The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

T _ll E SUN, . LONDON ~

Ate. DUNCOMBE—Bat what about the releript?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it woe quite clear that even
IF fee consented to discuss the pre arable it would 'wed to
t,r thing practical, for then the Hon. Member for Fins-
ul try would ask fur the rescript. If, then, they laid the
t.t script upon the table thu Hun. Member would ask for
.
e authority to prove it to be the one upon which they
~,11'! are legislating. Why, when they were discussing the
tl.l of 1829 he might as well have asked for the proof
y. the fact of certain Roman Catholic bishaes assuming
scopal titles in England and Ireland. Why as to the
to, , .
Ann the matter was notorious, and required not any
Utter a few words from Mr. T. DUNCO ÜBE, in reply,
1 Ir. MOORE reminded the Noble Lord that when
0,
aight Hon. Gentleman the Member for the Univer.
lutztre'
1)f. Oxford ventured to express an opinion upon the
the clause, the Noble Lord said he could not have read
", ~ reamble of the Bill, and unless he read the pre-
tallatu ait was impossible he could understand the first
matt se. That was then an argument in favour of
,rt r discussing the preamble of the Bill before the
ati see.
Ir. AGLIONBY thought that the Noble Lord him-
-074 was to blame for so much time being occupied in
hu • way. He did not think the statement of the Noble
:(11 of at all satisfactory. No doubt it was the general
Itt tom to postpone the preamble; but this was a mea-
',.to a which did not fall within the general rules. It was
• in principle or form an ordinary Bill. He con-
.l
ded by saying, that if Hon. Members wished the
PIN amble to be discussed, he certainly would support that
till 'position.
I 1 r. KEOGH said he gave notice of a motion that the
P" a' able should not be postponed, but should be clis-
!"8 9CI first. There was a complaint that they made no
fro; :Poss. He could tell the Noble Lord why they bad
t no progress that night, or since the Bill had been
ntrc .duced. Ho wished to take the Noble Lord out of
1 tie liffieulty. The reason Nia3, that he had not defined
PliAtt he wanted to effect. He stated that he did not
„en ire to go beyond the necessity of the case. Why
"t 1 n did he not state what it was that was necessary,
aTl,,cO I what the necessity recpired. Ee did not 00 that.
4‘ t was constantly chopping and changing. He first
gl.l •es up a clause at the instance of the Irish Members,
ap I then, under pressure, takes a clause from the Hon.
441 ember for Midhurst. He takes from the same party a
pit ice of the preamble, and then, on the other side, gives
111 a bit of the preamble. He did not know his own
el aid. Then he struck out four lines from the ori-
d nal Bill after he (Mr. Keogh) had challenged the
llt w officers of the Crown to state that the allege,-
ti ens contained in them were true in law and in fact.
he Noble Lord framed his Bill by balancing between
01 aposite parties. Not fixing upon anything definite was
ale reason they made no progress with the Bill. The
Noble Lord gave facilities to other gentlemen which
Alley did not possess, on finding that the Honourable
limber for Midhurst gave notice of an amendment
=which originally stood in the first clause, and now stood
:fin the second. This arose from the accidental meeting
f•,f the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-
( General, by which his amendment would apply to the
' present form of the Bill, but they had not the good for-
tune to meet an Attorney-General in search of a pre-
: amble, or a Minister in search of a clause.—(Laughter.)
' The consequence was that an amendment of his would
: not fit the Bill. He asked was that fair? The Noble
Lord said it was the universal practice to postpone the
preamble, but that was because the Bilis introduced were
based upon some principle clearly defined. Was that
the case in this instance? At one time the Noble Lord
,said it was to repel Papal aggression—at another to pre-
' Tent synodical action—and then it was to meet a wide-
spread conspiracy formed against civil and religious
liberty. The Attorney-General said it would prevent
'synodical action. Was that the object of the Bill, or
.had the Noble Lord retired from it? He was an-
ious to take the preamble first, because he felt
.he would be able to show that it was not true, and if they
overthrew the very basis of this measure, the super-
structure must necessarily fall to the ground. He had
a petition to present the other evening against the Ec-
clesiastical Titles Bill, signed by a perish priest in the
diocese of Raphoe. Knowing that the Hon. Baronet
the Member for Oxford took exception to similar signa-
tures, he asked if he would take an objection to this pe-
tition, when the Hon. Baronet answered " diminionis."
Re would not notice it. The preamble referred to a re-
script giving titles. Now the only rescript of the Pope
'Which they knew of was that of dividing England into
dioceses, but in that rescript there was no mention
Made of Cardinal Wiseman's name. Then the Attor-
ney-General, when he explained the object of the Bill,
gave a different version from that urged by the Solici-
tor-General. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
contended, that the section of the Bill which made it H-
iegel for archbishops and bishops to take titles, would
repeal Use Charitable Bequests Act. The 15th section
of that Act enabled parties to bequeath money to the
Commit wieners of Charitable Bequests, for the use and
benefit of archbishops and bishops of the Roman
CathoPsc Church in Ireland. If a bequest was
made to, for instance, the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Cork, be would not be able to receive this bequest, be-
cause it would be illegal for him, under this Bill, to take
upon :himself the title. Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Brodie, and
Mr. B addeley held that such would be the effect of the
clause: in the Bill before the Howe. No answer had
been given to this.—lt was, therefore, the blunders of
the G overnment, and not the hostility to the measure,
that c Bused the Bill to be delayed in its progress.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it would have been
as well if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should
have stuck to the precise question before the Committee
--namely, whether or not the preamble was to be post-
poned. Instead of doing this, the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman raised up a host of objections to every
portion of the Bill, and treated the House to ingenious
arguments as regarded the effect which this Bill would
have upon the Charitable Bequests Act. He reserved
to himself the power of replying to this objection when
the proper time arrived.—(oh!) Surely no argument
had been urged to show that the preamble should not
be postponed until the clauses were agreed to. Such
was the constant practice of Parliament. He denied
that the Bill was at all changed.—(Laughter, and cries
of " Oh, oh.") The object of the Bill was to pre-
vent the assumption of titles, but it was shown that
certain clauses in the Bill would have interfered with
the functions of Roman Catholic bishops, and these
clauses were struck out, and all the alterations that had
been made in the Bill had been with the view of carry-
ing out the original intention of the measure, without in-
terfering with the functions of the bishops. He denied
that any communication bad taken place between the
law officers of the Crown and the Hon. and Learned
Member for Midhurst since Friday night last. He per-
fectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir G.
Grey) that there was every propriety in inserting the
Hon. Member's preamble as a declaratory clause in the
Bill. Again, the Hon. and Learned Member for Ath-
lone (Mr. Keogh) raises a very strong objection against
the insertion of the word " dean" after the word
" bishop," but, for his part, he could not account for
such opposition on such trivial grounds.—(oh, oh.) He
was also astonished that the Right Pon. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone) should hazard his opinion by stating
that there were new features in the present Bill, for he
assured the Committee that there was nothing new what-
ever in it.—(Laughter.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place.
On our return we found Mr. REYNOLDS addressing
the Committee amid general expressions of impatience.
He complained that the Attorney and Solicitor-General
had thrown no light upon the matter, and he called upon
the latter Hon. and Learned Gentleman to answer this
question :—Did he mean by the preamble of the Bill and
the few clauses that were included in it to interfere with
the free action of the Catholic bishops and clergy of the
United Kingdom in the aischarge of their clerical duty?
