions, consequently there were only that
number of persona who' possessed incomes arising from those
sources of 130/. a year. Now, did any one believe that the
number of persons earning 1501. in Great Britain was limited
to 111,0001. ? Did any one believe there was not almost
that number of incomes in the metropolis alone ? The idea
was moat preposterous. And when the return was
analysed it showed still more extraordinary results. But
if this subject were to be more narrowly in-
quired into, let him ask how far the tax would be
rendered more unpalatable by being made more stringent
and inquisitorial. He bad a right to assert that the tax
under the head of schedule 1) might be rendered more pro-
fitable, and at the same time be more fairly exacted, but in
order to effect those objects there must Ito instituted so in•
quisitorial a system as would render it infinitely more odi-
ous than it was at present. The difference between sche-
dules A and 1) was, that the persons who paid the tax
in the former instance, generally speaking, had no
interest in concealing the amount of rental, for they
received it bads again from the landholders, whereas
those paying under schedule D had a direct personal in-
terest in concealing the tine amount of their moneys. He
granted it might be said that the mode of levying it was a
premium upon roguery ; but where was the remedy ? Only
in resorting to an inquisition of a most rigorous nature,
which would have In be carried out still further if the tax
were imposed on smeller incomes than were now touched.
That was the argument he had always urged ; the tax
might be made more equitable,. but, at the some time,
it would be rendered more inquisitorial and odious,
and his belief was that the objection to schedule D
was more on account of its inquisitorial powers than on ac-
count of the amount levied. He hoped he had now convinced
his hon. friend that whether the government was right or
wrong in it. views on the subject of the tax, neither himself
nor his colleagues bad adopted. the conclusions to which they
had come without having given full cousideratioa to the
point raised by hie amendment. lie found it impos-ible to
levy the tax in a manner devoid of objection. lie admitted
those objections to it did still exist as he had originally stated
them, but he must also admit that the property tax was a
better one than many which had been recently repealed by
the house, sod be said this consistently with the opposition
he had formerly raised to it. He would only add one word
more. Adam Smith had often been quoted by hon. mem-
bers as an authority against the income tax ; but those who
had so quoted him always left out a part of the sentence.
Adam Smith was represented, and trete', to have said that
" the subject of every state ought to be taxed as nearly as
possible proportioned to his ability to pay"; and then he
added, " that is to say, in proportion to the revenue he en-
joys under the protection of the state." Now this assertion
did not refer to capital, but simply to revenue, sold he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprehended that a
revenue derived from trade or profession was as much under
the protection of the state as one derived from land. After ,
a very careful consideration he had come to the conclusion
that no practical injustice was done to persons in schedule 1)
as compared wilt schedule A, and moreover, any =edifice.
tion of the injustice that the income tax, from its inherent
nature, inflicted, would only increase its odium and unpopu-
larity. He must, therefore, on all the grounds he had stated,
object to the motion of his hon. friend, or to say other mo-
tion having for its object the modification of the tax.
Mr. J. CLAY would not have broken the silence which
best became a young member of that house, hit for his de-
sire to:explain his reasons for voting against a government in
whose general policy he heartily concurred. lint if there
were any subjects on which he distrusted the present minis-
try, they were those which the question before the house
more particularly touched—namely, retrenchment, economy,
and financial ability. lie was one of those who strongly ad-
vocated direct taxation, and it was his opinion that the in-
come tax would become a permanent one. For if hereafter
a surplus income should =me it might better be applied to
the reduction of other taxes levied on the necessaries and
conveniencics of life, than towards repealing an impost of so
just and reasonable a character as the income tax. His only
objection to the tax was its inequality. It had been raid
that the efforts to render it eqiel were neutralised by the
insuperable diffiiulties which presented themselves, lie
cnuld not admit the excuse. The right bon. baronet the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had again urged those difßcul-
ties, but if the country saw an honest endeavour, eat to ad-
just the tax in a manner mathematically correct, but even to
make an approximation to faireess, they would be satisfied.
