The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-14 00:00:00

SUN. I.OI‘TDON, TUESDAY EVENING,

riasult of the vote to the Goverionent upon this question
could not sympathise with them. They might have
done as the Dutch did in 1624, when they, offered a
reward to any one who would invent a tax which would
n otbe unpopular, and a stamp duty was the result.
They, too, might have resorted to that. He was willing
I,?oadreit the justice of the eulogy passed on the Right
ialn. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) by the Hon. Member for
Westbury. For his part he felt gratitude to him for
having removed a burthen of taxation to the amount of
sever, millions. He should vote against the measure
et the Government ; he was opposed to the old system
of indirect taxation, because the people could not
!!e its pressure. The poor man who in the purchase of
his sugar paid ten shillings in the pound duty, did not
see that the aristocracy were not paying fourpence. In
street taxation was unjust, and if they attempted to
carry out a system of direct taxation in its place, they
sere
bound to make it equal and just. It was not so
much the amount of the tax the people complained of as
of its inequality. He would not object to a tax of 10
per cent. Every other country went further thaw this
In the way of direct taxation. Not less than 75 per
cent. of the entire taxation of the country was indirect.
!ate was convinced that this tax would be paid readily
if it was equally levied, and he was of opinion that it
should be submitted every year to Parliament for revi-
-11011 for the next ten years. It was said if they did not
vote for this tax they must go back to the old system,
as if that was the only alternative. If they were fortu-
nate enough to stem this wayward and improper move-
ment of the Government, ho had no fear that it would
Injure the credit of the country. On the contrary, it
!wild oblige them to revise the whole system of taxa-
tion, and to cut down the expenditure to the income.
i
'le should have great pleasure in voting for the motion
of the lion. Member for Montrose.
Ur. HUDSON said he should not occupy the Cora-
tlittoe many moments. He hoped they would come to a
division that night. The Hon. Member who spoke last
adverted to the inequality of the tax, but pointed cut
11°11e- He merely indulged in vituperations against the
ILL—Ulcer, hear.) It was easy to make bold and
daring assertions, but it was more difficult to prove
them- He complained that the transfer of land was not
liable to taxation—whereas money in the funds could
be transferred without stamp, laud was subject to heavy
taxation on every transfer, and on granting leases. If
thin was taken into consideration, they would find that
the burden was pretty equal on both. With regard to
tne question before the House, he was sorry he could
not vote for the Government. His reason was, that it
was inadequate for the exigency. He was not prepared to
girt) his confidence to the Government. He would not
I;aY whether they should have direct or indirect taxa-
tion--that was for the House to decide ; but there
*ee one thing they should do, which was to make
the income equal to the expenditure.—(Hear, hear.)
The
prosperity which had been referred to by the
honourable Member for Oxford was owing to good
harvests in the four years he referred to. The mistake
was in taking off the taxes when they had a surplus, and
in times of prosperity, when the people could best pay
them- If the future Chancellor of the Exchequer had a
lan-I'plus, he would hestitate before he took off taxes. The
hen. Member for Falmouth said the duty on corn was
now seven shillings a quarter, and yet there was no in-
crease in the price. In fact, the price of corn abroad
fell bs proportion as the duty increased, which proved
that the duty was paid by the foreigner. They had
taken off the timber duties also, and he was assured that
there was no remission of a tax which did less good than
that. A Leilde.- esaeired him that on tin outlay of
10,000/., he only saved 2001. by the removal of the they.
ha was not sure but that the duty on cotton if levied,
would be paid by the manufacturer. They might revert
to that tax. He had been favourable to direct taxation,
hilt his opinion was shaken when he found it did not
enable them to equal their expenditure. Ile would wish
to see the income-tax increased, and the window and
assessed taxes removed. He did not take such a gloomy
view of free trade as other lion. Members—he was con-
l',ineed that the elasticity,- of the country would surmount
tne difficulties they had to contend with. He should
like to see tee expenditure revised, which he thought
might be diminished. From the year 1835 to 1841, they
had gone on increasing the expenditure. The Govern-
ment, by consenting to the appointment of the Com-
mittee, had admitted the necessity for inquiry.
Mr. COBDEN said, Sir, in the very few remarks
which I shall address to the House, I can promise at
least this novelty, that I will confine myself strictly to
the question before it.—(hear, hear.) If anybody in
this House might be fairly considered to have a motive
foi entering on that topic of free-trade and protection,
which Honourable Gentlemen opposite aro so fond of
intruducing in debate, probably it would be the humble
individual before you ; for it is precisely the subject on
which I feel myself most at home, from the practice
which I have had in past times. But I will say, once
for all, not only to Honourable Gentlemen opposite, but
to the country, that whatever repetition there may be
here or elsewhere of the railings, the purposeless rail-
ings—(Heer, hear)—which we hear about free-trade, I
Will never enter on the discussion of the question until
honourable Gentlemen opposite put these purposeless
railings into a tangible form—(Cheers)—by introducing
same measure to re-establish their system.—(Hear.) Sir,
we have heard so rnauy motives alleged for the votes
which are to be given to-night, that I wish distinctly
to explain what are the reasons which will induce me to
support the motion of my Hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose.—(Hear, hear.) Certainly I shall not do so
for- the reason assigned by the lion. Gentleman who has
Just sat down—(Bear, hear)—for of all the extraordi-
nary motives that I ever beard professed by an Hon.
Gentleman who takes a very wide and profound view of
financial affairs, his appears to me the most strange.—
(Laughter.) He tells us that the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have come
forward with a proposition for obtaining something more
than an additional two per cent. in the shape of income-
' But, then, how does he follow out his reasoning?
