The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 13.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
An HoN. MEMBER stated that he had received a
note from the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, (Mr. G.
Bankes,) stating that he had unfortunately been con-
fined to his bed by severe indisposition, and that the
medical gentleman who had attended him was ready
to give evidence to that effect, at the Bar of the House.
' Mr. Jackson was then called to the bar of the
House, and stated that he had !attended Mr. Bankes
professionally, and had found him labouring under a
bilious, attack, accompanied with fever. In his
opinion he was unable to attend to his duties at the
House yesterday, and would be so for four or five
days to come.
Lord G. SOMERSET then moved that Mr. G.
Bankes be discharged from the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms without payment of the usual fees.
Sir G. GREY thought the Hon. Member should
have communicated the fact to the House. Great care
he thought should be taken to prevent inconvenience
from such causes.
Mr. BERNARD thought that Members who were
too unwell to attend ought to pay the fees.
Mr.. W. PATTEN was quite willing that Mr.
Bankes should be excused after the statement which
had been made ; but very serious notice should be
taken of any absence on slight pretence.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he believed he could
state that it had been the intention of Mr. Bankes to
attend yesterday, and he was only prevented by se-
rious indisposition.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could see no reason why
Mr. Bankes should not be discharged sunder the cir-
cumstances; but he thought it was highly desirable to
prevent Hon. Members from availing themselves of
frivolous excuses.
The motion was then agreed to.
SECOND READINGS.
The Sudbury Improvement Bill was read a second
time. The Great North of England (Clarence and
Hartlepool) Junction Railway Bill (No. 1) was read
second time.

WAKEYHILL INCLOSURE.
Mr. BAILEY brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Wakeyhill Inclosure Bill.
ROCHESTER ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the House that the pro-
ceedings on the petition against the return for the
borough of Rochester had been abandoned.
WAKEFIELD ELECTION.
The SPEAKER informed the Members chosen to
try the merits of the Wakefield petition, that the
'rouse dispensed with their attendance for the pre-
sent, but it was probable they would be wanted to-
morrow.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
Colonel ACTON presented a petition from Wick-
against the system of National Education in
Ireland.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a pe-
tition agreed to at a conference of Delegates of the
Middle and Working Classes of Great Britain, held
at Birmingham on the sth and 6th of April and the
following days, signed by the Chairman, on their
behalf, Mr Joseph Sturge. He stated the following
abstract :—The petitiopers state that, in their opinion,
every member of society has an equal right to a voice
in the making of the laws which he is called on to obey,
and that it is the true principle of the Constitution that
no man should be taxed except by his own consent or
that of his representatives--that, therefore, every man
not deprived of his right of citizenship by a verdict of
a jury, is entitled to .the elective franchise. That in
order to secure the free exercise of the suffrage, the
system of vote by ballot should be adopted. That
election districts should be rendered as nearly as pos-
sible equal in proportion to the number of electors.
That all men chosen by a majority of votes should be
eligible as a Member of Parliament, without respect
to qualification by property. That all legal election
expenses, and a reasonable remuneration to Members
of Parliament, should be paid at the public expense.
That in order to secure and maintain the responsibility
of Members to their constituents, the petitioners
recommend annual Parliaments. Petitioners pray
your Honourable House to take these premises into
immediate consideration, and adopt such measures as
shall secure a full, fair, and free representation of the
people in Parliament, according to the principles
stated in the petition.
Mr. CRAWFORD would move the consideration
of this petition on Thursday, 21st of April.
The SPEAKER said that the petition should be
referred to the General Committee on Public Petitions.

THE TARIFF.
An Hort. MEMBER presented a petition from Ox-
ford against the alteration of the duty on leather.
An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Lin-
colnshire against the reduction of duty on live stock
and-provisions.

•
Sir J. HANMER presented a pkition from Hull,
against certain portions of the tariff.
Mr. T. DUN COMBE presented a petition from a
certain individual at Birmingham, praying the House
to pass the financial measures of the Government without
delay, inasmuch as he thought there was sufficient
spirit in the country to drive the authors of such mean
sures from the Government in the event of their being
carried.

REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Pres-
ton and Bolton, praying for a repeal of the legislative
Union with Ireland.
COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. EMERSON TENNENT,
the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself
into Committee on the Copyright of Designs Bill
was read, and ordered to be postponed to this day week.
CARDIGAN ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The SPEANER inquired whether Mr. M. Blake
who had been nominated on this Committee, and had,
in consequence of non-attendance, been ordered to he
taken into custody, was in custody ?
The Sergeant-at-Arms replied that the Hon. Mem-
ber had not been taken into custody yet.
The SPEAKER then called the Members of the
Committee to the table, and informed them that they
:were discharged from further attendance, on account
-of the non-attendance of Mr. Blake; also, that a new
Committee would be appointed on Thursday or Fri-
day next.—The Hon. Alembers then resumed their
Seats.
On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. Grogan
and Mr. Irving were added to the Select Committee
-on Post-office Communication. •
On the motion of Mr. E. TENNENT, the name
of Colonel Connolly was added to the Select Com-
mittee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.
THE TARIFF.
Mr. MILES gave notice that in Committee on the
tariff he should move that the duty to be levied on
Me stock imported from foreign countries for the
purposes of food should be taken by weight.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, seeing the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade in. his place,
ha beggeA leave to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman
whether there was any objection to furnish the in-
formation required in a notice of motion which he
(Sir 11. Douglas) gave on the 12th of last month, for
the production of a return of all foreign wood entered
for home consumption, for the year ending the .sth of
January,._lB42, classifying every article according to
its value. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, whether the calculation by which the average of
41s. was struck, included all descriptions of wood,
such as fire-wood, which would of course materially
affect the average produced ?
Mr. GLADSTONE said there could be no objec-
tion whateirer on the part of the Government to the
production of a return of this description, unless he
called its impracticability an objection. It was not
in the power of the revenue department to take
cognizance of the species of wood imported.
With respect to the publication to which his Hon.
Friend had alluded, he thought it was stated by the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment that the duty on all kinds of timber would be
between 41s. and 425. With respect to the latter part
orfris Hon. Friend's question, he had only to say, that
undoubtedly inferior descriptions of wood were in-
cluded in the averages—(l-lear)—the effect of which
was to lower the averages by about 3s.—(Hear.) It
had been 'ai first intended to tax timber and deals in
two separate clauses, and to tax lath and fire-wood at
203. the load ; but in the amended tariff it would be
seen that these smaller woods had been differently
classed.

RIGIIT OF PETITION.
The Hon. W. COWPER, seeing his Noble Friend
the A ember for North Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton)
in his place, begged to ask him whether it was his in-
tention to persevere in bringing forward the motion
which he spoke of last evening?
Lord, P. EGERTON said that he would put the
motion on the books of the House to-morrow evening.

Ca F OF RICHARD GIBBONS.
Mr. T. i)UNuI)MBE in rising to bring forward
the motion of which be had given notice for the
discharga of Richard Gibbons, stated that he
-wished,' in the first place, to present a petition
signed by several most respectable individuals in
favour of the motion. The petition which he held in
his hand, was the humble petition of certain inha-
bitants of Great Marlow. The 'petitioners stated that
they had known Gibbons for several years, and they
believed him to be totally incapable of wilfully
committing perjury, for the purpose of misleading
the House. The petitioners prayed that the House
-might visit with leniency the error into which Gib-
bons had been betrayed. That petition was signed
by several respectable gentlemen of both political
prties, and among them by Sir George Nugent and
Sir Wm. Clayton.
The-petition having been ordered to be laid upon
Abe table,
The HON. MEMBER proceeded to say that he
brad no personal accquaintance with Gibbons,
arrd he would not have brought forward the
prevent motion, if he did not feel perfectly satis-

fled, from the representations made to . him,. that
the error of Gtoibbboenli
He had reason beenthat
individualunin tent Tals.
sevehathdat
totally incapable of wilfully committing the offence
with which he had been charged, and were it other-
wise he would be ready to admit that a man of Gib-
bons's respectability should be punished ten times
more severely than an individual in an hum-
ble station. In .the petition which Gibbons
himself had addressed to the House, he stated that he
was called upon on Tuesday the sth April, to give
his evidence before the Committee, relative to the
vote of a person of the name of Charles Gibbons.
Having given his evidence in reference to that vote,
he was subjected to a severe cross-examination by
Counsel for the petitioners, in the course of which he
was examined as to the canvass of other voters, which
was not material to the issue before the Committee.
lie was examined with reference to his canvassing
for two voters named Pusey and Povey, upon points
whi.,:h did not in the slightest degree affect the
vote of Charles Gibbons. On the Thursday fol-
lowing—this happened on the Tuesday—he gave
evidence in the case of Povey ; and it was not likely
that he would have done so, if he was conscious of
having committed perjury before. He stated that
he was unused to examinations in courts („f
justice, and had confounded the cases of Povey
and Pusey. He had no intention, he said, of giving
false evidence, though he mitted that his
statement was contradictory; and he begged the
House to take his case into their consideration.
He (Mr. Duncombe) felt convinced that any gentle-
man who read the examination and cross-examination
to which the witness was subjected, would be sur-
prised that he should have come so clear out of the
examination : there was quite enough to confuse any
man. If it could be proved that an individual had been
guilty of wilful perjury that was calculated to mis-
lead the Committee, he thought the punishment that
the House would inflict on him, by sending him to
Newgate, was not sufficient. The Attorney-General
ought to proceed against him for perjury, and he
should take the consequences of his conduct. He
would now read almost the concluding question that
was put to him on the last day when his attention was
called to the conflicting evidence that he had given on
the day preceding. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought that
the Counsel himself was quite as much confused as
the witness. Mr. Duncombe was proceeding to read
the evidence, when
The SPEAKER was understood to say that the
Hon. Member would be out of order if he read evi-
dence that was not included in the body of the petition.
Mr. DUNCOMBE could only say then, that the
witness was examined and badgered for an hour and
a half, and Gentlemen who were not accustomed
to be examined in that way should allow for him.
What had occurred on the occasion was this—he
was asked if that was a true answer, and if he ad-
mitted that it conflicted with the reply he had given
on the previous day. He replied that it was a true
answer, and if he had answered differently the day
before he must have been misunderstood or misrepre-
sented. The room was then cleared, and the Com-
mittee immediately, and without giving any notice to
the witness, came to the decision that the witness hail
been guilty of wilfully giving false evidence, and com-
mitted him to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms. He thought the Committee ought to have
given the witness an opportunity of explaining,
as, by the Act of Parliament, the Committee were
directed to report the misbehaviour of witnesses to the
Speaker. It seemed to him that the Committee
had gone out of its way, by saying that he had
been wilfully guilty of giving false evidence.
That might have been their opinion, but they
went out of their way in giving it. The
witness, without being given time to explain,
was laid hold of by the Sergeant-at-Arms, brought
before the House, and sent to Newgate, while he had
no opportunity of explaining his conduct to the
House. He (Mr. D.) offered his explanation to
the House, which would deal with it as
it thought proper. He knew nothing of the indi-
vidual himself, but many Hon. Gentlemen who were
acquainted with him, considered him incapable of the
offence with which he was charged. He confessed
that he had prevaricated, but he stated he had no inten-
tion of defeating the ends of justice. The Hon. Gentle-
man concluded by moving :—" That Richard Gibbons
be called to the bar, reprimanded by Mr. Speaker,
and discharged."
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.
The motion having been put,
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that he was sorry he could
not concur in the motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury. He was sorry he could not do so, because
the Committee were unanimous in thinking that this
gentleman, respectable though he might be, had given
his evidence not only incorrectly, but that it was given
wilfully. He wished to call the attention of the
House to the fact that Mr. Gibbons was
.brought
before the Committee when he was calmly composed,
and not when he came up in a hurry from Marlow.
But if he were inclined to speak the truth, he need
not be afraid whenever he was brought before the
Committee. Truth was but one, and what was truth
on Tuesday was truth on Thursday. With regard to
the point of mistaking the name of Povey for Pusey,
and which was material to the vote under consideration,
he was sure that if the question had been asked him,
he would confess that he had made no mistake re-
specting the names. He could not but regret that
a person in Mr. Gibbons's station should be found
guilty of giving false evidence, but if that were so
it was an aggravation of the offence. With regard to
the word " wilful," it might be considered too strong
a word to use, but the entire Committee were unani-
mous in the opinion that Mr. Gibbons did to a certain
extent know that he was not speaking the exact truth.
There were only two ways of dealing with Mr. Gib-
bons ' • the one was, the plan which the Committee
had adopted; and the other was, to order him to be
prosecuted for perjury in a Court of Law. He was
not prepared to recommend the latter course to the
House, because he did not know sufficient of
the law to be able to decide whether there
I would be evidence sufficient to convict him in a
Court of Justice. But he was sure that Mr. Gib-
' bons had not suffered sufficient punishment for his
offence by remaining only one week in Newgate. It
was 'absolutely necessary for the House to make an
, example, because when they looked at the loose
manner in which too many persons were in the
habit of giving their evidence before Committees of
the House, they would see that it would be wrong if
the House were to pass over a case of such a flagrant
description. He (Sir J. Buller) was sorry to be
obliged to oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. COWPER had been a Member of that
Committee, and felt bound to oppose the motion
of the Honourable Member for Finsbury.—(Hear.)
Mr. Gibbons had given his evidence with great deli-
beration, and there had been no appearance whatever
of confusion in his demeanour. In his (Mr. Cowper's)
opinion, Gibbons had committed perjury, had wilfully
given false evidence to deceive the Committee.
It was painful to him (Mr. Cowper) to have to
make this statement regarding a men of Mr. Gib-
bons's apparent respectability, and he commisserated
Gibbons's pres ent situation ; but that was no reason
why the House should deal too leniently with
him—(Cheers)—and considering the spirit of parti-
sanship by which too many witnesses were actuated,
a spirit which not unfrequently induced them to
give false evidence before Committees of that House,
he thought it was the duty of that House, when a
case of this sort came before them, not lightly to pass
over so grave a crime. As a Member of the Com -
mittee, he (Mr. Cowper) had no doubt but
that Gibbons had stated that which was false,
knowing it to be false, and the respectability of
the man was only an additional reason for not
passing over his offence without the infliction
of sufficient punishment. He thought that one
week's imprisonment in Newgate was not punish-
ment sufficient for the crime of perjury.—(Hear.)
The House ought not to decide on this case until after
the evidence had been printed, and had been placed in
the hands of Hon. Members.
Mr. HEATHCOTE said he had been a Member
of the Committee before which Mr. