The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-03 00:00:00

of May the motion for a Committee had been put and
carried. Fur the House, therefore, to rescind diet order
in au indirect 'oral was a dargerous operation. It it did
so, be (Mr. Aghonby) gave notice that in cue the reso-
lution to retied the vote of inquiry into the income-tax
was carried, he should move the extension of the tax to
there years.
Mr. HUME explained the course he had taken in the
construction- of the Committee. On the House decidittg
that there should be a Committee be bed put down on the
list only tour nerves en his own side; and these were the
names of Hon. Gentlemen who had brought forward sate
stautive motions on thesubject of the income tax in 1847-8
He had then crossed over to the Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire, and showing him his list, asked him to
recommend four of his friends, which was done—the
Hon. Member being himself the fourth, only at his (NU-
Hutne'e) expiess solicitation.. He (Mr. Hume) then
went to the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Rips
and asked lann to serve on the C. mmittee with. three or
his political friends of the Peel Administration, but.that
Right Hon. Baronet declined to do so. He (Mr. Htune)
atter this went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,- ex-
pressing a wish to have Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Card well,and
Mr. F. Peel. These formed eleven Members if • they.'
chose to serve. The members recommended by 00
Chancellor of the Exchequer were put on, with the ex-
ception of Colobel Rawdon. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by stating that he would cast the onus of the Wit-
ter on the Government, by pressing his motion.
Mr. DEEDES bad supported the motion on arforne
occasion to limit the income-tax to one year, on the- dis-
tinct understanding that a Committee shouid be I'
pointed to ieqaire into the operation of that tax. Jr
could not, therefore, vote for the amendment. He et"
jeered, however, to the way in which the landed interest
was represented on the Committee, though he admitted
the couipoeitien of that body was better than last week*
He (Mr. Descles) objected altogether, however,' to the
two Members tor the West Riding being on the: Coln'
mittee, and he could not, moreover,- see why the HO&
Member for the Qu-en's County was placed upon it, ev
cupt with the ulterior deject of extending the income"
tax to Ireland.--(Cheers). He, therefore, recommended
the Hon Member for Montrose to suspend for the Pre'
sent the further nomination of the Committee, with the
view to meet the objections that existed against its cola'
position. - • .
fir H. WILLOUGHBY said that the Hon. Member
for Muetrose forgot one step. He gave notice of his
motion on one night, and on the'next he carried a mo-
tion which had in its terms been changed.. The Honer,
therefore,' had no opportunity of coming to a decision oa
the question. _
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman would
have prevented some difficulty had he in the first instance
adapted the suggestion of the Hon. Member for the West
fluting by moving for • a modification of the tax, if he
.ished to have a modification. The House would then
have known what they were about, and the Hon. Mein"
bars could then have voted for the proposition or against
it. The vote for a Committee of Inquiry the other night
had been supported by the 230 Members who were in
favour on different grounds. No wonder, then, there
should be a misunderstanding on the matter.. After -the
vote had been come to the other evening, hostated that
Government wero willing to consent to an inquiry by
Committee into-the tax, and that if a Conimittee were
appointed. it should be - as far as possible constituted of
irrsone taken from both sides of the House conversant
with subjects cf finance, and who would be received,bi
the Committee as authorities on that subject. That
Was one way in which he wished the Committee to; be
appointed. But the Honourable Gentleman had -Dot
succeeded in his object. In the first place, Abe
certain gentlemen belonging to the Cabinet and holding
office under the late Sir Robert Peel had not consented
w act on the Committee. The Committee would not be
such a Committee as he could approve. of. Then there
was one name on the Committee to which-he should-de'
cidedly object—it was the name of-the Chancellor of the
Excite quer. He did not thick the Chancellor of: tb;
Exch quer ought to go into a Committee of that kin,'
with two or three gentlemen who might be of his opinion
to contest such points with the other Members, es-to
whether there should be a modification et. the income'
tax, or otherwise. Such propositions ought to be ode
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in Cool;
mittee. Tbere was only one thing- which remained,' and
that was—if the Hon. Member for Montrose did proceed
to propose etioh a Committee, he should come to some
agreement previously with other Hoe. Members, who
might be able to meet the arguments relative to the in-
herent defects of the tax beteg, as he bad been told be
bad once stated, unequal, vexatious, and fraudulent He
could not vote for the amendment.

Mr. HENLEY said it was bard for the Hon. Member
for Cockl-rmonth to take the course be had taken. The
House was placed in this position—the Noble Lord said
the Committee could not be constituted 'in the-'way be
could have desired; therefore, let the Hon. Member for
Montrose have his Committee to work its own wicked
will. He had no duubt of the ability of the Hon. Mem
nor, end the strong case - the Committee would present,
but he considered such a Committee would not command
the cuilfitieuce of th- country, and therefore he mast
rote for the amendment.