Why, by saying in effect, "In order to improve your
position, and put the finances of the country on a sounder
basis, I will not let you have any money at all."—
(Lsinghter.) Nor need I state that I have in view no
Such object as that which is professed by Honourable
Ge atlemen opposite of the Protectionist party. I do
not, wish to abolish the income-tax in order to revert to
indirect taxation. Neither can I be said to have in
Vie w that which has been attributed most unjustly
to my Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose.
reei ne speakers on Ithis side of the House have alleged
the t my Honourable Friend wishes the income-tax to be
restricted to a year, in order that at the end of that
Yes he may be able to cut down expenses, and dispense
wit han income-tax altogether.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I
ach nit sometimes that my Hon. Friend the Member for
mtrose is a little liable to misapprehension in what
he says.—(Laughter.) But I venture to say, on his
ne'tialf, that even if you could get, at the end of the
Ye+ tr, a surplus of five millions and a half, provided you
Put; the income-tax on a fair and just footing, that is
obi net the last tax he would wish to dispense with.—
(Ii ear, hear.) Nay, I venture to go further, and to
dec Blare in his name, and he will corroborate me in the
sta Cement, that if you will but impose the income-tax on
1 fair and just system, he will give you ten per cent.,
provided also it be levied in order to enable you to
red Me other taxes. —(Hear, hear.) Now, I have a strong
sen.viction, not only that you must increase this income-
tax, but you will also find it necessary, either by
tneeins of a reduct'on of the expenditure, or by
inc. ens of an increased amount of direct taxation,
to be in possession of surplus funds still
fur Cher to diminish your indirect taxation. You
Wil 1 find this necessary in order to increase your trade,
ant I to allow a freer importation of articles consumed in
thi t country. You will find it necessary, in order to
me et the wants of your growing population, and to give
the m employment by the increased trade carried on in
exc ,hinge for the products of foreign countries. In order
tha t those products may be imported into this country,
Yela must make up your minds to a constant diminution
oft he duties levied on them. And not merely for the
eak .e of trade must you do this—you must do it in justice
to the mass of the people, who must be placed, with re-
fer enco to taxation, on at least as just a footing as a
the people of other countries in Europe.—(Hear, hear.)
It I as been justly remarked by preceding speakers, that
the re is no country in Europe where so much of the tax-
nth an is paid on articles consumed by the people. The
Nc We Lard opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) has spoleen of
the income-tax as if it wore a question between direct
tae
,ation and indirect taxation. He forgets that we are
ale rays receiving a larger amount of revenue
fro to Customs duties than is derived from that
soli ice in any other country in Europe.—(Hear,
her ir.) You have 20,000,000/. paid annually for
Cu itoms duties, and you are now talking of a question
of five millions and a half derived from the income-tax.
I h ave taken an opportunity of forming an estimate of
wh at the working classes pay in the shape of duty on
are ides which they consume. We are quarrelling over
7d. a pound in the form of income-tax. Now let us see
wle it is the amount of income-tax which the mass of the
ko file pay on articles which they constantly consume.
We shall find that the working people of this country
Pay on every pound which they lay out up >n tea a duty
of 1101.—(Ironical cheerslfrom the Protectionist benches).
I n lean, of course, for every pound sterling.—(Hear,
het r.) For every 20s. which they lay out upon tea, I
rep eat, they pay 10s. duty ; for every 20s. which they
lay out upon sugar they pay 65.; for every 20s. upon
cofi 'cc Bs.; for every 20s. upon soap, es.; for every 20s.
lip( in beer, 45.; for every 20,. upon tobacco, 165.; for
eve ry 20s. upon spirits, 14s.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
wh to you bear in mind that the working classes spend
a a such larger portion of their incomes upon these Ile-
ces sarios and comforts of life than people of our class
do, you will see that this amounts to an in-
com 0. .tax to them.—(Hear, hear.) They are not pay-
ing is ,erelv an income-tax of 7d. in the pound, such as
that which we are talking of, but they are actually pay-
ing h t such cases as much as 125., 145., and 165., in the
pours 1. When a man, possessing two or three thousand
a yea r, spends a vast proportion of his income in furni-
ture; horses, carriages, books, paintings, he feels corn-
parat ively little a tax of this nature. In this country so
muck of our revenue is derived from the labouring
elate ss, that when trade is growing bad in Lancashire or
York shire, instantly you hear the Chancellor of the Ex-
choral ter telling you that the revenue is falling short, be-
comes the working classes, from whom you derive more
tax tai .ion than is derived from those of any other country,
are involved in distress.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I say,
the kt both on the score of your trade, to find employment
for the people, and on the score of justice to the mass
of the community, you must make up your minds
eitl ter largely to diminish your expenses, or to in-
cre sae the amount of your direct taxation.—(Cheers.)
An d it is because I wish to maintain direct taxa-
tiot a it is because I wish to perpetuate direct taxa-
tioi t in this country, that I support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Montrose.--(Hear, hear.)
etsh to make the income. tax a just tax, in order that I
tatty make it a permanent one.—(llear, hear.) The
question which here arises then is this—Can you make
the income-tax more just than it is now? I say that
this is the only question, and in that I shall be supported

T

by many of in)' Hon. Fr:ends here, more particulerls
those who belong to the free-trade section.— (Hear.
hear.) Now this question has been very much mystifier
by lion. Gentlemen taking exceptional cases, instead
confining themselves to the broad line of demarcation
which may be drawn between those rho derive then
income from trades and professions, and those alto de
rive their income from realised property. Here, I say
is a tangible line of demarcation, and the question before
us was with respect to the injustice of not distinguishins
between these two classes. Can this injustice be reme-
died?—(Hear, hear.) Can it be diminished?—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Member f'or Sunderland (Mr.
Hudson) has stated that my Honourable Friend behind
me (Mr. Mowatt) did not mention any case to prove
that there was injustice. Now, I will tell you of
one. First of all, I must say that there has been some
mystification in the statement that if you make the tax
permanent it will eventually become just. "It will be
come just," it is said, nif it only goes on long enough "
—(Laughter.l Now, I will make it operate as long as
you please. I will suppose the case of two men who
have paid the tax for thirty years. I will first take the
case of a surgeon, a lawyer, or a literary person—men
who get their bread by their daily and nightly toil, lite-
rally by the waste of their brain—either of whom I will
suppose to obtain 5001. a year from his professional
pursuits. I will put, as it were, in competition with
,tich a person the man who has for the same period 500/.
a year from a real estate worth 12,0001. The latter
lives thirty years, and then dies. He has paid onit
the same amount of income-tax as the professional
man; but then he has had in his lifetime, not 15,0001.,
the amount received by the professional mail, but
27001., and when he dies the 12,0001. remains intact.
I say that if you admit the maxim of Adam
Smith, that a man ought to pay taxation in
proportion to his ability, these two men should not
pay the same.—(Hear, hear.) Ought the professional
man, whose income ceases the moment he is laid on a
bed of sickness, when he most requires the use of it, to
pay the same amount of income-tax as the man who is
living at Bath or Cheltenham in idleness upon the pro-
duce of his property, which suffers no depreciation
whether he is in sickness or in health?—(Hear, hear.)
