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

ROADS IN INDIA.

The Earl of ALBEMARLE moved for several returns,
which were agreed to.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The select committee on this bill was nominated.
CATHEDRAL APPOINTMENTS BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and the
various clauses were agreed to.
The Bishop of OXFORD gave notice that on bring-
ing up the report he should move the addition of a clause
suspending the operation of the tact, under which the
capitular bodies at present have power to assign their
estates to' the Ecclesiastical Commission in return for
fixed stipends, till Parliament shall have considered the
report for the commission.

The bill then passed through committee.
LUNACY REGULATION BILL LUNATIC
ASYLUMS BILL -- LUNATIC CARE AND
TREATMENT BILL.
These bills were severally read a third time and
passed.
CLITHEROE ELECTION.

Lord BEAUMONT gave notice that on Monday he
would call the attention of the house to the position they
were in with regard to the Chtheroe election, no answer
having been returned to the communication from the
House of Commons on the subject.

Their lordships then adjourned at five minutes past
seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

MR. DUFFY AND THE IRISH MEMBERS.

The order of the day for the consideration of the ex-
ception taken to the words uttered last night by Mr.
Duffy in the course of his speeeh having been read,
The SPEAKER asked if the honourable member
for New Ross was in his place.
Mr. DUFFY said—l am here, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER—It is my duty to remind the hon.
gentleman of the proceedings which took place last
night. The house was informed by a report of the
Committee of Ways and Means, that exception
had been taken to certain words used by the
honourable member for New Ross, which were :

" Greater corruption than was ever practised in the days
of the Walpoles and the Pelhams has been practised,
under my own eyes, upon Irish members of this house ?"
If the hon. member has any explanation to make now
in the house, it is hardly necessary for me tell the hon.
member that there is always a willingness on the part
of this house to extend its indulgence to any hon. mem-
ber who, in the heat of debate, has made use of words
calculated to offend hon. members in the house, and I
trust the hon. member will now be prepared with such
an explanation or apology as may be satisfactory to the
house.

Mr. DUFFY—I wish, in the first place, to set myself
right before proceeding to the explanation which I have
to make. I desire to recal to the recollection of the
house exactly what happened last night. When I was
interrupted it was not by a call to order, but by a chal-
lenge to prove certain statements whichA had made. If
I had been called to order I should have felt bound at
once to have set myself right with the committee in
any manner which might have been deemed sufficient,
but in answer to the challenge which was given to me
to prove my words, I felt then, and I feel still, that
it would have been a course utterly irreconcileable with
my conscience, simply to withdraw a statement on its
truth being questioned. After some debate Mr. Den-
verie at length declared me to be out of order, and I was
then about to rise immediately to take the course which
seemed to me necessary under the circumstances, and to
say that I was quite aware that the rules of debate in
this assembly, as well as of every other assembly,
ought not to be violated, and that if I had violated them
I was extremely sorry. (Hear.) I was about to take
that course when the right hon. gentleman the member
for Bucks interposed, and stated that a charge of corrupt
practices against the Ministry was not a breach of order,
but, on the contrary, the privilege, nay, even the duty,
of any hon. member of this house. (Hear, hear.) I
did not feel then that I was bound at once, with-
out ,waiting for some further debate, to take the
course which I had before meditated ; and after
that the possibility of withdrawing the words
was taken away from me by the noble lord the member
for the city of London. That noble lord stated that I
had endeavoured, after making the charge contained in
my words, to fly away from it, and avoid naming the
parties. Now the very reverse was the fact. (Cheers.)
I appeal to both sides of the house whether I did not
wait for several minutes--a long time under such cir-
cumstances—and I declared that if the committee, by the
chairman, decided that I should do so, I would at once
proceed to name the persons without avoiding the re-
sponsibility of proving the allegation which I had made.
The noble lord went on further to say that I could not
prove a syllable of what I had stated. Now, I appeal
to the house if, after such a statement, I could withdraw
my words, leaving the matter in that position. (Hear,
hear.) Would any hon. member of the house, after it
had been stated by a minister of the Crown that he
had made an allegation which he could not prove,
consent to terminate the debate by simply withdrawing
the words which he had uttered. (Cheers.) It seems to
me scarcely possible to take that course. (Hear.) After
that I withdrew by the direction of the chairman, and I
am informed that certain circumstances then took place
with respect to me. I also wish to offer some explana-
tion. I have been told by them that it was imputed to
me that I had intended to convey that money was given
to secure the votes of Irish members. Now, I distinctly
wish the house to understand that I did not mean to
convey any such thing. Now, what I wish to convey
is this—that the political profligacy which prevailed in
the times of Walpole and the Duke of Newcastle, when
men were induced to abandon the most solemn and cir-
cumstantial pledges, and to leave behind their reputation
and political character for the purpose of accepting office,
—that that conduct seemed to me to have been exceeded
by circumstances which had fallen under my own notice
since I had been a member of this house. (Loud cheers.)
I meant to charge that certain Irish members had, in
point of fact, outrun anything which I had ever heard or
read of in discreditable abandonment of their notorious
and rooted principles, for the purpose of what I
could only interpret. as their own personal advantage
and advancement. If I knew what political corruption
means that is political corruption—and I repeat now
what I have said before—that if it be the wish of
this honsell am ready to specify the individuals, and to
state what appear to me to be cogent facts in sustain-
ment of this allegation. These being my opinions, of
course it is impossible for me to retract what I have
said. I wish the house to understand that if in
stating them here—for I have often stated them else-
where—l have violated any rule of the house, it
was entirely outside my intention, and of course I regret
if I have offended against the proper manner of con-
ducting debate in this house, which seems to me, on
the authority of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire, somewhat doubtful ; but if I have
offended, of course I regret it. (Loud cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—The honourable member has
said that I interrupted him last night in a manner
which prevented him withdrawing his charge.
Mr. DUFFY—What I said was, that after the state-
ment of the noble lord that I had made a charge of
which I could not prove the truth, it seemed to me
that a man of honour could not terminate the business
by simply withdrawing the charge.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I was about to say that the
hon. member stated in this house that corruption had
been practised on Irish members by the present Govern-
ment in a manner that exceeded the .corruption of Wal-
pole and Pelham ; and, the debate having gone on for
some time, both as to the character of the words and
the course to be taken with respect to them, I think I
could have taken no other course than to have given a
complete denial on the part of the Governmenet. (Hear,.ment
hear.) The hon. gentleman made a general statement,
and I made a general denial. I certainlyit
understood the
charge in a different manner to that in which is now
stated to me. Everybody who has read history knew
that the corruption of Walpole and Pelham was of this
kind—that when there was a question which was likely
to be closely pressed in the house, that either by gift of
place or gift of money a majority was secured in favour
of the Government. (Hear.) It now appears that the
charge of the hon. member is of a verydifferent descrip-
tion. (No, no.) Well, then, does the
hon. member
mean to say that money has been given to the Irish
members ? (Mr. Duffy—" No, no.") Then it is of a
different description. What I understand the hon.
gentleman to say is that there have been members in this
house who, having given certain pledges and expressed
certain opinions in Ireland before bodies of the Irish peo-
ple, have accepted office, forfeited those pledges, and
gone contrary to those opinions. I do not know whether
there is any accusation of corruption in the times of
Walpole which at all answers that description. Because

there were not then questions under discussion upon
whieh declarations of this kind could be made. What
the hon. member now states is that hon. members,
flying from pledges and ,not acting in accordance with
the opinions they have declared, have either accepted
office or ranged themselves on the side of the
' Government. I doubt very much whether that is an ac-
cusation which could at all be declared disorderly con-
duct. It appears to me to be a matter of argument for
the house in any debate, whether those who have either
accepted office, or, without accepting office, have sup-
ported the present Government, have acted from corrupt
motives. I think the Irish members have ample means
of defending themselves, and my belief is that, instead
of acting from any corrupt motives, they have acted in
a way highly honourable to themselves. (Laughter
and cheers.) That is a matter of opinion, and a sub-
ject for discussion, and I do not think Irish members
have any reason to fear any amount of lengthy debate
on the subject. It appears there have been statements
in Ireland, that members for Ireland from corrupt mo-
tives, have taken up the cause of the Government, have
acted with them, and voted for them, and it had even
been alleged that they have received sums of money for
so doing. It appears that gross accusation is now aban-
doned, and I think it is always better, in such cases, to
allow the matter to drop, without taking any fur::.4cr
proceedings. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. BALL wished to say a few words, but
The SPEAKER called the hon. gentleman to order,
as there was no motion before the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the house do pass to
the orders of the day.
Mr. BALL then proceeded to remark that the state-
ment which the hon. member for New Ross made last
night referred to transactions which occurred four
months ago.
Mr. G. DUFFY said the hon. gentleman was mis-
taken. His statement did not refer to anything of the
sort.

Mr. J. BALL said that he had nothing further to say,
but the hon. gentleman, against whom he had no per-
sonal animosity whatever, had stated in another capacity
than a member of Parliament, that Irish members, in
supporting the present Government, had violated a
pledge which they made four years ago. It appeared,
however, that what the hon. member said last night was
not an echo of this statement, and he had therefore no-
thing more to say in this unpleasant matter.
The. SPEAKER then put the question that the house
pass to the order of the day, which was agreed to amidst
much laughter.
WAYS AND MEANS.—INCOME TAX.

The house shortly afterwards went into committee of
ways and means, when
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bouverie) put the question
which was debated last night, namely, that the words
proposed to be left out of the resolution which included
Ireland in the operation of the income tax stand part of
the question.
Mr. F. FRENCH rose to order. The hon. member
for New Ross was in possession of the chair when this
debate was interrupted last night, and

The CHAIRMAN said the question having been put,
the hon. and learned member was out of order in
speaking.
Lord J. RUSSELL (speaking sotto voce) requested
the hon. member to speak sitting, and with his hat on.
Mr. F. FRENCH, adopting the noble lord's advice,
proceeded to say it was neither fair nor proper to put
the question in this abrupt manner. The hon. member
for New Ross was in possession of the chair when the
debate was interrupted, and he had therefore a right
to complete the speech which he commenced last night.
The committee divided during this period, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment 6l
Against it 286

Majority

The resolution was accordingly carried.
Mr. MOORE moved that the chairman do report pro-
gress, and ask leave to sit again in order that the point
of order might be discussed with the Speaker in the
chair.

Mr. LABOUCHERE concurred with the motion,
and said it was most desirable that the point of order
should be decided by the house, and not the committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL also concurred in the motion
undor the circumstances stated.
And the question, that the Chairman report progress,
was put and carried.

The house having resumed, the Chairman reported
progress and obtained leave to sit again.
Lord J. RUSSELL then stated what had occurred
about the point of order, and added that, as the hon.
member for Mayo had been instrumental in raising the
point of order, perhaps he would be good enough to
continue the discussion.

Mr. MOORE then proceeded to explain to the Speaker
the position in which the matter stood. When the debate
was interrupted last night the hon. member for New
Ross was in possession of the chair, but the Chairman
of the committee to-night, instead of calling the hon.
member for New Ross to resume the debate,
proceeded in a hurried manner to put the ques-
tion, which was clearly a violation of his duty.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. BOUVERIE said he had committed the mistake,
if mistake it was, unintentionally ; but the house should
remember that he hesitated some time before he put the
question, with the view of seeing if any one wished to
speak. The hon. member for Droitwich, seeing his
hesitation, rose and asked him what the question was,
and before he put it he gave him a distinct answer.
However, he had no intention to take any one by sur-
prise.
Sir J. PAKINGTON emit! W. digvput,c only- ehowca
the necessity for order being called and obtained before
any question was put.
The SPEAKER said there was a difference between
the practice of the house and that of its committee. In
the house a member could only speak once, but in com-
mittee members could speak as often as they pleased.
It was therefore difficult to determine this point, but the
house would remember that when a member moved the
adjournment of a debate in the house, it certainly gave
him the privilege of opening the debate on the
following day, it yet did not follow that the Speaker
was bound to call upon him, unless he rose to address
the house. Nor it did not appear that the hon. member
for New Ross rose when the question was just in com-
mittee ; and therefore, according to analogy, the Chair-
man was not out of order in putting the question to the
vote.

Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the Speaker do
leave the chair.

Colonel SIBTHORP said there had been so much
confusion that he was really at a loss to understand what
had occurred, but he could undertake to say that
although he was opposed to the income tax in any
shape, he yet thought, after the conduct of her repre-
sentatives, Ireland ought to be called upon to pay
double the income tax. (A laugh.)
After a scene of much confusion, during which several
motions of adjournment were made, the Speaker left
the chair, and the house again went into committee,

