The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

THE SITNI_ LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1851.

the temper of the country would submit to a permanent
income-tax—(Cheers)—but he did think that the objectstliat
could be obtained through its agency were well worth the
endurance of its weight ir a further period—he would cite
the case of coffee and timber, far instance. With respect to
moditieations in the ax, he had little hope of a sati,fectory
result, seeing that both Mr. Pitt and Sir R. Peel had bee i
able to devise none, though no man was more keenly alive
to fiscal injustice than the latter. The income-tax
would, therefore, have to be taken as it stood—hut taken
far a short period—(Cheers). He knew what that cheer
meant—it meant one year.-- (Hear, hear.) But they
should "look ahead" in dealing with this question. and
inquire what means existed of replacing the five millions
which would be caused by its loss. 'Hon. Gentlemen said,
"Try an import duty upon grain ;" but by whet process was
that to be done? He bad lately heard of countervailing
instead of prospective duties on -grain ; but lie confe-sed he
could only regard it as a distinction without a difference.—
( Hear.) He apprehended it meant to melte grain dear, or
it meant nothing.—(No, no.) If not, then, of what good was
protection?—(He r.) He had been told by a great agricul-
tural Authority that a ss. duty would not affect the farmer
favourably; that when he asked a reduction of his rent his
landlord would point to protection.—(Cries of " Name."
He (Mr. S. Herbert; could name many. (Laughter and
cheers.) It was said that this duty could be imposed with-
out raising the price of corn, but that was an absurdity.
Checking importation was the project, but there were
9,000,000 of quarters of grain imported, and if these were
wanted. would not the check on their importation raise the
price? He only mentioned these things to show that a ss.
duty was not so sound a principle as a transference of local
burdens to the Exchequer in the form of cornpe nation for
protection. He could not vote for the motion, because there
was no better budget than that before the House, but, look-
ing forward to the effects of future years, he should vote
against it.
Mr. W. MILES s as a great deal astonished at the speech
of his Right Hun. Friend. He was willing to give the in-
come-tax for three years towards somebody's budget, but his
observations perfectly wandere fom the subject. His Right
Hon. Friend said that the income-tax was passed for the pur-
pose of repealing import duties on two occasions, but he
forgot to state that it was, in fact, to make up the annual
deficit of 2.000,0001., which had accumulated to upwards of
12,000,000/., hough afterwards it was employed for the
purpose of revising the system of taxation.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for the West Riding appeared to be in
what the Americans called a "fix," because it he opposed the
motion of the Hon Member for Montrose, he would displease
his constituents. The question bstore them was Luis —should
they have a tax, stated to be unjust by all parties, placed on
the country fir three years, with a surplus income of two
and a half millions, or should they adopt the motion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose. He con d conceive no proposi-
tion more unobjectionable than the latter. The whole argu-
ment of the Hon. Member for the West Riding went to show
that the agriculturists were not to be relieved; but he
would find that they would make themselves heard in the
matter, and that they would have justice The Honourable
Member then referred to the case of Mr. Be-sett, as one of
peculiar hardship in respect to the income-tax. One word
as to the distress of the agricultural classes. Let the House
look calmly and dispassionately at the privations which they
were enduring. Let the House recollect that the Spec h
from the Throne declared the landlords and tenants w- re the
only classes in a position of suffering—and then let the
House recoil, ct, though the session had considerably ad-
vanced, that not an atom not a farthing of relief, was given
to them.—( Hear, hear.) If Government would not give
any direct re ief, at least let the House do the distressed
classes some justice by sating that this tax, with all its in-
equalities, should only last one s ear, in pr. ference to the pro-
position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, having a
eu plus, proposed to con inue the tax , n the overtaxed
people for three years longer.—(Laud cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he cer-
tainly felt himself under some difficulty when the Hon.
Member fur Montrose sat down to know what course he
should take - whether he should deal with the speech of the
Hon. Gentleman or with his propo.ition ; for the one had
little to do with the other. The Hon. Gentleman had put
the House into some difficulty, as to whether they were to
deal with a mteiitication of the tax as a permanent tax, or to
renew it for a short period only. And, although the Hon.
Gentleman who had just spoken had cotuplained of his Right
lion. Friend the Member fur Wiltshire wandering from the
subject, he thought his Right Hon. Friend was one of the
few persons who had addressed himself to the nuestion before
the H ,use; and that he gave a reason which satisfied him,
though it might not satisfy Hon. Gentlemen opposite, why the
,ax should he continued fur a period bey nd one year; and
be did not think his Right Hon. Friend had gone further from
the subject than the worthy Alderman, who declared that his
ebisct was to get rid of the income-tax alt gee her, and to
impese a tax on foreign produce, or the Hon. Member for
Somersetshire, who talked of nothing bat protection to
the farmers. Now, the Hon. Member for Montrose said he
thought the incom, -tax should be made permanent, but
that it should be modified; and to effect that object, the step
he took was to propose that the tax should be continued for the
shortest possible period.—( A laugh.) if the Hon. Gentleman
obtained a majority he would not advance one step towards a
modification of the tax, but would go a considerable way in
preventing its being a permanent one.—( Hear.) But the
Hon. Gentleman went further than he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had ever gone. He never advocated it as a per-
manent tax. If the Hon. Gentleman took the course that
s as proposed by the Hen. Member for Cockermouth in pro-
posing a modification, and would take the sense of the House
upon it, the question would then be discussed, and his motion
Would have been in consistency with his speech ; but the
lion. Gentleman spoke of referring it to a Select Cotn-
tnittee. Why, there was no new information necessary on
the subject, and it was perfectly competent to the Hon.
Gentleman to propose any modification of the tax he
thought proper. The objections the Hon. Gentleman had
stated that evening were stated in 1842, in 1845, and 1848,
but they were always negatived; and he must be permitted
tea say th,t he did not know whence the Non. Gentleman
had derived the netioe which he and the H in. Member for
Falmouth appeared to entertain, that he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had intended to modify this tax ; for he had
stated as distinctly as words could express his meaning, in