I will take another case—that of a man in business, who
has 10,000/. of capital. Now, that man gets we will
say 500/, a year, the interest of his capital at 5 per
cent„ and he obtains 5 per cent. more as the produce of
the industry, skill, or intelligence which he exerts. Do
you think that that man, who thus gains 1,0001. a year
by the application of his talents, ought to pay the same
amount of tax as the man who receives 1,0001. a year
from a real estate worth 25,0001.?—(hear, hear.) Now,
these are tangible cases; and I tell the Committee that
that is the common-sense view of the matter taken out
of the House. If you can mystify the matter, the
justice and fair dealing of the country revolt against
such an inequality, and the people will not peaceably
submit to it. Well, now we come to the question
raised by tho Honourable Member for Newcastle.
upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), who, representing the
shopkeepers and coalownera of Newcastle, comes here,
nut to deal with the question in reference to the interest
of his constituents, but he talks to us in legal phraseo-
logy of a man owning an estate in fee simple, and of a
man owning an estate in tail who has it for a terminable
annuity. I admit that such cases may arise, but they
are exceptional cases compared with the great and
numerous class to which I have referred.—(Hear, hear.)
I tell that Honourable Gentleman that his constituents,
the active and industrious professional and business men
of Newcastle, stand in a very different category from
those individual cases to whien he referred. It is the
energy and activity of those capitalists and professional
men which create all the wealth we possess, and give
vitality to the wealth of those classes who are
dormant, or at least enjoy the interest arising from
accumulated capital.—(flear, hear.) The men who
are deserving of the fret consideration whit capitalists
and professional men are the labettrers who depend
upon them; and you cannot separate the two, what
ever the Honourable Member tor Oxfordshire may
say upon the subject.—(Hear, hear.) It is those indus-
trious classes who keep alive the wheels of the social
system, and on whose activity and energy all the wealth
derived from all the realised incomes depend.—(hear,
hear.) Well, now, what objections are raised to the
amendment of my Honourable Friend the Member for
Montrose ?—(hear.) Honourable Gentleman on the
Treasury bench have admitted the injustice of this tax.
Every leading man in this House has admitted its injus-
tice. Have they taken any pains to remedy it ? Have
they shown any disposition to remsdy it ?—(Hear,
beer.) The people of this country are easily conciliated,
especially the class on which this tax most directly falls.
They are not unreasonable. Has there been the slight-
est disposition to remedy the injustice ? Has there been
a Committee appointed ? Appoint a Committee now.—
(Hear, hear.) Let there he upon that committee—what
there is not in the Cabinet—an equal proportion of mer-
chants, manufacturers, and professional men, and of
the handed class, or the class of men owning realised
property ; let such a Committee be appointed,.and I will
take upon myself to say that in less time than they
would fix, a tariff for a railway company—in less time
than they would decide whether there shall be a penny
paid for coal, or three-halfpence for lime, or twopence
for iron—they will find a tax which will satisfy the
country, and remove all the discontent which now exists
on this subject. But there has been no such attempt
mad.'.—(Hear, hear.) There has only been a dry
pedantic adhesion to the letter of the law, which has
already roused the indignation of the country. If a just
difference had been made between realised property and
precarious incomes—if there had been a gradation of
duty in imposing the tax—l undertake to say that from
the great manufacturing seats of the kingdom you would
have had none of those remonstrances which have been
addressed to you.—(Hear hear.) Well, now, we are
charged—we who wish to make this income-tax just, in
order that we may make it permanent—we are charged
with being the very parties who oppose the principle of
direct taxation. I was astonished to hear the tone
assumed by the Honourable Member for West-
bury in his speech the other evening. I warn
him, as a younger Member than myself, of the
danger of endeavouring to pat on the back every party
in this House—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and then,
by way of compensation, offering a slight reproof to
every party also.—(Hear, hear.) Why the lion. Gen-
tleman himself has, to my knowledge, converted one in-
dividual Member on this side of the House by his speech
against the injustice of this tax.—(Hear, bear.) Nobody
has laid down so strongly as he has done that injustice.
lie says he believes that the finances of the country will
be permanently endangered if this tax be maintained in
its present form ; and then he turns round upon us, and
accuses us who wish to have it re-modelled and amended,
of being parties who wish to endanger this system of
direct taxation.—(Hear, hear.) And then the Hon.
Gentleman towards the close of his speech said, with the
most perfect innocence —" I will not vote against this
tax, but I will vote for its modification in Committee,"
as if ho had forgotten that the attempt at modification
had already been made by the lion. Member for Cocker.
mouth.—(Hear, hear.) I believe he was not present
at the division on that Honourable Member's motion ;
but when I tell him that there was a majority
of 175 against modification when I tell him
that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the heads of parties in
the House both spoke and voted against any modifica-
tion of the tax, I do hope that even the Honourable
Member for Westbury, having denounced the injustice
of the tax so strongly, will, notwithstanding his declara-
tion to the contrary, walk out into the lobby with us, and
try if he cannot restrict that injustice to fifteen months
instead of three years.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mem-
ber for Westbury said, with a greai deal of naivete, that
he had never heard of any complaints as to the inquisi-
torial character of the tax. It is just one of those cases
in which people do not like to complain, unless it be to
their wives, mothers, or sons. He then said that the
only reason why there has been any cavil on the part of
the manufacturing and mercantile community was
founded on the inequality of the tax. Talk of the itte-
quality of the tax being the only ground of cavil! Why,
that is the whole question. No one would have a right
to complain of any equal tax, if it were wanted
for the necessities of the State. But when govern-
ments deal unequally in matters of taxation, there is
just ground of complaint. That has been the ground of
all the revolutions in this country. Now we are told
that in this matter we are going to endanger the reve-
nue. The question before the House is, whether this
amount of taxation shall ha continued for fifteen months,
or for three years. There can be no defalcation of re-
venue before Parliament meets in February next, arid I
believe that if this House determine to-night that the
tax shall he amended, it will by that time be proposed in
a shape which will be acceptable to the people.—(hear,
hear.) This I will say, however, on behalf of the mer-
cantile and manufacturing portion of the community,
more particularly that intelligent portion who have been
advocates of direct taxation and free-trade—that sooner
than any loss should arise to the public creditor, they
would pawn their coats to prevent any defalcation. We
will cut down expenses.—(Hear, hear.) I hope we shall
live to see the pruning-knife applied to the expendi-
ture of the State, but at all events the pub-
lic creditor shall be paid.— (Hear, hear.) If there
were no other motive for this, that whien the
Hon. Member for Westbury mentioned would be :suffi-
cient, namely, that there is re class which suffers so
much from any derangement of our national finances as
the manufacturing and commercil'. classes. Now, Sir,
something has been said, by almost every speaker, about
affairs which have been happening in a neighbouring
country. I draw a different conclusion from what has
happened there to that which has been generally ex-
pressed in this :louse. I see three reasons why the Go-
vernment of this country should not depend on a nume-
rical majority in this House, but should try by every
means to learn the sentiments of the country on the
subject.—(Hear, hear.) I ask the Government to ana-
lyse the division list in the ease of the motion of the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth. They had a majority
of 175 in the lobby; but I ask them to look at the list,
and tell me if public opinion was not on the side of the
amendment. Aye, and it will be again to-night. Look
at the spirit and feeling prevailing in the country.