Mr. MAGAN said that the hon. member for New Ross,
whose words had been ordered to be taken down, had come
out of that ordeal with such flying colours that he was ra-
ther ambitious to have his words taken down. (Loud
laughter.) But he would not be so obstinate as that hon.
gentleman, for if ho said anything offensive, ho was most
desirous of withdrawing it. (Hear, hear.) At the same
time he must say the hon. member for Clonmel did not
seem disposed to allow him the necessary liberty to state
naked facts. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He was
going to state the way in which the Government had be-
haved with respect to the imposition of the income tax
in Ireland. (Laughter.) He was about to state that per-
sons who were considered to be accredited both by the
Whigs and Peelites did by creating confusion and making
statements such as ho had referred to, directly procure the
defeat of Lord Derby and his Government. (Loud Opposi-
tion cheers.) The same parties now accused them (the
Irish members) of wanting to require from any Govern-
ment the same thing that they required of the present Go-
vernment, and of wishing to bring back Lord Derby to
power. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Magan) wished to state
plainly that he did want to bring back Lord Derby, but he
only wanted to bring him back for the purpose of putting
him out again. (Loud laughter.) Now, with regard to
those gentlemen on the opposite side who talked of being
' conscientious and independent, he must say that they were
not independent, and their conciences were kept in the
boroughs they represented. They were not allowed to
bring their consciences there, and were left no discretion
in the matter whatever. (Laughter.) If he might make
use of a vulgar expression in reference to them, he would
say that they were like a pennyworth of butter wrapped
up in Mr. Sharman Crawford's bill. (Laughter.) He be-
-loved. he was the only member who professed independent
politics in the house. (Loud laughter.) He claimed to be
Independent, and it was perfectly well known why he said
so. (Laughter.) Those gentlemen opposite who voted
with the Government had violated the pledges they made
to their constituents. (Oh, oh.) Ho said that in the
most polite manner possible. (Much laughter.) There
were two classes of Irish representative:. Some few of
them, who voted with the Government, such as the hon.
member for Kerry (Mr. Herbert) and his colleague, voted,
he had no doubt, conscientiously. But there was another
class who had no discretion left them. He rose on the part
of those Irish members who had kept their pledges, for
the purpose of saying that it would be extremely conve-
nient if in future no emissaries of the Government were
found at the meetings of Irish members. (Loud laughter.)
Colonel GREVILLE said that he was surprised that
hon. gentlemen opposite, who appeared to be so
thin-
skinned when imputations were cast upon them, should.side
themselves cast reflections on others, and tell those on las e
of the house that they could not be impartial on this sub-
ject. (Hear, hear.) He was surprised that the hon. mem-
ber for Carlow (Mr. Ball) should have made the allusions
and cast the imputations he did, after the statements made
by the hon. member for Westmeath. He heard rumours
of the same kind, but his vote wash not nfl
uenced by those I
rumours and promises. The righi
on. gentleman the
President of the Board of Control, however, appeared to
be somewhat influenced by them, because he said he would
not consent to impose an income tax on Ireland, although
he was now going to vote for that proposition, on the
ground that Ireland was to have remitted to her 4,000,0001.
of consolidated annuities, or an annual charge of 245,0001.
Now, a committee of the House of Lords decided that
Ireland was not bound in equity to pay half of that charge.
Yet Ireland was to have an income tax to the extent of
460,0001. and an increase of the spirit duties—(hear)—the
are
should of which would be that for 131,0001. remitted,
should have to pay 500,0001. additional taxation. He e
was
glad to see Irish members opposite (on the Government
side) holding themselves independent of the Government,
and withholding their support from a measure for imposing
the income tax on Ireland. There were questions of vital
importance to the interests of that country still unsettled,
and while they remained so it was n
party should continue independent e:festshaery that the Irish
one side or the
other, and avoid merging its strength into that of either.
Mr. E. BALL had understood the hon. gentleman the
member for Westmeath (Mr. Ragan) to say that a certain
member of that house, who was an accredited agent of the
Whig and Peel party, had intimated to the Irish members
that, if they would assist in. turning out Lord Derby's mi-
. nistry, Ireland notsho)uldHeiA,l)r.
o made liable to the property
tax. (Hear, hear. k . Ball) did not know much of
the usages of that house, but he was quite sure the public

Li

(447 ,t 7.•
out of doors would ransider that, if that was trne,ffal sigoist
tion of all good faith and good feeling had been con!tmi
and that it ought not to pass without explanationtaesx.„ ti
hear.) He did not know who the accredited agent alltieCM'ci
iscwreediultda
to was—whether it was the Secretary of the Treasury or
bblee given as should wipe away
not ; but, if so, he hoped stuhcehan imputationexplanation
ofd
conduct. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRENCH Lad charged his right hon. friend (Sir C.
Wood) with not crying out the promise inferred from
the declaration he made to the Irish members in that house
in reference to the extension of the income tax to Ireland,
and his right hon. friend had endeavoured to answer that
charge by explaining thet the question now stood on a dif-
ferent footing, in consequence of the imposition of the tax
being accompanied by the remission of the Consolidated
Annuities ; and that inasmuch as that remission would
relieve the land nom a charge to which it was now liable,
he did not consider himself bound by the declaration. The
house would recollect that the sOtement of the tight hon.
gentleman against extending thc' income tax to Ireland
was made in reference to the proposal for that purpose
brought forward last year by the rij.ht hon. member for
Bucks, which did not in any way affect the land, con-
sequently, the right hon. gentleman's explanation was in
no way applicable. The right hon. gentleman, it would be
remembered, called on Irish members to beware how they
permitted the small end of the wedge to be inserted, and
advised them not to allow the income tax to be extended
to Ireland in any shape ; and now that a proposal for im-
posing that tax to a far greater extent was brought for-
ward, he turned round upon the Irish members, and aban-
doning altogether his declaration against this tax in any
shape as applicable to Ireland, he supported it, giving as
his only explanation that some relief was to be given to
the land. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL remarked that it would be better if
the hon. gentleman had a charge to make against his right
hon. friend—that he could not honestly and honourably
vote for the Government proposal of the income tax,
which ho had declared his intention to vote for—if the hon.
gentleman had such a charge to make it would be better
that he should make it when his right hon. friend was in
the house, that he might have the opportunity of meeting
it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRENCH—I did not know the right hon. gentle-
man was not in the house.
Lord J. RUSSELL—His right hon. friend was in the
house the whole of the earlier part of the evening during
the discussion that had taken place, when the hon. gentle-
man, who was also present, might have brought forward
his charge—(hear)—but he had thought it
more convenient
to make it in the absence of his right hon. friend, and
very probably in doing
so he had exercised a wise judg-
ment. (Oh, oh.) His right hon. friend had, however,
fully explained his conduct in the debate on the income
tax, and he (Lord J. Russell) believed that explanation
was considered satisfactory to the house and to the country.
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend then said that he con-
sidered the proposition of the right hon. member for Bucks
(Mr. Disreali) to impose part of the income tax on Ireland
for three years ought not, under the circumstances, to be
carried out, but that in considering the proposal brought
forward, by the present Government he thought, upon the
whole balancing the advantage with the disadvantage—
that Ireland would be a gainer by the remission of the
consolidated annuities (that remission comprehending not
only those advances made on account of the distress in Ire-
land, but those also which were made for the necessities of
the workhouses) to an extent that would more than coun-
terbalance the burden of the income tax. (Hear, hear.)
And in the exercise of a judgment which ho had full right
to exercise, his right hon. friend declared that ho would
vote in favour of the proposition. (Hear, hear.) Such in
substance was the explanation which his right hon. friend
gave—he went into details on the subject, and he (Lord J.
Russell) was sure that many Irish members, and certainly
very many other members, had also come to the opinion
that it was better for Ireland to have the remission of these
consolidated annuities, and to bear the income tax, than
to go on paying these annuities. (Hear.) He had, he
thought, said sufficient to answer the charge of leis hon.
friend opposite, that his right hon. friend had voted for
this measure without fully explaining the reasons that had
induced him to do so, and he would suggest if his hon.
friend (Mr. French) had anything further to say on the
subject, that he should take an opportunity of saying it
when his right hon. friend the President of the Board of
Control was in the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRENCH did not know when he spoke that the
right hon. gentleman, the member for Halifax, was not in
the house. Did the noble lord mean to impute to him
(Mr. French) that he had mane a charge against the right
hon. gentleman in his absenno which he would not have
made in his presence? (Hefei', and Oh.) If not, what did
he mean? He could assure the noble lord that he was not
the person to shrink from bringing forward charges against
any minister, and in the presence of that minister, when
he thought them well founded.
Sir R. INGLIS was ready to give to Irish members the
largest latitude of time and of eloquence, but, on the part
of English members, he must appeal to them now to allow
them to proceed with the business of the country. (Hear,
hear.) He wished to call attention to a subject which he
had brought under the notice of the house on every occa-
sion of the renewal of the income tax since 1842, viz., the
injustice in point of principle, while they made all in-
comes under a certain amount exempt, to charge the tax
upon the whole of the income where it exceeded the limit
fixed.? (Hear, hear.) That was if they fixed the limit at
which the tax should begin at 1001. a year or 1501. a year,
it should apply only to the incomes beyond that amount
and not to the whole sum..k The extension of the tax to
incomes of 1001. would extend the injustice of which he
complained to a class of persons who perhaps were least
able to bear it. This principle of levying the tax pressed
very severely on clergymen of small incomes, half-pay
officers, and others, who were compelled to maintain the
position of gentlemen on slender means, 41. 7s. 6d. a year
was a small sum to members of that house, but it was a
serious amount to persons whose incomes were only 1501. a
year. What he contended was, that whatever the limit
was, whether 1001, or 1501., at which the income should
become liable to the tax—the tax should be charged only
upon the amount by which that limit was exceeded. Two
objections only had he ever heard against this plan—viz.,
the difficulty of remodelling the arrangements ; and the
loss to the revenue. With regard to the first, he believed,
if his right lion friend would direct one of the functionaries
in his office to turn his attention to the subject, the diffi-
culty might be met in a fortnight ; and as to the second—
the question was not so much what the revenue would lose,
as whether they did not, by the system they adopted, in-
flict a positive hardship and injustice. He wouldnot pro-
pose any formal resolution, but would reserve to himself
the right of doing so at a future time.
The CHANCELLOR of (the EXCHEQUER rose to
reply ; but
The CHAIRMAN said there was no question before the
committee. He had not stopped the hon. baronet, because
he did not know but that he was about to conclude with
an amendment. The observations of the hon. baronet did
not, however, refer to that part of the resolutions which
he (the chairman) had read, and he must be permitted to
read on until he came to some part to which any hon.
gentleman desired to propose amendment.
The first part of the resolution was then read, viz.,
" That it is the opinion of this committee, that, towards
raising the supply granted to her Majesty, there shall be
raised annually during the terms hereinafter limited the
several rates and duties following (that is to say), for and
in respect of the property in any lands, tenements, or here-
ditaments, in the United Kingdom, and for and in respect
of every annuity, pension, or stipend."
Mr. FITZGERALD had an amendment to interpose at
this point, the object of which was to exempt incomes in
Ireland arising from trades and professions from this tax.
He concurred in the principle, if the tax was to be made
permanent in this country, of extending it to Ireland.
And the feeling in Ireland was not so much against the
extension of the income tax to that country as against its
application to trades and professions. His amendment
would exempt Ireland only from a part of Schedule D,
and it was that part that required expensive machinery
and those inquisitorial proceedings which would tend more
than anything else to make the tax unpopular. The total
amount of funded property now held in Ireland was about
38,000,000/., producing about 1,300,0001. a year. Land
might be taken at 11,000,0001., public salaries and county
salaries at nearly 1,000,0001. The income from railway
property was about 7,000,0001. a year, and then came the
banking property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
estimated the income tax to be derived from Ireland at
450,0001., which at three per cent. was calculated in a.
gross income of 15 millions ; but he (Mr. Fitzgerald) esti-
mated the gross income at 17 millions ; and if so, the
income tax derivable from trades and professions would
be very small indeed. The next question was what would
be the probable expense of collection? He admitted that
if the income tax was applied to Dublin, Cork, and Bel-
fast, it would be profitable, notwithstanding the expense of
collection ; but what machinery was there for the collection
of the tax in the small towns and villages and districts
over which incomes above 1001. a year derived from trades
and professions, besides those of the clergy, as well
of the established church as the Roman catholics and
Presbyterians, were scattered. You would not avail your-
self of any existing machinery for the collection of the tax,
and it was that which induced Sir R. Peel to state that
the income tax would not be productive in Ireland. The
existing Poor-law Boards were unfit for the purpose,on
account of the political and sectarian feelings with which
they abounded. It would then be necessary to create a
enormous expense. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) maintained that
tnheew reasonsstag extending over every part of the country at an
which Sir R. Peel felt in 1842 to be conclusive
against the tax, existed now in undiminished force ; and
in asking the house to assent to a proposition exempting
trades and professions in Ireland from the income tax, he
only followed the opinion of Sir R. Poet. He admitted
that it was not just in the abstract to impose this tax on
land and other property, and exempt trades and profes-
sions,oe but the ground of the exemption was that no fin
ance
minister
proceeded to justify
on. Supposing
the vote ho had given on the general ouesCi
minister ought to impose a tax which would not be pro-
ductive. The hon. gentleman then
had
ful, and a dissolution followed, the
had been success
cry at every hustings in England would have been that the
that the amendment of the hon. memberfor Hertfordshiro
to Ireland, because
income tax should be extended in this
Fitzgerald)believed it was a
He (Mr.
country it was believed that this was a free trade budget
and because it was so ho supported it. The amend-
ment he prop?s.ed was a real one, and one which he should
pc
oriel sesc tt
ioo
na colif v shi
eo ninocuomtehetaxgrr
asndretghaartdethde
teraxpdeensts
aenoaf
ptrhoe.
fess
Sirie
J. n
pwAo
Nb eG sT
oo g rNe arte
paus d
at o
tr ee
dn dae rr tmpoluv dr ua
dctvievret e
d.
to
by Mr. Fitzgerald, that a compact existed between a cer-
tain portion of the Irish members and tfhe members of the
l a tme
rG o.
wv e nimTeEnst .m HE
said
fo aware
vetted
any
er uocnh compact.the e r
voted against the Go-
vernmeent werena ent
thesincere,othtehre they
night,s haveWith
before the house, he would be no
party to a sham,
rather than vote for it would walk
ounretsopefctthetohotulmotion
Mr. F. SCULLY thought the h and
man who last spoke had not dealtofairanlydwiletharnhedon.geninetmle:
bers from Ireland who voted the other night in favour of
(Laughter.) They
budget. (Laughter on the
voted considering the
the budget.
now to the question before the hous
question to be, whether there should be abudget or no
Oppositionhouse, the benches.)income tax being
gphatleartabfrleomas
extended to Ireland, he thought it the duty of Irish repre-
sentatives sentatives to endeavour, by amendments, to make that tax
sibrlieshtometmhehelrirsshonpeotphlee. aßppoenseit.wioedn
thixete
benches.) He contended that—according to the report of
the House of Lords—the consolidated annuities exceeded
in amount, even doubled in amount, the highest point at
which an income or property tax had ever reached, even
in the period of the war. (Hear.) By the proposed ar-
rangement, the tenants who held farms of 3001. or 4001.
per annum would gain, as they would pay less under the
income tax than they were now paying under the consoli-
dated annuities. It was a question, therefore, that affected
the occupiers of the soil, and he was anxious it should be
argued fairly in that point of view. At present tlgroo ;as
an immense amount of emigration going
on,
and
tenant-
ss
emigrating was nearly altogether the indust riro rates
and
farmers. He believed it was
the heavy
Pgat those
taxes local burdens, and the unctrain g the
teose
nants
taxes would hereafter be, that w 4