Mr. HOlibAtAN said many similar motions bed been
made with various fortune. But so far from the preheat
embarrassment having arisen from the views of extreme
parties in that House, the truth was, that the embarras-
ment bad been caused try Government relying with too
much confidence on the votes of their usual supporters.
He considered the Hon. Member for Montrose bad taken
the only course that was suited to the nature of the oc-
casion. The Hon. Member's object was not to make
the tax perpetual, but to make is more equal. There
were various opinions as to the tax—his 'was' that the
tax, as an experiment, had been attended with great ad-
vantage.

I.lr-. T. BARING said the country would never permit
the tax to be continued without a Committee of Inquiry.
He could not vote for the amendment. He could not
consent to shelve the inquiry unless some security' were
given that the tax would not be made a permanent tax.
Mr. LOOKER said no one on his aide of the House
would desire to give a shock to public credit by with•
drawing the tax at a time when the financial position of
the country might require it; but he certainly did not
approve of the propteal for making it permanent. He
approved of it in the original sense, and fur the original
purpose for which it was proposed.
Mr. COBDEN had voted against the motion of the
Hon. Member fbr Montrose the other night, because
he motion was calculated, in the form in which it was
entitle, to obtain votes from Hon. Gentlemen opposite who
did not entertain the same views on the question 'fetich
he did. He had made appeals, private and public, to
the Honourable. Member against bringing forward his
motion in its original form. He assumed that a Com-
mittee would be granted, but he sever expected
,it.y good from the Committee as fir as the one
year was cencernt d, because be was satisfied a majority
would be decidedly opposed to such a modification. ile
wished to vote on the subject of modification: The
Hon. Member for Cockermouth said if so, that would
oe assenting to the principle; now he wanted to let the
country see what the House said and what the House
did on this question. lie was of opinion the House
and the country were labouring under a delusion on the
-übjeet. The press bad led the country to believe that
the Reuse desired credit for the honesty and bona. .fide
chatacter of the decision which had been arrived at.
He had voted against the Hon. Member when the pro-
posal was to linsit the tax for one year; but he could
not vote against the proposition for a Committee. lie
confessed he would prefer to have the tax, bad as it was,
for three years rather than one year, because be did not
look at the question per se: he looked at it with
reference to the whole of the taxation and the necessities
of the revenue. If the income-tax was bad, other
taxes were worse, and pressed more injuriously on the
people. He should vote in good faith for the motion,
although some Hon. Member said it was impossible to
turn round, and, in the face of the country, vote in the
teeth of the former vote.
Mr. BERRIES was understood to say he would vote
for the amendment.
The House then divided--
For the amendment ... 94
Per the motion
••• ••• ••• 193
Majority against the amendment... -- 99
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. HORSM AN inquiring when the nomination Of
the Committee would take place ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to name Friday.
Mr. MON6ELL wished to know whether the Ecclesi-
astical Title, Bill would be proceeded with on Friday
If so, it would prevent many Hon. Members from leav-
ing town on account of the holidays.
L ‘rd J. RUSSELL must proceed with .the Bill OS
Friday. He could nut consent to lose a day on account
of the reason alleged by the Hon. Member.
ECCLESIASIICAL TITLES ASSUMPTION'BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. WALPOLE rose, and said be promised on Fri-
day to state the course he intended to pursue with re-
spect to certain amendments be had to propose. lie
wished to support the Noble Lord as far as he could in
his Bill, and at the same time he wished to make the Bill
as complete as he could, and as effectual for its purpose,
before it passed through Committee. He had in conse-
quence given notice of amendments, which he considered
to be all right, in themselves, and some absolutely essen-
tial for the success of the Bill. Feeling this he said that
he could not consent to give way as to any amendments
on which he believed depended the success of the mea-
sure; nor could be give way in any amendment, unless
some strong countervailing reason was shown to induce
him to do is. Two reasons bad been assigned why be
ought not to press his amendments. Oue was, that the
declaratory clause, or, as the Hon. Member for Dublin
said, the Walpole clause, bad given almost all he asked
for, in effect—and, therefore, it was unnecessary to press
it. The other reason had been intimated by the Noble
Lord opposite, that Members friendly to the passing of
the Bill, when they saw the various delays and impedi
meets to the progress of the Bill that had taken place.
would be of opinion that the friends of the Bill ought not
to add to the delay or increase these impediments, Be
was strongly of opinion that these reasons ought to
have great weight with him—so much so, that he
thought it right, having a little leisure to spare from
business in which ha vas otherwise occupied,
to reconi-ider the whole subject, and, having done
so, to state to the Committee what amendments be
would press and what amendments he would waive.
Haring obtain, d the deeldri,tory clause, which, to his
mind, was of more seer. stance than anything else in the
Bill, and fearing to impede the progress of the Bill
through Committee, Le should propose nothing but
what was really essential to the proper working of the
Bill. He thought three things were essential. In the
first place, he considered it was absolutely essential to
the proper wot king of the Bill that it should clearly lay
down, define. and point out the coestitutiunal principles
on which the 11.,1150 proceeded. Since the dt bate on
Friday last he was more convinced than ever that the
supposed ambiguity existed more in the minds of its
opponents than in the clause itself. He was sure no
ambiguity 'would be found in the Owe if it were re*