The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 24, MS.

advice of Captain Richards, and without consulting the
Surveyor of the Navy. With reference to the First Lord
the committee, after referring to the evidence of the Duke
of Northumberland himself, sad that of Lord Darby, the
committee repotted that it appeared his Grace, though he
had himself selected the naval members of the Board, did
act consult them in reference to the circular of April 19,
Cancelling the Admiralty order of 1819, in respect to the
dockyard patronage, but relied on the Secretary of the Ad-
miralty, who had no official experience or profesaioral
knowledge, and that from the day he came into office until
he went out he knew whether the patronage was in
the hands of the Navel Surveyor or the Superintendent of
the Dockyards, and, in fact, that he knew nothing about
the matter. The report next details the evidence of Mr. Stat.
ford as to the correspondence between him and Sir Baldwin
Walker, end the subsequent proceedings in the Rouse of
Commons, in reference to the appointment of Colwell to the
office of master smith at Davenport, the destruction of the
warrant appointing AVells, and the resignation of Sir Bald-
win, but acquitting Mr. Stafford of the charge of with-
holding Sir Baldwin's letter of resignation from the Board,
on the ground that it did not appear it had been delivered
to him after Sir Hyde Parker had brought it under the
notice of the First Lord. The conduct of the first lord is
then commented upon at wine length, in reference to the
circular of April, 1552, and he is reported to have ore-
lected his duty in nut informing himself sufficiently of the
facts. The appointments made by Mr. Staffrrd are stated
to have been many of them unjustifiable, and altogether
contrary to the spirit of the Admiralty orders of 1817 and
1849, and were made without consulting the Surveyor. The
committee, however, desire to state, that in the majority of
cases he appears to have followed the recommendation of
the superintendent; but they add, it is obvious
the efficiency of the dockyard establishments would
he destroyed if political influence were permitted
to prevail in reference to the patronage. With reference
to the appointments made by the First Lord, they say it is ,
due to his grace to say that the parties were selected from
no other motive but the good of the service, at the same
time they urge that iu every branch of government the
head of the department must be held relionsible, not ter
every appointment, bat for the system under which the pa-
treasure is dispensed. On the general exercise of the in-
fluence and patronage of the government in regard to the
dockyard appointments the committee state they have re-
stricted their itoouiry to the period that bas elapsed since
1817, when the new era cominen eel, and they report that
tram that year to the issuing of the circular in 1812 the spi-
rit of the orders of 1817 and 1819 was honestly followed by
each Board of Admiralty ; they then comment upon the
appointments made by Mr. Stafford, and refer in general
terms of reprobation to his visit to Devonport during the
general election, his canvassing the voters in the yards, and
his giving a dinner to them and the electioneering agent,
and they add, that Mr. Stafford asserted his ignorance of
much that ho should have known—that he sought counsel
from no on. —disregarded the counsel of those who offered
it, and had consequently acted with an utter disregard to
precedents, thereby rendering the rules and regulations of
the Admiralty nugatory and uncertain. They urge the
amount expended annually, 683,0001. in dockyard lib, ur,
and the number of persons employed, 9,6521. as a reason
for enforcing an official system of superintendence is the
yards, and for making the appointments and procreation§
depend upon fitness only. They further recommend that if
the system now in operation were modified or altered, such
modification or alteration should be laid before parliament,
and that means should be taken for preserving minutes and
records of all important documents.
The report was ordered to lie on the table.
TILE AFFAIRS OF TURKEY.
• -

Lord D. STUART-1 wish to put a question to the
noble lord, the member for London, of which I have given
him notice. It has been stated in the public papers that-in
consequence of representations made by the representatives
of the governments of Russia and Austria at Constanti-
nople ten order has been iuued by the Porte fur tbehae-
moral of all political refugees from the Turkish e
and it is asserted that this order is not merely fir the
=oval of persons who may be disagreeable and offensive
the governments of the neighbouring or frontier countries,
or for the purpose of sending the refugees into the interior
of Turkey, but that it is a general and sweeping order for
the removal of all refugees from the territory of the Turk.
ish dominions. The question I have to ask the noble lad
is whether he has any objection to lay before the house any'
information the goverment may have received of such a
demand having been made upon Twisty by the govern-
ments of Russia and Austria, sad which is obviously an in-
terference with the independence of the Turkish empire ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he bad made inquiry of his
noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and he had
received no information with respect to the expulsion of.
political refugees Item the territory of Turkey.