1842, that he thought no modification of the tax was pus-
Bible, and he repeated that on every occasion on which the
subject was discus4d. But the Hon. Member for Falmouth
reproached him with having &tidied inquiry; and he and the
Ho'. Member for Glasgow said they were pelectly con-
vinced that Sir R. Peel intended t , modify this lax. He
believed it to be quite true that Sir R. Peel had attended to
this subject with the greatest care, to see if it was possible
to make this tax m re just; but he would read what Sir R.
Peel said in 1848, on the last occasion of this tax being
brought before the House, when he was not hampered, by
being in office, with any of those difficulties which might
otherwise have beets forced upon him, and had had the ex-
perience of six years for coming to a deliberate opinion upon
it. Sir R. Peel said—
" I must say, after having given the subject repeated
consideration, that I think the tax ought to be on income,
and that there should be no distinction made in the amount
ot the tax on account of the different sources from which the
incomes are derived. I never would consent to relieve from
the tax incomes derived from trade and from professions,
for the purpose of making an invidious, and, as I think, an
unjust distinction, by levying such a tax upon funded, or
what is called realized property By repealing
the taxes on articles of luxury you benefit all parties
equally, and therefore it seems to me that he onus of the
tax which you substitute for those you have repealed ought.
to be botne equally by all, whatever ;nay be the source of
their income. . . . . Subsequent consideration (since
the imposition of the income-tax in 1842, and its renewal in
1845) has confirmed me in the opinion that any attempt to
impose a greater annual burden upon income derived from
realized property would, apart from the objection that the
public faith is pledged to the con-rely in the case
of the funds, lead to consequences which I am not prepared
to contemplate, and which I should dread to see accom-
plished."
It was difficult for any man to say, after that, that it was the
intention of Sir R. Peel to modify the tax in the way sug•
geted by the Hon. Member for Montrose or the Hon. Member
for Glasgow. It was no triffiug meeification of a tax, as
levied on one person or another, to which the Hon. Gentle-
man directed the attention of the House; but he was pro-
posing to deal wi'h a great principle, which ought to be con-
sidered by the House in some other way than as a mere
question of the modification of a tax. If such were the
Hon. Gentleman's views, let him come down to the House
and make a distinct proposition that 10,000.00 1. or
15,000,000/. of these taxes should be repeal d and their place
be supplied by a proportionate direct tax upon realized pro-
perty. That would be a clear principle upon which the
House might give its decision; and if the decision were fa-
vourable to the Hon. Gentleman's views, the Hon. Gentle-
man could state in what manner he proposed to carry out the
new t -xation The Hon. Member for Falmouth fairly stated
that his object was to impose upon re Azed property double
the duty that was paid by income; this, again, was a broad
principle which, not a Select Committee, but the House it-
self in Committee, was best fitted to decide.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Member for Montrose admitted that his object was to
render the income, or, rather, as he preferred to call it, 'lie
property-tax, a permanent impost. He wondered that, with
this object in view, the Hon. Member himself did not prefer
to take the tax for th ee years rather than for one, as a
nearer approach to his principle—(A laugh)-fur his own
part, he differed from his lion. Friend on that point—(Hear)
—he had never proposed or contemplated the tax as a per-
manent impost, but always, to borrow an expressive phrase
from the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, as a tax under
cover of which certain farther changes in our financial ar-
rangements might be effected. He would just put it to those
who agreed with him in that object, whether any Chancellor
ot the Exchequer would be mad eeough to propose any such
further changes in our fiscal system, with so large an amount
as nearly 5,500,0001. dependent upon an annual vote?—
(Hear, hear.) The only possible condition under which
such changes could be ventured upon was the approximate
security of a certain amount of revenue for a definite period.
Lord G. Bentinck, a high authority with Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, had always been most anxous, for example, that the
duties upon tea shoul i be considerably reduced, anti the Right
Hon. Member for Wiltshire had just referred to those duties
as of the elastic kind which he wished to see touched. Now
it would be quite impossible for any Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to touch those duties with an income-tax continued
merely from year to year. Very true. the reduced duties
might, in four or five years, by increased consumption, re-
cover their pristine amount, but what, meantime, was to be
done, supposing the 5,0; 0,0001. of income-tax re used by the
Howe in any one of those four or live years? - (Hear, hear.)
1 o effect the fiscal improvements which he, in common with
a large proportion of the House, desired, it was absolutely
essential that the income-tax tould be continued for a
longer period than that proposed by the amendment. If
that amendment were adopted, its mover must be responsi-
ble to the country for depriving it of those fiscal ref rms
which the continuance of the income-tax could alone secure.
(Hear, hear.) It had been very handsomely suggested
that the Government merely wanted to keep up the tax
for three years, in order to keep themselves afloat a
while longer in office. Were they capuble of such mean,
petty motives, the amendment of his Honourable Friend
might have ens creel the purpose just as well. He would
simply say, in reply, that in the fist place, his object
was to effect a pablic gopolda,cer
hd,e idnestilrieedsteocopnudt,
ntohastuci-f
ocfiesiscoiarl
ocltiahnigseisn
sallowuoirasetatiksecal petition than he himself oc-
cupie hear.) When he considered the course of
public events during the last few years, he felt it to be
utterly impossible for any man to predicate what would be
the position of Europe in any given number of mouths
hence ; and, with such a feeling, le. protested against any
course which should place the revenue in a state of such
mere precariousness as would be occasioned by the success
of this amendment. - (Hear, bear.) The enactment of the
tax for three years, let it be remembered, would not preclude
himself, or any successor of his, or any Member of the House,
from proposing, in the ensuing session, such reductions or
modifications as might then seem expedient. But. he put it
to the House whether it was for the public good that there
should be a tinanci 1 crisis every year, or that, from year to
year, there should be the risk of the sudden deficit of
so enormous a proportion of the revenue as 5,500,0001.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile trusted that the House, by a large
majority, would affirm the priocio le that for the future, as in
the pant, the fug.eces of this country ou:fit t 3 retain that
,character of etability on which the ceze4 fno, the powe: pf
tine cvaut7 cleponaa,---(CLwre,)