The right bon. baronet had also attempted to show that, be-
cause the incomes taxed under schedule A, paid a gross
amount of taxes under other heads, they ought not to be as-
sessed more heavily to the inme tax than professional
gains. But it ought to be recollected that land paid those
taxes before the income tax was imposed, and there was no
grumbling about inequality ; so that if any fresh trot, such
es the present, was imposed, it ought to he levied with a due
regard to the different sources of income. The right hon.
baronet had expressed his surprise at the such number of
persons returnel under schedule 1), as paying tax upon
incomes of 1301. and upwards, and he had intimated his
belief that the amount had, in numerous came,
been dishonourably withheld. The fact might be as
he had surmised, but it the income tax were imposed on fair
and equal princip'es, then if there were any just grounds .ur
supposing that the amount was unfairly withheld, no one
would object to the exercise of the moat inquisiterial powers. I
Under these circumstances he joined in the endeavour of the
I hon. member for Montrose, to press upon the government a
I more equitable adjustment of the tax and it was his belief
that the country at large was determined to have that ad-
justment made.
TRELAWNY said that the hon. member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire bad 'bowed very clearly, on a
former eveniog, the enormous amount of taxation levied on
the labouring claw= in the shape of malt and spirit duties,
and in the tax on tea. The poor labourer paid more in the
shape of taxation on what he consumed than the richest
duke contributed out of his large income, and on
that showing alone the income tax was eminently
fair. If it were to be subjected to revision, the
whole system of taxation ought likewise to be revised.
&sign, the three years would not be more time than was
lettelliny7 to test the soundness of the principles on which
time right hon. baronet the member for Tamworth had
founded both the income tax and the tariff. With these
tripes he must oppose the proposition of the hon. member
or Montrose. .
Ile. S. CRAW FORD said that the government had de.
Med the passibility of reducieg the national expenditure,
merely (as he believed) to afford them a pretence for main-
taining the tax. His advice to the hon. member for Mon-
trose was, to withdraw his proposition and take a division on
, the main queedeo,
tR,UR did not think the present a proper time
far referring to 'a Mlect committee a tax which they had been
.usured wee necessary to sustain the i...tional credits. (Hear,
hear.) A:select committee migLt sit for an indefinite
period, and at length terminate without presenting a report.
Although, therefore, the income tax might be susceptible of
modification, he could not concur in the amendment :-
hon. member for Montrose.
Mr. URQUHAR f complained that the question of the
income tax had been mixed up with a great deLl of extra-

seems matter. He should support the amendment. net
eldnhing that it went far enough, but merely as setting the
the
fairly afloat in the house and out of the house. On
the gerund ;question be would say that if they meant to
adopt direct natation se • principle, they must reconstruct
the whole of their municipal system, so se to give local fa-
cilities far its collection. In the present instance 11-, ob-
jected to it as being used for the subvention of an expenditure
which was in hie opinion wasteful and unnecessary.
Mr. MITCHELL thought the ministerial budget most
numatisfamory, as not meeting the deficiency, which went on
increasing from year to year. He had listened with great
attention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to that
right hon. geatleman's observations he could not give his
concurrence. The right hon. gentleman had said that in
misadole D the income tax was greatly evaded, and gave that
MI • /NOVI for continuing to levy under that bead, and with
increased strictness. lie (Mr. Mitchell) believed that eva-
sion was practised by many; but what comfort was that to
those persons who, being unfairly well:wit, regularly psid
the tat (Hear, hear.) He considered that the right
has. gentleman had given • most extraordinary reason for
Offitinung to levy the tax unfairly. The income tax had
bees defended by the right hon, baronet the member fur
Tsaworth on the ground that it was the substitute for many
from which income had been relieved. lie (Mr.
=tell) conceded that it was a fair substitute where landed
property was concerned, as the holder of such property might
isirly expend the whole of his income ; but in the ,case
of professional income, a man of a thousand a year
would not be justified in spending more than live hundred.
There was one consolation, however, for the opponents of
the tax, that, if continued as at present levied, it would be
impossible to renew it alter the three years, but as an &deo-
cats of direct taxation, he, for one, should regret that result.
