The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1853

.'''''------r.r.ikd is this country, at least since the re-itn osi- lead inevitable inference from his arguments. (Hear.)
ai „...31 u 1 the ine.tuse tat is IS-1.1. Since then upwar.ls of five I Yeats them two reasons, then—the character and f‘ sling
sgb.Th oof the satins a! income have been subject to an lof the age, and the character of the right hon. gentleman—
s.sts. - The great political feature then of the pre- 1 I asn induced to think that the income tax will be continued
at
gentleman—
ea teal -is to terminate this uncertainty, and it is 'as effective in our policy if we consent to its renewal for
s..,,,hblileiria s fiscal enormity that five millions of our seven years; and, if on, we have arrived at this dilemma—
„--0 me se sltoul.l be subjret to an annual vote. (Hear) If this is to be a permanent tax, are we authorised, with
"--- - ri nar..l the house that, not in the old all its inequalities, its injastice, and its odious qualities,
1. ft.,re I ulaY • i .
' pat since 1 became a member of this house, such which all of us acknowledge it possesses, to ezten4 it to new
dim
' ,it )t 01.1 annual revenue was, abtays ' I clause and to • new -•— without attensr -to I -

country, _..toenipting Mushiest'
those odious qualities and to adjust thous inequalities?
(Cheers.) If, on the contrary, it is to be assumed as the
whole basis of the government proposal that it is to be only
a temporary lease fur a period of seven years, is it wise, is
it politic, that we should introduce an impost so essentially
unjust and odious, to new classes and a new country.
(Cheers.) Now, that is the dilemma in which the right hon.
gentleman is placed. (Hear, hear.) My opinion is, that
our proper policy in the present position in which we are
placed would be to renew it for a very limited time, sou to
admit any mitigatory plan that might be devised. If, how-
ever, nothing can be done with it; if it cannot be
mitigated; if its inequalities and injustice baffle tee
ministers and legislature, then the best thing that can ho
dune would be to apply our surplus, as it is received, to the
introduction of an impost that no minister can manage and
no people can long endure. Sir, in the whole of this
question, in considering this important arm of OUT finances,
which the right hon. gentleman has described with so much
power—but which, I think, he described in a maim
that conveyed an erroneous impression to these
who are not experienced in commercial matters
—coo must always endeavour to ascertain whe-
ther the perpetuation and continuance of this tax
la worth the rest. (Cheers.) No doubt the remission of the
duty on soap and paper would be excellent things, if we
could obtain them by the accruieg of our surplus ; but we
may well ask whether it is worth while to bear the income
tax for that purpose ? We ought first to fellow Dr. Frank-
lin's advice, and see whether the whistle is worth its price.
(Cheers.) The right hoar. gentleman gave us a description
of the income tax, and of its great achiennents; and which
the hon. member for the West Riding said was declamatory.
Well, sir, the right hon. gentleman's acclamation was such
good declamation that I will not quarrel with it on that se-
smut ; but it appeared tome that his description was thee-
mirate ; or rather, that it appeared to convey to the house
a. inaccurate idea of the results which had been brought
about by the income tax. The right hon. gentle.
man succeeded in conveying to those new mem-
bers, of whom I am glad to see so
say in the house who have been born
mime those great events, which some of us recollect—an
impression that the income tax produced a revenue sufficient
for all the expenses of the war and of the civil govern-
ment, with only an insignificant surplus of expenditure.
He said that the revenue was something like 65,000,000/.,
sad the expenditure 67,000,0001., or perhaps the reverse.
If that were so, unquestionably it would indeed be
the colossal weapon he had so justly described; but
he had forgotten that between 1806 and 1816, the
year of the peace, the debt increased from some-
thing over 600,000,0001. to 840,000,0001. (Cheers.)
We must always remember when we are talking of this
colossal instrument, that the debt in 1814, 1815, and 1816
amounted to no less than 91,000,0001. sterling. (Cheers.)
There is one more point connected with the income tax
to which I must advert, and that is its extension. (Hear,
hear) Assuming that this is to be a permanent feature in
our flame*, I think there is no class to whom it ought to
be extended without mitigation; but I will argue on the
principle that the government is correct, and that the tax
will cease. Well, sir, I have heard it said that we pro-
posed its extension to Ireland, but that we did not propose
any measure for dealing with the Consolidated Annuities.
I will only say new, as I have said before, that I do not
see any connexion between the income tax and the Consoli-
dated Annuities. (Hear, hear.) I see no connexion what-
ever between the incidence of imperial taxation and the re-
sults of • local arrangement ; and I think it most impolitic,
most indiscreet and unwise, ever to have mixed them toge-
ther. (Hear, hear.) I should not have thought it neces-
sary to notice this, had I not beard—not is the debates, but
in the house during the debate—eomething of compacts on
the subject of the income tax with the Irish members.
(Hear, hear.) Certainly I should be the last man in the
world to have made such a compact, for it is only four
months sinew I had to consider the subject in a responsible
situation with my colleagues, and we were unanimously of
opinion that it would be meet uawise to extend the income
tax to Ireland. It would, therefore, have been most Quixotic
in me to have advocated its extension to Ireland. (Hear.)
It was after the most ample and anxious consideration that
the late government cam* to the conclusion not to take that
coarse, and I am prepared to support the policy which I
proposed from the other side of the table. (Hear, hear.)
It is not true that I was not prepared to make a proposi-
tion with resiect to the Consolidated Annuities. On the con-
trary, I stated in the budget that I would take the earliest
opportunity of submitting resolutions to the house
on the Consolidated Annnities, and 'that II was pre-
parednot to extend the incometax to the land of Ireland.
h respect to the proposition I should have brought for-
ward on the subject of the Consolidated Annuities, I believe
it would have given complete satisfaction to all who
were interested in the matter. (Hear, hear.) I have
now touched on all the principal topics suggested
by the resolution immediately before the house.
I might stop here ; but I wish to express
the opinion which I entertain generally with respect to the
financial policy recommended by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. Sir, I have one great objection to that policy. It
appears to me to be conceived in a spirit of injustice to the
land. (Opposition cheers.) I have no wish to indu4s_ is 1
declamations, as the Don. member for the West Stiles 1
phrases it; but I am ready to establish what I Miler
to be the truth of my opinions by retwoodag
and facts. (Hear, hear.) I give you credit for
wishing that all classes should so far as is possible receive
upon final subjects justice; and I trust you will listea
to my observations with temper and toleration. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, I ask the committee to view for one rm.
meat the state of our revenue at the present time. If you
look at the last returns you will find that the ordinary I
sources of revenue, deducting the income tax, which was
originally proposed as a temporary impost—and the tem- 1
porary nature of which is the basis of the financial
scheme of the ministry—amounts to about 46 millions I
sterling. This great country, with the most extensive
commerce of modern times, and governed, as we are told
by the great towns,—this country raises an unparalleled I
revenue amounting to 48 millions sterling from its ordi-
dary sources; and of that one-fourth is raised by a duty upea
a single crop of the British farmer. (Opposition cheers.)
The average of the united duties which we levy directly or
indirectl on brandy is more than 230 per cent. (Hear, I
bear.) Now, let me show the committee how this system
opionlos, and how it must operate under the financial policy
emeammeaded by her Majesty's government. It is of
great important* that we should extend our con-
anion with India and China, and place it on •
seeder basis ; and that is • main reason why
pm should repeal the tea duties—it is of great importance
that we should increase our commerce with Prance and I
Southern Europe, and that is • good reason why you '
should deal with the duties on brandy and on wine ;
bee have yen considered the fiscal consequences that mot
MEM lips persist in lessening the duty on Chinese tea
owl peoi eventually on French wine, and leave '
se atom= Impost existing on malt and on the beverage
Made Eras salt and barley (Opposition cheers.) If the
61=64 policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals in '
, Yds way with the indirect taxation, as regards the land,
1 what is he doing at the same time with the direct to:Ra-
tion? Here is the first thing that meets me. Here is a
man, • farmer, with a crop of barley, sad he finds that that
barley, which is subject to an enormous impost, is placed
uaexpectedly in competition with the produce of foreign
rivals who pay a reduced rate, and that at the same time
the indirect tax on his own product is increased. And
when ho leaves the domain of indirect taxation and turns to
direct taxation, he finds the Chancellor of the Exchequer
before him, and he tells him " we are going to put upon
you an income tax, in addition to what you now pay."
Such is the case of the cultivator of the soil. And, now
what is the condition of the proprietor who his,
been told that he should devote kis capital and
his energy, to the improvement of his estate;
—he is told " we are going to propose • tax which we call
=tending the legacy duty to land, but which will operate
as a tax, to a very large amount, on all real property, and
of course in • great degree, if not mainly, upon land."
one President of the Board of Control said the other
sight that the late government were going to impose a tax
se successions. The right hon. gentleman spoke upon the
'authority of an imperfect memory. What the late govern-
ment proposed was this: it was their duty, while revising
the general taxation, not to omit so important • sulgact as
the duty on successions or legacies, and it was our opinion
that it would be Imprudent to delay dealing with that quer
tion—that it was a subject on which a proposition for a per-
manent settlement should be brought before the house with-
out loss of time ; and what I did say was," That we did not
think it impossible that we should be enabled to make a pro
posal on that subject which would terminate for ever the
controversy " Or something to that effect) " in • manner
that would we believed be recognised by the country as
perfectly satisfactory." And that was no vague phrase.
The proposition was a matured proposition, and in the
course of this discussion perhaps I may be able to submit
it to the consideration of the house. But in considering
this question of taxation on successions we must
not disguise from ourselves that it is an impor-
tant subject—and that there are many points we
must consider before we come to vote upon it.
We must ask ourselves, in the first place, is it a just tax, is
it abstractedly a just tax, is it a politic and just tax that can
be vindicated on principle ? We must ask ourselves in the
second place, whether if it be • tax sound in principle, it is
• tax adapted to the country in which it is proposed to be
introduced. Thirdly, we must ask ounelves ;what
are the data on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
founds his estimate of his produce--(hear, hear)—and
above all what is the machinery by which he means the
tax to be raised ? Now, these are three impor-
tant points—which well deserve the consideration
of the committee. For my own part, although
think that if the arrangement of Mr. Pitt,
the bill of Mr. Pitt, bad passed, it would have been, unless
the state of finances justified it, unwise to disturb precipi-
tately that arrangement ; for my own part, I believe that
the whole principle of taxes on suceession, whatever
shape they bear, is unsound. They are taxes on capital,
they are unsound in principle as regards personal pro-
perty, but they arc mum unsound as regards landed pro-
perty, because they lead to partition, which in my opinion
isa greet evil. But I will not enter into that important
subject now. All that I will say is, that
you cannot deny that
.you are, by proposing
this tax on successions with reference to landed
' property, proposing a new tax on the lead. (Oppo-
sition cheers) I have shown you that in dealing
with direct taxation you have commenced • system, you