mined to this country. He thought that there was a clear
WS for inquiry before subjectin4 Ireland to increased tax-
=and that the government ought not to refuse it. He
for nothing but inquiry, in order to see whether
erielir taxation would be just ; but neither he nor any
beim= shrunk from fair taxation. With regard to the
Ommolidated Annuities, he denied that that was a boon in
the sense of being any equivalent for the income tax. la
conclusion, the hon. and gallant gentleman observed that
he hoped the Irish members would for once be found united
in supporting this motion ; and should there be that union
he thought it would be a gross injustice for an English ma-
jority to referee the demand of the confederated representa-
tives of Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. FRENCH complained of the inattentive attitude
of the Treasury bench during Col. Dunne's speech. Minis-
ten had not appeared to listen to one of the arouments of
the hon. and gallant gentlemen; and that indifference, on
such an occasion, was an insult to Ireland. lie begged
to second the motion.
Mr. MACARTNEY supported the motion. Ile would
undertake to prove the cam from parliamentary documents
before the committee. He would leave the names of that
committee entirely to the English members ; he would not
ask to have a single Irish member on it.
Mr. CONOLLY urged on the government to accede to
the committee.
Mr. WILKINSON considered that the Irish members
were very ill-adsised to come down to that house so often
with their appeals in forma pauperia for fiscal exemptions.
With regard to the budget, generally, he thought that,with
some detects and exceptions, it was entitled to the approval
of the Hew of Commons.
Lord C. HAMILTON said if the Union had not taken
place the Irish members would not have troubled the
English representatives with their presence. As he under-
mood the question, it sees to see whether the terms of the
Union had been strictly carried out ; and he hoped, there-
fore, the hon. member would not look upon it as suing is
fbrma pauperis.
The CHANCELLOR of tha EXCHEQUER Old he
could not commence this discussion without adverting to
the remarks of the hon. member for Roscommon on what
he was pleased to call the inattention of government to this
motion. For his own part he entirely disclaimed the
charge. He was in the house endeavouring to hear the
hon. and gallant colonel, who did net himself seem to care
much about his motion, fur since ho had made his speech
he had quitted the house. He was unsuccessful in his en-
deavours to hear him. The noise in the house was so great
that what he did hear be heard must imperfectly, and
what was remarkable was that a great part of the disturb-
Knee appeared to come from members near the hon. sad
gallant colonel. Then the hon. gentleman the member
for Donegal spoke of evasion, and he thought
that the making of the motion demonstrated
that there was no attempt at evasion. It did not appear to
him, he must confess, that this motion, considered apart
from the assertion of the hon. gentleman, was at all of such
a character as to m..ke it apparent there was no disposition
to evade the question. Ile was quite sure this motion was
not made with the concurrenee of the noble earl in another
place (the Earl of Derby), fur if he remembered aright, in
an analogous case in 1833, when there had been a pro-
longed preliminary discussion on tho question of negro
emancipation, and when those discussions had come to en
end, and the bill bad been brought in and read a second
time, and a motion was made for going into committee, his
hon. friend the member for Montrose made a similar mo-
tion to that which was now before the house, that a select
committee be appointed to inquire how far it was practicable
to cultivate the West Indies by free labour, and on
that occasion his hon. friend was followed by Lord
Stanley, who administered to him such a rebuke as,
if it was in his (Mr. Gladstone's) power to administer
to the hon. and gallant colonel he would find a
sere) us discouragement to bringing forward such mo-
tions in future. Well then ho confessed that this
motion was an extremely unfortunate one. In the first
place, he would observe that the motion was interposed es
an absolute bar to the progress of this bill. It was an
amendment on the -motion that the Speaker leave the
chair. What was this bill ? It was a bill for imposing a
tax on Ireland undoubtedly, but it was in addition to that
a bill to supply a deficit of flee millions in the revenue. If
they wished to exclude Ireland from the payment of the
tax, they could have moved that Ireland be excluded from
its operation, but they had made the motion in such a way
aeto be a bar to the progress of the bill. They would by
their views put aside the financial arrangements of the
year, and the deflcit'of live millions of the revenue would
not be supplied till they got the report of the committee.
Hethought that was an unfortunate mode of meeting the
question. If a motion was to be made for a select commit-
tee it would have beep far more proper to have made it
at the most a motion for inquiry. It should have been
made at an earlier day. They raised the question over and
over again, and the senpe of the house had been unequi-
vocally declared upon it. (" No.") He did not know in
what way the hon. member voted ; that was quite
another *atter ; bet he was speaking of what was
done b derehouse, and that which was dose by the house
he hrLa perfect right to refer to. Ile said distinctly that
I the Amin quelteltilaphe principal debates on this measure
chiefly owned was Mei ease of Ireland, and after they had
been colteluded, the ease of Ireland was separately die-
' cussed and separately decided, and the competency of the
housi hiding been established by that decision, the hon.
and gallant colonel could not come down and ask for a select
committee. It appeared to him that that was a bad par-
liamentary ground en which to stand, and one very incon-
venient to the order and consistency of public business.
Now, with regard to this committee, he must say he did not
at all intend, having taken this objection—he had not even
the slightest disposition, to evade or escape from
the merits of the question. lie admired the judg-
ment of his honourable friend, who said he would
not go into the details. lie admired the judgment and
skill of men who gave an historical character to their
speeches, and who took a particular epoch, the epoch of the
union. Here was a regular charge of a breach of a con-
tract. They spoke of the seventh article of the union ; but
he did not hear a Cagle reference to the question of the
proceedings which have since taken place in reference to
that seventh article. He did not at all now interfere with
the question of the income tax : all he said was that when
a breach of faith was charged, when they were told that
they were treating the Act of Tinian as a piece of waste
paper, it was rather remarkable that all the proceedings
relating to the act of uoied which- bad occurred in the in-
terval should be allowierto drop out of sight. -What were
those proceedings? They were told it was a hard case
that Ireland should pay 4,600,0001, or, as the hon. and
gallant colonel said, 5,000b001. to thocre eeeee of the coun-
try, and it was said that Ireland would have been much
better off if her :finances had not been consolidated with
those of England, and that her burdens would have been
much lighter. He was glad he had got a perfectly distinct
statement, if Ireland had had merely her own expenditure
that her burdens would have been far less if they
had not been consolidated with those of England. Now,
let them see how this matter stood. A committee
sat en this subject some years ago, and when they reported
that the debts and finances of the two countries should be
consolidated, in what sense did they make that report ?
Did they make it with a view to impose a burden on Ire-
land for England, or on England for Ireland ? Why, they
imposed a burden on England for the relief of Ireland.
There it was in figures They were told now it was a great
hardship that Ireland should pay four or five millions of
taxation. Why, in 1816, just before the subject was ex-
amined and shortly before the debt of Ireland was consoli-
dated with that of kngland, the annual charge of the debt
of Ireland, the mere debt, was 6,900,0001., which
was to be paid before providing for the expense of
the civil government. This was the state of things
that they put an end to, and after that a motion was now
made for a committee of inquiry. Ireland was called on to
contribute for debt;and civil government together, a great
deal lees than she paid, no not paid, for she did not pay,
but was bound to pay for debt alone, and that they thought
was no demonstration at all that there was no injustice.
Here was • return which the hon. member for Glasgow
obtained in 1849, and in this return they would see the
revenue and expenditure for Ireland in every year from
1817 to 1848. Observe, the charge was, that Ireland bad
been so treated by the oppressive majoelty of Beglish voices
—by something approaching to- personal indignity—said
the hon. ,member for Donegal—by something approaching
even to physical force for the purpose of imposing on that
country a greater shage of taxation than she ought to have
borne. Now, what woo the expenditure of Ireland
itt -1917 ? It was 10,214,0001. ; and what was the ,
.total amount paid by Ireland towards that expenditure ? '
4,384.000 L The amount provided by the British exchequer
arekagnod the deficiency was 5,830,0001. The bon. gen-
tleman said he would not go into figures, but here was the
colurdll of expenditure year by year from 1817 to 1848, and
the income, and the very lowest payment made in any one
dear for help out of the British exchequer to make up the
eficiency in the Irish revenue was 1,977,0001., but gene-
rally speaking it ranged from 6,000,0001. to 6,000,0001. dur-
ing the early part of that period down to 3,000,0001. during
the latter part. If that was the ease, they did not want a
committee to inquire whether Ireland was paying too much.
Ireland had not been paying at any period the charges in-
curred by her in respect of debt, together with the charges
for civil government, and that, moreover, was without
charging anything to Ireland in respect to our colonial ex-
penditure. And when they were told, then, that the Act
•of Union was not fulflUed, he must say that that
?Needing which he had referred to was strictly
an conformity with that act. The honourable and
gallant colonel did not refer to the terms of the
Act of Union as far as he could learn. He did
not refer to the fact that the Act of Union contem-
plated and provided for the principle of consolidated fi-
nances and equal taxation—(hear)--and the principle was
that it became applicable when the debt of Ireland had
reached a certain proportion to the debt of England. The
debt of Ireland had reached the proportion, and a higher
proportion, in 1816, at the close of the war ; and that was
precisely the case provided for in the second article of the
Act of Union. If the hon. gentleman had it distinctly in
his recollection he would find it was that when the debt of
Ireland came to bear the proportion stated with the debt of
England then it should be consolidated with the debt of the
United Kingdom, and that the rate and charge of all joint
debts should be borne indi-critninattly by equal taxes im-
posed on both countries. The do bt of Ireland exceeded
that proportion greatly, and, as he had *hewn, that the
annual charge for 'rebind was nearly 6,000.000/. • year. The
committee reported in July. 180, that with the view of
relieving Ireland from a harden experience had shown to
be too great, and at thepame time with • hope of render-
ing her resources more productive, they came to
a resolution declaring that all future expenses of the United
Kingdom alteuld be defrayed indiscriminately, subject to
such exceptions in !related and Scotland as should be con-
sidered proper. Then the article of notion had been strictly
and plainly c p flied into execution ; .and not only that, it
had boon strictly and plainly carried out for the relief of
Ireland, to :dim her of burdens which it was toe great

for her to hear; and in consequent* of that, a large sum of ,
money, never less than 2,000,0001., and varying ftom that
to 6,000,0001., had been annually paid out of the English
exchequer to meet charges for Irish expenditure. lie
ventured to rut it with great cotifidence that there was no
necessity to inquire into a matter that was as clear as day-
, light. Then free trade, forsooth, was made to play its
part in this discussion, as if it had caused a great sacrifice to
Ireland—as if in England there had been no loss by free
trade. Had the tall in prices been confined to Ireland ?
They were told of the destruction of Irish
manufactures. Now, what was gained by the
language of hyperbole in the House of Commons ?
(Laughter.) The hon. gentleman said Irish manufactures
were destroyed. He had always thought Belfast was in
Ireland. (Hear.) Surely there were manufactures in
, Belfast, and be was under the Impression that they were
not altogether in a bad condition. (Hear, bear.) Ile had
heard that the manufactures of /Idlest were advancing
more rapidly than those of any part of England. And
now, with regard to the justice of this measure, he agreed
with the lion. member that they were bound to be just, and
not only that, but discreet ; and now he come to consider
the injustice of this particular proposal. That injustice
was shown by a peculiar process. In the first piece, by
throwing overboard the figures on one sloe of the account.
They throw overboard altogether the considerations of the
Consolidated Annuities. No doubt if they took every ac-
count, and struck out the items on one side, they could ar-
rive at a result that might be satisfactory to themselves.
I. was true that his propositions imposed • burden on Ire-
land ; but they gave relief, and they gave re-
lief to those who wanted relief, and imposed
burdens on those who were able to bear them.
With respect to Leinster and Ulster there were no grounds
of complaint on the score of poverty, and y.t Ireland was
spoken of as a poor country. What did hon. members
mean ? Was it that money was scarce ? (" Hear, hear,"
from Colonel Dunne.) Will, if money was scerce, it fol-
lowed that a man with 150/. a year wail richer than a man
with the same income in England. (Hear, hear.) Ile said
then that strict justice demanded the extension of the tax to
Ireland, and the justice ought to be admitted by the repre-
sentatives. (" Oh, ob," from an hon. member.) If that
was the mode of ausweting adopted by the hon. me.nber,
lie must entirely overlook the distinction between reason
and folly, between the habits of rational beings, and
of those who were not blessed with reflective powers.
(A laugh.) He believed that the justice of the
tax was generally acknowledged in Ireland, where
it would only touch those who were comparatively
richer than people with the same income in England. But
let him consider the tax with reference to the consolidated
annuities. Government laid oar the income tax :Ind took
off the consolidated annuities, so that in Munster, annuities
to the amount of 90,0001. would be taken off, and, as an
equivalent, 85.000/. income tax levied. But that was not
all. The annuities were divided between the landlord and
the tenant, but the income tax would be divided between
the landlord and the mortgagee. (Hear, bear.) The part
of the annuity paid by the landlord—(Colonel Dunne—
" The whole ")—None by the tenant ? (Colonel Dunne—
Indirectly.") (Laughter.) He believed that the half
was paid by the tenant. lie asked hon. members from
Ireland who supported this motion, did they think that the
people of England would consent at once to forego the consoli-
dated annuities and refrain from collecting the income tax?
(Hear) Did they, as practical men, think that the parlia-
ment of the United Kingdom were likely to come to such a
conclusion ? If they did, although he must doubt their
conclusions, he could not but admire the sanguine tem-
peraments from which they resulted. (A laugh.) He
would ask his noble friend opposite (Lord C. Hamilton) to
consider what he was doing, in seeking to escape the in-
come tax. Was he not endeavouring to preserve 90,000/.
a year taxes paid by tenant and landlord, instead of 86,000/.
to be paid by landlord and mortgagee ? The burthen was
at present on the lower class of farmers, who were ill-able
to sustain it, and whose case had been so clearly stated by
the hon. and learned member for Ennis. With re-
spect to the spirit duty, he denied that the im-
position of 190,000/. could be looked upon as a hardship to
Ireland. If so, what about poor Scotland, upon whom
270.0001. was about to be levied. Of Scotland he was
bound to say, that excepting the reclamation, that might
naturally he expected from persons in the trade, there had
been no voice raised from that country, either in the house
or out of it, against the increased taxation. (Cheers.) Not
one man had come forward to say, " Scotland is about to
be mulct in 270,000/. additional, what equivalent are you
going to. give ?" (Hear, hear.) As to spirits, people
might talk about the rights of man, but he denied that it
was one of the rights of man that an Irishman should be
able to intoxicate himself at the rate of 2s. 4d. a gallon.
(Laughter.) He maintained that the right was to get as
much duty out of spirits as was possible. On these
grounds he trusted that the committee would not accede to
the amendment. _ _

Sir J. PABINGTON said that an an English member
totally unconnected with Ireland, he was ready to give his
vote for any motion affirming that the budget dealt hardly
with Ireland. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer seceded
to the present motion, it would cause no inconvenience to
the public service, as all that would be necessary would be
to exclude Ireland from the operation of the tax. Ile (Sir
J. Pakington) was surprised that no allusion had been
made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the admirable
speech of the right hon. member for Portsmouth, who had
shown the fallacy of dealing with the annuities as a regular
branch of taxation. It seemed to him also a serious mis-
take to put the annuities into the same category as regular
taxation. The annuities were the results of the famine and
of poor-law debts, and had, in p re, been
condemned by the report of the Lords' Committee.
He remembered having sat on • committee en Irish distress,
and being shown a shaded map of Ireland, in which the
prosperous districts of the east and north were white, and
from thence there was every gradation of colours down to
the black misery of the south and west. The government
was going to relieve these black counties, and against that
he did not say a word ; but he did not see why they should
be relieved at the expense of the white counties. On these
last-named they were going to impose not only the income
lex, but also a great additional burthen of taxation. Be-
sides this, he would remind the house that after the report
of the Lords' committee, it would be morally impos-
sible to recover the annuities. (Hear, hear.) He thought,
en the other hand, that the right hon. gentleman
was needlessly throwing away the workhouse debt, which
maght and could be recovered. It was said that in levying
the income tax the right hon. gentleman gave an equivalent.
It won certainly the most Irish equivalent he had everheard
of-240,0001. taken off, and 460,0001. inflicted. But the
infliction was much more. The income tax would be
460,000/. ; spirit duty 198,000/., and the succession tax was
estimated by the hon. member for Dungarvon at 300,000/.,
although the right hon. gentleman himself set it down at
only 60,0001. For all these the equivalent was to be
245,003/. The right hon. gentleman, who professed him-
self a disciple of the late Sir R. Peel, should remember that
Sir Robert specially exempted Ireland, and that even before
the famine. But the most important arguments on this
point were those of the right hon. member for
Portsmouth, who had reviewed the ease in all its hearings,
both as they stood now, and would stand in 1860. That
right hon. gentleman had shown that at the present mo-
ment the balance in favour of England would be by the
budget 1,010,0001., while the balance against Ireland would
be 413,0001. In 1860, supposing the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's plans to be fully carried out and the income tax
repealed, the balance of remission in favour of England
would be 6,71.5,000/., while the remissions to Ireland would
be only 47,0001. (Hear, hear.) These figures of the right
hon. member for Portsmouth had never been answered ;
and be thought fully justified hint (Sir J. Pakington) to
repeating that Ireland had been hardly dealt with in the
budget of the present government
Mi. F. SCULLY believed the late ministry had not the
slightest intention of carrying out the report of the
Lord's committee, and he knew that they had themselves
collected during the last year 123,0001. of than Consoli-
dated Annuities. As a distinct subject he should be glad to
see a committee appointed to ascertain whether taxation was
fairly apportioned between the two countries. At the same
time any opposition to the proposal of the government now
must be fruitless, and the amendment of the hon. and
gallant member would be ineffectual, and might possibly
be looked upon as factious; he, therefore, recommended
that it should be withdrawn, and brought forward at some
future time as a substantive motion.
M rad AGU IRE denied that the amendment of the hon. and
gallant member for Pertlington partook In any degree of a
factions character: and for himself, he felt fully justified in
rising to oppose a tax' against which the opinion of Ireland
was general. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
that the justice of the application of this tat to Ireland was
generally admitted; but he believed the majority of the een-
atituente of the hon. member who bad just sat down as wi II
as almost every other constituency In Ireland bad peti-
tioned against it. lie had heard it said that the income
tax was to last but for ids years, and that the Consolidated
Annuities, which were to be given up as a sort of compen-
sation, would have lasted for 40 ; but who would venture to
hold seriously that those•Coneolidated Annuities could last
for 40 years ? -Why, they had been virtually surrendered
by the late government and by the present. He was one
of those who had been influenced by the promise of the
authorised agent of the ministry now in office, that if
they succeeded to power they would net impose the in-
come tax on Ireland, and now that that contract
had been violated ;was he not fully justified in opposing, by
every means in his power, the imposition of that tax on an
, already impoverished country? Was Ireland now in a
, condition to bear additional taxation ? The peer-rate had
, increased from the time when Bir R. Peel said it would be
absurd to attempt to imoose the income tax on Ireland,
from 280,0001. to 900,0001. a year, and in 18.51 it amounted
to 1,200,0001. Then 9,000,0001. of property had changed
, bands under the Eneambered Estates Act, and between
9,000.0001. and 10,000,000/. more was in the Encumbered
Estates Court. He admitted the operation of the Encum-
bered Estates Act would be in the end beneficial, but it
, must inflict a large amount of misery and suffaring before
the bent fit began to be felt. The remission which, under
' the present proposal, Ireland would obtain was 449,000/.,
while the increase would be 559,000/. In poor rates,
county octet, rent charge, absentee rent, and othe charges,
Ireland now More a burden little short of 11,000,0001. a year.
The exports of Ireland, and more especially that of corn,
had decreased, while the imports of that which was neces-
sary for the food of the people had increased, and that was
no teat of prosperity, but rather of a diminution of pro-
' during power. He denied that the Consolidated Annuities
would last for 40 year', when the Lords report, which Iv-
commended that they should be abandoned, was taken into
cnnxideration. The hon. gentleman dilated on the effect
produced in Ireland by the famine, and proceeded to con-
tend that although be believed protection ouly propped up
rotten social system, yet free trade had in its first effects
greatly diminished the value of property among all classes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer hail alluded to the
uni ta. Now he (Mr. Maguire) was not a re-
cent convert to rereal, but as he wanted an ar-

gument to fortify his opinion on that point,
would the flippant, he would almost say the heartless.
speech of the right hon. gentleman, who bad asked if the
Irish members were sanguine enough—sanguine wee the
word, hut he meant foolish—wore sanguine enough to be.
here that if the Consolidated Annuities were crossed
the y would
that
might notmhilit havevet been he income
done.ooiet. He (Mr. Maguire)
believed would
ask
huh
members whether the Consolidated Annuit es, that famine
debt,ought not to be done away on every princisle not only
of generosity and sympathy, but of justice. If Yorkshire,
or any province of England, had been so aff‘eted, would
that portion only of the kinedom have been called to con_
tribute to her distress—lreland contributed her share to the
C 21110102 exeb«risr, and if the %mien was real, the burden
in this case should not be a provinciul but an imperial one.
He strongly urged that Ireland w.-. 5 not in a condition to
bear that additional taxation, and that u case was made
out tor inquiry. Ile was not influenced by n s factious mo-
tives, but he should oppose the budget by every legitimate
means. There was at present too great a desire to do jai.
lice to Ireland by taxing her—(latsghter)—and those by
whom this desire was entertained forgot that at the time of
the union England had the coookina of the accounts, and set
down the debt of Ireland at 100,1,00001.. instead of
28,01.4,906/.

Mr. E. BALL fetid it was sr extraordinary to hear the
farmers of England spoken of kindly that he could not help
thanking the hou. gentleman (Mr. Maguire) for the kind
feelings which he hod expressed towel ds them. (Cries of
Question.") The question was, whether ur not an in-
c.nre tax should be imposed on beheld. (Hear, hear.)
What was the position or Ireland ? She came to them in
all her weakness; site came to them es a body which had
just risen teem the tomb—(laughter)—with her grave_
clothes still on her.— (laughter) —and, instead of
administering restoratives, the gavernment proposed
to weaken and to purge ter. (Great laughter.)
Instead of bread she was offered a gene. She had been
visited with the plague of famine, end, before she Wheel
time to recover her strength, she was to have a plague of
locusts. Ills own o;,inion woe that Ireland was not in a
position t t bear an increased burden.
Alter a few words from Mr. M. O'Coleterti., which were
iraudihle in the gollery, the house divided—
Fur the motion
Against it
On our return to the gallery s.e found that the member
on his legs woo
Mr. BLACKETT, who was observing that, eonsitlcr.mg
the manner in which the trading, chorus had received the
budget this year, and the almost uncomplaining manner its
which they had endured the long imposition of the income
tax, he thought they were now entitled to some remedy for
those subordinate imp. rfeetions in the machinery of the
tax which had been fully admitted by all parties prac-
tically acquainted with its workiopa.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to rise, but
was restrained, to the great merriment of the home, by
Lord John Russell ; and
The house went into committee.
On clause 1,

Mr. k ItENVEN rrotn,ed an amendment, the Met of
which would be to limit the tax to two ye..ms.
Lord C. HAMILTON wished to move an amendment
which would leave out the word Ireland. (Sensation.)

TheCHANCELLOltoftheEXCHEQUEßcouldscareely
believe that his noble friend was in earnest. (Cheers.)
That was the very -point they had been discussing
all the evening and had divided on. (Chren.)
Lord C. HAMILTON would nevertheless move that

amendment, because of the unsatisfactory rummer in which
his right hon. friend had answered his appeal in
the early part of the evening, with regard to
the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, in Piti, on
the extension of the income tax to Ireland.
Ile admitted tho propriety of making Ireland evntribute
her fair proportion to the general permum nt taxation of the
empire ; but the income tax being only a temporary tax, the
right hon. gentleman was bound to show that she was in a
better position to bear the 6.58,0001. additi•mal burden
which he proposed to lay on her than she was in 1815, when
Sir R. Peel exempted her from the income tax. (Cries of
" Divide, divide.") England would gain 1,200,000/. by the
remissions proposed, and Indent] would be saddled with ea
additional tax of 1)58,0001. (.. Divide. dieid,...)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thoughtthe
noble lord had pursued rather an unusual course in again
discussing a subject which had been before the house during
the previous part of the evening, and which the house had
come to a clecis:on upon. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
said that ho bail proved to demonstration that he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had failed to meet any of his
arguments, and the nOtio lord had the benefit of that is the
division which had taken place. (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) The noble lord would bring them back to the same
peint from which they started in the early part of the
evening, but he thought it would not be disrespectful to the
committee if he were to enter upon a discussion which it
was evident the committee was not disposed to listen to.
Colonel DUNNE (who rose amidst loud erica of "oh ")
said that he bad a right to address the committee, and he
would insist on that right or move the adjournment.
(" Oh.") The right hon. gentleman had read him a lec-
ture on the motion which be submitted to the Lowe, but he
denied the right of the right hon. gentleman to dictate to
him in what manner he shou'd propose his motions. If the
nob'e lord had read him a lecture he might have bowed to
it, because he respected the noble lord ; but he would not
bow to those he did not respect. The right Lon. gentle-
man's speech was nut courteous to the Irish members, and
his reply to Isis (Colonel I)unne's) argument was quite
misrepresentation of what he said. Ile would support the
motion of the noh!e lord.

Mr. M. O'CONNELL expressed his pleasure that hon.
members were at length disposed to take the view of Irish
finances that his late father did. For himself, he was
willing to hear his share of the tax.
Mr. ALCOCK said Ireland bore a very small portion of
the taxation which England and Scotland bore. There was
the income tax, 5,600,0e01. ; the soap tax, 1,230,000/.: the
land tax, 1,200,000/ ; anti the assessed taxes, 2,300,0001.;
which Ireland, did not contribute to at ell. Moreover, if
Ireland lurid as high a duty for spirits as England dii she
would pay two millions under that item.
Mr. VANCE said there was a great amount of revenue
collected from Irel.:nd which was not collected in Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the seventh
article of the act of union to prove that when the debt of
Ireland reached a certain proportion to that of England,
the taxation in the two countries shwild be equal, whereas
that article merely provided that the taxation on articles
imported should be the same, which they were quite willing
to submit to. His constituents had raised a tax, and pa:d
off their portion of the consolidated annuities in three
years. and it was hard, therefore, that they should be
charged with the income tax.
L nal C. HAMILTON withdrew his amendment.
Mr. FREWEN moved an amendment restricting the tan
to two years.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
main object which the government hail in view in proposing
the renewal of the income tax for a considerable period was.
in the first place, to give stability to our system of finance;
in the second place, to put the income tax on such
footing, and so to regulate its descent in rate,
as to bring it to a point so that it will b.
within their power to part with it if so disposed.
The hon. gentleman, on the other hand, said " No, do not
grant the tax for so long time ; grant it for two years." His
objection to that was that it would leave the income tax
in the same unsatisfactory position in which it had been for
several years, that it would not enable them to establish
their financial position, and, lastly, that it would not afford
the slightest hope that they would make any progress
towards that state of things at which it would be possible
to repeal the tax.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it 223-141
Mr. W. MICHELL moved an amendment on clause?,
to leave out " property " and insert " profits." His object
was that property should not pay the tax where it did not
yield sprat. lie stated that, eight years ago,. he hid
bought two manor*, from which he had never derived any
profit; and the income tax on this property had been a
positive confiacati n. Last year he paid 6/. 135.4 d. on those
manors. (Laughter.) He was not certain that he would
divide the committee on this question, but he wished to
call attention to the hardship inflicted by the act as it
stood. If a man bought an estate, and made no profit from
it, the commissioners told him that he ought to have made
a profit; and that was ail the relief he could get. 1" Hear.
hear," and cries of "Divide, divide," which were kept up
for some time, and in the midst of which an hon. member
below the gangway, on the ministerial side, amused the
committee with an imitation of the opening notes of Paul
Bedford's "Jolly Nose.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if
the hon. gentleman's proposal could have been regarded as
a mere change in the phraseology of the act, for the pur-
pose of giving to it greater clearness, he should have
thought it more safe to adhere to the established phrase-
ology, which had acquired a fixed and known construction.
and under which the tax had been levied all along, rather
than to introduce any other words. But the hon. gentle-
man bad in view a substantial abject; he wished to change
the effect of the enactment, by providing, under schedule
A, that allowances should be made for deductions of every
kind that could be shown to have been made to persons
liable to pay under that schedule. Ile wished he could
meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman; but it was impossi-
ble to do so. The house had already considered that ques-
tion very fully, and had decided against a proposal less
wide than that of the hon. gentleman—the else made by the
hon. member for Berkshire. Such a proposal as the one
now made would, in the first instance, aggravate the inqui-
sitorial nature of the as to a great degree, and would add
snore to its offensive character than it would give of relief
by diminishing the pecuniary burden. It would effec-
tually cripple the tax ; for it would open up the claims of
other parties in other schedules, against which the house
bail already decided by a very considerable majority.
Mr. SPOONER suggested that the nett annual value
only ought to be as after all reasonable deductions
were made. This ems done, by clause 30, in reference to
cathedral and ecdesiastical property.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
had always been so.
Mr. SPOON ER said that was no reason why those allow-
ances should be Menlo on one kind of property and not on
others.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER laid that
deem 30 related to repairs, but they were repairs of an en-
tirely different character from the repairs of property; they
were in respect of the liabilities of these bodies. There
was no analogy whatever between the repairs which a rec-
tor was liable for in the chancel of his church and those
which a landlord or farmer made in order to enable a tene-
ment to yield its rent. The two things were entirely dis-
tinct. They proposed to maintain the framework of the
act exactly as it was.
In answer to a remark from Dlr. Mecutxx,