Do not depend ou your whippers-in—do not depend on
your chance of a majority in this House. Above all
things, take warning from what has happened else-
where.—(Hear, hear.) Bear in mind the danger to the
country is not from abroad—not from without. You
are expending enormous sums on fortifications and ar-
maments. Your danger is not from without—it is from
within, It is not from the people, or from the disloy-
alty of the people.—(Cheers.) We shall have no tu-
mults in this country, such as they have had in a neigh-
bouring country.—(Cheers.) There is no excuse—no
justification—no necessity for tumults there ;we have
all those rights and privileges connected with free dis-
cussion, the want of which caused a revolution in
another country. But the great fear is, that this House
may not be in accordance with the prevailing and grow-
ing opinion out of doors, that this House will not base
its legislation on those :strict rules of justice and fair
dealing with the country which alone can secure ex-
isting institutions in this and every other county!.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—In rising to address you,
sir, cn the question before the House, I feel that if it
ewe only necessary to allude to those subjects which
tame properly under discussion from the propesitien
which has been made by the Hon. Member for Montrose,
I need detain you and the Committee but a very few
ieinutes. But. Sir, I have he and—l confess to my act,-
atehment—the most opposite and the strangest reasons
given in support of the Hon. Gentleman's proposition.
[he lion. Member for Montrose makes his proposition
to the House with good intentions, otherwise he is a
different tactician from that which I consider him to be;
because if he brought forward a motion that it was ne-
esssary to reduce the revenue, in order to economize, I
imagine he would find himself in a minority like that ho
had upon a former occasion.—(Hear, hear.) And if the
Noble Lord the Member for Lynn were to make a pro-
position to this House that it was not desirable to eons
tieue the income-tax, but that we ought to resort to
indirect taxation, and more especially to a corn-law,
I am quite prepared to believe that he also would
find himself in a minority.—(Cheers.) The Honourable
Member for Montrose is content, however, to bring for-
ward a proposition which contains no sort of opinion or
principle, and only calculated to create embarrassment—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear ")—a mere declaration of
distrust, and a general want of confidence in her Ma-
jesty's Government.—(Cheers.) Gentlemen with the
most opposite views, and with purposes the most con-
tradictory—(Hear, hear)—may vote for his proposition
—to use the phrase of an Honourable Member who
preceded me—in a motly minority.—(Cheers.) Only
let the House imagine the scene which would occur
when Gentlemen were to meet in the lobby and speak
with regard to the different motives which actuated
them.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) One Gentleman
would say to another, " Oh, I am ,very happy to see
you, Sir, here ; you are of opinion that a great reduc-
tion must be made in the estimates." "I, Sir I you
quite mistake ; I am for increasing them. I do not
think that they are a farthing more than they ought
to be ; in fact, I am of opinion they aro a
great deal less."—(Cheers and laughter.) Another
would say, " Sir, I am glad to find that you are
one of those who are desirous of putting an end
to this free-trade system, and placing a tax upon
cotton and sugar." " Bless me, Sir! you are mistaken.
lam a decided free-trader. I came here to support the
principles of that glorious system which has unfettered
commerce."—(Continued cheers and laughter.) Such is
the ingenious contrivance of the Hon. Member for
Montrose, which, were it not for his straightforward
character, I would be inclined to call an uncandid con-
trivance—(Hear, hear)—by which gentlemen of the
most opposite views and opinions may find themselves in
the same lobby. The Hon. Member for Sunderland
(Mr. Hudson) told us that he did not think our ways
and means were efficient. He considered that they
ought to bo larger, to enable us to cover our expenditure,
and therefore, said ho, I will confine you to them for one
year, in order that you may adopt some more liberal
scheme.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. Member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden) said that was
a very extraordinary reason. Now I quite agree with
the Honourable Member in this opinion; bat the
Honourable Member himself gave a still more
extraordinary reason for doing the very same thing.
He says, " I must vote against direct taxation,
because I do not think you go far enough; I wish
for direct taxation to the amount of 10 per cent.;
I wish to create it as a permanent source of revenue, and
to substitute it for indirect npon articles of consumption
—(Hear, hear)—and therefore I will only vote for it for
one year."—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) This certainly
beats the reasons of the Hon. Member for Sunderland
in singularity and extravagance.—(Hear, hear.) The
question is a very simple one; the last time that the
income-tux was proposed to the House, it was done so
by the late Government. A great reduction had been
made that year in the revenue, which, taken altogether
with the following year, amounted to about four millions
and a half ; a considerable addition had been made to
the estimates, especially those for the navy.--(Hear,
hear.) Ido not wish to say now what kind of taxation
was reduced. Ido not wish to enter into that question
of free-trade, which has so often been discussed by the
House. All I will say is, that about 4,000,0001. of taxa-
tion had been taken off the country; and let me here
observe that those who cry out most loudly out of
doors that they understood the income-tax was only
to last three years, ought not to suppose, having
advocated a reduction in other kinds of taxation,
that we should leave the country in a deficiency, or
otherwise go back to the system of ;845 and 1846. The
circumstances which made it necessary to ask a renewal
of this tax, I am sorry to say, Sir, were these :—ln 1846
we had a considerable deficiency of food—(Hear)—and
in 1847 there was an utter want of food for five million:
of people ; in consequence of this we had to import
eight millions of quarters of grain, and eight millions
of quarters of flour, which cost us over thirty millions
of money. There were also two commercial panics in
one year, the course of trade was stopped, and great dis-
tress was felt throughout the country. It can hardly be
expected, after such a course of events, that the revenue
should be in a flourishing condition, nor do I think that
any man can consider that a deficiency of five millions
might in three years time be replaced. Well, then, it
appears to me that there are sufficient reasons to induce
Parliament to consent to a renewal of this tax for the
same period which has been granted at other times.