Mr. DISRAELIi—Sir, the question before the House
is, whether the property tax shall be continued for the spate
of three years or oee year ? The amendment to the mo-
tion of the Minister, for one year's continuance, has been made
by a distinguished member of that body of lion. Gentlemen
who support the Gievernment ; but all the arguments of her
Majes y's Ministers have been addressed, not to the amend-
ment, but to this side cf the House.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Member for the West Riding says there is no common
object between the Member for Montrose end Gentlemen on
thss side of the House, who have declared they intend to
supp rt the amendmer.t of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
—( Hear, bear.) Sir, °the reason I support the amendment
is simply this, that I ;:kink the assessments made under the
property-tax are not ,equitable—(Cheers)--and I think it
not impossible to render them less unequal.—(Cheers )
That, Sir, is the main—the real—reason why 1 support the
proposition of an amendment. But it is said in conse-
quence of certain speeChes made at this side of the House,
that Honourable Gentlemen are supporting the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose for other
reasons and with otteer objects.- (Hear, hear.) Let us
see if there be any ju.aice in these allegations. The lion.
Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), in answering the
speech of the worthy Alderman (Thompson) the Member for
Westmoreland, said that a great deficiency would be the
consequence of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose being carried, and t hat he had a specific to supply that
deficiency, and that it yens the imposition of an import du-y
on foreign corn. Now the worthy Alderman never made the
slightest allusion to foreige corn—(llean hear)—but he did
make one specific proposal to supply the deficiency, and I
give no opinion on that specific. No doubt his proposition
was of a very important character, and will lead to vast con-
sequences. lie was to supply the deficiency by dealing
with the terminable annuities ending beteeen this and
1860 and 1867 ; and, therefore, as tar as my Honourable
Friend is concerned, it was not only a most erroneous repre-
sentation of what occurred, but it was contradictory to the
course pursued by the worthy Alderman. ( Hear.) Well,
what occurred next? Another county Member, the Hon.
Member for Devon ( sin Buck), made a very able and in-
teresting speech. \‘' her: was its subject? He entered
into a detailed description of the county he represented,
of the condition of the various classes of his consti-
tuents; he showed us that the proprietor, the farmer, the
mercantile man, were all equally suffering. He showed us
that the consequence of that suffering was the increase of
pauperism ; and he gave an opinion on the came of that dis•
tress. All he said was, that you ought to modify, if it be in
vour power at all, this distress by a remission of taxation.
But how does this justify the sentiments of the Hon. Member
for the West Riding, or the speech of the Hun. Member for
Wilts, or the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor the Exchequer, who all say that the Hon. Member
for Devon was in favour of protection, and that protec ion
was his specific for all the grievances and distress which he
enumerated? :cow, a word did not escape from the lion.
Member's lips about protection, but lie most carefully ab-
stained from even referring to the possible or probable cause
of the suffering he described. - (Hear, hear.) There was a
third gentleman who spoke on this side of the House, my,
Noble Friend the Member for Stamford (the Marquis of
Granby). His speech has been described as that of one
giving support to the Hon. Member for Montrose, who had
entirely changed the character of the debate by sug-
gesting the putting of a duty on the importation of foreign
agricultural produce. My Noble Friend never referred to
the subject (Hear, hear.) He only gave his own views and
opinions on the subject of indirect taxation. Nothing could
be more erroneous—nothing more unjustifiable, than the
statements put forth, that there has been an attempt made
on this side of the House to change the character of this
debate, to divert the Gnu e from the true question before it,
and that we have been arguing for another reason and for
another cause.—( Hear.) Our conduct was too transparent,
said the Hon. Member for the West Riding; the House
should be aware of what was going on ; the income-tax is
et stake —the income-tax, that foundation of our prosperity,
hst only future guarantee for the greatness and safety of
this empire.— (Cheers and laughter.) The only objection I
have to a property-tax and income-tax is this, that it has
always been brought into the House with representations
which, to use the mildest phrase I can towards them, have
never been ftilfilled.—(Hear, hear.) Happy would it have
been if the Minister who felt it to be his duty to support such
a policy lad made a bold appeal to the country, and asked
them at once, are they of opinion that the financial system
of this country should be changed or not; but. unfortunately,
the ieceme-tax had been renewed, and renewed, and renewed
again, while the community are led to believe on every occa-
sion thatl it was on the poiet of being ended.—( Hear.) But,
unfortunately, the deception practised on the community
had not bee limited alone to Ministerial representations to
which I have referred. Other great authorities, when treat-`
ing of this impost, and endeavouring to persuade this
House and the country to effect great changes in the law,
when alluding to that unfortunate tax always made use of
the delusion which has ever been used to influence public
opinion. Here is a speech, not delivered in this 11 use, but
by one whose fame, like the income-tax, is likely to be tem-
porary. This is a speech described as the speech of Mr.
Cobden on the subject of the income-tax, made in the year
1845, before the repeal of the corn-laws. " The income-tax
is a fungus growing out of the tree of monopoly. (Cheers
and laughter.) It is a tax that is the foundation of a new
commercial system. This is the tax that is the only security
for the continuance of free trade. " The income-tax is a
fungus growing from the tree of monopoly ; that great mo-
nopoly, the coin-laws, alone renders that tax necessary."
—(Cheers and laughter.) Talk of public opinion, indeed
I know not who can praise it, to men ; but when we see how
this opinion is directed, instructed, dealt with, one must
honour the comtnon sense nil spirit of a nation that can, on
the whole, generally act right and think justy.— ( Hear.)
But the Hon. Member for the West Riding, commencing in
that high prophetic tone which he has, indulged in so
often, exclaims. " With free trade there will be no
income-tax."— Loud cheers and laughter.) Now is
it to be tolerated that men representing, as un-
fortunately a majority of Members on this side
of the House do, a sutfering class of the com-
munity, a class whose suffering has been recognised by the
Sovereign and lamented by the Minister, when a proposi-
tion is brought forward for the continuance of a great tax,
the details of hich particularly press upon them—is it to
be tolerated, I say, that because in a constitutional manner
they express the feeling and vindicate the interests of their
constituencies in this House, these men are to get up, who
have made such speeches in other places (cheers)—and
retend that this censt tutional expression, that this ful-
filment of our duty as representatives of the people, are
nothing more than a mask to the attempt to get back
those abrogated laws after the passing of which, accord-
ing to the Honourable Member for the West Riding,
i was impossible that an income-tax could ever
exist?—(Cheers.) We are told by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that no moditicatien of the grievous details of
this tax is to be expected, and that the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose oely applies to this. There is no oue
in this Hause who has expressed opinions more directly the
contrary to this than the Chancellor of the Exchequer him-
self. I give the Right Honourable Gentleman every advan-
tage he can make use of on the change of the corn-laws
for the change in his commercial policy. I think such a
defence is a very legitimate one; but his opinion as to the
fixing of the assessment of the law does not depend upon
the existence or non existence of the corn-laws. The Hon.
Gentleman has spoken thus in 1845 : " With regard to the
general argument, the inequality, injustice and inconvenience
of the taxation, no attempt is made to answer." It is to this
objection that I understand the motion of the Hon. Member
for Montrose applies. It is only to remedy this injustice, this
inequality of taxation, that I support the amendment of the
Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for the West Riding, flay-
ing the critic on his Hon. Friend, says the course be is
taking is most unwise and unadvisable. There are 150 Pro-
tectionists opposite ready to take you at your word; free
trade rembles— totters on its base.—(Hear, hear.) Why, if
you had brought forward the question properly, . and called
the attention of the House to the in qui able manner in
which the profits on trades and professions are assessed, you
would have a chance of not endangering the existence of
Government (according to the opinion of the Hon. Member
f thew
ell
t West Riding); but, though you would be qite sure of
be ng he
ell beaten, you would have taken a strauightforward
course.--' Hear.) But why did not the Hon. Member for the
West Riding make that proposition himself?—(Hear.) I
will tell you why—because he has an idea that these terrible
Protectionists are not so callous to the sufferings of the pro-
fessional community as he has stated. Let him bring for-
ward his proposition, however, but I will not guarantee
him that he will be defeated by that large majority. I give
the lion. Member for he West Riding, therefore, not ice, that
when he has made his statement, and when he finds that
free trade and the Government are in danger, he shall not
say that while he thought us dealing with the details of tax-
ing professional income, we were all the time dealing with
his new commercial policy.—( Hear, hear.) I call upon the
House now not to be diverted from the real question before
it. by that stale old ruse, that this is going backward in our
commercial policy.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House recollect
that this commercial policy, be its merits or demerits what
they may, is too vast a thing to be shaken by a vote of this
House.— (Cheers ) This is not the way we mean to assail it,
if we feel it to be our duty to take that course.—(Hear,
hear.) But we shall not be diverted from taking a frank
course on the subject of taxation because our opponents at-
tempt to estabisto for the five hundredth time that. we are
trying for the restoration of the corn-laws. We have been
treated tc-night, by Members competent to do so with lec-
tures on this subject. The eion. Member for Wiltshire de-
scribed an attempt which' I myself madeeto obtain acme
small relief for the sufferings of the farmers; and he
said it was not an attempt in accordance with the spirit
of the age, nor made by one acquainted with the circum-
stances of the times. Now, I will not stop to argue these
points with the Honourable Member for Wiltshire. He has
given his opinion on the important subject of a protective
duty on foreign corn, He said it was called by different
names now it was designated a protective duty, and now a
countervailing duty, although he was not able to understand
the difference. lam not here to argue on the questioe of
the difference between those two. -1 hey may be good or
they may be bad; but I am certain of this at least that there
is a great difference between them.— (Cheers.) The opinion
of no less distinguished a man then Ricardo, that great light
of p litical economy; and another as painstaking and well-
informed as M'Culloch was, that countervailing duties were
always held to be a compensatory duty, giving compensation
foe some tax which the community clues not share; while a
protective duty is one granted to a class, in consequence of
general taxation which all sh ire. And thus we object on
principle to protective duties, and are amongst the warmest
supporters of countervailing defies. The Hon. Member
havi ig fully described the difference between the two classes
of duties referred to then continued —The only reasons for
mwlosincthrolsesaurpeptohrtestehlehaavineesntdarnteedptitytharee
tHhoan.
tth Member
lstaxb for
s
no regard to the agricultural position of this country; that
the assessment of this unequal tax should if possible b s made
more equitable. Then I look particularly to the position of
the tenant-farmers, whose distress has been recognised by
Goverwaent, and also to that of professional men, and I feel '
persuaded that whatever Minister be in office, whether he be
on this side or the other, it will be impossible to maintain
for any length of time the assessment under which the pre-
sent income-tax is made. (Hear.) All these anomalies and
inequalities might have been borne when the Ministry who
introduced this law, believing it, no doubt, to be such, in-
troduced it as a temporary measure, to meet a temporary
exigency ; and it was thought useless to indulge in criticisms
against the evils and grievances which time would soon re-
move.—(Hear.) But when the temporary measure may as-
sume a shape of an everlasting character, then it is that this
becomes of a nature so serious that an inquiry into its ine-
qualities becomes a portion of the management of life for
all those who live under its influence.—(Hear.) There is
another reason why we should deal with these two points, es-
pecially the latter one. The temporary measure which we sup-
ported at first, introduced a greater degree of direct taxation
into the financial system of this country than it before pos-
sessed. But however much people might be in favour of di-
rect taxation, it never could enter largely into the financial
system until it was universal. That system of taxation was
getting popular, I have heard, but it was with those
who were not taxed at all. This system, however, is not
taxation, but confiecanon. Carry out the system on a
bread mile, as taxation he 'Carried mais' younpreeent legis-
lation, and yoware atteckirgthe capital of the country, and
dimillisllll3 the 1111'524 tirplo.T;utt 91. ltica oAc'