,f‘rmstis from Ireland. He had no duabt that the consoli-
:dated annuities were felt to be a heavy burden upon many
of the unions, and that they were extremely desirous of
being relieved from them. But it must be borne in mind,
!that many of the towns also paid a large amount of these
consolidated annuities, and the poor rate was also very
considerable. In the Cashel Union, with which he was
connected, the amount of the local burdens was no less than
3s. 6d. in the pound ; even the towns would be in many
instances materially relieved by the remission of the con-
solidated annuities. Indeed, the whole country would be
benefited by the remission of these consolidated annuities,
the balance, in his opinion, being in favour of the tenant-
&rmer class. The hon. member for Mayo contended, that,
striking a balance between the taxes proposed to be re-
mitted and those impose, Ireland would be a loser
-to the extent of 501,000/. He could not understand
how the hon. gentleman arrived at that conclusion, as
taking the average produce of the income tax for seven
years at 357,0001., tbe spirit duties at 198,000/., and the
legacy duty at 2670001., and taking the remissions. at
65-9,®01., there wcsald be a balance of 95,0001. only against
Ireland. Going,then, to the year 1860, when the income
tax was to be teoolished, the amount of the gain to Ireland
(the consolidated annuities being remitted) would be no
less than 497,7001. He challenged the house to dispute the
accuracy of these figures. The great question to be consi-
dered was this, that although the consolidated annuities
were unjust and vexatious, yet the income tax as it was
proposed was also open to great objections from its inequa-
lities and its inquisitorial character. The tax would also
have to be collected in some hundreds of small towns and
villages, and would occasion much difficulty from the want
of proper machinery. He felt that it would be a great
hardship to compel the hardworking man, the shopkeeper,
or the man receiving a precarious income, to pay this tax.
It appeared to him that the standard ought to be raised to
2001. per annum, and that the amount of the rating should
be lowered to d. in the pound. He also suggested that
the working clergy of all persuasions should be exempted
from the tax. He had no wish to exempt the rich pluralists,
or the deans and canons ; but the really deserving and
hardworking men, who were in the receipt of small in-
comes of from 501. to 1501. per annum, ought to be ex-
empted. He must observe further, that it was highly ob-
jectionable to call upon the tenant to pay the tax for his
landlord; and he should, at a future stage of the bill, move
an amendment to that effect. These, however, were some
of the objections to the income tax ; but if it was only 'ap.
plied to the property of the country, and if the poorer
classes were relieved from these heavy burdens, then at
-the end of seven years, even with the income tax, the posi-
tion of Ireland would be very much improved. He had no
doubt that the amount of the .legacy duty, at the end of
seven years, would be 4,000,0001., instead of 2,000,000/. ;
and under these circumstances there was no doubt that
the income tax would be repealed. If the inequalities to
which he had objected were removed, and the burden
placed fairly upon property, there could be no good ground
for opposing it ; and under these circumstances he felt it
his duty to give his vote in favour of the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the E.,`KCREQIJER said, though
he was anxious to explain his views as to the imposition of
the income tax on Ireland, and had lost the opportunity of
doing so during the previous discussion by reason of the
hasty decision, as the question was to be raised by a motion
in committee, he should not on the present occasion enter
into it further than with reference to the proposition before
the house. The hon. member for Ennis (Mr. • Fitzgerald)