Did he mean to repeal the provisions of the Bequests
Act, or to direct attention merely to that rescript of
which the Hon. Member for Finsbury said they ought to
have a copy upon the table? At present they were dis-
cussing the matter in the dark, and he thought he was
warranted in moving that the Chairman should report
progress and ask leave to sit again.—(" Oh, oh:')
Mr. ROEBUCK, who was scarcely audible, said no-
body could be more opposed to this Bill than himself,
but, if they were to govern the country by means of a
deliberative assembly, certain forms of order were abso-
lutely necessary,—(Hear, hear.) He was sure he was
addressing gentlemen who would believe that be had the
same object as they as far as regarded their opposition to
this measure, and that he would do all he could by fair
argument and by au open and honest opposition to put
an end to the Bill; but he entreated Hon. Gentlemen
from Ireland, as they had a regard for their own coun-
try, not to condescend to this species of opposition.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Let them go to a divi-
sion. Let them be beaten. They would not be :
con-
quered because they were beaten.—(Hear, he
believed that the sooner the Bill should be brought into
action as a law the better, because so soon as it hear.)
became
lim
a law its impotency would be discovered,
imbe-
cility of the Government that framed would be made
notorious to the world. Let the Government have their
Bill; that was the way to do them the surest mischief;
but he entreated Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland toa
notdopt
a fair, honest, open opposition.—(Cheers.) Let
them
trifle with the forms of the House, which a long experi-
ence had enabled Englishmen to use with advantage.
Don't let it be said that it was reserved for gentlemen
from Ireland to prove that the House of Commons cou
not govern itself.—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. MOORE fully appreciated the advice which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had just tendered them,
but how stood the case? Her Majesty's Government
bad that day introduced a Bill into the House which
every Hon. Gentlemen, with the exception of the mem-
bers of the Government, had stated that he did not un-
derstand, and even the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
himself, who bad as acute a mind as any one in the
House, had said that he could not understand it. It was
unreasonable to call upon them to proceed with the Bill
under these circumstances.
Mr. ROEBUCK quite agreed with the Hon. Gentle-
man that the postponement might be asked for the pur-
pose of letting the subject be understood.
Mr. MOORE—That is my object.
Mr. ROEBUCK—But a proceeding having that object
did not begin with a discussion as to postponing the pre-
amble, and then accumulate opposition by a motion to
report progress. They ought not to take any course
which might expose them to the imputation that they
were not fighting fairly.—(Hear, hear.) If they said
openly that they were not in a position to fight the Bill
because they did not understand it, they ought to sat at
once, " Give us till to-morrow." But they had been dis-
cussing the preamble, and now came to a second prop-
' titian that the Chairman should report progress.

Mr. MOORE observed, that the Hon. and Learned
Member tor Sheffield had not been present during the
evening. The Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone
had never put his amendment. There had been nothing
hut a desultory conversatien.—(Oh, and a hough.) The
expression was cot his, hut hod been applied througboui
the evening. That desultory conversation was raised
oa
the statement of the Attorney-General. The opponents
of the Bill had never raised a dhieussion on the question
that the preamble be postponed; L t repe.eoed that the
Hon. and Learned Member fur Athlone had not raised
the question.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY thought it
would be alleived that to the last moment they had dis-
cussed the postponement of the preamble; and the Hon.
Member for Dublin had moved that the Chairman
should report progress. He (the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey) hoped the Hon, Member would withdraw that
motien.—(Hear, hear.) If they divided on the post-
ponement of the preamble, which did not affect any part
of the Bill, he trotted the Government would not press
the Committee to proceed further to-night.
Mr. P. HOWARD begged to add his testimony to
that of the Noble Lord.--(Reer, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS stated that none of the appeals
which had been made convinced him he was wrong in
taking a division.
The Committee then divided. The numbers wore—
For reporting progress 30
Against it ••• ... 271
Majority ..••
--241
The Committee then divided on the yestion that the
preamble be postponed, when there appeared—
For postponing the preamble ... 253
Against it
Majority ... —213
On entering the gallery, we found
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY expressing a
hope that the Government would not press the House
to a consideration of the clauses of the Bill that night.
He trusted they would allow the Chairman to report
progress, and obtain leave to sit again; and, if no one
else did so, he would make a motion to that effect.