now support labour. It is because it deals most crudely
with the principle of • direct taxation, because it is in its
mode of assessment unjust and injurious to certain classes,
and mere especially to the professional classes, whom we
ought c:,refully to support in this House—it is for these
reasons that I feel it my (Ttty to support the amendment of
the Hon. Member for Montrose. If it were an amendment
that either on that cr on this side of the House would
crudely ask us in the present state of our affairs to negative
the imposition of the income -tax, I could not sanction such
a course; but because it does not interfere with the financial
arrangements of this year or the next year—because it gives
ample time to the Government to meet the difficulties of the
case—and because lam sure no Government ill attempt to.
meet those difficulties and to remove those grievances unless
we take up such a course, I shall feel it my duty to support
the amendment.—(Loud cheer. )

Lord J. RUSSELL-If the House is placed in any diffi-
culty on the question that is now before it, it is owing to that
course which the Hon. Member for Montrose has taken in
endeavouring to promote his own views and propositions.--
(Hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Member for Montrose says
that he wishes for a permanent tax upon property-he
wishes for direct taxes in preference to indirect-he wishes
for a modification of the present tax upon property and ine
come. It would seem that the natural, the usual, the Far-
liamentary way of proceeding to effect such an object was,
when the income-tax was before the House, to propose such
a modification as he thought equitable-to make the tax,
if he could obtain the assent of a inejority, such as he
should consider to be just; and having obtained this modi-
fication of the tax, then to propose that the tax, instead
of being a tax for three years, should be a tax of perma-
nent duration. That was the neural and Parliamentary
course for him to pursue. But, says the Honourable Mem-
ber, " I cannot take that coarse, for it is a matter of ac-
knowledged difficuPy to make this tax equal and just. I
cannot make a propositi ,n which is so complete as to enable
me with confidence to tender it to the House, and therefore
I ask for inquiry." But if the Honourable Member wished
for inquiry, how comes it that during the time this tax
has lasted, from 1842 to 1851, he has never proposed such an
inquiry ?
Mr. HUME-I have, three times.-(Cheers and laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL-I do not remember any case of
the kind, and certainly since the present Government came
into office such a motion has never been opposed.-(Hear.)
If the Hon. Member wished for an inquiry. he ought to have
proposed it, and conducted the inquiry. But, so tar as I re-
member, he has done nothing of the kind. Having allowed
the tax to be imposed in 848 for three years, the Hon.
Member now said, "Let me have an inquiry !" It is obvious
he could hardly succeed in that during the present session,
and at the beginning of the next he would hardly be able to
state the result of such inquiry, and a renewal of, the tax
for another year would be necessary. Now the course
pursued by the Honourable Member had led to this very
absurd consequence. The Honourable Member wishes the
tax to be permanent. He is immediately supported by
those who wish it to be done away with altogether.-
(Laughter.) The Honourable Member is for direct taxation
in place of indirect. He • would abolish many millious of
indirect taxation, which he says is excessive, and would
supply its place by a general direct tax. He is supported
by those who are in favour of indirect taxation, and would
carry it to a greater extent than it is now carried, and would
diminish and abolish the tax which is a direct tax with a
view of diminishing direct taxation.-(Laughter.) The Hon.
Gentleman is for making the tax permanent, and he is sup-
ported by those who would do away with it at the first pos-
sible opportunity.-(Laughter.) I think the Hon. Gentleman
must have been rather alarmed at the care taken of his child
by those who are opposed to him upon every view which he
takes. During the whole course of the debate the
dandling and nursing of his infant must have alarmed him as
to the future fate of that universal permanent tax which
he has in eis imagination.-(Continued laughter.) But there
have been other grounds on which Honourable Gentlemen
opposite, in very considerable numbers, have supported the
proposition of the Honourable Member: and these grounds,
however much the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last has
endeavoured to conceal it from the House, are the necessity
of getting rid of the income-tax, of getting rid of as much
direct taxation as we can, with the view of imposing import
duties on foreign corn.- (Cheers.) The words" foreign pro-
duce," used by the worthy Alderman, who, as the fugle-
man of his party, supported the amendment, were uneer-
stood by the House to mean " foreign corn."-(Cheers.)
Many Honourable Gentlemen opposite, when speaking of
local taxation and the malt-tax, and questions affecting the
landed interest and the general taxation of the country,
speak out with the manliness which belongs to their charac-
ter as a party, and say, "Our real object is the restore, ion
of protection," and then the Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Buckingbamshire has always to rise after them-
(Laughter and cheers)-and say " Oon't take them at their
word-whatever you have heard I have not beard." The
Hon Member always happens to be in the situation that he
has not heard a word of protection, although most persons
on this side of the House and on the other side hear a great
deal of reiteration of the necessity of the restoration of pro-
tection. I think the Hon. Member will at length get tired
of this continual obligation to remind them of the necessity
of being more prudent. If they will always march forward
when he wishes them to march back-if they will always
be getting out of line-if they will always be firing off their
muskets when they ought to restrain their fire, the
Honourable Member will at least say, "Upon my word
you are too bad ; I'll not march through Coventry
with you, that's flat."- (Loud laughter.) But then
the Honourable Member says that the Honourable Member
fur the West Riding goes and makes speeches in other
places. Tnat certainly is a dreadful crime. But if the
Hon. Member for the West Riding makes speeches in one
place, the Protectionist party make them in another. If the
Anti-Corn-law League met in Covent-garden Theatre, is there
not a party which meet in Drury-lane?-(Laughter.) It is
said that the members of the Anti-Corn-law League some-
times carried their speech - s beyond the bounds of discretion.
But we were told the other day that if the corn laws are re-
stored 100,000 persons ate ready to follow a leader in support
of the law which would be thus restored.-(Hear, hear.)
These are the speeches made out of doors, and if we hear
something of the same kind in this House, it is no wonder
if we suppose the object is to restore protection.- (Hear,
hear.) The character of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman
has been entirely changed by the support given to it. The
Honourable Member wishes to have the inquiry. His sup-
porters do not say that that is their object. They do not
want an inquiry to make the tax more equal. Nobody but
the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire said that
was his object. The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford
said that this tax, unfair as it was, could not be made
equal and devoid of faults, and that, bad as it is, its faults
are incapable of amendment. - (Cheers.) if the Honourable
Member succeeds in his motion, he will be no nearer his ob-
ject than before. He will find that those who go with hint
into the 2obby to limit the tax have a different 'object in
favouriteua e
in views
this
view that they do not wish an inquiry for the purpose of
making the tax equal, but that their real object is to put an end
to the tax, and in so doing make such a deficiency, that then
rmesipgehett,beancdarirnietdheouHnoiunsethtoe:isgtohrta. restoration
of foreign import duties upon grain.- ( Hear, hear.) Sir,
tthheeirlangg
not at all equivocal. The Hon. Member for Devonshire, who
sin ke in support of the motion, gave, as an example that
we ought to follow, the President and Legislature of the
United States of America, where he said all native industry
was protected. Every one knows that none of the inanufac-
turers of this country want any protection for their cotton
or their woollen goods-that their protection was taken
away many years ago. They were not sufferers ley it, be-
cause they go into the markets of the world anehompete
with other producers on equal terms. Thereforii'the only
persons who requires protection - the only 'kind of
native industry that now requires protectieUe asks
for that protection which was formerly given to
the landed interests of this country. Sir, :when, in
t 842, the protective duties were very much diminished with
regard to some articles of our manufacturers, many consti-
tuents of mine came to me, urging ins not to vote for the
tariff which was then proposed by Sir R. Peel; and they
said, not unnaturally, " We could bear this competition With
the foreigners if we were not obliged to pay an extra and in-
creased price for our food ie. consequence of the corn-laws."
My answer was, " I cannot comply with your .request : I
must vote for the diminution of those duties on yoar manu-
factures. But you must depend upon this-that this c untry
will not long suffer the injustice that you should be exposed
to the competition of the foreign producer and be Obliged to
pay an artificial price for your bread in consequeece of the
acts of the Legislature." And I found myself perfectly jus-
tified by the event; because in a few years that protection
was taken eft In the course •of some of these debates my
opinions have been much alluded to with regard to the income-
tax. The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford to-night
said that we were justified on this side of the House if we had
changed our opinions with respect to it. Novi lily opinions
on the income-tax, although they would be Justified if
they bad been altered, have really undergone Very little
change. I opposed it in 1842, and
that if th I etill think I was
justified in that opposition. I think e pro-
tective duties on corn, sugar, and
timber had been
very much reduced, it would then have been possible
to impose a tax even ao
liable to objection. eln 1845,
however, I supported the income-tax; and
so
on the ground of the great benefits to be received as a com-
pensation I
for suffering that tax. I said thought it was
an
liable to the objections of inequality, vexation, , d fraud;
and I cannot
deny that I think the tax still,
cannot see
in Hans-nature,
liable to these objectiOns. I What manner
these objections can be r _
emoved • and I am afraid that.those
they come to examine
who think they can be removed, when f
tax on professional men, and
the question of imposing a less
others who derive
come to compare professional men with.
n, when they place a
only a life income on- land; and legal
tax
ati
higher on who
reduced tax on one class and a
have to confider what
re-
ceive incomes from the funds,
holders ofthe publi funds, I
justice r: quires towards the
so
great thatthey will
think they will find the difficultiesality.
Belt when I said
not be able to get rid of that on
I islitaeted at the same time that
that I was of that opinion lacy
11 of the income
tax was
the only way for getting rid
protection. (The Noble Lord here
by the diminution of n
speech on the inceme-tax in
quoted a passage front his ow
1845, which was, as nearly as we could catch it, es follows:
if they wished to net rid of
-He was confident that,
the income-tax they must take
the mode of endeavouring
increase the inrosperityto improve the condition, andto
of the empire, by
opening and increasing up .new markets and
the exe;
admitting large importation
ports, thereby creating en additional demand fur
in the consumption of articles
labour, and an augmentation
favour and 'protection.
which they restricted by imaginary favour
_
or ne years to
Then they might look at the en three dof
the abolition of the property and income-tax ; but if the
question lay between the continuance of the income-tax and
the continuance of the system of monopo, he should declare
for the income-tax and the final diminution of protection
and monopoly.) The Noble Lord then , proceeded:-Such
not concealing the
was the statement made by nie in 1845, .
e but thinking that we
grave objections to the income-M.
should obtain more than an equivalent for the country by
diminishing and reducing the taxes which pressed upon in-
dustry. Sir, it is impossible to conceal from one's self that
to-night, as on all other nights NYlien we have had similar
questions, the view of those who are to appear in oppiisition to
us, is that by making the income-tax leas likely to subsist they
may have a return to protective duties. -And, ha i _observed,
that whereas in former times, when protective duties had
not to be imposed, but only to be maintained according to an
ancient system of policy, the arguments which were, derived
from national independence, from the necessity of the food
of the people being derived hem your own soil, in order
that you might not depend for the necessary articles of
subsistence on foreign nations-those and similar argu-
ments were the chiet objections urged against a change
of your policy ; but now we have almost the naked state-
ment that for the purpose of donee justice to one interest in
this country-to enable the fanners to coutinue their occu-
pation with a profit, and to enable them to pay their rent to
the landlord, it is necessary to have protective duties on
corn.-. Hear, hear.) Now. Sir, these duties, whatever
they may be, involve one of two consequences: either-as
the Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Stamford once
argued in this House, in a very able speech - either a mode-
rate fixed duty will-not raise, the -price of corn, and in that
cave the farmers will he dicatennated, :gaff rill pa)tert
/21;aimt your n 57 orOler
and more efficient protection ; es, on the other hood, it will
rinse price of olia, sit n hie t Y ivam to pa!, x lirgq

rent than he would otherwise be able to do. And then con-
sider
what discontent von may excite among the great mass ,
of the people.—(Hear, bear.) Sir, we had only yesterday
a magnificent sight in this metropolis (Cheers) —a sight
which was gratifying on many accounts. It was gratifying
to see that this nation, and other nations of the world, had
assembled in one place the various products of their talent
and of their industry. - It was gratifying to see that me nes
have been found to place, in a splendid and magnificent
building, the products of art and of industry. But what
was most gratifying of all, was to see the great mass
of people—(Cheers) —some say half a million others
say near a million of persons—in the utmost good humour,
with content upon their countenances, with loyalty in their
hearts—(Cheers)— assembled to see the spectacle that was
exhibited before them. Sir, these people, some of them in
the poorest and meanest habiliments, showing that they
had a difficulty, by their industry to gain their daily liveli-
hood. they saw without envy, without repining, with-
out complaint, the equipages of the rich and the splendid
pass before them. They did so, as I believe, because they
felt that injustice was not exercised towards theta.— (Hear,
hear.) But if you are to tell the people that the rich are to
have their incomes increased by adding to the price
of the daily food of those masses— ( Hear, hear)—l say
you can then expect no longer to see those cheerful coun-
tenances—you can then expect no longer that the institu-
tions of the country will meet with a ready and contented
obedience. But you must expect the heart-burnings, the ill-
will, and the discontent which muet follow the imposition of
unjust laws.—(Cheers.) Sir, I have found it necessary to
say this in consequence of the turn which this debate has
taken. I should have been willing to argue this question
solely on the ground of the continuance of the income- tax for
one year or for three, on that ground I should have argued
that as a nation—as one of the principal powers of the
world—it was improvident and unsafe to risk the duration
of a considerable part of your revenue. I should have argued,
that as this tax is liable to objections, which none of its
promoters can completely gainsay, so much the more is it
desirable that we should not, year by year, have it dragged
into popular discussion. I should have said, that at this
time above all is it desirable to show that your financial
system is secure and solid. These are grounds which, as
they affect the whole of this House, so they more pecu-
liarly affect those who take Conservative views upon this
subject. The Noble Lord, the Member for Stamford, asked
me to mark with attention the declaration of my Hon.
Friend, that he wished for a direct tax almost universal,
and very large in amount, because he thought that that
would make those who paid it discontented with the amount
of the establishments, which the present Government
consider necessary for the safety, for the honour, for the
power of this country. Sir, I did mark that observation ;
but the moral I drew from it was somewhat different
from that of the Noble Lord. I drew from it, indeed, the
moral, that it is not desirable to lose your indirect taxation,
to allow that the revenue of this country should bo derived
in by far the greater proportion from direct taxation. But
I also drew the moral that it is not desirable to make this
tax, giving more than five millions a year, a tax which if
lasting only for a short time would be exposed to perpetual
criticism, and to a fresh examination in the course of every
year, and thereby entail the risk of either your income fall-
ing below your expenditure, or of reducing that expenditure
below what you deem necessary for the safety of the country.
And let the Noble Lord be assured that I am not mistaken
in this that whatever views may induce him and others
to support the amendment of my Honourable Friend to-
night, that if they succeed in that amendment it will not
tend to promote either the maintenance of the establishments
necessary for the safety of the country, nor will it tend to
the safety of those institutions which he thinks ought to
be preserved. Ors the contrary, your system of finance,
your system of taxation, ought to be known to the world
as a stable and a settled system; for nothing tends more to
shake a Government, nothing tends more to endanger a
state, than when its taxes are exposed to perpetual un-
certainty.—(Cheers, amidst which the Noble Lord resumed
his seat.)
Mr. MUNTZ rose amidst calls for a division. The Hon.
Gentleman said he could not understand on what principle
the House should grant a tax for three years when they had
it in their power always to prolong it for an additional year
if it was found to be necessary. Neither the Noble Lord
nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned one valid
thenea:
reason why they should vote the income-tax for three years
Were y etehre. ea r
t , h
say r y
l that all the at one time any more than thoy should vote the army and
navy estimates for three years at once instead of for the cur-
rent )Thy
were
emptorolivl
etmheanttthweas toine-
qualities and iniquities of the tax could never be removed.
stop, and no remedy for a crying grievance to be adminis-
tered? Let them follow the example of the United States of
America, which had been already referred to, and they would
collect a property-tax much more sound, equitable, and free
from vexation, and therefore much more satisfactory to the
people at large. Whatever the Government might think,
he was sure that out of doors great anxiety was
felt on this subject. The people said with justice,
that the tax was at first conceded for a limited
period, and for a special purpose; and yet time after time
it had been renewed, and they could not see when
there was to be any end to it. The Noble Lord taunted the
Hon. Member for Montrose with receiving support from the
opposite side. tray, was the Noble Lord never supported by
the opposite side— (Hear, hear)—and had he not many a
time courted the assistance of lion. Gentlemen opposite?
He (Mr. Muntz) intended to vote with the Hon. Gen-
tleman, and he hoped he was determined to do what he be-
lieved to be right, and accept support in doing it wherever he
could get it.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not reproach the Hon.
Gentleman for being supported by the opposite side. He
had said that Hon. Gentlemen opposite supported his Hon.
Friend for reasons totally different and contradictory to his
own views.
Mr. GEACH thought the compensations derived by the
country during the existence of the income-tax more! than
counterbalanced the injuries it inflicted by its inequalities.
He had at first felt favourable towards the Hon. Member for
Blontrose's motion ; but he h'd since been convinced that the
practical effect of his vote would be in a totally opposite di-
rection from the result he desired, and therefore he must vote
against the amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped be would ba allowed to defend him-
self from the extremely unfair speech of the Noble Lord—
(Hear)—as he intended to support the amendment of the
lion. Member for Montrose. Now, let the House see how
the ca e stood. The Noble Lord himself did not object to
the groundwork of the amendment—namely, the inequality
and injustice cf this tax; but then the Noble Lord wished to
fix upon leis lion. Friend and all who voted with him an im-
putation that they wished to bring back the tdd system of
protection. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) took the aine..dment to
be this—they had to raise a certain sum for the purposes of
Government by taxation, and his Hon. Friend always
wished to make that sum as small as possble ; but he said,
‘• If you will raise a sum so large as you do, and which I be-
lieve, with proper economy, would be totally unnecessary,
then, for God's sake, raise it fairly !" Look at the case of a
man deriving a settled income of 1,000/. a year from land,
or from some other fixed source, as compared with the man
deriving an income from a profession. Another man was
obliged to keep his mind on the stretch, oppressed with all
.he responsibilities and difficulties of existence, and might