The Member for the West Riding, however, tells us,
that if this tax had been rendered more equal,
that this House and the country would have consented
to it.—(Hear, hear.) It appears to me that those
who argae for rendering this tax more equal—and I
admit freely its inequality—either take a particular
class—the trades or professions, for instance—and in
that case they will create or overlook many instances
of injustice and hardship more glaring than those
which they remedy; or, if they do not do so, they must
go into individual cases, such as were pointed out by
the Hon. Member for Newcastle, they must examine
into rent-charges for life, not leaseholds; into money
invested in funds for the benefit of distant relatives,
and into every species of property and tenure which its
a country of such an intricate state of society will be a
most endless task, but having effected which, you will
find that your tax is far more inquisitorial than it hag
ever been before.—(Cheers.) Only half as productive,
and twice as vexatious.—(Loud cheers.) This seems to
me to be the dilemma in which they will find themselves
placed.—(Hear, hear.) The Member for the West
Riding said that these classes comprised the activity of the
country, and that they{ therefore ought to have the advan-
tage. Now, sir, I cannot agree in the proposition that a
country gentleman, having a life interest in his property,
is not to be treated fairly because he is not of the same
merit as a member of one of these classes.—(Cheers.) I
must protest against such a doctrine, and I do agree witl;
the lion. Member for Buckingham, with whom I de
not often agree, that "We mnst !-not allow any class
to be run down by specious generalities, or because they
are the possessors of the land." The only fair line you
can draw is to endeavour to treat all classes justly;whether
they derived their income from trades or professions, or
money in the funds or on the land—not taking int,
account their merits as members of the community.—
(Cheers.) But the Hon. Gentleman said that it
would hive ibeen some consolation to him if there had
been an attempt to make an adjustment. I stated before
that my Right Hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche
quer and myself attempted to discover by what mode we
could make this tax more equal, but we could;not find any
which we could adopt, for in:remedying one hardship, we
would have created, perhaps, another, and we ghouls
have been obliged to give way in cases where it was
necessary that we should not.—(Cheers.) And having
come to that decision, we would have been deserting our
duty to this house and the country had we done other-
wise than we have.—(Hear, hear.) It is therefore not
true, that we have attempted to render the tax less ob
noxiously unequal.—(Cheers.) Passing from this im
mediate consideration, I find that the Noble Lord the
Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) supports the mo-
tion of the Honourable Member for Montrose. He con-
siders that it is better to leave this plan of direct taxa
tion and to resort to indirect. Now if it is right to re-
impose indirect taxation, let the people of this country
have an opportunity of getting rid of the tax which they
feel to be a burthen, in a fair manner and after discus-
sion. But let the Noble Lord remember that anything
which is to give the trading classes relief must le
immediate; his vote to-night, which reimposes the
tax for one year, will not give that immediate benefit.
A year hence, and the trader will not find this such
a grievous burden, and then I think if the Noble Lora
makes his proposition to the House, if he proposes the
alternative, instead of having a majority to support
him, he will find himself in a considerable minority.—
(Hear, hear.) I wish to ask the Noble Lord, does he
think it really wise to proceed in his proposition?
proposed in 1841 a fixed duty on corn, and a differential
one of twelve shillings on sugar. Many who objected
to that as ruinous, now ask for something less than an
eight-shilling duty on corn, and something less than a
differential duty of twelve shillings upon sugar. What
Iceesidered a splendid advance in 1841, I would con-
sider a retrograde movement in 1848.—(Cheers.) But
there is more in this question. Parliament has passed
an Act, by which, in February, 1849, only nominal ;
duties are set upon corn. 'Would it be wise for Parlia-
ment to declare at this moment that they meant to in.
troduce a perpetual tax upon food? Would it be wise to
raise the price of bread? Would it be a course which
Parliament would adopt with any hope that the
people of this country would sympathise with them
in such a course of legislation? I myself believe that
a fixed duty upon corn would not materially affect
its price. In this opinion I concur with Mr. Jones Loyd.
But I think it would be madness to leave it in the power
of agitators, and those who would take advantage of the
opportunity to say that Parliament had raised the price
of corn upon the people of this country.—(Cheers.) The
lion. Member for Somersetshire has taken a view just
and fair upon this subject. In his opinion we have not
given our system a fair trial. His opinions remain
unchanged, but still he believes that a fair trial has not
been given. There may come a time, Ido not say that
there shall come a time, when his opinions may find
favour in this House and with the people. But lam
quite sure that a majority of the people, and a majority
of this House, would resist any attempt to introc:uct
a duty on corn.—(Cheers.) I now come to the alter-
native proposition of the Honourable Member for
Montrose. The Honourable Member for Southwark
(Sir William Molesworth) said that taking the surplus
of 1846, and the deficiency of 1848, and comparing them
together, they would find that the present Government
had increased the estimates by six millions. Nothing
more extravagant, in the way of deduction, did I
ever hear; and I must say such a statement exceedingly-
astounded me. I find that taking the estimates of the
present year, we have increased, or propose to increase
them, by twelve hundred thousand pounds; and the
whole addition since the Government of the Right Hon.