Mr. NEWDEGATE combated the notion which appeared
to be held by some hon. gentlemen that agriculture coat
widely favoured by the present distribution of the tax.
The result of the present debate, however, led to one coo-
-1 clusioa only, that direct taxation, impose it as you might.
was so invidious that it was impossible it could be received
other than with general discontent. He opposed the motion
of the hon. member for Montrose because he saw no practi-
cal advantage that could arise from it, but he by no means
wished it to be understood that he supported the motion for
going into committee, because he wished the tax to be
permanent.
Mr. HORSMAN bad no hope of any practical good
arising from the amendment of his bon. friend (Mr. Hume).
Ile was anxious to take that opportunity of correcting some
misapprehensions which appeared to prevail as to the plan
he had proposed fur equalisiog the tax. His hen. friend
the member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell) had contended, in
• pamphlet since published, that that plan would, so far
from removing the objections to the tax, metier the inequali•
ties, the injustice, and the annoyance resulting from the in.
quisiteriel rating of the tax greater than at present. (Hear,
hear.) Now, he challenged his hon. friend to cite a case, or
rather a class of cases, in which it would have that effect.
The principal object of hiaplan was to put an end to the in-
justice consequent upon taxing real property and professional
and trading or terminable incomes at the same rate
he challenged his hon. friend to adduce any class
of eaten in regard to which that would not have been the
result of his proposition had it been adopted. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord supposed that the landed proprietors would
object to the additional penny in the pound.—an addition
which amounted only to 41. 4s. a year on each 1,0001. of in-
come which he (Mr Reesman) proposed to impose on them ;
hut he could not believe that if the landed proprietors were
convinced that any scheme would confer great benefit on the
rest of the community they would refuse to make a far
greater sacrifice for such an o ject. (Hear.) The landed
interest, however, opposed direct taxation altogether, and
therefore they objected to any plan which should iced to make
it permanent. His object, on the contrary, was to make it
permanent, and therefore it was that he wished to improve it.
Seeing, however, that the subject had been now fully de-
hated, and the house had decided on its continuance for the
present in its present shape, he saw no practical obji ci in the
amendment. It would be better, he thought, to turn their
attention to the question of the revision of the whole scheme
of taxation, which was called for both by the voice of public
opinion and the exigencies of the country. That was •
question which could only be taken up effectually by the
government itself ; but should they decline he hoped some
private member would bring it forward. (Hear.)
Mr. CARDWEI4, would athmpt to point out the case
which his hon. fsfettd had so pointedly challenged him to
show. lie told his hen. friend at the tin.. that they were
dacuming net an abstract principle but a particular plan, and
he showed that under the plan_ proposed there would be two
cases of grievance at least. His bon. friend by his plan
would tax the income, not according to the interest the man
would have in it, but the source from which it arose—(bear,'
bur) ; and he had instanced the case of a widow with •
Man annuity of 1601. • year secured on land or the public
funds, but being a mere fleeting and terminating interest
ending with her life.
Mr. HORSMAN—According to my plan she would have
paid the lowest tax. (Hear.)
Mr. CART/WELL—No ; but the highest. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN—Most assuredly not.
Mr. CARDWELL did his hon. friend the justice to be.
lieve that his intention was as he had now stated ; but the
effect of his plan, as explained at the time, would have been
to charge the highest tax in such a case. Ile (Mr. Card-
well) also instanced the care of a trader carrying on bui-
-1 ness with a capital partly his own and partly borro red. Ac-
lending to his hon. friend's plan he would have to pay 6d.
in the pound on the profits of his own capital and Bd. on
those of the borrowed money, Moved of as at present 7d. on
the whole. This change he had contended would necessa-
rily occasion an inquisitorial supervision on the part of the
government to ascertain what was the amount of borrowed
and what of real capital, which would be more inconvenient
and annoying to the trader than anything that belonged
to the tax as now imposed. With regard to the motion of
the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume), though be was most anxi-
ous that the tax should be levied on the moat fair and equal
principles, as that motion merely went to propose that a
measure which the house had decided was essential to the
maintenance of public credit should be indefinitely
deferred, he must oppose it. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN said the hon. gentleman had com-
pletely misunderstood what he had said. He hail explained
distinctly that he proposed to tax the terminable annuitant
at the lowest duty, and in fact that was the very cue he
had related to illustrate the hardship of the present eye-
tern. The highest tax he proposed to levy only on property
of that description which would ascend unimpaired to the
heirs of the possessor.
