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

F ,tIDA EVENIN

taken altogether, there was any increase in the present
year upon theastirnal es of 1345. He thought the House
would not be prepared to melte to mske the great dimi-
nution suggested by the Hon. Member for Montroee,
and it appeared to him that the main reason for voting
against this motion was, that it would leave the finances
of the country in a ruinous condition—(Hear, hear)—
and that they would have no source from which they
could supply the loss of revenue.—(Cheers.)
Mr. CAYLEY, in reply, said that his quarrel with
the Noble Lord, who asked how the deficiency of
5,000,0001. in the revenue could be supplied, was that
since the repeal of the corn-laws they had already thrown
away 5,000,000!. This tax was most unjust and intolerable
in its operation, and he therefore demanded from that
House, in the name of justice, its repeal.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ..• 122
Against it ... ..•...258
Itlejority against the motion ... --136
SCOTIISII UNIVERSITIES.
Mr. COWAN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate the admission to the lay cr secular chairs in the
Scott::.) universitime
Mr. E. ELLICE seconded the motion.
Mr. F. teIAULE entirely approved of the provisions
of the Bill, and would he vvey glad to gire the Hen.
Member for Edinburgh any assistenee in his power in
carryieg it into effect.
Sir R. INeLIS opposed the motion. The object of
the Bill, after what had passed, was evident. It was to
eeperate the religious community of Scotland from the
professorial duties of the university; to provide that the
Professor of Mere! Philosophy, for instance, might be a
e, en of itity religion or of no religion. It was a ques-
tion into which lie would not then enter, whether this
would not be a violation of the Act of Union and the
rights of the Church.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the security upon
which the Hon. Baronet would rely was at all effective.
There was such a restriction that, if rigidly enforced, it
would prevent an Episcopalian, for instance, from being
a professor, and thus you might lose a most valuable and
learned man.--(Lear, hear.) He believed it had not
been, in fact, very rigidly enforced, but then, if so, it
was no test of value. Believing, generally speaking,
that these tests were no real security at all, he should
vote for the motion.— (Hear, hear.)
After a 12',V words from Mr. CLIARTERIS and Mr.
Foams, the motion was agreed to.
BOARD OF CUSTOMS.
Mr. MITCHELL moved that all the petitions pre-
sented that session complaining of the Board of Cut-
t stne be referred to a Select Committee on Cuetoms.—
Motion agreed toe
THE PROPERTY-TAX COMMITTEE.
Mr. HUME moved that a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to inqeire into the present mode of assessing and
collecting the income and property-tax, and to consider
whether any other system of levying the same, so as to
render the tax mere equitable, can be adopted. After
the long debate which had taken place, he hoped this
ivould be agreed to without further discussion.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought this a question of the
utmost importance, and one which had not yet been de-
bated, and ought not to be adopted without very full con-
sideration. It was not included in the proposition the
Hon. Member induced the House to adopt, and as he
(Mr. Gladstone) understood, many who supported him
in limiting the grant of the tax to a single year did so
inson other grounds entirely distinct and apart from those
of the Hon. Member, and by no means committing them-
selves to the ape ointment of a Committee; but, on the
contrary, highly disapproving of it.—(Hear, hear.) The
present was not a very convenient opportunity of discus-
wing such a question in the manner its gravity demanded;
but ho (Mr. Gladstone) would say that, independent of
many very serious dilliculties of detail and of lower
order,' 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 Com-
mittee to inquire whether we would or would not keep
faith with the proprietor of the public funds.— (Oh, oh!)
That was received as if it were something strange and
preposterous; but he was prepared to support it by rea-
sons.—(llear, hear.) He hoped the lion. Member would
not object to take a discussion upon the question upon
some more convenient occasion. He (Mr. Gladstone)
should be disposed to propose that the debate be
adjourned.
Mr. HUME had not been aware, from what passed
when the matter was mentioned before, that there was
any opposition to the motion, and could not conceive
that any act or word of his warranted the Right Hon.
Gentleman in supposing that he was not anxious to
keep faith with the public creditor.—(tlear, hear.) He
did not know that the House desired a discussion on the
subject, but the Right Hon. Gentleman could make any
observations when the names should be proposed.
Mr. S. HERBERT apprehended that the vote come
to was simply that the income-tax should last only for
one year. There was a strong objection to the creation
of a permanent incomestax as an habitual source of re-
venue.—(Hear, hear.) Ile did not think the question as
to the schedules, and the possibility of modification, was
gone into. The misunderstanding of the Hon. Member
as to the observation about keeping faith with the public
creditor proved the necessity of discussion; what was
desired was to show him that, having the strongest sense
of the importance of keeping faith with the public cre-
ditor, he was going to endanger it without being aware
of it.—(Hear.) The notion of discussing the principle
on the appointment of the names was puerile. It was
not becoming in the House to come to such a vote in the
dark, without having before it the reasons for and against
it; and it was then close to midnight.
Mr. AGLIONBY was reconciled to the vote he gave.
Though he desired to make the tax more equitable, he
voted against the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) because ho
saw by whom the Hon. Member was supported. It was
plain enough they did not vote in favour of an equitable
adjustment.—(Einar.) Did any man believe that there
would have bees a majority for the motion the other
night, if the question had not been viewed as a question
of the continuance cf the tax for one year with the view
of referring the subject to a Committee? The sole ob-
ject with which many Hen. Members voted for the mo-
tion was that an inquiry should take place—(Hear, hear)
—and he hoped, therefore, that the Hight Hon. Gentle-
man opposite would not raise a discussion as to appoint-
ing a Committee.
Mr. STANFORD had voted for the motion of the
Hon. Member for 'Montrose on Friday beCause he be-
lieved the tax as inquisitorial as it was an unpopular tax.
He preferred having it for one year to having it for three
years, which would have implied that it was to be a
permanent tam He repelled the imputation that those
with whom he acted made the question one of free trade
or of protection. It was a question of direct or of indi-
rect taxation; and he did not wish the tax to be made
more equitable with the view of being made permanent,
for he objected to it in tote.
Colonel SIBTIIORF inquired whether it was the in-
tention of the Hon. Member for Montrose, by the nomi-
tion of this Committee, to render the tax permanent?
Mr. HUME replied that it was not for him to say
whether the tax should be made permanent or not. The
House had decided to continue it for one year; he had
proposed a Committee of inquiry, and it would be for
the House afterwards to decide whether the tax should
be continued.
Mr. SLANEY thought it was manifest, from what had
passed, that the motive of the majority on the motion of
the Hon. Member for Montrose was as various as the
individuals of whom it was composeds--as various as the
contents of the beautiful fabric in Hyde-park.—(Divide.)
It seemed proper to uppoint a Committee, for the pur-
pose of seeing whether the tax could bo made •
more equi-
table or not.
Sir T. ACLAND had voted for continuing the tax
one year. He felt the difficulty arising from the objec-
tions to it on the ground of inequality, which would
increase with each renewal.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said what had passed to-
night had only confirmed the opinion he gave on Friday
night, that the House was incurring very great inconve-
nience in agreeing to the motion of his lion. Friend the
Member for Montrose, having a totally different view of
the steps that were to follow on that motion. But he
(Lord J. Russell) must say that his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Hume) had always clearly and distinctly stated the ob-
ject he had in view in that motion. His Hon. Friend
wished the tax to be limited for one year, for the pur-
pose of having an inquiry ; and he (Lord John Russell)
must say, the House having agreed to limit the tax to
one year, and his Hon. Friend having stated his object
to the inquiry, to see how far the tax could be made
more equitable, he thought the. whole country would
now be disappointed if that inquiry did not take place.
If the House did not agree to the motion for a Com-
mittee, when they came next year to consides the pro-
priety of continuing the tax, they would be in the same
position in which they were at present. But if the pro-
posed inquiry took place, objections could then be stated
to the operation of the tax, and plans suggested with a
view to modify what might be considered :Houseqties; at leaSt, such inquiry would give the some
meant of deciding whether they would continue the tax
for three years or one year, and with or without any
qualification. The Hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Dis-
raeli), although he gave his vote in favour of the limita-
tion of the tax to one year, thought the House could
not expect that it would be done away with immedi-
ately; and if it were continued, that it was desirable it
should be continued in a manner to show the country
that all had been done that could be done to render the
tax equitable.--(Hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) certainly
gave no opinion now whether his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Hume) should ask for his Committee at the present
time; but whenever he did move for that Committee, he
(Lord J. Russell) should certainly give his vote in fa-
vour of the motion.—(llear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said, whatever might be the motive
for the vote the House came to on Friday, he thought
they were morally pledged to tho appointment of this
Committee. He very much disapproved of transferring
the duties of the Government to Committees of that
House; and he had shown his disapprobation of such a
course on a previous occasion, by calling or adivisicre ee
the Salaries committee. lie thought that subscqtent
experience would have confirmed the House in the pro-
priety of the course ho took on that occasion. With
regard to the present Committee, the Noble Lord (Lord
J.liussell) rather raisuncierstood the observation which
he made the other night. He ( \lr. Disraeli) was aware
that the general feeling of those who voted was, that
although the proposition of the Honourable Member
for Montrose was merely to substitute one for three
Kira as the duration of this tax, virtually it
was in favour of a Cemmittee; and, es far as his (Mr.
Mr. Disraelee) vote was concerned, he should mak° no
attempt to get rid of the Comtnittee.—(!lsar, hear.)
Sir G. CLERK said, under the terms of an Act of
Parliament, every shilling of the public debt had been
borrowed, and by the course they were about to pursue
they would place the creditor under Schedule I) in a
more unfavourable position than that in which he stood
at present. He thought, therefore, that was a point
which ought to be especially guarded against before the
Committee was appointed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER laid he

did not think anybody would suppose that he was parti-
cularly favourable to the appoir.tment of a Committee to
invire into this subject.—(Laughter.) He had stated
distnetly on a former occa:don, that he did not see that
much good was likely to result from a Committee.
Having premised that, he could only say he thought the
House was morally committed to the appointment of a
Committee. He felt that a sacred duty rested with the
House to take care that they kept inviolable faith with
the public creditor.—(Hear, hear.) The motion of his
Hon. Friend the Member for Montroso was for a Select
Committee to inquire into the present mode of assessing
and collecting the income and property-tax, and to con-
sider whether any other system of levying the same, so
as to render the tax more equitable, could be adopted.
There was not one word in the terms of his Hon.
Friend's motion which implied the slightest breach of
faith with the public creditor.—(Hear, hear.)
The motion was then agreed to without a division.
On the motion of Mr. FORSTER, Mr. Torment was
added to the Committee on Customs, in the room of Mr.
Fagen