The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-26 00:00:00

from the rich and give to the path', *at eonfiscatind.
thought that no comparison could be instituted betwee'
the graduated tax proposed on the clergy', &odd the gra-
duated property tax. A property tax on the principle
graduation had a tendency to determine one rate of income
for the whole community. The graduated tax on the
clergy was only an equitable distribution of an allotted
fund—the other was an unjust spoliation. If the House
thought the rate he had mentioned ton high, he was sure
that his Majesty's Government would make no objettiors,
and he should certainly make none, to adopting the mote
liberal proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet. He would
leave it entirety to the House.
Mr. WARi3URTON said, though that was not the
time to discuss the principle of a graduated property tax.
he was prepared to show upon a first rate authority, that
such a tax was most equitable. The question h ;CI been
discussed by La Place in his " Theory of Probabilitie;s"
and whenever the subject should be discussed he should
be prepared to support his views by that authority.
Sir ROBERT PEEL would readily bow to the autho-
rity of La Place on a question of pure mathematics, but
on the question of a graduated property tax, there were
two other elements to he taken into consideration beside,
those on which La Place had reasoned. La Place sup-
posed the incomes to be fixed, and did not consider the
means of acquiring them. He did not estimate the in-
fluence of such a tax on industry. And he (Sir Robert
Peel) was afraid that the desire to accumulive wealth would
be greatly abated by a graduated property tax.—(Hear.)
Mr. HEATHCOTE recommended the Government to
acquiesce in what he thought was the universal wish of
the House. The sum of 3001. seemed little enough to
begin the taxation.
Mr. O'CONNELL also approved of the alteration. It
was not the small incomes of the lower clergy, but the
I rge incomes of the Archbiaheps and Bishops that ought
to be reduced.
Mr. SHEIL asked if the whole sum would remain as
it was before the proposed alteration ?
Mr. STANLEY replied, that the scale would remain

the same, except cutting off the lower part of it.
Mr. HUME was glad that the Richt Hon. Baronet
had not fixed the amount at 5001. instead of 3001. as the
gentlemen opposite would have been ready to grant it.—
(0!:, oh; No, no.) Thegreat point, however, was to take
care that no man got 3001. who did nothing for it.
The suggestion of Sir R. Peel was then agreed to, and
the schedule so amended was ordered to stand part of
the Bill.
Schedule B was also agreed to, and the preamble was
agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be reported.
The House resumed, the report was brought up, read
and received, and ordered to be taken into further consi-
deration on Friday next.
Mr. SHELL gave notice that he would, on that day,
move, that the incomee of all Archbishops should be re-
duced to 4,5001. a year, and of all Bishops to 4,0001. He
would propose to introduce into the preamble a declara-
tory principle, that the property of the church was under
the control of the state.
BANK CHARTER.
Mr. Secretary STANLEY postponed this subject till
Friday next.

Mr. HUME suggested that the time ought to be posi-
tively fixed for the discussion of this subject, as 60 many
interests were concerned. He wished to know positively
whether or not it would be brought forward on Friday?
Mr. Secretary STANLEY could not positively say
that his Noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
would be in his place on Friday ; but if he were, he would
most certainly bring forward the Bank of England ques-
tion in preference to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.
On the question for appointing a day for the Justices
of Peace Bill.

Mr. Alderman WOOD comphined that all businesA
was postpont d or hurried over at a late hour, and hat
then there was a ready and a willing Rouse with nothing
to do.

The other orders of the day were then disposed o
and the House adjourned at a quarterapast seven o'clock.

rE 11111V0P1PY,