The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-09 00:00:00

jøflflgf

LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1851.

In the House of Lords, last night,
The Apprentices and Servants Bill was read a third
time and passed, after some opposition from Lord BEAU-
MONT, the Duke of RICHMOND, and Lord PORTMAN.
Their Llrdships, after the presentation of some peti-
tions, adjourned.

In the Commons,
Mr. 11. B.AILLI postponed his motion on Ceylon, to
E
the 27th May.
Mr. CAYLEY then, according to notice, moved foe the
repeal of the malt tax.
Mr. ALCOC and Mr. FLOYER supported the motion,
and Mr. PACHE and Mr. A GLIONBY opposed it.
Mr. SEYMOUR, in opposing the motion, denied the ex-
istence of distress among the agricultural labourers to
the extent stated. There was scarcely an able-bodied
labourer to be found in many of the unions in his district.
Mr. P. BENNET, Mr. FREWEN, and Mr. H. DRUM-
MOND supported the motion, which was opposed by Mr.
TnELAWNY, Mr. WODEHOUSE, and Mr. SANDARS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the
motion. After having voted the income-tax for only one
year, they could not repeal the malt-tax. It was a
tax easily collected, and no substitute could be found
for it.
Mr. DISRAELI, being in favour of repealing all spe-
cial burdens which pressed upon the agriculturist,
would support the motion.
Mr. HUME could not understand why the people should
not have cheap beer as well as cheap bread. tie should
support the motion.

Mr. BASS wouldnot only support the motion, but
should it fail he would at a future day move that half
,the tax be taken off.
Mr. BROTHERTON doubted whether the repeal of the
tax would be followed by beneficial effects.
Mr. HENLEY and the Marquis of GRANBY supported
the motion, from the impression that the repeal of the tax
would give a certain amount of relief to the agricultural
interest.

LordJomc RUSSELL reminded the House that if they
voted for the present motion, a deficiency of upwards of
five millions would be created in the revenue without any
means of supplying it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 122
Against it .. 258
Majority against the motion —136

Mr. COWAN Obtaijed leave to bring in a Bill, regu-
lating the admission to secular chairs in the Scotch
Universities.

Mr. HUMS mound for a Select Committee to inquire
into the present modo of assessing and collecting the
income-tax and property-tax, and to consider whether
any other system of levying the same, so as to render
the tax more equitable, can be adopted.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the question one of great
importance, and hoped Mr. HUME would take a more
convenient time for its discussion.

Mr. HuaiE said it was understood that the motion
was as a matter of course to be agreed to after the de-
ciEion of a former evenirg.
Mr. S. HERBERT said there was great objection to
the Committee, the object of which was to have an in-
quiry, in order to see if it could not be made so far
equitable as to become a permanent Eource of revenue.

After some observations from Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr.
STAMFORD, Colonel SIBTHORP, Mr. SLANEY, and Sir
T. D. ACLAND,

Lord J. RUSSELL said that Mr. HUME had always
stated his objet very fairly, and he thought the whole
country would be disappointed if an inquiry were not en-
tered into in conformity with the motion which he had
carried a few nights ago. The country expected that
an inquiry should take place as to whether the tax could
not be made more equitable, and he should, therefore,
certainly vote for the motion of Mr. HOME.
Mr. DISRAELI said he would not, be a party to oppo-
sing the Committee after the understanding which he
thought prevailed in the House on the former evening.
After some observations from Sir G. CLERK,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he thought
the House was morally bound to the appointment of the
Committee.
The motion was then agreed to without a division.
On the motion for the nomination of the Committee
to inquire into our relations with the Kafirs.
Colonel DUNNE complained that no Irishmen had
been appointed on the Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the omission was accidental,
but Mr. DUNDAS would retire if CoL DUNNE wished to
serve.

A desultory discussion ensued, which was ended by
Mr. KEOGH moving the adjournment of the debate,
which motion was rejected by 131 to 16.
The Committee a as then nominated, with the excep-
tion of three Irish Members, whom Lord JouN Rus-
SELL said he would name on Monday, and the House
adjourned.

We have anxiously looked forward to the nomina-
tion of the Special Committee on the property and
income-tax ; ht our anxiety was limited to the com-
position of that Commir.tee, on which it would de-
pend whether the promised investigation would be
really beneficial to the country or would degenerate
into a mere farce. We never thought that any ques-
tion could now be raised as to whether such an inquiry
should take place or not. That we had sup-
posed was clearly decided by the success of
Mr. Humes amendment. If ever the House was
morally pledged on any subject, it was that a strin-
gent and searching scrutiny should be instituted into
the entire system, and that a tribunal, consisting of
persons selected by the representatives of the people,
in whose ability and integrity they could repose un-
limited confidence, should, after due investigation,
report whether there was any real foundation for the
assertion that no equitable adjustment of the
impost, or even any approximation thereto, could
possibly be arrived at, and whether the present
unequal, oppressive, and inequitable assessment was an
essential attribute of the system, that could not pos,
sibly be averted.
It was, therefore, with the utmost astonishment
that we heard the Right Honourable Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford last night de-
clare that the question of inquiry "lisi not yet been
debated," and that "it was not included in the pro-
position which the Honourable Member for Montrose
had induced the House to adopt." Never was
there a more unwarranted statement put for-
ward. Even FERDINAND MENDEZ PINTO would have
hesitated before venturing to put forward an assertion
that could be so easily disproved, and MUNCIIAUSEN
would have blushed at so common-place and unro-
mantic a specimen of mendacity. Not only the
Journals of the House, but the printed lists, placed in
the hands of every Member, and circulated on the
wings of the Press throughout the length and breadth
of the land, gave the " lie direct" to his statement,
and proved what was the point really decided on the