supported his proposition principally upon the assumption
that the product of Schedule B would be inconsiderable,
and not with the imposition of the tax. That question,
however, of the productiveness of the tax could scarcely
be satisfactorily settled until the bill was before the house,
when the machinery to be establialied for the purpose of
levying the tax could be considered. The hen. and learned
member admitted that as a general principle the exemption
of anrclass from the operation of: the tax would be objec-
tionable, as tending to excite .jealousy among all other
classes, and rested his proposition upon the presumed un-
productiveness of the tax. He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer), however, believed that the tax would produce a
very considerable sum. He at the same time acknowledged
that as to the mode of collection it might not be possible
to assimilate it entirely to the English income tax. (Hear.)
The difficulty would be, that there was not in Ireland a
staff of intelligent Government officers ready for the pur-
pose, and that there was >Q A, upon the other hand, the
power of resorting to the IN vices of local and municipal
officers. (Hear, hear.) In Zit any places in Ireland there
were only the clergyman, the medical man, and one or two
retail traders. (Hear, hear.) And certainly the subject
required consideration in this view. (Hear, hear.) But it
would be found, when the bill WAS before the house, that
the subject had been considered. This was not, however,
the proper time for its discussion.. The present proposition
related, first, to tho case of the tenant farmers. The Go-
vernment had considered their case with reference to their
relations to the landlords, and the relation between their
rents and profits, and were of opinion that their position
should be assimilated to that of the Scotch tenant farmers.
(Hear, hear.) This, therefore, would be proposed in the
progress of the bill. Upon this subject he (the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer) had received representations from
a body of Irish representatives, and although it had been
insinuated that, in so appealing to him in a friendly way,
they had betrayed their duty to their constituents, he
could only say, that without presuming to commend them,
he felt grateful for their ass'atance in adapting this nex tax
to their country. (Ironic=l cheers from the opposition).
Another point adverted to on the present occasion was the
impolicy of the employment of local agents for the purpose
of assessing the tax in schedule B. The duty was certainly
one of delicacy and difficulty ; and, for the reason already
alluded to, he had arrived at the conclusion that it would
be best to keep it entirely under the control and immediate
agency of the executive government. (Hear, hear.) This
might, perhaps, increase the difficulty of levying the tax
on small towns ; but he was anxious to take every means of
moderating its oppressive character. (Hear, hear.) With
regard to the legacy duty, what had been said as to its pro-
bable produce would be delightful to him, of course, if he
could give any credence to it ; but ho could not help con-
sidering it as a deln.sion. It had been said that the pro-
duce would much exceed the amount at which ho was erro-
neously supposed to have estimated it, and amount to
4,000,0001. or 5,000,000/. He could only say that he should
be most happy to farm the tax for a fourth or eighth part
of that aura, if there were no objection to the system of
farming taxes.
Mr. DISRAELI—I understand the right hon. gentleman
to say that the house are under a misapprehension in sup-
posing that he had offered an estimate as to the ultimate
amount of the tax on succession of real property—that it
would b© about, 2,030,000/. We certainly are under the idea
that he did, in his financial statement, give us an estimate
of the ultimate amount of that tax after four years ; and
that the amount would be 2,00,000/. (Hoar.) It would
be well to have that question cleared up. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had
given an estimate that the additional produce of the legacy
duty would be 2,000,000/. in addition to the 1,300,000/. it
at present produced. He hoped that it would reach that
amount, and should not be surprised if it exceeded it by
200,0001. or even 300,0001., though it would be necessary

to revise the table of duties, and that would reduce the
produce in some degree. The estimate, however, was
about 2,000,0001. but he had to correct an error he had
committed, in stating that this would be the amount at the
end of four years ;he ought to have said five. He had
not, however, represented that the 2,000,0001. would be
the amount raised from the legacy duty on land, but the
amount estimated as the entire additional produce of the
legacy duty (including personal property) after the altera,
tion in contemplation.
Mr. VANCE condemned the Irish members who had
voted against Sir Edward Lytton's amendment, as having
been " mesmerised," if not otherwise influenced by the
Government. He condemned the present amendment as a
mockery, and should oppose altogether the extension of the
income tax to Ireland.

Mr. FITZGERALD, understanding that he was to have
no support from the Irish members on the opposition side,
would withdraw his amendment. But at the same time
he defended his own consistency and independence. and
threw back the insinuations which had been thrown out
against him, with contempt.
Mr, M`MA HON trusted tb at the hon. and learned mem-
ber would not withdraw his amendment, but press it to a
division, and by that means procure the resignation of
her Majesty's ministers. (Hear, hear.) His constituents,
composed of the agricultural and commercial classes, were
of opinion that they would derive the greatest relief from
the remission of the consolidatedannuities ; but they would
prefer the continuance of that charge to the imposition of
the income tax in any shape. One gentleman with whom
he had been in correspondence described the budget as a
" tricky, delusive, and infamous" affair. (" Hear," and a
laugh). His constituents believed that this budget was
entirely in favour of England and against Ireland. Succes-
sive Governments had been for a long time taking
off duties from the raw material for the benefit
of England ; and the present Government were about
to remit the soap duties, which applied peculiarly to this
country, and imposed an equivalent tax upon Ireland.
(Hear, hear.) Upon a recent occasion 31 Irish members
had supported her Majesty's Government; but could one
of those hon. members rise in his place and say that in so
acting he followed the wishes of his constituents? (Hear,
hear.) The whole of those constituencies would bo found
against their representatives with respect to this vote—
(hear, hear, and oh)—indced, all classes in Ireland were
averse to tho tax. (No.) Had a single county or borough
meeting been hold in its favour? He was anxious that the
budget should be carried in such a way that the people [of
Ireland could feel convinced that they were not being
cheated or robbed in order that England might be relieved
of those taxes which it was her peculiar duty to bear. A
high financial authority in the house had established that,
as the budget was at present framed, Ireland was essen-
tially a loser by it. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
on a former occasion, remarked that the consolidated an-
nuities were not to be considered as a mere question of
money, he (Mr. M'Mahon) had not been prepared to find
that more was to be imposed on Ireland than was remitted.
The right hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth had
made a speech on the subject which no one on the ministe-
rial benches had as yet attempted to answer. No one had
as yet controverted the statement of the right hon. gentle-
man that the remissions . as regarded England would
amount to 1,040,0001., whereas the increased taxation, on
Ireland would amount to 423,0001. The people of Ireland
-would like to know how that was to be accounted for. A
o-Tember of the Government had stated that tiro present at-
Pt to tax Ireland was getting in the narrow end of the
°uge The remissions in the budget we're in fact, in the
interest of England and not of Ireland . it was proposed
to remit the annuities, but he thoug:nt it unworthy of a
great empirelike this to ake a profit out of these loans. The
committee of the House. of Lords,
a judicial capacit , 'who appeared almost in
iatikd struck 2,000,0001. from these
sums charged to
'been foolishly wasted o'nonfre ground that the money had
Ireland. The duties now° and not for the relief of
iA ether with the inco
P-roposed to be levied on spirits,
gme
ettx
0, would amount to double
what could be fairly chtnaai nrethe the of the annuities.
It was said, however,
y in that wasto
be a remission of
the tea duties, but se.rd—
participate. remission it was only the
;right of Ireland tel,
d:ten the quota. which
Iceland was to ray for the legacy
be an equi-
the Govern-
-valent for the consolidated annuities andif
socteon!sider it. (Hear.)
meat acted with fairness, they would
But, instead of that, they were going
zehtole a
income tax, 200,000/. for legacy duty, 20(01(r4.460_ ,000/.
.duty, and 30,0001. for licences, showing on thieur sPirit
:large balance against the sister country. In fact, t
Lion proposed for Ireland was especially for the benefitzoaf.
England and the injury of Ireland ; and, to add to the in.
justice, the charge for the militia, which ought to have
been borne by England exclusively, was in part thrown
upon a country which had Loth ing to do with it. For
several years past the remission ()lc. taxation had all been
in favour of England,
and had been effected systematically
for that object. Even with regard to the advertisement
duty, is. was struck off for Engle nd and &1. for Ireland,
whereas for the latter the proportional duty ought to have
been 4d. (Hear.) The house would allow him, perhaps,
to state a hw plain facts, to glow gat Ireland WAWA agreat

la ear by the budget, if not by design, at least by accident.
First, the abolition of the soap duties could confer no
benefit upon Ireland, for it paid no soap duties. And
there was no concealing the fact, for it was notorious that
the chief soap dealers had been applying for the remission
of the sox±p duty, because they were unable to compete
with the Irish manufacturers in the foreign and colonial
markets. If the Chancellor had been anxious to confer a
boon upon Irish manufacture, he would have done some-
thing to protect Ireland's only manufacture, that of beet-
root sugar, which in the English market next year would
stand in no better position than slave-grown sugar. (Hear,
hear, hear.) English manufacturers were very fond
of crying up free trade, yet what was the fact ?
Why there was not a single manufacture of Man-
chester, York, or Leeds, which, though relieved from
Excise restrictions, was not still protected. He maintained,
therefore, that if the Chancellor had been anxious to have
favoured:lreland, he would not have dealt with her as he
had done. Again, let him point to another restriction—
that upon the growth of tobacco. (Mr. Sergeant Murphy
here made an observation in reference to the hon. and
learned member having again taken up his papers to quote
some statistics.) Let him inform the hon. and learned
member for the city of Cork that he would not be so full
of his imperial doctrines if the Septennial Act were not in
force, and if his constituents in Ireland could hold over the
hon. gentleman the same threat of dissolution that had
been held out by the Government to those who refused to
support their budget. (Hear, hear.) He could only say,
in conclusion, that no member of that house was more
anxious than he was that Ireland should be treated as an
English county. He wished to see the two countries ab-
solutely incorporated, to all intents and purposes, Ireland
being no longer subject to peddling and exceptional legisla-
lation, but governed by the same system of statute and
common law. If that were done—if they would but con-
fer
on Ireland the same local institutions which were en-
joyed by England, they would be able to economise their
local expenditure, and reduce their highway rates from the
present amount of 1,100,0001. a-year to half that sum.
(Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY wished merely to bring two points
under the notice of the right hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; to which he would refer later at some dength.
His first suggestion was that the right hon. gentleman
would be able verylargely to increase the amount of revenue
derived from the proposed tax on successions, by including
within his arrangements a very large class of property—
that was held in mortmain by corporate bodies. The next
point had reference to the mode in which the income tax
was collected. He alluded to copyhold tenants, who paid
double—first of all they paid upon the value of their land,
and then they paid fines which were levied upon every new
admittance.
Sir T. O'BRIEN was not going to annoy the Luse with
quoting figures, which were often calculated to confuse
rather than to inform. He rose merely to say, that if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to make any
changes in the Irish part of the budget, he must not
take it for granted that the tenant-farmers of that country
would derive all the advantages from his scheme which had
been described. He must say that he was perfectly amazed
at the picture drawn by hie excellent friend the member
for Tippe of the advantage to accrue to that class.
Mr. F. SC Y—l said that the remission of the con-
solidated annuities would confer a great boon upon the
farming classes of Ireland.
Sir T. O'BRIEN would like to know if the hon. gentle-
man had ever taken a walk from Cashel to Tipperary, from
Cashel to Clonmel, or Cashel to Threes, for if he had he
would have seen nothing but ruins of the dwellings of
tenant-farmers. It was all very well to talk of the tenant-
farmers being benefited by the remission of the annuities,
but they had never paid them—the only rates paid by Irish
farmers were on account of writs. Tne fact was, the re-
mission was no sufficient equivalent for the sacrifice they
were called upon to make. He had never given a selfish
vote—he came there neither for nor against the Govern-
ment. But he must protest against the system pursued by
Irish members—a system calculated to do the greatest in-
jury to the country. They formed themselves into cliques
of 16 or a dozen, held meetings, and came forth to dictate
as to the government of Ireland. (Hear.) He believed
that those who opposed the budget of the ',Government
held quite as great a stake in the country as those who
favoured it. In its every feature, with the single excep-
tion of the repeal of the tea duties, the budget was adverse
to Ireland ; and let him warn the. Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that the repeal of those duties would lead to little
or no increased consumption of that beverage as far as that
country was concerned. He begged, therefore, to say that
his vote on Monday was given conscientiously and unfac-
tiously ; nor had he heard anything since to make him re-
gret the course he had taken. (Hear.)
Sir G. GOODMAN could assure the hon. gentleman the
member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), who, he believed, he
might rank amongst his constituents, that the manufac-
turers of Leeds were by no means unwilling to see the
income tax extended to Ireland. On the contrary, they
believed that its imposition on that country was a move
altogether in the right direction, and that a very great
benefit would be thereby conferred upon the public of both
countries.

Mr. M. O'CONNELL must protest against the term
clique being applied to Irish members by the hon. baronet
the member for Cashel. He had assisted at the meeting
alluded to by the hon. gentleman, but it was only in a mi-
nisterial capacity as chairman. It was equally open to the
hon. member for Cashel to attend the meeting, but he had
managed to absent himself in Dublin on his own private
business. (Laughter.)
Mr. R. M. FOX hoped, when the amendment was with-
drawn, the acerbity would also be withdrawn which had
characterised the debate. He believed they would always
find strong feelings in Ireland ; that these feelings would
be expressed in an energetic manner. He hoped they would
come to the consideration of the remainder of the budget
without any acerbity of feeling and with an honest deter-
mination to render full justice to Ireland.
Mr. MAGAN believed the hon. gentleman's motion was
a perfectly sincere motion. The hon. gentleman was en-
gaged in the same task as he was—namely, to avoid the
imposition of the income tax on Ireland (as was understood).
There was one mistake made by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, which mischievous minds like his own (Mr. Ma-
gall's) would be ready to suspect--he had too long delayed
making an apology for the observations he had made. He
would say no more, as he wished to leave the hon. and
learned gentleman " all alone in his glory." (Oh, oh, and
laughter.) _ _ _

Mr. BALL sympathised with the feelings of those Eng-
lish members who must think it a great infliction to have to
listen to another night's debate on the income tax. But this
question was calculated to excite much agitation in Ireland
and one on which great difference of opinion prevailed.
(Oh.) It was right, therefore, that the people should know
the facts, and that the truth of the question shouldbe fairly
placed before them. The question the house had to consi-
der WAS no small or narrow question ; it comprised the
future taxation of Ireland. (Oh, oh, divide.) Did hon.
members opposite wish to stifle discussion ? He only de-
sired to enter into the matter fairly, and he challenged
them to discuss the question fairly with him. (Oh.) Ho
had always been of opinion that the act of Union with
Ireland was unjust. Certainly, he could not but
consider that the present proposition was not in unison
with the object of the Act of Union. He would compare
the revenue and expenditure of Ireland 30 years after the
union with—(divide, divide.) The hon. gentleman here
sat down with the remark that it was evident a desire
existed to put a stop to fair discussion.
Mr. M'CANN knew as much about Ireland as any hon.
member in the house, and it was his belief there was no
difference at all on the question. He believed Ireland was
taxed, in proportion to England, beyond her fair share and
her means. He might be mistaken, but he was will-
ing to have a committee of English gentlemen chosen to
look into the question, and he would readily abide by
their verdict.