Sir G. REY said, the greater part of the Bill turned
upon the first clause, and it was important that as soon
as possible they should proceed to the consideration of
it. At that hour of the night (20 minutes after 11) it
was not unusual to enter upon business of a similar kind,
and he therefore thought they should proceed
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL appealed to her Majesty's
Ministers whether they could ask the House seriously
to go on with the clauses that night.
Mr. REYNOLDS said, it occurred to him that both
the Noble Lord the Member for Aruudel and the Lion.
Member for Kerry bad claims upon the Government,
for neither of them had voted against Government on
the division before the last. They went to the
library.—(A. laugh.) He should be glad to know what
they gained by going to the library? He did not think
they were likely to get much information, nor had
much courtesy been extended to them now.—(Hear.)
hear.) What did the 12 or 13 Members who were op-
posed to the Bill, and who went to the library, gain by
going there ? He made these remarks in order that a
few who opposed this Bill of pains and penalties might
ace the necessity of standing together.—(Hear, hear.)
They gained nothing by political gentility; they
gained nothing by bowing and scraning to the Trea-
sury benches.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Mem-
ber fer Sheffisld had appealed to him not to press his
motion for the Chairman reporting progress, but he
could not, as a Catholic Member, acquiesce in that
view. He should like to know what the Honourable
Member for Sheffield had gained by the course he had
taken ? Why, the Right Honourable Gentleman (Sir
George Grey) refibed to postpone the consideration of
the measure till another day. He gave the Government
notice, however, that, without pursuing any course
that could be called factious—(A laugh)—there was a
sufficient number of honest men in the minority to pre-
vent their passing a single clause that night—(Rear,
hear)—no matter how many divisions might be necessary
for that purpose.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, the Hon. Gentleman had asked
what he gained by doing what was right?—(Hear, hear.)
He would reply that he believed a large majority of the
people of both countries would acknowledge that they
were honestly opposing this Bill when they acted on the
principle of the Constitution as embodied in the rules
and laws laid down by Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Any
attempt to render those rules mischievous must tend to
injure the great cause of constitutional government.—
(dear, hear.) He did not mean to express the slightest
disrespect for the strong feeling of Irish Members en
this question; but they would do well to consider the
strong feelings of English Members, who had fought the
great battle of constitutional government in that House
before there were any Catholic Members from Ireland
connected with it.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected well
that Mr. O'Connell never acted in the way now pro-
posed; and, though in 1833 and at other times he was
nominally beaten in that House, his victory over
the Treasury Bench was nevertheless most significant
and striking.—(Hear, hear.) He must say, however,
to the Government that there was good reason for post-
poning the clauses of the Bill. The alterations had
been made suddenly, and it was but fair that time
should be given to consider fully the bearings of the
measure. He hoped the Government would give the Irish
Members no reason to say that they were opposed by a
tyrant majority, but that they would afford them at least
twelve hours to consider the clauses so suddenly intro-
duced into the measure.--(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS said, reference had been made to a
tyrant majority, but he would ask the House whether
they could not conceive such a combination as would
justify the appellation ief a tyrant minority?—(Haar.)
Repeated divisions had been taken—in one instance he
believed the majority wcz nine to one—and he must say
that, in such circumstances, it might be the duty of the
Government to protect the House against a tyrant

minority.—(Hear.)
The Earl of AItUND EL and SURREY expressed his
extreme regret that any Catholic Member should have
said one word against eery Protestant Member who sup-
ported their cause in that House, still more against one
who bad supported it with so much ability, zeal, and dis-
cretion as the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield
had done. He trusted the Government would yield to
the appeal which that Eon. and Learned Gentleman had
made to them.
Sir F. THESIGER hoped the Government would ac-
cede to the application. It was important that they
should do so. Government had adopted the amend-
ment of the Hon. and Lsarned Member for Midhurst,
making a declaratory enactment in the Bill applying
merely to the rescript of the Pope of the 29th Septem-
ber, 1850: the Solicitor- General had said, in answer to
Mr. Gladstone, althoug h that declaratory enactment
applied solely to England, that it would have such an
effect upon the law th at the judges in Ireland would
feel themselves bound by it, and would consider any
similar brief in Ireland to be illegal and void. He (Sir
F. Thesiger) assumed :From that statement that it was
the intention of the Gov ernment that any similar brief
in Ireland should be deemed illegal and void. If so, it
would be better that the, t intention should be declared on
the face of the Bill. It had therefore occurred to him
desirable to introduce an amendment into the first
clause, to make it apply not merely to the particular
brief to which it was. at present directed, but to all
similar briefs and rescri les both in England and Ireland.
It would be impossible lea enter into the consideration of
that amendment at the preser t time. He therefore
hoped the Government would eecede to the appeal that
had been made to them fur allowing the Chairman to
report progress.
Mr. GEACH said ho had hitherto voted against the
Bill, having been pledge( I to do so, but be did not feel it
right to join in the co u rse taken by the Hon. Member
for Dublin, which he cot sidered was frittering away the
time of the country without any practical use.
Sir G. GREY said th at after the division, considering
that the previous discutesion had turned very much on
the first clause, he thwught it was the duty of the Go-
vernment to ask. the Committee, having regard to the
public time, which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Geach)
had properly said should enter into their consideration,
to go on and make some further progress with the Bill.
But, as time was now p assing, any discussion that might
now take place it was clear could lead to no practical
result in the way of a d 'saucing the measure to night.
It was true the Bill was not delivered to Members be-
fore that morning, and that certainly was a ground for
acceding to the proposal for reporting progress; ho
therefore only hoped that on coming to the Bill on
Friday next, which was; the first day they could ap-
proach it, they would 'be allowed to go into Committee
at five o'clock, and th g proceed with the consideration
of the clauses.
The House then re lamed; and the Chairman re-
ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Fri-
day next.
The Hainault Forest Bill, and the sale of Arsenic
Regulation Bill were semerally considered in Committee.
The Appointment to offices, &c., Bill passed through
Committee, and the report was brought up and ordered
.o be received.

PETITIONS.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition in favour of
the Copy hold Eafranchisement Bill, from Noma gentle-
men who, under the present law, had had several
valuable racehorses seized as en heriot.
The Eerl EGLINTON presented, from the borough
of Ayr, the meat numerously signed petition that had
ever been presented from that place. It was against
Papal aggression' and lee could bear witness to what
had been stated by the Noble Duke (Argyle) tie to the
feeling generally prevailing in Scotland againA this ag-
gression. The Noble Earl presented several petitions
to the same effect.
Lord CAMPBELL would bear witness to the feeling
in Scotland on the subject, and ho had to present several
petitions from parishes in Scotland against Papal ag-
gression, which bad Leen signed by the whole of the in-
hahitanta mole and female, of those perishea
The Eerl of SANDWICH presented a petition from
places in Huntingdonshire, praying for a restoration of
agricultural protsction.
Lord S i'ANLEY presented several petitions with a
similar prayer, and he was convinced that before any
loug time had elapsed they would be compelled to pay
attention to the claims of the landed interest. The
Noble Lord also presented several petitions against Papal
aggression; also a petition from Belfast, praying for the
establishment of an Irish Transatlantic packet station.
The Bishop of OXFORD presented several petitions
against Papal aggression.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented several peti-
tions complaining, of agricultural distress.
Earl FI TZ WILLIA 32 presented a petition from Not-
tingham, against Papal aggression.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition in favour of
the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Railway.
The Earl of WALDEGR AVE presented a petition
in favour of the Copy hold Enfranchisement Bill.
EXPENSES OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
BILL.