Baronet, has only been one million and a-half. The
Hon. Member for Southwark had taken the average for
five years, counting from the year 1841 to 1845, whereas
he should huve counted from 1845 to 1846, Is it ira-

possible, hoNever, to make such a reduction in our est
mates as will enable its to dispense with the the income
tax?—(hoar, hear)---that is the question, and to that 1
give the moat decided negative.—(Cheers.) Our genera
proposition to the House, in order to cover our deficiency
for the present year, was 5 per cent. for two years—the
proposition was withdrawn in obedience to the wishes to
the House; but we do consider it necessary to ask for 3
per cent. for not less than three years. Hoping that at
the end of the years 1849 and 1850 we may by our sur
plus be able to cover any deficiency of the present year
Looking at the question in that light, I can see n.
reason to hope for such a reduction in the taxation of the
country as will enable us to dispense with this tax. We
proposed this tax when everything appeared tranquil
but at the same time I did not take unto myself the gift
of prophecy—l even adverted to the famous instance to
Mr. Pitt. If we look back to the history of those time:
we shall find that neither his masterly understandieg
nor the acute nor energetic mind of Mr. Fox, nor tee
philosophic observation of Mr. Burke, enabled any one
of those great men to say what would be the issue o!
those extraordinary scenes from 1790 to 1799. Suci
being the case, I would not at any time prophesy what
would be the polical events of any three years or an)
one year, but least of all would I do so at the present
moment.—(Loud cheers.) There were some who wen.
of opinion that property was so divided in that country
that at some time or another it would form itself into
a Republic. There were others who considered that
when the reigning King should die, great trouble would
come to pass in that kingdom; but there was no mai
who expected that within a few weeks a monarch)
which seemed so firm should have vanished lik,
a mist, leaving nothing of what once appears,
so strong and powerful. But, at the same time.
no man can venture to say what the times may
bring forth--(Hear, hear)—and, for one, I will nut
consent to disarm.—(Cheers.) I will not consent to re-
duce the estimates of the navy and army in the present
state of Europe.—(Loud and long continued cheering.)
Mind, I say again, that I may not be misrepresented, as
I think I have been before, I say this with every wisl.
to see the peace of Europe and of the world preserved,
and seeing nothing immediately before us which is to
endanger that peace.—(Loud cheers.) But I do sa)
that it is the part of wise and prudent men, while every-
thing is uncertain, not to affect security, while there is
darkness around us, not to pretend that we are walking,
in the broad daylight.—(Loud cheers.) For these rea-
sons, therefore, I can neither agi ea to the proposition of the
Noble Lord to consent to take the income-tax for one
year, in order that we may re-impose a permanent tea
on corn and on raw cotton; nor can I assent to the pro-
position of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Mon-
trose and agree to the income-tax for one year, that we
may prepare the way for a great reduction in the
permanent amount of our naval and Military estimates.
—(hear, hear.) Sir, various subjects have been
broached and various topics have been alluded
to in the course of this debate upon which 1
need only very slightly touch. Some Hon. Gentlemen
have proposed that our colonies should be reduced in
number, and some of them abandoned.—(Hear, hear.)
I only beg Hon. Gentlemen not to make up their minds
on that question without the most serious consideration.
—(Hear, hear.) I have always considered our colonies
as a part of the strength of this empire. I may be mis•
taken in that view, but if shey are a part of the strength
of this empire, I say that I am not the person who would
willingly, from any notions of economy and retrench-
ment, reduce any pert of that strength. If it be the
choice of England to descend to a lower scale among the
nations—to say that she has been too long powerful,
that she wishes no longer to influence the destinies of
the world, and will henceforth be content with playing a
humbler part—it is for this country, if it so chooses to
say so, to carry its determination into effect—only let
toe not be the instrument.—(Loud and long-continued
cheering)—let me not be the instrument for carrying
into execution a policy which I thiek would be a degra-
dation to the couufry whose glory has so long been m)
pride. Sir, other gentlemen have recommended,
and with, I think, far more reason, that the taxation of
this empire should be revised.—(Hear, hear.) I think
there could he no better task for any Government than
to go through the various taxes, and endeavour to lessen
their burden, and to make their pressure more equal and
more just.—(Hear, hear.) But that I should undertake
that in any set time—far less in the course of a year—
that my Right Hon. Friend near me would be ready with
a plan for the purpose—would surely be to show great
presumption on my part. Take, for example, the De•
partment of the Stamps alone, and let any gentleman go
through the Acts upon the subject, and let him see how
many questions arise upon them. No doubt we might
frame in any recess a measure with regard to the stamp
daties, but the whole of the session which would come
after would have to be devoted to that subject alone.
Such is the complexity, such the intricacy of our estab-
lished system. At the same time I williugly allow
that there are many faults, many inequalities in our
present plan of taxation, and some of them I hope we
may be able to remedy in the course of no very long
time. But I again say, that as to any distinct pledge
that I will have a plan ready cut and dry by February
next, if I remain Minister so long, I say, Sir, that such
a pledge it would be rash indeed in me to give.-
-(Hear, hear.) With regard, then, to this whole ques-
tion :it appears ',es me that if this ouse should think
tit to vote that they would have an income-tax only for
one year, instead of three years, and that, in the present
state of our finances, after we have given up two per
cent. which we thought, and which we still think it
would have been for the honour and the advantage of
this country to permit to be imposed—if, under these
circumstances, this House should thick fit to vote the
income- tax for only one year, and to do so after the
speeches which have been made during this discussion,
then I do say, notwithstanding the assurances of the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, and the
lion. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of
Yorkshire, that we are endangering the credit of this
country.—(hear, hear.) I could imagine, if there were
a large party formed either for the purpose of restoring
the system of protection which formerly had a majority
in this House amongst the Representatives of the people,
or if a large majority were to spring up in favour
of a large reduction in our annual expenditure, then 1
could conceive—although I think that neither of these
courses is wise—that the public credit could be pre-
served. But in the actual circumstances of the ease,
what is the conclusion at which the House will arrive ?
Is there any at which it can ?—(Hear, hear.) The
lion. Member for Montrose has already put to the
House the question of whether it was fitting to make a
large reduction in our naval and military estimates, and
he could hardly command sixty votes; while if the
:Coble Lord the Member for Lynn were to try the
question of protection, I suppose he would have more
than that number of supporters, but he could not expect
to have a majority of that House. You would thus be
establishing no system ire rejecting our proposition. In
the place of the plan of Government, you would only
have uncertainty and confusion.—(Hear, hear.) But
the lion. Member for the West Riding says we should
have a permanent income-tax arranged upon a just
;noting. Well, Sir, the Hon. Member for Cockermouth
haadproonplyoslit4ir Members with him, against
as I have heard on that
the question, so that the
lion. Member for the West Riding cannot expect his
hooedther side of
13ontliplabilnieeicootana'sbttouhgteboe adopted. I must say, then, that in such a
state of thing e, if this House were to refuse to the Go-
vernment that which it thinks necessary for the public
credit of this country, that then it would be disgraceful
Crown.—(Loud calffieaeirrss,.)
for that Government any longer to remain Ministers of
We must, so long as we'
endeavour to carry them on
.n such a manner as that the public welfare shall be con
suited, and it is quite evident, according to our opinion,
that the public welfare would not bo consulted, but that,
on the contrary, it would be deeply injured by such a
elhaerrCyr: nti;
decision as that which I have alluded to.—(llear.) It
has, however, pleased the lion. Member for Sunderland,
snd some other lion. Members, to put their votes almost
upon this ground—" The proposition may not be a very
wise one, but we feel no confidence in Government.
We see no reason for supporting it, and therefore
we will vote for the araendneent." Well, Sir, that
may be a just opinion of the Hon. Gentlemen who
entertain it ; but I must beg, before I conclude, to
,tats to the House what I think has been our posi-
tion, and what I think have been the difficulties
with which we have had to contend. These, Sir, have
b
ignorant of the mode of carrying on public busi-
neees
ill ay difficulties,that
the making of a Govern-
mentthe total failure of the food
of five millions of persons was a trifling calamity.—
(Hear, hear.) We tried to meet that calamity by giving
been no
Igo
rtoilince,ia A 1 ,
the utmost freedom to the importation of food—by a mea-
sure which succeeded beyond expectation, and which
sad the effect of introducing into this country an amount
of food never equalled in any previous years, and that
while the whole of Europe was suffering from scarcity—
(Hear, hear)—at the same time, when we acted as an
exception to the general rule and principle, and for many
months provided for the sustenance of more than three
millions of people. But, although that proceeding was
against ordinary rule, still I think that it is capable of
defence t but I will not detain the House by any reason-
ing upon the subject, because a gentleman who was
mainly instrumental in giving . order and method to the
scheme has in a clever and admirable manner given to the
public all the details of the subject,—(Cheers.) But,
Sir, we have lately had another evil to contend with in
the same part of the United Kingdom ; we have had to
contend against the practice of assassination, against
murderous conspiracies extending through the country,
end overbearing all law and order.—(Hear, hear.)
['hese evils have been met, partly by a law of very mild
character passed through Parliament before Christmas,
partly by the vigorous administration of the ordinary
penal code. I believe that under that administration
judges and juries have admirably performed their duties
—(Cheers)—and that there has been no failure either in
adducing evidence or obtaining convictions against those
iniscreants who were guilty of those cruel acts.—(Hear,
hear, and cheers.) So far, then, Sir, Government has
been successful in meeting s great evil. It is true that
we were told by one Honourable Gentleman to-night,
and he gave it almost as his reason for voting against
us, that " the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was gagging
the people."—(Loud Laughter.) Sir, I appeal to any
man who has looked at the Irish newspapers—(Cheers
end laughter) —so far from gagging the people,
so far from preventing the free expressisn of the
public voice, I believe that treason was never
opeuly professed with such audacity.—(Tremendous
cheering, which drowned the remainder of the sentence.)
But, Sir, if it shall please this House not to agree to the
motion of the Honourable Gentleman the Member for
:Montrose, if power is to remain in our hands, if my
Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home
Department and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland are still
to wield the powers of the law in Ireland, I trust that
we shall be able to meet these expressions of sedition—
(Loud and lon„econtinued cheering)—these determina-
tions to join any enemy, whoever he may be, who ,as
We understood the Noble Lord) refuses to bow to the
,Sovereign of this country--that we shall be enabled to

out down these conspiracies, and to maintain, for the
welfare of the people of Ireland, that supremacy of
;SW and order without which they cannot hope to ins-
erove in industry, in civilization, in morals, or in reli-
eion.—(Loud cheers.) Such at least will be our attempt.
We are not blind to the difficulties of our situation.
We are not unaware of the perils which may surround
'l4 on every side; but if we have the confidence of this
House, we may hope to meet and surmount them.—
(Cheering.) If we are not honoured with that con-
fidence, we can only hope that the administration of
tffairs may be placed in hands better calculated to carry
en these affairs to the welfare and prosperity of her Ma-
jesty and her dominions.—(The Noble Lord resumed his
seat amid loud cheering.)
Mr. WAKLEY rose and attempted to address the
House, but the incessent cries of " Divide" prevented
his obtaining a hearing. At last the Hon. Member was
understood to move that the Chairman should report
progress.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER en-
treated the House to give the Hon. Member a hearing,
as a great public inconvenience might result if the di
vision were postponed beyond that evening.
Mr.WAKLEY resumed—He trusted that, a 3 no Mem-
ber for a metropolitan borough had as yet spokes on the
question, the House would not refuse him its attention for
a few moments. The Noble Lord at the head of the
Government had intimated to the House in distinct
terms that if the motion of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose were carried the Government would resign. He
(Mr. Wakley) had always looked upon such intimations
as most unconstitutional.—(oh, oh.) The Noble Lord
knew very well that there were many Hon. Members of
that House to whom it would not be very convenient to
meet their constituents at the present moment, and
therefore he made sure of their votes if this threat should
he believed.—(Hear, hear.) If he disagreed with the
Noble Lord now, the Noble Lord must not blame him,
seeing that he had been convinced by the Noble Lord's
Arguments in 1842 and IS4s.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member, having quoted some passages from Hansard,
proceeded to say, that although he opposed the Govern.
vent on the question of the income tax, he did not dis-
approve of their Irish policy. They certainly were not
gagging the Irish people. All he asked was, that the
same license should be extended to the people of this
country. The Noble Lord had received immense cheer-
ing from the opposite side of the House; but the Noble
Lord's Government would not stand long if he acted so
as to please the Tory, or as he (Mr. Wakley) called it,
the really Destructive party.—(" Oh," from the Opposi-
sition.) The Noble Lord might depend upon it they
were only laughing at him.—(Hear, hear.) One of the
ablest amongst them had called the Government a weak
Government—a bad Government—one which had com-
mitted the most extraordinary mistakes in monetary
matters, and had, in everything else, shown the greatest
incapacity. But if that Hon. Gentleman were anxious
to see the Government do their duty, he should
give them a short term, not three years, over which
to idle away their time. The income-tax had not now
the recommendation it had in the Right Hon. Baronet's
time; it was no substitute for taxes removed, or burdens
taken off the people. But at present that House was not
taking a right course with regard to the masses. An
impression prevailed out of doors that they were indif-
ferent to the sufferings of the working people.—(Oh, oh.)