division of the 2d of May, when Ministers were left in

a minority of 14. In order to remove any doubt that
may be entertained on the subject, we copy from the
Votes the notice of motion given by the veteran
JOSEPH HUME :
"Mr. Hume--To move to limit the duration of the tax
to one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry by,
a Select Committee into the mode of assessing and col-
lecting the tax; and whether the injustice of levying
the same rate of charge upon terminable and perpetual
annuities, and upon fluctuating and varying incomes
from trades and professions as upon fixed incomes from
real property, cannot be greatly modified or altogether
removed."

There can be but one excuse for Mr. GLADSTONE.
lie did not think proper to take any part in the dis-
cion or vote on the division ; and he might,
therefore, have been, in some degree, misled by the
mightivea
that
it
spveeocuhres that fell from some of those who divided in
favour of the amendment. The Marquis of GRANDY
supported the proposition because he con-
ceived
of getting might give him a more speedy prospect
rid of the tax altogether, end thus
retrograding a
monopoly. Mr. ue stepn towards the resuscitation of
e r ss
Mr. MILES, and ethers,
might have been actuated 4 by
reasons i
mtihl aart t h
vi cessy• s
m. a Buty th i wn
think
deny the right of
any
yheoPn to change the character
of a resolution by
proper to put forward in its support. That character
can only be interpreted by the terms of the notice
itself, by which all parties supporting it must be bound.
You cannot travel beyond the four corners of the do-
cument, and for obvious reasons. If it were possible
to do so, there could be no certainty
y- is
of any result. Two cr three mischievous] d•
posed
individuals could set aside any resolution by declar-
ing that they only voted for it on grounds totally dis-
tinct from those put forward in the notice or by the
proposer himself. " Crosses " or " throws over," as
they are styled in the language of " the fancy,"
would be of daily occurrence, and the business of the
country would be thrown into the utmost con-
fusion. There would be a stop to any beneficial le-
gislation.

The Right Honourable Gantlemon also put forward
another argument of such unparalleled absurdity
that it occasioned general murmurs in the House.
He declared that "it appeared to him that there

was great reason to fear that the appointment of
such a Committee might amount to- no less than
this—the appointment of a Committee whether we
would or would not keep faith with the proprietor
of the public funds !" What does keeping faith
with the fundholder imply ? Is it that all others
must submit to plain, direct, and unvarnished rob-
bery—that they must surrender their fleeces to the
shearers without venturing to remonstrate, lest it might
be thrown in their teeth, that any complaint would
be considered a breach of faith to their taskmasters ?
Never did we hear such transparent folly, such un •
mitigated nonsense put forward gravely by a man
affecting any degree of common sense. Colonel
Sin•rxoEP might possibly carry his eccentricity with
respect to the Crystal Palace, and the probable
results of the Exhibition of all Nations, to
an extravagant point. The Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber, however, conceals much shrewdness under his ap-
parent eccentricity. His object frequently is to
excite a laugh, and it is but justice to say that he is emi-
nently successful. But Mr. GLA DSTONE deliberately
and solemnly, with grave aspect, and serious purpose,
exposes " the mare's nest " he has discovered, and
thinks that the isle is to be frighted from its pro-
priety by the mere suggestion that the inquiry may
possibly be whether we will or not keep faith with the
public creditor. We tell the Right Honourable
Gentleman that that faith has never been violated,
and that it can never be endangered save by attempts
to push it to such ridiculous extreme 3 as he has hinted,
rather than directly asserted. It may be considered
that money in the funds should be subjected to no direct
tax, from which any other description of accumulated
and realised property should be exempted, but that is
no reason why precarious and fluctuating incomes
derived from trades or professions should be placed
on the same foundation, or that the earners of the
latter should he compelled to pay forty or fifty
times as much, in proportion to their ac-
ual means, as the proprietors of the
former. We would emphatically caution the fund-
holders from recognizing such arguments, which may
be more dangerous to their real interests than any
which their worst enemies could adduce.

The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire acted
fairly and honourably; although opposed to the in-
come-tax as a permanent impost, and desirous of
bringing back protective duties, he felt that the ques-
tion had been virtually decided, and that the House
was pledged to the inquiry. His conduct on the oc-
casion, indeed, affords a striking contrast to that of
the Right Hon. WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE.