The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-08 00:00:00

et 4 entla f'llll

LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1851.

In the Honseaf Lord: last night,
The Mutiny rill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, and the
Apprentices and Servants Bill, were respectively read
a second time, and their Lordships adjuurncd.

In the House of Commons,
A new writ was ordered for the Leith Boroughs for
the election of a Member, in the room of Mr. RUTHER-
FORD, who had been appointed a Lord of the Court of
Session, Scotland.

On the requisition of the Chairman of the St. Alban's
Election Committee the SPEAKER issued warrants for
the apprehension of EDWARDS, HAYWARD, and WAG-
GETT, who had been guilty of contempt.
On the report of the C:;oamittee of Ways and Means
being brought up,

Mr. BERRIES rose, in pursuance of the notice he
had given, to propose an ameudment to the resolution
which had been read, and which was to the following
effect :—" That it is the opinion of this House that the
respective duties in Great Britain on profits arising
from property, professions, trades, and offices, and the
stamp duties in Ireland, granted by two Acts passed in
the sixth year of her present Majesty, and which have
been continued and amended by several subs( quent
Acts, were granted for limited periods, and ti meet
temporary exigencies ; that it is ihighly expedient to
adhere to the declared intentions of Parliament when
these duties were granted and continued ; and, in order
to secure their speediest practicable cessation, to limit
the renewal of any portion of them to such an amount as
may be sufficient, in the existing state of the public re-
venue, to provide for the expenditure sanctioned by Par-
liament, and for the due maintenance of przhlic credit."
The Right Hon. Gentleman entered at great length into
the financial bistery of the country during the last ten
years, and explained the reasons which had induced Sir
ROBERT PEEL to propose the imposition of an income-
tax in 1842. He then proceeded to qu-te at great length
from the speeches of Lord JOHN liussEnn, Sir F
RING, Lord HOWICK, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and Sir
CHARLES WOOD, against the imposition of the income-
tax when proposed by Sir ROBERT PEEL, and called upon
them to explain the reasons which bad induced them to
change their opinions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEitIIER replied that, in
1845, the income-tax had been renewed not in conjunc-
tion with, but as a substitute for import duties, and as the
basis of the great experiment of tree trade. Ho there-
fore, following the example of Sir R. PEEL, proposed its
renew al for three years, in order that they might continue
and carry out free-trade principles. He denied that he in-
tended to make it a permanent tax, but be would
rather see it permanent than consent to a re-imposi-
tion of the dutie! on corn.

Mr. PRINSEP supported the amendment.
Mr. F. PEEL supported the re-imposition of the in-
come tax for the purpose of carrying out the principles
of free trade; the proposition of the Hon. Mtmber for
Stamford was a retrograde step.
Mr. T. BARING, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. SPOONER, Mr.
REYNOLDS, Lord CLAIM HAMILTON, and Mr. SHARMAN
CRA.WPORD supported the amendment; and
Mr. J. WILSON, Mr. SLANEY, and Sir R. INGLIS were
in favour of the original proposition.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the original proposition 278
For Mr. BERRIES'S amendment 230
Majority for Ministers
The Designs Act Extension Bill was read a third time
and passed. _ _

The Apprentice Sea Service (Ireland) Bill went
through Committee, and the House resumed.
The House then went into Committee, when the AT-
TORNEY-GENERtL for IRELAND moved a resolution to
give compensation to certain officers of the Exchequer
Chamber (Ireland).
After a short discussion, Mr. KEocri moved that the
Chairman should report progress, when the House di-
vided, and the numbers were—

For the motion .. . 50
,Against it... ... 85
Majority against the motion ... -35
Mr. REYNOLDS moved that the Chairman leave the
chair.

After some discussion the Committee divided, when
therPd appeared—

For the motion 35
Again- t it... 77
Majority —42
Mr. KEOGH protested against proceeding further at
that late hour, and moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the House
adjourned at a Quarter past One.

The discussion and division of last night on Mr.
HERRIE9' amendment, cannot be received as fairly in-
dicating the state of public feeling on the important
question of the income-tax. A false issue has been
I raised; the real point his been carefully avoided on
either side. The people of England, while approving
of a direct tax on accumulated and realised property,
strongly objected to the unfair and unequal assess-
ment of the impost which placed the precarious earn-
ings of industry on the same foundation as the
dividends, interest, or annual produce of real or per-
sonal property. They desired an equitable adjustment
of the impost, not its removal ; they ap-
proved of the principle of direct taxation, but
not of direct taxation in the existing form.
The debate of last night could only he regarded,
therefore, as a species of sham fight, got up for the
purpose
diverting attention from the real
subject.
Mr. HERRIES made it to a cer-
of
cer-
tain extent a question of protection or no
cl strongly as we object to
protection ; and,
Sir CHARLES WOOD
the resolution proposed by
we must confess that we consider it as less objection-
able than that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Stamford—the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in posse of the
agriculturists. It is true
that he spoke of " the inequalities, fraud, and in-
justice" of the tax, but ho did not, on that account,
endeavour to render it more equitable, to remove that
portion of it which was objectionable, and retain
that which rested on a broader foundation. He
I did not propose to remit, or even to diminish,
the rates payable under Schedules D and E, but be
applied all the surplus to the reduction, not of the
charges on profits or earnings, but of all classes, with-