Did they tax themselves in the same proportion as they
taxed the working people ?—(Hear, hear.) Look at the
tax on beer. Why it was nonsense to talk of free trade
in a country where the farmer was not allowed to menu
t'acture his own malt under a duty of Bs. in every 20s.
:le believed that were it not for the duty the working
man could get his beer for three-halfpence a quart.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord should help the working
people, who had helped him in former struggles. All he
asked for them was justice, but that he believed they
would not get until they were more fully represented in
That lliiiise.—(llear, hear, and cries of "Question.")
lie thought taat this income tax should not be
conceded for three years until its objectionable
provisions were modified. The treatment which
a late Member of that House (Mr. Fielden, of
013 ham) had received from the Income tax Com-
missioners was well known. His firm was assessed as
for profits amounting to 12,0001. per annum, but though
on oath Mr. Fielden had sworn that for three years they
had not realised any profit, the goods were seized and
sold for the duty, and he had never been enabled to ob-
tain from the parties who had made the seizure any ac-
count of the sum the sale had realised. If such had been
the treatment which a Member of that House had
experienced, what must bo that shown towards men in
humbler circumstances?—(Loud cries of " Divide.")
Not a single Member of the Government had assigned
any reason why the tax should be continued longer than
for one year; and he contended that the Government,
observing the course of events, ought to take the expen-
diture of the country into their consideration. The sala-
ries of all the officers of state ought to be reduced, and he
invited the Noble Lord at the head of the Government to
take as an example a neighbouring nation—one of the
first countries in Europe—which was about to send an
ambassador here with a stipend of 4001. per annum.—
(Renewed cries of " Divide," and considerable interrup-
tion.) He (Mr. Wakley) had no doubt that he was in-
terrupted by some of the juvenile branches of the aris-
tocracy, who were only just out of their leading strings,
and yet, by some strange means, had obtained seats, and
had the power of making asinine noises in that House.
—(Laughter and cries of !") lie would no,
trespass further, as he should have many future oppor-
tunities of speaking some truths against a tax which was
most unequal and unjust in its operation, and which the
people were resolved should not be sustained.
Mr. MUNTZ said he had listened with great atten-
tion to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)
in the hope that he would give him (Mr. Mints) some
excuse for ♦oting with the Government on the present
occasion ; but he was bound to say that the Noble Lord
had not furnished him with the slightest reason
that it was absolutely necessary that it should be
imposed for the term of three years. The Noble
Lord had said, if it was not granted, he and the Go-
verntnent would go out. As far as he (Mr. Muntz) was
concerned, they might go out—(A laugh)—for, with all
respect for the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, he thought there were other
men besides them who could conduct the affairs of this
country. It would be a lamentable thing to think
otherwise. On this occasion, the recommendation which
ought to be regarded was that of the people and the
mercantile community, and with them he concurred
that unless its vexatious and inquisitorial character was
removed, the impost would be as much objected to as ever.
It was said that the majority of the Goveanment would
to-night be swelled by the votes of Irish Members. If
such was the case, he (Mr. Muntz) should do all in his
power to fasten the tax upon them.—(Hear, hear.) He
would not say more, except that he should give his
vote in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for
Montrose.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP,Iamidst loud cries of " Divide,"
expressed his determination to support the motion of
the lion. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and on a
future occasion in favour of a proposition intended to be
made, that Ireland should take her share in the burden
of the income-tax,
Mr. G. THOMPSON addressed the House amidst
the loudest manifestations of impatience, and cries for a
division. The Hon. Member, on behalf of his cuesti-
tuents, protested against the continuance of the income-
tax, and still more against its continuance in its present
unjust and unequal form. It would increase the dis-
content and dissatisfaction which already existed out of
doors. He should vote with the Hon. Member for
Montrose, and lie trusted that the division would show
that a large body of the Members of that House sym-
pathised with the views and wishes of the people.
Mr. C. PEARSON arose amidst loud cries of " Di-
vide." He represented a constituency of 4,800 persons,
and if the House would listen to him quietly for four
minutes and eight-tenths, he undertook to finish by that
time.—(Hear, hear.) The subject was nearly exhausted.
They had wandered from Dan to Beersheba, and had
exhausted all the topics.—(Laughter.) He had pre-
sented a petition against the income-tax, signed by a
snore numerous and respectable assemblage than had
ever yet been collected at the Horns Tavern.—(Laugh-
ter.) The petitioners expressed their opinion that the
income-tax was unnecessary, unjust, oppressive, and
iniquitous, and on all those grounds they had requested
him to oppose it. He should do so in every stage of its
progress. He would only support the motion of the
lion. Member for Montrose, because he considered that
the infliction of the tax for one year was better than
three. He would take no part in any factious opposi-
tion to the Government, but still he should feel it to be
his duty to persist on all occasions to assert his opi-
nions on the tax, even should it be necessary to divide
the House.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Hume's motion ... 138
Against it ... ••• ... 363
Majority in favour of the Government —2'25
The House resumed, and the Chairman reported pro-
gress and asked leave to sit again.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
The House went into Committee pro forma on this
Bill, when the Bill was ordered to be reprinted with
amendments.
BOROUGH POLICE SUPERANNUATION FUND
BILL.

This Bill went through Committee, and the report was
ordered to be received this day (Tuesday).
On the motion of Mr. REYNOLDS certain returns
were ordered connected with the commissioners for pav-
ing, lighting, and cleansing the streets of Dublin.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.
On the motion of Sir B. HALL, copies were ordered
"of the original estimate for alterations of the line of
buildings situate between the Horse Guards and
Downing-street, giving the whole in detail, with the
names of the architect, and the parties contracting, and
a copy of the specification on which the contract was
made; also a return of the whole of the actual cost, given
in detail, and the amount of architects', surveyors', and
other salaries, showing the amount paid to each person,
and to whom paid."
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS
BIHA
Mr. ANSTEY begged leave to move that the second
reading of the Roman Catholic Charitab portedsts Bill,
which stood for Wednesda7 next, be post until the
first Wednesday after Laster, in order to give an
opportunity to the Honourable and Learned Member for
Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) to proceed with his Bill on
defective recognizances before Election Committees
that day.
The Bill was accordingly postponed until Wednesday,
the 3d of May next.
The House then adjourned at a quarter before One
o clock.

THE SPEAKER S LEVEE.—The ItiOlt Hon. the
Speaker of the House of Commons gave his first levee
this session on Saturday night, at his temporary official
reaidonco in Eaton-squaro.