The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. W. MICHELL moved—" To leave out `or from
any profession, trade, or vocation,' in order to add to the
Chancellor of the Fxchequer's resolution, ' and for and in
respect of any profession, trade, or vocation, whether the
same shall be respectively exercised in the fUnited. King-
dom or elsewhere, on the first 100/. of income no duty shall
be charged or chargeable thereon ; for every 205., the an-
nual value or amount thereof, above the yearly profits of
1001., and below that of 500/.

For two years from April 5, 1853 sd.
For two years from April 5, 1855 4d.
And for three years from April 5, 1857 3d."

He did not bring this amendment forward to damage the
Ministry, but because he thought justice required the al-
teration should be made. He was not opposed to the bud-
get ; he thought it was a fair budget, and that it would
be impossible to get a budget to please every one. His
constituents rather liked the budget than otherwise. Go-
vernment proposed to remit taxation on the industrious
classes. The right hon. gentleman had taken off the taxes
on knowledge, and had placed them on the compositors and
reporters. By this arrangement the man who only earned
11. 18s. a week, perhaps because he was idle, was exempted,
while the industrious, the more honest, and more sober
man, who earned 2/. 2s. per week was to be brought with-
in the operation of the tax. Was this just ? The
same principle of injustice pervaded the tax as applied to
other industrious classes. He thought it would be advisable
to make the tax operate on the working classes this way—
to take no notice of the 1001., and to commence levying the
tax on all the amount beyond the 1001. This, he believed,
would give far greater satisfaction. What he desired to
effect by his amendment was, to protect the working classes,
and at the same time to do away with the temptation of
endeavouring to find out ingenious ways to evade the im-
post. He was convinced that if they did not make the tax
discriminating it would never work well. The hon. mem-
ber concluded, amid considerable and continued interrup-
tions, by handing to the chairman a motion in manuscript
which he wished to move.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER presumed
that the motion which the hon. member had handed in was
the same as that which stood in the votes.
The motion as it stood on the votes having been read and
put,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
motion as it at present stood would go to exempt all the
'lifferent descriptions of rating in the previous part of the
resolutions. The correction which had been made in it
confined it to trades, professions, or vocations. It was not
necessary for him to state at any length his reasons for not
acceding to the motion. They rested on two grounds. In
the first place, the motion, although intended by the hon.
gentleman in all sincerity to facilitate and improve the
working of the tax, involved principles most inconvenient
and even dangerous. It involved all the difficulties that
arose at a former period, of different rates on different
classes ; and another set of difficulties, viz., those which
related to a graduated income tax. It wes quite true, as ,
the hon. gentleman had stated, that Mr. Pitt proposed
what in some sense might be called a graduated income
tax. He proposed a tax graduated below 2001., and
no doubt) on abstract grounds, that involved the
principle of a gradation aprlcable to all incomes. But
they stood in this matter hot on abstract grounds, but on
prescription. Ever slnce they had had the income tax they
had had exemptions of some sort ; but they never passed
beyond 2001. Mr. Pitt graduated the tax below that sum
in order to obviate the anomaly that existed. It was
always graduated on a certainlprinciple and with reference
to clerks of limited income. In fixing 1501. as the amount
under which there should be exemptions, Parliament had
adopted a very liberal rule. But whatever the amount
was below which the exemption was fixed, above it there
had always been a uniform rate. The hon. gentleman pro-
i
pro-
Posed to graduate up to 5001., but if they adopted that
topple,p there was no reason why they should not extend
,000n..I.teInatfvrachit the proposal opened the wide question
as to the
the
tax
gradations
rich,ti
en
betweena as c o m-
give him great pleasnreger°ll" tht
Pewx:tuireedamv:itotwtheadmita psj
ehr
through Poverty,
. should a
11
He hoped the committee
gentleman in any way he
oo could not consent to his principle. Though it would
coo meet the -wishes of the hon.
It was a great deal 8 ProPcmal,
cost little less than 700 ~,,pensive, and if adopted would
that if
othEse.ysytgluve itifnitlhawtigariarthileye must = out
PX9P9sed mug%

tion with the tax. Under the circumstances he must there-
fore oppose the motion.
Mr. MICHELL was understood to move that the Chair-
man report progress.
Lord A. VANE hoped the hon. gentleman would carry
his amendment to a division. He had heard hon. gentle-
men opposite give up principles to which they pledged
themselves the same as he did. The basis of the income
tax was an extension for seven years; and as it was a broad
principle that the man who earned his bread by hard la-
bour should not be compelled to pay in the same propor-
tion as the man who sat in his easy chair and did nothing,
he (Lord A. Vane) should not recede from it on this occa-
sion. As long, therefore, as he had a vote in that house
he would record it in favour of that principle. He had
heard every point of the financial scheme objected to,
and yet hon. members professed to vote for the
whole budget. The whole was composed of all its parts ;
and as he objected to the chief part, he should vote against
the continuance of the income tax as it stood. Without
pledging himself to the terms of the amendment, he would
vote for the principle to which he had given his assent, in
case of a division. He would not accept the wholo when
he objected to the chief part.
Mr. SPOONER suggested that the hon. member for
Bodmin should modify his amendment. To impose a tax
upon 1001. a year was to tax labour. He admitted the
difficulty of graduating the tax ; but he thought there
could be no difficulty in fixing a minimum sum. A hun-
dred a year was too low. The lowest should be 1501. The
principle of the proposition of the hon. member—namely,
a graduation of the tax, he (Mr. Spooner) was prepared to
support at the fitting opportunity ; and its adoption would
have the effect of getting rid of the expense of the staff
of clerks now employed at Somerset House to regulate the
exemptions. He therefore advised the hon. member not
to press his amendment on that occasion, but to avail him-
self of another opportunity.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. PALMFR then rose to move the following amend-
ment :—" After the words for every. twenty shillings of
the annual value of amount thereof,' insert such annual
value of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, being the
net annual value thereof, after due allowance made for re-
pairs, insurance, and management."
A conversation arose as to the expediency of proceeding
with the amendment, or whether the hon. member should
move that the Chairman report progress and obtain leave
to sit again.
Mr. W. MILES hoped the latter suggestion would be
persevered in, as the amendment affected the real property
of this country, which was taxed at 9d. in the pound, while
other property was taxed only at 7d.
After some further remarks the consideration of the pro-
position was adjourned to Monday ; the Chairman left the
chair, and the house resumed.
- -