Lord CRAN WORTH moved the second reading of
this Bill.—Agreed to.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE moved the second
reading of the Income and Property-tax Bill. This
was the Bill of the session, which was of the
greatest financial importance. He believed that however
imperfect the wording of the amendment introduced into
this Bill by a majority of the House of Commons—
introdaced into this Bill in opposition to the
wishes of her Majesty's Government, might
have been, it would not affect the legal effect of the
Bill. But he would call the attention of their Lord-
ship to the provisions of the Bill, and although
he was not one of those who could be
considered as an advocate of direct over indirect taxa-
tion, and although no one was more aware than himself of
the imperfections of this tax, which imperfections had
been most ably set forth by the Right lion. Baronet,
now no more, who had first proposed this tax, yet he felt
bound to propose the renewal of it as atemporary measure.
He was convinced that Parliament never could remedy
the glaring inequalities of this tax, and he thought it
was the deity of Parliament to make these immense
burdens as palatable as possible. But these
objections wore subject to two qualifications,
the first being how far by the continuance of this bur-
den they could facilitate the importation of raw prcduce
into this country, and how far by doing away with other
taxes they would so increase the revenue, by encouraging
increased importation and increased consumption, so as to
enable them eventually to do away with the income-tax
itself. Without troubling their Lordships with figures
in any detail, he would ask them whether they really
thought the tax during the time it had lasted, from 1842
till the present time, had in any visible or tangible form
crippled or diminished the commercial prosperity and
revenue of this country? If he asked himself this ques-
tion he found an unanswerable reply in the state ,of the
revenue, not only in one particular portion but in every
pert. They had at this moment to provide 50,000,0001.
of revenue; they hail still to provide for the burdens
arising from 787,000,0001. of debt. What had been the
progress of the revenue since 1842? 48,084,0001. was
the whole amount of the revenue in 1842. Since that
time 10,251,0001. of taxes had been repealed, and in 1850
the net revenue was 52,810,0001., showing an increase of
income of 4126,0001.; so that the entire amount of the
taxes which had been surrendered in the course of the
ten years had been nearly restored and replaced by that
development of the increased prosperity of the country
which had taken place under the income-taxd They had,
by the employment of that tax, given to the reproductive
industry of the country a power which could not other-
wise have existed, and they had placed themselves iu
that fortunate position in which they had to consi-
der, not how they were to obtain a surplus revenue,
but how they were to dispose of it. But as that sur-
plus was not sufficient to enable them to get rid of
the income-tax altogether, he believed they could not
pursue a wiser course than to continue the tax in its
present form, and to employ it for the purposes pro-
posed by her Majesty's Government—namely, for the
purpose of reducing the duties on those imported
articles coffee and timber, and of removing the window-
tax, which not only pressed heavily on persons of every
class in this country, but also, at the same time, most
prejudicially affected the sanitary condition of the great
mass of the people. The repeal of the window-duty
would tend greatly to improve the physical condition of
the working classes, by procuring for them more light
and air, and a better class of dwellings, in conformity
with one of the gi eat tendencies of the present age.
They had every reason to believe that a reduction of the
duty on coffee would lead to an increasing consumption
of the article, and that under that change the revenue
might reach the amount produced by the higher duty;
for that was precisely what had happened on a pre-
vious occasion. The fact was, that when the duty on
coffee bad formerly been reduced, the amount of
the duty had actually increased in the course
of four or five years. Then, again, with respect to
the reduction of the timber duties, he found that since
the proposal upon that subject had been submitted to
Parliament, a new impulse had been given to ship-build-
ing and a reduction in the price of timber had already
taken place. The Bill then before their Lordships was
but a traascript of the Act which had already on more
than one occasion received their sanction, with this ex-
ception, that it would relieve the tenant-farmers from a
grievance under which they had complained that they
had hitherto laboured. The tenant-farmers had until
the present moment been compelled to pay the tax on
one-half the amount of their rents, but under the
amended Bill then before their Lordships any tenant
who could prove that his profits had fallen short of that
assumed amount would be entitled to a proportionate
reduction in the charge to which he would be liable. The
tax was only to be continued for one year, and at the
pt
hoerst
eu nciitryeuomf s
teaonnesei da ehrei n gbeltiheevedwhthoalet,
expiration of that period they would again have an op-
qwuietshtiaond.a
oregard
r
to public credit and to the promotion of that develop•
merit of the national resources which they might carry
still further by persevering in the policy they had
hitherto adopted, they would feel it their duty to adopt
the Bill as it had been sent dean to them from the other
House. He therefore moved that the Bill be read a
second time,—(Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY said the Noble Marquis had moved
the second reading of the Bill upon two grounds—first,
on the necessity of maintaining the public credit of the
country, and on the impossibility of finding a substitute
tor the income-tax in the present year; and, second, on
the ground from which be (Lord Stanley) dissented, that
it was necessary for the purpose of extending the pre-
sent commercial system, and for facilitating the impor-
tation of those articles of foreign produces, the importa-
tion of which he (Lord Stanley) believe;:t had already in-
flicted such injury upon the agricultairal interest of this
country.—(Hear, hear.) The Genternment had brought
up a Bill, the passing of which,, in some shape, was ne-
cessary for maintaining the credit of the country. lie
was not the person wive would contend that, in the
course of this year or *.rie next, they could dispense with
a certain portion of the income-tax, and he, and those
who acted with l' Am, would not sanction the rash and
reckless reduction of taxation which would make the
country una,iele to meet its expenditure.—(Hear, hear.)
As the reresent Bill was a money Bill, their Lord-
ships bad not the slightest power to alter it.—(Hear,
hear.) The question was, whether they would sanc-
tion the renewal of the tax for one year, on the
ground stated by the other House of Parliament, or re-
ject the Bill altogether.—(Hear, hear.) By rejecting it,
about five millions would be struck off the anticipated
income, and taking the present surplus at about two
millions and a half, they would, by rejecting the Bill,
reduce the surplus to a deficit of similar amount. He
thought, under such circumstances, they could not hesi-
tate how to act. It appeared that a blunder had been
committed in the Bill as it now stood for continuing the
tax for one year, and the Noble Marquis had said that
that blunder had been caused by the introduction of the
amendment. He (Lord Stanley), however, thought that
the blunder was in the Government not taking care
that the amendment agreed with the other portion of
the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) They might, however, pass
the Bill, blundering as it was, or reject it altogether. He
had not for his own part any desire to offer opposition
to the Bill, notwithstanding its blunders. •He agreediin
what had been said by the Noble Marquis opposite, as
to the impossibility of altering the Bill as' altogether
to avoid inequalities. In point of fact the income-
tax, as it at present stood, was anomalous in theory
and had inequalities in practice. The anomalies
might be diminished, but he agreed that they
could not pass a Bill upon the subject that would
be in every respect just.—(Hear, hear.) He could, not
give his consent to continue this anomalous and unjust
measure, not as it had been proposed by Sir Robert
Peel, as a temporary Bill merely, but as one bound up
with the taxation of the country, and kept up for the
purpose of carrying out that commercial system to which
he was opposed, and which had already been the means
of effecting so much loss and injury.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
was of opinion that the House of Commons decided
wisely in coming to the determination that the measure
should be reconsidered at the expiration of the present
year.—(Hear.) Ho thought that House had decided
wisely in determining that whether it was to be conti-
nued for two years or for three years, they would in-
quire whether, at the expiration of the present year,
the anomalies and inequalities could not be reduced
and made less oppressive in their operation.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought, however, the House of Commons
acted wrongly in not adopting the proposition of a
Right Honourable Gentleman when he proposed that,
without endangering the public faith or the public cre-
dit, the House should declare that at the earliest pos-
sible
period the tax should be reduced, and that it
should not be continued for the indefinite reduction
of indirect taxation. The House of Commons had not
thought proper to take that course, but had determined
that the tax in its present shape, should only be conti-
nued for one year. Their Lordships had not passed any
opinion on the other measures of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, but he (Lord Stanley) would be prepared to go
into a discussion of the policy which had been pursued
when the proper time arrived.—(Hear, hear.) It, ape
peered that in order to accomplish 1111 indefinite' deve'