The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-12 00:00:00

the purpose of proving that there were peculiar burdens
on land. He wished only that the Ministry would during
the holidays reconsider their Budget.

Mr. LABOUCHERE contended that the modification of
the window duty would afford greater relief to the
farmer than either the alteration in the income-tax, pro-
posed by Mr. HERRIES, or the transference of certain
local burdens to the consolidated hind, as proposed by
the Hon. Member for Bucks. The true meaning of the
motion was a return to protection.
Mr. GLADSTONE considered the motion, had some con-
nexion with a return to protection, and be could not,
therefore, consent to enter into a discussion of the ques-
tion of the burdens on land until the question of protec-
tion should be finally set at rest. With regard to the
income-tax, he considered that unless some equitable
classification took place that tax could not be made per-
manent; and believing that the difficulties which stood
in the way of such classification were insuperable, he
regretted the large sacrifice which had been made by
exempting houses under the value of 201. a year from the
house-tax, as he considered that a louse-tax might be
substituted for an income-tax.
Mr. STAFFORD contended that the true meaning of
free trade was dear money.
Mr. A.Lcocie and Mr. SANDARS opposed the amend-
ment.
Lord JOHN MANNERS supported it.
Mr. BRIGHT denied that the owners of land bad suf-
fered or were suffering serious distress; and for the dis-
tress of the farmers the real remedies were, a fair ad-
justment of rents, improved methods of cultivation, and
the abolition of the game-laws. The loss experienced by
the farmer from the destruction of his crops by game was
greater than all the local burdens.
Mr. REYNOLDS supported the amendment to secure a
share in the booty of the surplus to the landed interest.
He should continue to vote against the Ministry, and
those Irish Members who did not so votet would receive
notices from their consauents. Free-trade had done no
good for Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the offers
he had made would not have been withdrawn if the
agriculturists themselves had not declared that the prof-
ferred boons were of no value. He declared that the
condition of the peasantry throughout England had been
benefitted by free-trade, and he defied his opponents to
show the contrary.
Mr. MILES and Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the
amendment, as did

Sir ROBERT PEEL, although he at the same time de-
clared himself a Free-trader.
Lord NORREYB opposed the amendment, which was
supported by Colonel SIBTHORP.
Lord JoHN RUSSELL said the resolutions on agricul-
tural distress were offered under false pretences. In the
House the idea of protection was denied, but cut of the
House the object of these motions was declared to be a
return to protection. He contended that the owners
and occupiers of land bad shared in the relief afforded
by the remission of taxation on articles of consumption
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL passed some strictures upon the
speech of Mr. REYNOLDS, to which Mr. KEOGH replied.
Sir T. D. ACLAND disclaimed any party motive for
the vote he designed to give in favour of the amendment.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL commented upon the speech of
Mr. KEOGH.

Mr. GRATTAN supported the amendment.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 250
Against it... ... 263
Majority for Ministers ... —l3
The House rose at a Quarter-past Two.