se psi
sa-accoust ________ is kept, subject
ei
eel vote. It was dam considered one of the best
_,„,,t.e.,• we Lad he we, righb and liberties, and as such
au's-4- ay seiaeil by somber, of liberal principles, not
San seeetiet ef its vase in the protection of our rights
4. e • as ii security for the economic man we-
ar., 'Aries. but
.., tiiiesse ((fear, hear.) You had, for instance,
Mot 4°7 - h.' .t to an annual Tote, I
Stosajar mute, ”I JCS .
„mite wire 1. ry little less in amount than the income tax,
which wear: now discussing. (Hear, hear.) It was only at
wee a „pp t period that the minister of the day, having to
T
having to propose other
d„; with the sugar duties,
awed e' great importance, appealed to the house
•
sr duties no
to mike the sag longer the subject
of an os•
mi site, and at the same time he entered into a
onset with the hove, that for the sugar duties he would
a..„situte sosne tax ot “jail amount as a subject fur paella-
alr"r control. Who was that minister? On July 20,1
i of ways and means, Lord J. Russell
roe le e•eneuittess
tied he did set
ioroN use to vary in any respect the constitu-
tToc,il melee of hadne a considerable amount of revenue
cl.pe glen" on a yet.:!y rite of th- house; but while pros
t'"- t the stir duty should not he subject to se
P 3421 -" d tliet some other source of revenue
mesa: TA , 1111G01,114, C
geed be pieced in its stead, and that the particular item
„,,,,„J be wineue.cel before the resolutions assumed the
e "
agape. c • ',X. (*dear.) I say, then, that as far as the first
...hol at the right hon. gentleman, in proposing the
,atomsym for acne yews, on the ground that so impor-
t a branch of the resenue should not be mule the sub-
it: cf m ammo vote, I differ from him completely. We,
`or to proesse the income tax, indicated the term of
thee years in deference to precedent, but if I were to
th7eee between seven years and one year I should certainly
give my vete for or, year. And what I want to express to
~i,,,ms • is thee, that when these new tangled doctrines
the
c.i-re-Cd.i......; about the advantage to bo derived from with-
drawing a-. at sources of revenue from the control of the
House of Cemuisior, we, in taking the contrary view, are
only standing up for an ancient privilege of which we have
bees too long deprived ; ard if we regain that power, mean
to use it for the purpose of obtaining • better and more
omic alministration of our finances. I come now to
the wood part of the income tax proposition, that relating
to the assessment. The right hon. gentleman proposes that
we should reenact tio. income tax for seven years, and that
we fh•Ald 1314W0 no difference in the mode of assessment.
Perhaps the house w''i not think it impertinent if I take
tni, opportunity of very briefly explaining the reasons
why the late government fixed nn the rate of assessment
which they r:commended the House of Commons to adopt.
It was our °einem that the tasetion of the country pr. Pet
unduly on the interests connected with land. That was the
opinion which we of announced, and did not wish to
tome; and we depressed our opinion, also, that after the
inroptioa of our protective policy, the best way of
sweep the classes who were subject to unrestricted
saestitien was to lighten the cost of production, and we
thought- that tb . cost of production could not be lightened
without "general revision of taxation. (Comers ative cheers.)
e ices isspoeible for us to carry this measure ism effect
relent the aid of the income tax—that tax against whioh
ss mull oJism had been excited, and in our opinion had
is a great d. Free h• en justly excited. Having to relieve
thetas, from this undue pressure, it was our opinion that
vs should cow to the commercial classes with some expla-
esti= of what we thought was this undue pres-
go. Me then could we deny the injustice of
the assessment with respect to the commercial, m-
ime. and professional classes? I make no contrast
tow between income from realised property and income de-
rived hem intelligence and skill with reference to undue
pressewe, there is no time for it, and besides there is not a
sum lathe house who has not contemplated it in every
pant of view. act the house has been shocked by the con-
gest, but. I appal ~like to the brain and heart of every
man for a nerd et or. the question. (Hear, hear.) I will
sow come to the trading and commercial classes, and to
terminable annuities. I will put in the succinct formula
that brought conviction to their relative position. I dare say
it is already familiar, but it is necessary that I should
sacs it before the house in order that the difference
way deedy be wen. Then is one man who has 20,0001.
Wrested in real property, which produces him 8001. a year.
Mother man invests a similar sum In property that is
penshabk at the end of twenty years, machinery, for
mance, sr an annuity terminable with life. One man re-
efltes for his 24,0001. 9001. a year, mull the other
nevem for his capital which he has invested in
perishable material 1.1731 , the 6731. being the i .terest of
the capital which at the end of 20 years is to supply the
pan of what has perished. Virtually the individuals re-
stive the Same income, virtually they each receive 8001. a
per, bat how do you tax them ? One man pays 24/. a year
ad the other pays 141., and this is the system which you
Maples to support. (Hear, hear.) This is the system
*Wpm who profess to be the representatives of the
ammeselal classes. are going to renew for a term of seven
ye" er, am I shall Ken show you, for ever. (Hear.) Yon
me permed to tax perishable property to double the amount
deal, sad you do this while you say that
_you represent
ths interests of commerce. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, with
thew fasts befoul us, with the conviction that the assess-
mat was unjust, we felt that it was necessary to get the
swat of the commercial classes, the continuance of the
same tax being asked, is order that we might revise the
isiminal system for the avowed purpose of relieving the
sad from endue pressure. It was iseesiessry, in our opinion,
lit we should acknowledge the inequality of *mew
mat is sehelulr D. We did act propose our alteration as
a exact arrangement; we merely offered it as au
ieksodedgment of the principle. (Hear, hear.) The
Isee•licr of the Exchequer says that the land
.s sew more taxed than other property, and that
be farmer's schedule is higher thou any other. He says
hat sites you take the burtheus of land, the general
sier4 with the local taxation, you will find that the farmer
sever taxed. What a startling admission from the Chan.
*Woe of the Exchequer! (Loud conservative cheers.)
What a significant admission when we recollect what
I have for the last five years endeavoured to ins
gess on the house. When I remember how then I was told
tight aftu night by the members of the present govern•
mat that the idea of local taxation being a local burthen,
sas a mere delusion. (Hear, hear.) It is satisfactory at
isset to me to end my principle acknowledged by the Chan.
rise of the Exchequer admitting that the farmer pays 2d.
stem in his schedule. I shall not stop to analyse his data,
at be may be sure he will be reminded of his conclusions
her this discussion is over, but with respect to my own
is I have to repeat that it was not proposed as a coin.
its financial system, but as the acknowledgment
da ineiple brought forward in a spirit of conciliation.
to have now an income tax to consider, raised at a given
Ms of wersament, but what security have we that that as-
tweaent will never be changed ? (Hear, hear.) We have
mevernment now that proposes to deal more largely with
ge lacome tax than has ever been done within our ex-
Neleara—for it deals with it for the period of seven years ;
Ind suppose, as this is the era of great financial propoei-
hos, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should next year
=eto double that assessment? (Cheers.) Suppose
pees.' which happened about half a century ago,
Ike we were also governed by " All the Talents"—
giegliter)--suppnee that he should come down to the house
tea peewee to establish an income tax of ten per cent. ?
(Chum.) Well, what answer would it be to the artist, the
masa, the merchant, and the trader, to say, that while you
Ny 23. or 21 pence in the pound the lead pap 2d. in the
Pied more than you ? Why, air, if our principle had been
etateisheel, he would at least have felt, that if at any fu-
lls, time 'his impost should take a and more bur-
'lsome character, be would then find a considerable re-
Of in the assemmeat that would then have to be made?
frill maintain that in coming forward and asking the
ammercial dame* to great us the income tax in order that
*sight carry into effect a complete revision of our taxation.
Is object of which was to relieve the land of the great and
Wu pressure of taxation, according to our opinion, we
task a politic, a wise, and a conciliatory course. (Hear.)
tell, sir, the right hon. gentleman has now proposed thistaz
*that& any difference in its rate of amassment, for the
wird of seven years ; and I ma be allowed briefly to
+ate the nisOns why I don't think that the incidence of
at tax will terminate then. The first reason why I am
strulalous is because I we the spirit of the times in which ;
* ins is hatile to the abrogation of this tax. (Hear.) ;
s'w. I beg the house just to recollect the various upsets
each the income Me has assumed, since it was introduced
O •F..r It. Peel. It was first of all brought forward in
ehrthat it might create a surplus, with which to deal
irik the indirect taxation of the country. Then it was con-
tused ayes for the sole purpose of creating a surplus,
*eh should allow the house still further to deal with that
*net taxation. Well, now, sir, what is the form it se-
ism ' At I. resent it is no longer proposed for that par-
iah but we hiss so far advanced that we are asked to
Peat it won for the purpose of supporting the ise
thlik is at present necessary for your expenditure, and
A me asked to lay on other taxes also to deal with indirect
Wis. (Hew, hear.) Under such circumstances, when
al Nessett rapid progress made in ten or twelve years, the
A mutt shut his eyes to all that passes around him, and
et be completely unobservant of the signs of the times,
' ot the habits of those amongst whom he lives, who can
glow that the income tax, after having already ceased
het its first office of creating a surplus for dealing with
Mille c t taxation, when it has taken a
eat part in the revenue, and while we
having recourse to fresh taxation, in addition,
deal with those indirect imposts—he must, in- i
be the gust incredulous of men who supposes that I
shoal.' suddenly repudiate the principle upon which '
have advanced, and that, while we are making further I
• bon our indirect taxation, we shall in the interim
I uP the income tax which is imposed for that pureed..
rile, bear.) Besides, what argument is there in favour
„. hie* of the tea duty which does not apply equally to
mswine duty ? Whit argument for remitting the excise
doll ere sm. that does not tell with equal weight for &ban-
tam of the excise on paper ? (Cheers.) Cheap mat it ,
are a the blessings of the age—why should yea ail laws '
I_l.lP7.lthrtr ? (Cheers) We have already lei taws,
.min. tillmitr oar notice, and reminded that the English
nusgear ell: always make his fortime so long as our ism
111111(/ have impost apes tocel remains. (Hear, hesir..)
a wend reason why I think that this tax will
rat terminate at the end of seven years ; and that reason I
led is the rid& scope of the financial policy of the right
Lou, • 'milkman, in all his antecedents, and in the whole of
In pest coreluct and career and in the arguments of the,right
„ha. gees", man, not only 'or. this but on former occasions,
"must, if pe,s,ible, terminate the 'whole of the revenue that
*mike. by tier Customs. (Cheers) That is the necessary

, have laid down • principle, which must immensely affect
the indirect taxation on the British producer. I have
shown you in the second place that while you are about to
pursue that unjust and injurious policy, the propriety of
which no man can vindicate, while you are aggravating
the pressure of indirect taxation upon the British producer,
you are indicting neon the cultivator of the soil a direct tax
in the sbape of an income tax, and upon the
peosessers of the soil • direct tax in the way of a tax in sue-
ovation. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I say that the whole
scope of the budget of the right hon. gentleman is con-
ceived in • spirit of injustice to the lead. (Loud opposition
chain.) I remember when Sir Robert Peel Fri-
ths first income tax, and I remember the noble
Crld the leader of this Acme sitting on this bench,
and with the traditionary spirit of Mr. Fox, denouncing that
Impost as Mr. Fox denounced the legacy duty, because the
noble lord, as well as Mr. Fox, had some feeling for the
land of the country which Hide forefathers had been so
long connected with. I remember the noble lord saying to
Sir 11...,hert Peel—" There are other means to supply the
deficiency not SO unjust and so inquisitorial as the income
tax." the epithets are the epithets of the noble lord—
" You have got a deficiency, why do you not supply it by
applying the legacy duty to land ?" Well, the noble lord
has applied the legacy duty to land ; but he has given us
the income tax too. (Loud opposition cheers.) That is the
fate of England ; what is the fate of Ireland ?
Sir Robert Peel did not propose an income tax for
Ireland, though he proposed one for England. Sir Robert
Peel thought there were constitutional and legal grounds
which prevented Dim from applying en income tan
to Ireland. But Sir Robert Peel said—'• I will propene •
substitute, and it shall be • duty on spirits." Ireland was
to have a duty on spirits instead of the income tax, es the
English were to have • legacy duty. England has got the
legacy duty as well as the income tax, and Ireland is to get
the income tax and the spirit duty too. Strange fate that
both countries, from the ministry of All the Talent',
should receive such accumulated miseries. (Cheers.)
Bat it is not my intention to abuse the patience of the
mlemraittee. We shall have so many opportunities of enter-
ing Into this great subject that it is not my intention to go
Into all the details of the budget now, or even into all its
main features. I am confining myself to showing you that
the budget of the minister is conceived in • spirit of hostility
to the land, and I am endeavouring to substantiate that
by arguments and facts which it is open to others
to refute. I appeal with the same confidence to
gentlemen opposite as to gentlemen on this side of
the house. All I ask is that you should deal with this
great interest as you would deal with all other interests,
great or small, in a spirit of justice, and if you cannot ac-
complish all that justice requires, all I tat is that. you will
not persevere in a course which I think is most uajust, and
is calculated to sour the tempers and exasperate the feel-
ings of a large portion of the subjects of her Msjesty.
There is another point in this budget to which I must ad-
vert before I sit down. The right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has a project of licensee, and, I
dare say many of his supporters have heard something about
it. (Laughter.) Well, sir, I have rented between 300 and 400
letters on the subject full of suggestions, and it was first of
all my intention to have sent them to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but when I found that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, with a devotion to public affairs for which I
had not given even him credit, was in the habit of answer-
ing all his letters himself—(cheers and laughter)—l thought
the right hon. gentleman might have misrepresented what
was really an act of friendly courteousness on my part, and
the right hon. gentleman would probably have wished to
be disembarrassed of them. The general tone of those
letters may be described in this way. We say " this
system of licenses is infinitely worse than your house tax."
I should say that the majority describe it as a quadriplica-
tion of the house tax, and they all say they would rather
have bad something of my house tax than this system of
licenses, for it is a graduated tax ; and that they thought
the right hon. gentleman had turned me out of office in
order that they should be free of this house tax. There
has been • great clamour in the country on
this subject—great discontent; and unless I misunder-
stood the right hon. gentleman, his opinion on the subject
is already shaken. I should have supposed that a minister
of finance would not have taken such a step as proposing
licenses for trade ; and I am not giving any opinion now on
the policy of such a measure; but it is unquestionably one
of the most important projects that • finance minister could
entertain. I should have supposed that no Chancellor of
the Exchequer would have brought forward a proposition
of such a nature without wed weighing its character
and consequences. Such • plan is not to be taken

for Manchester. Well, sir, I bad hoped that M..' old fend
between town and country had ceased for ever. (s: beer..)
There is no difference of national interest any longer to-
tween town and Country, and the very motion which my
honourable friend the member for Hertfordshire has pro-
posed tonight is somewhat significant of that. It is con-
ceived in a spirit of honourable conciliation. And I should
have thought, however you might have voted last year, you
would have accepted it in the same spirit. (Cheers.)
There is the member for Manchester, who. whim I
addressing his constituents some three or four
months ego, expressed his amazement that the country
cZetnen of England had made a proposition that entitled
to the kind feeling of the working classes of the
sentry. That was the hon. member for Manchester who
spoke of our proposition ; but the right honourable
gentleman the Presideat of the Board of Control
spoke of our proposition to make a difference in
the:schedules of the income tax in terms, I will not say
offensive, but if they bad been pronounced in an offensive
manner, in an offensive tone of voice, I should have called
upon the Attorney-General to have taken a message to the
right hon. gentleman, (Cheers and Isughter.) Because.
if I recollect rightly, the argument in favour of an equalis
!ration of the tax first came from that hon. and learned
gentleman; indeed, he was the first to speak'
in favour of the subject upon which the hon.
Secretary to the Board of Control has taken to-night so
different an opinion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman
tie member for Manchester spoke in a manner honourable
to himself, no doubt, but at the same time I must take
leave to remind him that there are none who have more al
heart the liberties of the people than the country
gentlemen, nor is there any class less interested l
In a corrupt administration, or more interested
In an economical administration of the finance,
of the country. (Hear, hear.) Some gentlemen
there are who are very happy to tell us that they are MOW
ben for great towns, but I should-have thought there woe
so difference, so far as material iaterest is concerned, be-
tween them and the country gentlemen present, but I at
told that there is a social and a political difference.
Honourable gentlemen, however, who say this shosild
remember that these great towns are situate Is
a country of no considerable extent, with no m-
issive population,with a commerce which, however great.
has been rivalled, and with manufactures, however sue-
oessful, have been surpassed. What makes this country`
great then ? What, but the national character of the
sentry ? (Cheers.) The national character of the
sentry, then, has been created by institutions which
sprang from the land, they are deeply pleated in the soil, and
that soil is not in the possession of any exclusive clan ; the
merchant and the manufacturer may deposit within
it their accumulated capital, and they may enjoy
those privileges which its possession entails, and perform
those duties which its possession also invitee. (Cheers.)
Then why this hostility to the land ? I say that every man
in this house is deeply interested in maintaining the pros-
perity of the land of this country. I say that there is no
man in this house who wishes to secure the prosperity by
unjust legislation, and I adjure those gentlemen who
represent large towns not to be led away in the present de-
bate by the prejudices of former discussions. Let it be
clearly understood that we all of us stand in different rela-
tions to each other than we did, that we are alike interested
in the greatness and prosperity of the country. (Hear.)
Let them take another course—but I trust they will not
—and I feel convinced that if they remain hostile to
the land and proceed onwards with their illusive progress,
they may arrive at the goal which they contemplate—they
may achieve the object which they have set before them,
but believe me they will be greatly disappointed in the
result, for they will find that they have only changed a
first-rate kingdom for a second-rate republic. (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—At this late hour (1 o'clock), and
after four nights' debate, I shall attempt to do little more
than set before the committee, as clearly as I can, the ques-
tion upon which they are about to decide. They have a
budget before them, comprising propositions of very great
importance to the finances of the country, and the ques-
tion they have to decide is whether the advantages held
out are such as to be greater than the burdens which
are to be inflicted ; and whether or not it
is the duty of this house to adopt that budget.
Now, in the first place, the proposition of the government
is the question of the income tax, its duration and its inci-
dence, as part of the financial system of the country, hav-
ing been for a long time in debate, and having given rise to
controversies more perplexing even to those mat conver-
sant with the subject—whether an endeavour should be
made to enable parliament to come to a final decision on
the question. It must be evident to every person
who has followed the course of events and discussions
on the subject that, although the original propo-
sition of Sir Robert Peel in 1842 to impose an income
tax for three years may have been wise and well adapted to
tits then situation of the country, yet it is now impossible
le continue the tax from three years to three years without
exalting at every renewal doubts and differences as to the
mode in which the tax should be imposed highly disadvait-
teems to the repose of the country. (Hear, hear.) Sack
discussions cannot exist without disturbing and shaking
your whole system; and yet it is a fact that no government
eines 1842 and no House of Commons since 1842 has
seriously contemplated the definitive termination of
this tax. (Hear.) Beery Chancellor of the Exchequer is the
intervals of the three years has proposed various redactions'
of taxes and duties, and other reductions which he did net
propose wen pressed upon him by different members of
all parties. (Hear, hear.) And nothing can be clearer
than that the government which made these propositions,
and that the house which urged them, did not contemplate
that the income tax should really terminate at the period
when it would terminate by the current law. (Hear,
hear.) Such being the ease, my right hon. friend has
shown to this house that by continuing the tax for •
certain limited period—l admit not for a very short
period—the House of Commons will then have the means,
if it should think fit so to do, of parting
with the tax as one of the ordinary resources of the country.
Therefore, I say, prima facie there is • great advantage
proposed by this budget as it now stands before the com-
mittee. (Hear, hear.) Well, in the next place it is pro-
posed to remove one of the most injurious of the excise
duties—almost one of the only taxes which remain on what
may be called the necessaries of life—the tax on soap—a tax
on cleanliness and comfort. (Hear, hear.) That would be
1,000,0001. parted with under that head. It is proposed to
reduceithe tea duties from 2s. 2d. to le. in the course of 3 years.
(The noble lord went through the minor features of the
budget.) To these (he proceeded) may be added a pro-
posal to adjust the assessed taxes, not on the absurd
sumptuary principle, in proportion to the number of ser-
vants, carriages, and horses, &c., but on the principle of
charging in the same proportion for each servant, horse,
and carriage. An hon. gentleman has said that this
would be • system entirely to the advantage of the rich. I
believe that is • mietake, and that by high duties the
number of persons employed as servants is restricted,
sad that various trades are discouraged. (Hear, hear.)
This is a summary of the direct benefits to be conferred by
the budget. On the other hand, it is objected to it that
there is no difference whatever in the income tax ; and,
win, it is objected that the legacy duty is to be extended.
Others of the new duties we propose have given till to va-
rious objections. Now, without speaking immediately of
these objections, I mint say that :the spirit in which the
proposition of the government is met, and the grounds of
the amendment on which the division is to be
taken, do seem to me to be completely irre-
itencilable. (Cheers.) The language, I say, of '
Ms honourable and learned member for Suffolk,
(kir F. Kelly), is that new and enlarged burdens are to be
pissed upon laud. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
emplane also of new taxes on the land, and says that the
whole budget is framed in a spirit of hostility to the
lied." (Cheers and counter cheers.) Hon. gentlemen op-
posite cheer that representation of the language of their
ailosoatas. But what is the amendment? Dose it propose
to Mx land lea—to take off so of the existing burdens on
land? Quito the reverse. The proposition of the hon.
baronet (Si R. B. Lytton) is, whorish's' now pays 7d. in
the pound to the income tax, end trade also pays 7d. that land
shall be continued to be taxed at that rate, but that trade
and manufactures shall be treed at a less rate. (Cheers
and laughter.) Was then ever anything s• contradictory ?
(Cheers and laughter.) These hon. gentlemen have been
complaining for seven years that the land has been op-
pressed by recent commercial legislation, and yet now they
come forward with a proposition to iacrease the advantages
of that trade and that manufacturing industry with whose
supposed. predominance they have so often found fault.
Why, same the day when Marshal Mumma con-
ducted his division, which should have fought for Napoleon,
over to the allied Prussians and Austrians, no such mili-
tary move has been witnessed in Europe. (Great
laughter.) What is the ease which the amendment insists
on ? The great difficulty with these income tax schedules
is to make an alteration which will not force you into
further alterations, those further alterations exposing you
at last to the risk of breaking up and abandoning the tax.
(Hear.) Nothing is more plausible than to say—let there
be lower rates for the professional man, whose
livelihood is earned by great mental toil, and
whose families are dependent also on the one
life and on the good health in life, of the head
of the family. But then come the traders, persons living
by skill, and intelligence too, who ask for similar advan-
tages. Then comes the question with respect to salaries
and public office, mental toil being bees also an element
in the etiolation. Then comes the question of the land,
which claims is own allowance for repair. What do you
arrive at then? At this: that every schedule is altered
except this which relates to the public funds. (Hear, hear.)
And that is a question which I hope will be treated
in this house in the manner in which it has been dealt with
by the hon. and learned member for Suffolk. (Cheers.)
His principle would lead at one.: to a breech of public faith.
There are two principles—the theoretical and the practical
—contended for. One principle is that laid down by Mr.
Pitt, to fox incomes, not to tax any peculiar incomes—
all incomes, from whatever sources they may be de-
rived ; and in that case the fundholder has his: security
against excessive taxation equally with other classes. Bat
when you say to them, " We tax you 7d., and others 61d.,
because the source of your income is more permanent than
others," the fundholder would say that if you come to
the sources of income, you have no right to place any tar
on public property. On the other hand, if you
tax incomes equally, the fundholder is guarded
against excessive taxation by his equal burden
with the rest of the community. (Hear, hear.) If you
separate the fundholder from other classes, there is no
security that the tax would not be 5 per cent. on land, and
50 per cent. on the funds. (Hear, hear.) It was, there-
fore, because I believed the practical security is in equal
rates, that I viewed with alarm and apprehension the re-
ceat proposal of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), ,
in his financial scheme, Vast salaries and the funds alone in
l
Ireland should be subjected to the income tag. (Cheers.)
That was a beginning, and a very serious beginning, of •
plan by which the funds might be taxed alone, and it

up hastily,lor should it be relinquished hastily. It is a
very great subject, which touches the trade of the country ;
the retail trade of the country, that most tender portion of
the community—the most irritable, the most lively and
sensible to anything like an attack on their finances. The
system of licensing involves some of the meet impeetamt
considerations in direct taxation. Some have Vague/
it even as a partial substitute for the buss
tax. It appears in this, as in other mine
we are to have an income tax and •
Easnes, too, according to the original project of the Cher
was of the Exchequer. But there is • great murmur of
dbUstent, and we have seen the Chancellor of the Exch.-
=dog up and saying something about the scale being
already. The wale is to be altered, and, if rumour
is Nue, even the plan is to be abandoned. And now mark
the difference when a particular class of population in town
isslionserned in matters of taxation and those who are °oa-
rsman* with the land. (Cheers.) I take for granted
thus is not the slightest doubt that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not have proposed the licenses unless he
believed them to be a just and proper tax, not only a just
but a politic tax, but he changes his opinion when the trade
rises and tell him they will not endure it. The farmer most
bear his income tax, the proprietor of the soil must bear his
Increased burden of taxation, the cultivator of the soil must
Lind that his burden of local taxation is increased, and that
he has fresh competitors in the market against him, but he
is to get no relief ; but the moment you touch a particular
class and delegates wait upon you, the minister trembles.
Now, sir, I have adverted to the subject before. I think it
Is one of he most serious features in our political condition,
that it is now a fact that certain classes in the country who,
because they have a certain portion of the electoral power
are exercising that power systematically to exempt
themselves from just taxation. (Cheers.) I can conceive no
featare in our situation as a nation more fearful, more to
lie deprecated, more to be resisted. (Cheers.) Why, what
Ms been the cause of all disturbances in great countries ?
what produced the fall of even Rome ? Why, it
was the existence of • class exempt from taxation.
Well, then, I see no difference between • privileged
noble sat a privileged tobacconist—(hear and laughter)—
my mead the master is this, it is equally wrong to exempt
soy ems lbemtjast taxation whether it be a noble or a
bmilltmsa id& a 101. franchise, because in both cases all
duns so opprieved—each is equally fatal to political order.
' Each disibv all notions of honour, and who can doubt that
the oominguence in each will be equally fatal ? (Bear.)
Even:the class who enjoy the privilege must ultimately
suffer though they may now, indeed, be reaping a rich
harvest from the power which they possess. Well, sir, in
this state of things the owners of the soil, and the cultiva-
tors of the soil complain that in the projects
' of the financial minister they are not justly treated. They
hear from him nothing but censure ; when they complain
' that they are not only injured by his projects, they are stig-
Malised as being unwise; and when they approach the
Minister through their representatives in the House of
Commons, they are met by taunts. What said the Presi-
dent of the Beard of Control the other night to some one
who had made comments upon the scheme of the govern-
ment—" Why, you hail better take my advice (said the
President of theßoard of Control)—(a laugh)—you had better
take these measures, or you will get worse." (A laugh.)
"Now, sir," said the President of the Board of Castro',
" remember the Bs. fixed duty ; you did not take that, and
you see now what it is not taking the measures we bring
forward." (A laugh.) But it is not merely the President
of the Board of Control who takes this course. The Presi-
dent of the Board of Control is rather of an active and
vigorous, than an original mind—(a laugh)—ad the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control has followed the conduct of
Gee who—without offence I say it, because I bold the right
Ma. gentleman in particular regard--etandi higher than
itimeelf. The President of the Board of Control
In fact has only followed the example of a more eminent
person, for the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) has
very often given us advice of this kind. (A laugh.) At
the beginning of the year I brought forward a motion
respecting our foreign relations—respecting our relations
with France in fact, and it fell to the lot of the noble lord
to answer the observations I made. The noble lord—the
subject being our relations with France—delivered himself
of an oration in favour of free trade--(a laugh)—
aud—it was a very common habit with the
noble lord—he gave me some advice. (A laugh.)
He said if I had followed his advice I might
have been one of her Majesty's ministers at the time.
Really, so far as I was concerned, it was not n to
follow the noble lord's advice, because, had we wishe to
have remained in as ministers, we need only have followed
his example. (A laugh.) I dare say, if we had submitted
to what I have seen ministers submit to since I have been
in parliament, probably we might still have been
sitting on those benches opposite ; but that is
nos the point to which I wish to call attention, though the
point itself has great reference to the subject in hand. The
noble lord said that evening, " You never took my ad-
vice. I advised you some years ago to take an 135. duty on
corn, but you did not take it." Sir, the noble lord has
reminded me of that several times, and I should not have
particularly referred to it again myself had not the President
of the Board of Control introduced it to us the other
evening. If the taunt had come from such a man as the
right hon. member for Portsmouth who offered us the
Be. duty I think it would have been a fair one, but I find
it has now been so frequently used by others as to have
become a complete stereotype expression on the Treasury
benches, and I have thought it necessary to say thus much
upon it to prevent its repetition in future. (Hew.) Con-
sidering the change which has taken place I think
it would be decent in the noble lord to remember under
whose advice and at whose urgent instance it was that we
did refuse the Bs. fixed duty upon corn ; but so far from
my wishing to deprecate the comprehensive mind that
could alone conceive so vast an idea as an Bs. fixed
duty, I give the noble lord credit for all he de-
serves in that respect. At the same time, however,
when he remembers who the statesman was under whose
advice, and at whose urgent entreaty, the proposal was
refused ; and when the noble lord remembers those by
whom be is now surrounded—(cheers)—when the noble
lord remembers that, and also that he has thrown away the
whig party, and that he has accepted a subordinate office
under a subordinate officer of Sir Robert Peel, I think the
noble lord may find that the time has come when these
remarks should cease. (Cheers.) Sir, I remember the
member for the West Riding said the other night that
the hon. member, my respected friend the member for
Warwickshire, stated that this oudget was a great triumph

. might have been eoneerted into a precedent for any con-
veusent breach of fain:
by which that lugs rum which
, we now pay to the public creditor should be diminished to
, any extent parliament in its
want of discretion or want of
honesty might think fit. (Chasers.) These are the general
considerations on
which the
go,"lrotneut have eroevedod
with respect to the income tax. n e right hon. gentleman
opposite now denies that he ever avid that he had not
had time to look into the schedules, but he has
almost confirmed the impression he formerly pro-
duced by what he has said to-night, for he states
that having had two or three months before
him, he did not go into any particulsr analysis of
the mode in which the tax would be levied, but that he
reserved himself for the recess which was to have followed
Christmas. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman did
no: then tell us, and has not told us now, how he pro-
posed to make the great distinctions which we called
upon him to make, if he made any. (Hear, hear.)
I should be sorry to believe that he did nut think it incum-
bent on him, or worth his while, to go into every particular
of a change in the rates of the income tax before he came
down to the house and proclaimed a principle as good, from
which I thjpk evil would result. (Cheers.) As to the ex-
tension of the tax to incomes of 1001., the right hon. gentle-
man
himself made a proposal that, with regard even to
trade, it should be carried down to that sum. A right
hon. gentleman says that when we are proposing a term to
this tax it is not a fitting time to extend it ; but it should
be remembered that if an augmentation of income is to be
derived from the present proposal, there will be a diminu-
tion before we come to the end of the seven years ; and in-
stead of 6 millions or 55 millions we shall only have to deal
with 41 millions, The Chancellor of the Exchequer has,
In fact, taken the precaution of making the sum then to be
dealt with smaller than it is now. Meer.) Mr. Cairns says
the remission of the Consolidated Annuities is due in justice
to those now paying them, and that we are proposing an
income tax on the whole community in Ireland to make up
the deficiency. I should state the case precisely the oppo-
site way. There is ns claim whatever in justice to the re-
mission of the Consolidated Annuities, and on that ground I
never could admit of it—(hear, hear)—but by means of the
income tax you have obtained the remission of many other
duties which pressed on the whole community of the United
Kingdom, and why should not Ireland bear such a tax ?
4Hear, hear.) If Ireland is to receive great benefit with
.he rest of the kingdom, why should she not bear burdens
in the same proportion? In 1848, the calamity of the fa-
mine was a very good answer to this. We propose to re-
move the taxation consequent upon that, and then Ireland
falls into the same -category as the rest, of the empire.
(Hear, hear.) Even in 1848, when the country was far
more distressed than now, Sir B. Hall proposed the exten-
sion of the income tax to Ireland, without proposing a re-
mission of the Consolidates, Annuities ;'xnd Mr. Disraeli,
Mr. Henley, and other of their political friends and
colleagues voted for that motion. (Loud cheers.) A mere
glaring example of inconsistency will hardly be found in
the annals of parliamentary history. (Cheers.) The in-
creased burden on Ireland from the alterations now pro-
posed will be 400,0001. the income tax ; the succession tax,
60,0001. ; the spirit duties, 198,000/. ; total, 6.58,0001.:
while the relief will amount to 670,0001. In 1860 the only
additional duties will be the legacy and spirit duties,
258,0001. ; leaving 412,0001. a year as the balanee of remis-
sion. (Hear, hear.) But gentlemen have looked rather
too much at the value of these particular figures, and not
to the general interests of Ireland. Ireland hid long suf-
fered from the heavy duties on articles of consumption,
which she paid in common with Great Britain. In this
country they discouraged consumption; in Ireland, in some
cases, they totally prevented it. Lord Sydenham once
stated that the revenue of Ireland in 1807 was 4,300,0001. ;
upwards of three millions of taxes had been imposed between
1807 and 1821, but the revenue had then fallen to 3,800,0001.
(Hear.) Great as war the advantage of the removal of
those duties in this country it must have been still greater
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Several hon. gentlemen have
.referred to my opposition of the income tax in 1812; but
the questisn is now very different, after the tax has been iu
operation eleven years. This tax has been the means of
relieving the country from very great burdens, and I be-
lieve that before 1860, it will afford still greater relief.
(Cheers.) Thu hardship of the proposed legacy.duty has
been referred to; that hardship has been much exagge-
rated. It was said that two millions of additional taxation ,
were about to be placed on the land. But the fact is, there
is already a heavy legacy duty on a portion of the land, 1
while other parts are totally exempt. (Hear, hear.) What
can be more just and equal then to remove that exemption ?
The amount will be, not two millions, but 500.0001. or
700,0001. ; and when the tax comes to its full amount, the
income tax will be diminished, and at least 700,0001. will
he taken off it. By supporting the amendment you will
vote not only not to relieve the land, but to
lay upea it in 185.5 a burden from which it
will be ,free by the proposition of the government. I
Sir, in the course of these discussions, having begun with
the removal of prohibitions and of differential duties, we
came at length to the abolition of those duties which press
more especially upon the people, and which have deprived
them of much comfort and enjoyment. I believe that this
house can no more worthily represent the people, can no
more worthily consult the interest of the people, than by
pursuing this course. (Cheers.) It was said by one last
year-1 think it was a proof of little wisdom in him who
said it—that he should endeavour to role this country so as
to check the advances of democracy. (Hear, hear.) You
may depend upon it that a ruler who sets himself to check
the advances of democracy, will but increase end irri-
tate, and make finally triumphant, the power to
which ho thus opposes himself. (Cheers.) But if you
consult the interests of the people, you will make the de-
mocracy conservative, and you will carry that democracy
with you instead of opposing them as your enemy. (Load
cheers.) That, it seems to me, is the true
.policy for parlia-
ment to pursue; neither neglecting the interests of land
nor the interests of trade, but consaltiag all together ;
giving no undue favour to any class, but pursuing a course
which each must acknowledge to be jug. (Cheers.) Sir,
I rejoice that towards the termination of this course, which
parliament has now for nearly twelve years adopted, my
right hon. friend the Cbanceller of the Exchequer
has had an opportunity of laying propositions
before the house, which, whether we consider
the propositions themselves, or whether we consider the
manner in which they were introduced—(much cheering)
—must give him a name to be envied among the financial
ministers of this country. (Loud cheers.) Sir, if, in order
to do this, it has been his fortune to live laborious days, I
trust he will find his reward in the approbation and support
of this house, and in the gratitude of an admiring people.
(Great cheering.)
Mr. ROSS MOORE rose amid loud cries of " Divide,"
which rendered it impossible for him to be beard. After a
vain effort, continued for two or three minutes, to obtain a '
hearing, the hon. member resumed his seat, and the com-
mittee immediately divided.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 2.52
Against

Majority for ministers 7l
The reads was hailed with loud cheers by the ministe-
rialists.

The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution of the go-
vernment, but Mr. Lawless having a further amendment
to the effect that Great Britain should be substituted for the
United Kingdom wherever the latter words occurred is the
resolution, it was postponed till Thursday next.
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.
Colonel FORESTER rose to move the following resolu-
tion :—" That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the
clerk of the crown to make out a new writ for the electing
of two burgesses to sine in this present parliament for the
borough of Berwick. upon-Tweed, in the room of John
Stapleton, Esq., and Matthew Forster, Esq., whose elec-
tions have been determined to be void."

Mr. PIIINN submitted that, at this time in the morn-
ing, this motion ought not to be proceeded with ; and
It wee accordingly withdrawn.
TYNEhIOUTH.
_ _ _

- -..-- ---.
Sir B. HALL was about to rise for the purpose of pro-
posing an address for a commission in this ease' but he
wished to know whether the hon. member (Mr. Matsu)

ram serious in his motio- wit‘houldisitte ?

Mr. MOFFATT b Jne through evidence, and had
Come the that a writ ouguL to Li
,ltory L variation then took place bet n Lord
J. , ell, Sir J. Pakington, and Sir J. Tr It inti-
m/1k Mr. MOFFATT concluded by moving—That Mr.
Spelkker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the crown to
makik out a new writ for the electing of a burgess to serve
in this t -.nt parliament for the borough of Tynemouth
in the r00m...' Hugh Taylor, Esg , whose election has been
determined to Or void.
Mr. BASS, considv. • o,st the writ ought not to issue,
and that at that hour the au..." " not Hely be dis-
cussed, moved, by way of amendment, inc adjournment of
the house. _ _

After acall for a division, which, however, did not take
place, the amendment was agreed to, and
The house adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock.

Patn.—Mr. Foley with Lord Lewisham, in favour of the
;overnment.

cot court.

OSBORNB, MONDAY.

_,
The Queen and Prince, with the royal children,
walked sad drove in the grounds at Osborne this morning.
The Duchess of Kent, accompanied by the Princess Ade-
laide of Hohenlohe, and attended by Lady Ansa Maria
Dawson and Sir George Couper, honoured the performance
of the French Plays with her presence last evening.

M. Mounts, the Turkish Minister, transacted business
yesterday at the Foreign-office.
A deputation of wholesale dealers (London) on street im-
provements, in connexion with the Central City Terminus
I Railway, had an interview with Viscount Palmerston yes-
terday, at the Home-office. The deputation consisted of
the Marquis of Clanricarde, Baron Rothschild, M.P. Mr.
Masten:nen, M.P., Sir James Duke, Bart., M.P., Mr. kaikes
Currie, M P., Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, M.P., Mr. Apsley
Pellatt, M.P., Mr. T. Duncombe, M.P., Mr. William tail-
Bays, M.P., Mr. Alderman Lawrence, Mr. Sheriff Croll,
Rev. James Jackson, M.A., Rev. George Mansfield, M.A.,
Mr. Wm. Leaf, Mr. Thomas Lowrey, Mr. John Fisher,
Mr. Dillon, Mr. Bradbury, Mr. Moore, Mr. Howell, Mr.
Walter, Mr. William Barber, Mr. Millard, Mr. W. Bur.
shell, Mr. W. T. Hely (Temple), Mr. Arlon, Mr. Matins,
Mr. Dakin, Mr. Thomas Lawrence, Mr. -Thorny Dix, Mr.
John Lemon, Mr. F. Leathall, Mr. Pullen (Temple), Mr.
B. J. Armstrong, Mr. J. 11. Stevens, Mr. Sandlands, Mr.
Buekmaster, Mr. Boole, and Mr. Sidney Smith.
1 Mr. John Leslie Foster had an interview with the Duke
I of Newcastle yesterday at the Colonial-office.
I The Chancellor of the lixchequcr was better yesterday.