Mr. COULBURN had understood the hon. gentleman's
statement precisely in the same way as had his hen. friend,
Mr. Cardwell. The hon. gentleman said diatinctly that all
incomes included in schedule A were to be charged at Bd.,
and jointures and annuities on landed property, &c., were
included in that schedule.
Mr. ANSTEY considered the principal question to be,
whether the supplies Weis to be levied in the form of a rate
or a tax, and that that was a proper question for a select
committee to consider. He should, therefure, vote for the
amendment of the hon. member for Montrose.
The house divided.—For the amendment 73
Against it
The house immediately after divided on the main

question.
For the original motion .. • . 313-311
Against it • l2-311
On our re-admission, we found the house resolved into
committee on the bill, Mr. HEIINAL in the chair.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Major BERESFORD moved to substitute the words "two
years " for the words " for a limited period." While he
admitted that one year was tee short a period, regard being
had to the state of the revenue, still t.e was of opinion that
the continuance of the iccome ton for two years,
as he proposed, would give ample time for an improvement
in the revenue, or, if not, to afford the government an
opportunity to consider some other system of taxation. A
period of three years was somewhat ominous. When the
tax was originally proposed by the right hon. baronet the
member for Tamwortb, he fixed it for a period of three years.
Again, when renewed, it was for a further period of three
years, and it now seemed as though it was int, nded to bring
upon the country the same awful triennial visitation.
Without wishing in any way to embarrass the government,
he felt bound to move his amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought the
question had already been decided by the division on the
amendment which had been moved by the tfsh. member for
Mwhiconttose and as
methree years was the shortest Dori° I for
h the govern nt co ld u take it, he must oppose the
amendment.
The amendment was t glut and negatived without a
division; the period of thr raawas inserted in the douse,
which was agreed to, and o re II to stand part e f the bill.
The remaining clauses and the preamble were agreed to
without any discussion, the house resumed, the bill was re-
ported with amendments, and the report was ordered to be
received to-morrow (this day).
SUPPLY.
Mr. 131'.11.NAL brought up the r, port of the committee of
supply (Ordnance estimate.), which was agreed to.
LAW OF ENTAIL (SCBILLOTLAND) AMENDMENT
The LORD ADVOCATE nominated the following hon.
members as the select committee on this bill : The Lord Ad-
vocate, Sir James Graham, Mr. Fox Maule, Sir G. Clerk,
Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Gibson Craig, Viscount Melgund,
Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Charteris, Mr. M'Neill, Mr. Home
Drummond, Mr. James Loch, Mr. Ewart, Mr. W. F. Mac-
kenzie, and Mr. Cochrane.
An HON. MEMBER proposed the substitution of Mr. J.
Stuart's name for that of Mr. Ewart.
The house divided—For the original name 66
Against it
On the motion for the appointment of the committee,
Mr. SCOTT moved the adjournment of the house.
After a conversation the amendm- nt was withdrawn, and
the appointment of the committee was agreed to.
PAYMENT OF RATES AND TAXES.
Sir D. L. EVANS moved for leave to bring in a bill to
regulate the times of payment of rates and taxes by parlia-
mentary electors, stating that the measure was in substance
the same as one Ise had introduced on a former occasion.
Mr. FORBES opposed the motion, and moved the ad-
journment of the house.
The house divided—For the adjournment
Against it 5l-39
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the petition of Mr. Shillibeer
be printed.
Mr. THORNELY opposed the motion on the grouad
that the public should not be put to the cap.use et printing
a petition which was in the nature of a mere adv,rtisement.
Afar a short discussion the motion was withdrawn.
f The house then adjourned at one o'clock.
of the

ARRIVAL OF THE CHINESE JUNK.—The Keying
melted at Gravesend yesterday.