The Honourable Gentleman the Member for Buck-
inghamshire was last night placed in a false position.
On the preceding evening he had declared that " he
had no wish to propose an amendment to the
motion for the repeal of the window. tax,
nor was he prepared to oppose that repeal." He even
omitted the words "in the first instance" from his
amendment in order to prevent the pos►ibility of
misconception. But still we find the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER stating in the course of the debate
that "if the Hon. Member (Mr. DISRAELI) carried his
amendment, he (the CHANCELLOR, of the Ex-
CHEQUER) could not go into Committee, and
would not have an opportunity of repealing the
window-tax." Now this appears scarcely fair on
the part of the Right Honourable Baronet. It was
partly at his own suggestion that Mr. DISRAELI
selected the motion for going into Committee on the
house and window-tax as a fitting opportunity for
bringing forward his amendment. It should
properly have been proposed after the amendment
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member
for Stamford had been disposed of. It was as a
matter of convenience to the Government that Mr.
DISRAELI assented that the report on the resolution
that " the duties on profits arising from
property, professions, trades, and offices, should
be further continued for a time to be
limited," should be received, on the express under-
standing that the debate and the division on his
motion should be taken on Friday. The Premier
expressly stated that such a proceeding would be " a
convenient course ;" while the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER said that "on Friday, the Hon. Gentle-
man would have a full and fair opportunity of moving
his amendment on the question that the SPEAKER do
leave the chair, and then the Hon. Gentlemnn could, if
he wished, move the adoption of his proposition, instead
of the house and window-tax." It would under such cir-
cumstances appear to be an act but of common justice
and common courtesy to have stated that the effect
of the motion would, if successful, have been fatal to
the repeal of the window-tax, when the Protectionist
leader announced that he did not intend to oppose
that repeal, and not to have placed him in the invi-
dious light, and so far as the success of his proposi-
tion was concerned, the disadvantageous position of
being placed as the maintainer and advocate of that
iniquitous impost—the tax on light and air. Another
opportunity should have been afforded of fairly test-
ing the opinions of the House on the questions really
at issue between the Government and the Opposi •
tion. As it was, however, we can only look upon
it in the light of a " discreditable dodge," such as
we regret to say the excellent CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER is rather too fond of practising whenever
there is a prospect of a few stray votes being cap.
tured thereby in favour of his financial crotchets.
Notwithstanding this disadvantage, however, the
amendment was only rejected by the ominous num-
ber 13 ! The former motion of Mr. DISRAELI had
been negatived by 14, and the Premier declared that
the smallness of the majority on that occasion was
one of the principal causes that induced him to tender
the resignation of himself and colleagues to her
MAJESTY, and to sacrifice an exceedingly valuable
portion of time in the most important part of the
session. He, no doubt, then felt that it was " a
dangerous and disadvantageous thing for the country
that the Government should be liable to defeats,
having but a very small majority at any time, and
therefore carrying on a kind of lingering existence
during a great period of the session ;" and yet, when
restored to office through the weakness of his op.
ponents, rather than any renewed strength on
his own part, he declines to listen to the
voice of public opinion, or to accede' to the
reasonable demand of the country by consenting to
what has been admitted by men of all parties to be
a matter of absolute necessity—an Equitable adjust-
ment of the income-tax, and the removal of the gross
injustice now practised on the payers under Schedules
B, D, and E. He still regards the precarious earn-
ings of industry as being equivalent to dividends on
Three per Cent. Consols, or the rents of well-cir-
sumstanced real estates, and nothing but a decisive
defeat, leading to another resignation, will open his
eyes to the delusion under which he has laboured,
and which has been confirmed by the evil counsels
of his incompetent colleague.

As to the debate itself, Mr. DISRAELI was, as
usual, brilliant, eloquent, and witty. It is almost
unnecessary to say that he made the most of his case,
and that he exposed with cutting severity the incon•
sistencies and backslidings of his opponents. Indeed
looked, and
an opportunity was afforded which could not be over-
which must have told with powerful
effect, even in far less skilful hands. The admission
of agricultural distress contained in the Speech
from the Throne, deliberately and advisedly
placed by Ministers in the mouth of their
Royal Mistress, followed by measures of re-
lief, trifling indeed, but still put forward
and boasted of by Sir CHARLES WOOD as really
valuable, and the subsequent withdrawal of these
propositions on utterly inadequate grounds, afforded
a vantage ground to the Honourable Member of
which he was not slow to avail himself. A Cabinet
Minister—the head of a great and important depart-
ments perhaps we might say the most important
department of the Governnymt—should not have
evinced such littleness of disposition, such petty
spite, as to withdraw his own propositions because
they were not received with " bated breath and
deep humility," or with those loud expressions of
thanks and gratitude which he might have
expected from the magnitude of the boon. As the
Honourable mover of the amendment justly re-
marked—" Ministerial propositions should be the
result of grave counsels, of mature delibera-
tions, of Cabinet conference and communica-
tion, suggested by
a sense of public duty ; I