lose hit; income at a moment when his powers were di -
minishing. and he was no longer able to provide for the
support of his family. Compare this with the condition of the
man who derived his income from land. He might be para-

lytic, ignorant, idle, anything, but his thousand pounds
a year remained to him. He said this was a gross injustice,
and it was this that Government were fighting for. When
the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Geach) told them that
he had sounded the feelings out of doors, he woulil tell the
Hon. Member that he would meet him before any meeting
of his countrymen, and he had that confidence in their
spirit of justice that he believed they would be for the work-
ing man and his interests. Those who supported the 'amend-
ment wished to raise the funds required for the public ser-
vice in an equitable way. The Noble Lard told them they
were endangering the Government; but he must ask if that
was so serious a result, because he must say, seeing the
w ter injustice of the Noble Lord's policy, that, if it was ne-
cessary to raise the present sum for the public service, it
would become that House to find a fair means of doing so.

—(Hear, hear.) When questions of economy arose, he
hoped that Hon. Gentlemen on the other side would show
the force of their convictions by taking the same line as
themse ves. He was astonishet that the Hon. Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), who had proposed so many
Sweeping schemes of retrenchment, should withhold his sup-
port from this motion; if the House would stint the taxa-
tion of the country, they would find it an easy matter to cut
down expenditure. He was not to be deterred from
supporting this motion by being told that Gentlemen opposite
were about to take advantage of the proposal, and oust what
was called a Liberal Administration. He wished to see an
illiberal Administration with ,a Liberal Opposition, for he
thought nothing could be so mischievous as a pseado-Liberal
Administration with a downright illiberal Opposition.—
(Hear, hear.) They had seen the greatest reforms, without
a single exception, carried out when Gentlemen opposite
were in office, and those who now occupied the Ministerial
benches were in opposition. He really thought the Noble
Lord and his colleagues were cut out for the functions of op-
position.—(A laugh.) They rendered much more benefit to
their country in that capacity - (Cheers and laughter)—and
it would not be with pain that he would see the occurrence
of circumstances which would place them where he believed
they would shine with peculi r lustre,, and to the great
benefit of their country.—(Hear.) If this were a just tax
make it permanent—the Noble Lord's argument went to that;
if it were not a just tax, adopt it only for so long a time as
was absolutely necessary for the public service,- and take
those precautions which would enable them to provide some
more just tax, better suited to the public exigencies.—
(Hear,) Let not the Noble Lord shift his ground ; he meant
to make the income-tax permanent, but he could not say it
from
though he Meant it.—(Cheers.)
of MthrellEUxlichu Ee
thoughte
rmust there
ha v
e been absentwunoman
th ever
e Hoeus a
House
who ad
motion in the House whose object had been more misrepre-
sented than his own. The Noble Lord and the Chancellor
when he made his speech ; the Noble Lord was most unfair
in attributing to him a course which he took special care
at the commencement to guard himself against. Both the
Noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and indeed
every one who had spoken of the tax, had described it as
abominable, unequal, unjust, and in every way unworthy to
be continued. Let the Noble Lord meet the wishes of the
people out of doors, and remove the inequalities of which
every one complained. Let the tax be imposed for one year,
and an inquiry meanwhile instituted, from which they might
judge whether it could not be made less oppressive. The
Noble Lord had submitted his naval, military, and miscel-
laneous estimates to a Committee, and even the Ceylon in-
quiry,e which was directed against an absent Governor. Id
(Mr. Hume) would ac ept support from any side of the
House, satisfied that he had done his duty.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. flume's amendment ...... 244
Against it .
' ...... -----14
Majority against Ministers ......
The announcement of the numbers was received with
vociferous cheering by the Opposition. The blank in the
Bill was then filled up with the words " one year;" the Chair-
man reported progress, and the House resumed.
Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he should propose to
go 01 with the Committee on the Prone• ty-
tax Lill on Mon-
he Mon-
daY. and postpone the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill till t
day Villowing.— (Hear. bear.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that, with regard to the Steam
Navigation Bill, which was ordered to be committed that
h
day, he bad no objection to assent to the wish
been expressed, that it a
should be referred to Select Com-
mittee. lie thought it desirable that the Committee should
not be numerous—seven or five Members - and he proposed
to nominate the Committee on Monday.
PRACTICE AND PROCESS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the next order of the day being read from the chair,
Mr SADLEIR said that Wit was proposed to proceed with
the Practice and Process (Inland) Bill without affording
the information Which was asked for before Easter respecting
the officers of the Court of Exchequer, whom it wai proposed
to compensate, he should move that the Chairman should
report prtkgress.
The AT IORNEY-GEN ERAL for IRELAND said that
this Bill wile introduced in order to remove doubts which
Pxiated a' to whether an Act paated hot sec ion at the in-
stance of the Master of the Roils for England, for regulating
the general process and pracae cf ate I;:s:t r:our;s,
tO the Exchequer cliii:ab.zor, C.Y.,113 t‘Yi

Ireland. The officer whom it was proposed by this Bill to
compensate was the registrar and clerk of this court, whose
office was a freehold held by patent under the Crown. This
office had been filled for twenty-five years by Sir E. Tierney,
who had a salary of 2601. per annum, and fees averaging
:300/. a year, which were fixed by the Act constituting the
court, pasted in 1803, and a subsequent Act regulating the
court, passed in 18,3. It was proposed to give him such
compensation as the Treasury might award for any reduction
in these fees which might take place in consequence of the
alterations in the practice and process of the court which
might be effected ander this Bill.
Mr. SADLERt did not consider the information given
by the Attorney-General for Ireland a-, all satisfactory.
Before Easter it was said that this Bill was to compen-
sate three officers of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, but
these three gentlemen were now reduced to one. He be.
lieved that, as long as he had been connected with profes-
sional practice in Dublin, this office had been a sinecure, so
far as the personal service or attendance of Sir E. Tierney
went; he had been for a large part of his life an absentee in
England and upon the Continent, and if he had any duties
they were discharged by deputy. He protested against
proceeding with the measure at nearly one o'clock in the
morning. He wished the Attorney-General for Ireland
would follow the practice adopted by the Master of the
Rolls last session, of not originating debates on Irish Bills
after midnight, except with the concurrence of Irish Mem-
bers, who might be disposed to take a prominent pia us
their consideration. -- ( Hear.)
Lord JOHN- RUSSELL had always understood that it
was an established rule that, when any change was made in
the administration of justice, those who held patent offices
should receive compensation for any diminution of their in-
comes which might take place. It would be held an in-
justice, and it certainly would be a thing wholly unprece-
dented to take away such an office -which had always been
considered a kind of freehold—without compensating its
holder.

Mr. G A. HAMILTON saw no reason for objecting to a
clause of this kind, which left the matter afterwards to be
settled by the Treasury.
Mr. GOOLD asked it' Sir E. Tierney was the only person
to receive compensation?

Mr. HAT 'HELL denied, as asserted by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Carlow, that Sir E. Tierney was either a sinecurist or
absentee. On inquiry he found that Sir E. Tierney was the
only pe son to be compensated.
The resolution was then agreed to, and the House re-
sumed.

On the motion of Mr. HEADLA.M, the following Members
were appointed on the Select Committee on the laws of
mortmain Headlam, Mr. Attorney-General, Lord
John Manners, Mr. Mutt, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey,
Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Roundel' Palmer, Mr. Heald, Sir
Robert Harry Inglis, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. William Mar-
shall, Mr. Anstey, Ma. Shafto Adair, Mr. Hardcastle, and
Mr. Drummond.
Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a
Bill to simplify the forma of appointments to certain offices,
and the manner of passing grants under the Great Seal.
The Bill was subsequently brought in and read a first time.
Mr TRELAWNY moved the appointment of the Select
Committee on church rates.

Mr. BERESFORD suggested that the hour was too late
to appoint the Committee.
Mr. TRELAWNY said, if they did not appoint the Com-
mittee, the people out of doors would say they were not sin-
cere on the question.
Mr. SrOONER then moved the adjournment of the
question.

The House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ... ... ..
Against it
_.,.. ... ... ...

Majority ... —34
The Committee was then nominated as follows :—Mr.
Trelawny, Sir Robert Harry Inglis, Mr. Henley, Sir David
Dundas, Mr. Bright, Mr. Pole Carew, Mr. Alexander Hope,
Mr. Horsman, Sir Charles Douglas, Mr. Hardcastle, Mr.
John Ellis, Sir John Duckworth, Mr. John George myth,
Mr. Littleton and Mr. Heyworth.
The other orders were disposed of and the House ad-
journed at Half-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Ccntintens.)

FRIDAY, MAY 2.
PROPERTY-TAX BILL.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Clause 1 (Rates and Duties granted by the said first re-
cited Act to be further continued for ) :
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the blank be
filled up with ' three years:' —Afterwarcismoved, "That the
blank be filled with' one year :' "—Question put, " That the
blank be filled with 'one year.' " The Committee divided :

6121JOR1TY ----AYES, 241.
Floyer, John Mowatt, FranciS
Forbes, W. Hollings, J. R.
Fx eshfield, J. W. Mundy, William
Frewen, C. 11. Naas, Lord
Fuller, A. E. Napier Joseph
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Neeld, John
Galway, Viscount Newdegate, N.
Gaskell, J. M. Newport, Visa.
Gilpin, Colonel Noel, G. J.
Goddard, A. L. O'Brien Sir:Luciva
Gooch, E. S. Ossulton, Lord
Goold, Wnydham Paeke, C. W.
Gordon, Admiral Pakington, Sir J.
Gore, W. R. 0. Palmer, Robert
Gore, W. 0. Patten, W.
Granby, Marquis of Peehell, Sir G.
Greenall, G. Pigot, Sir Robert
Greene, John Plumptre, J. P.
Grenfell, C. Pasco) Portal, Melville
Grogan, Edward Prime, Richard
Guernsey, Lord Prinsep, II T.
Hale, R. B. Pugh, David
Halford, Sir Henry Reid, Colonel
Hall, Sir B. Rendlesham, Lord
Hall, Colonel Repton, G. W. J.
halsey, T. P. Ricardo, John L.
Hamilton, G. A. Richards, Richard
Hamilton 'J. IL Roebuck, J. A.
Harcourt, G. G. Rut Toni, Francis
Harris, Captain Rushout, Captain
Hastie, Alexander Sadleir, John
Hastie, Archbald Salwey, Colonel
Henley, J. W. Sandars, G.
Herbert, 11. A. Scholetield, W.
'terries, J. C. Scott, Francis
Hervey, Lord A. Scully, Francis
Ilildyard, IL C. Seynaer, 11. K.
Ilildyard, I'. B. Sibthorp, Colonel
IEII, Lord E. Sidney, Alderman
llodgson, \V. N. Smyth, Jt hn George
llorsman, Edward Somerset, Captain
liotham, Lord Sotherou, T. IL S.
Hudson, G. Spooner, It.
Ilumpliery, Ald. StalTord, Augustus
J °little, Sir W. li. Stanford, J. F.
Jones, Captain Stanley, E. H.
Keating, Robert Stephenson, Robert
Kerrism, Sir E. Stuart, Lord D.
King, P. J. Stuart, John
Knightley, Sir C. Stuart, H.
Knox, Colonel Sturt, Henry G.
Lacy, Henry C. Sullivan, Michael
Langton, W. H. P. Sutton, II M.
Lascelles, W. S. Talbot, C. R.
Legh, G. C. Taylor, T. E.
Lennard, T. B. Thesiger, Sir F. '
Lennox, Lord A. Thompson, Alderman
Lennox, Lord H. G. Tollemache, Jolu2
Lindsay, Colonel Trevor, G. It.
Lockhart, A. E. Trollope, Sir J.
Lockhart, W. Tyler, Sir G.
Long, W. Tyrell, Sir J.
Lopes, Sir Ralph Verner, Sir W.
Lowther, Colonel Vyse, R. H. R. If •
Lowther, Henry Waddington, David
Lushingten, C. Waddington, 11. S.
Lygon, Gen. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Macaghten, Sir E. Walter, John
M'Gregor, John Welby, G. E.
Maher, N. Whitmore, T. C.
Meagher, Thomas Whiteside, James
Mandeville, Vis. Williams, John
Manners, Lord C. Williams, T. P.
Manners, Lord G. Willoughby, Sir H.
Manners, Lord J. Wodehouse, E.
March, Earl of Worcester, Marquis
Maunsell, T. P. Wynn, R. W.
Maxwell, Hon. J. P. Yorke, E. T.
Ileum, Sir H.
Miles, Philip
Miles, William
Moody, C. A.
Morgan, 0.

TELLINI.
Fume, Joseph
Mintz, G. F.

MINORITY—NOES, 230.
Fitawilliam, G. W. Oswald, A.
Foley, J. H. Owen, Sir John
Fordyce, A. D. Paget Lord A.
Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord C.
Fortescue, Chichester Paget, Lord G.
Fortescue, J. W. Palmer, Roundell
Fox, W. J. Palmerston, Via.
Freestun, Colonel Parker, John
French, F. Peel, Sir Robert
Geach, Charles Peel, Frederick
Gibson, T. M. Peto, Samuel
Glyn, G. C. Pilkingten, James
Granger, T. C. PinneY, W.
Greene, Thomas Plowden, W. 11.
Grenfell, Castries W. Ponsonby, C. F.
Grey, Sir George Powlett, Lord W.
Grey,',R. W. Price, Sir R.
Grosvenor, Lord B. Pusey, P.
Guest, Sir John Rawdon, Colonel
Hardcastle, J. A. Ricardo, Osman
Harris, Richard Rice, E. R.
Hatchet!, John Rich, Henry
Hawes, B. Routlly, Colonel
Hayes, Sir E. Russell, Lord John
Headiam, T. E. Russell, B. c
Heald, James Russell, F. C.
Heueage,;Edward &rope. C• P•
Henry, Alexiutder Seymour. t...,
Herbert, Sidney Seymour
Heywood, James Shafts Earl of
toolbar' . u
Hayworth, L. , ...Man. B. B.
Hindley, C. Niath. Vernon
Honors.. T. B.
_.. smith. John Abel
Hodges, T. Twild''' smith John B.
ismYthe. George
1111o°11ggond.. Sir J.
gomers, J. P.
Howard, Lord B. somerville, Sir W.
Howard. C. W. G. spearman, H. J.
Howard. •T• B. Stansfleld, W. R.
Howard. B. 0.
Howard, sir It. Stanton, W. H. Staunton, Sir G. Hutchins, E. J.
Butt, William . Stuart, Lord J.
Tailored, 11. W.
JJ:hriniasyton,acE.asrilr_
J. Tenisou, Edward K.
Kershaw, James Thicknesse, R. A.
Labouchere, H. Thompson, Colonel
Langston, J. H. Thornely, T.
Lawley, 11. R. Tollemache, F. J.
Lewis, Sir 'l'. Towneley, John
Lewis, G. C. Townley, R. G.
Locke, Joseph Trelawny, J. S.
Mackinnon, W. A. Trevor, Thomas
M"raggart, SirJ. Tann, Henry
Mangles, R. 1). Vane, Lord H.
Marshall, J. G. Villiers, Charles
Marshall, W. Vivian, J. 11.
Martin, C. W. Wall, C. B.
Masterman, J. 1V almsley, Sir J.
Matheson, Colonel Watkins, Colonel
Meade, Fos Wawn, J. T.
Melgund, Viscount Weg.,Prosser, F.
Milner, W. 31. Wellesley,* Lord C.
31ilnes, R. M. Westhead, J. P.
Mickell, T. ..1.. Willcox, Brodie
Moffatt, George Williams, W.l:
Alolesworth,Sir W. Williamson, Sir H.
Moncrieff, James Wilson, James
Mo,gan, 11. E.G. Wilson, Matthew
:Morison, Sir IV. Wood, Sir Charles
Morris, David Wood, Sir W. P.
Mulgrave, Earl Wortley, J. S.
Murphy, F. S. Wrightson, W. B.
Nicholl, J. Wyvill, Marimiduk,
Norreys, Lord
Norreys, Sir 1).
Ogle, S. C.
Ord, William

TELLER!.
11111, Lord Marcus

Hayter, W. G.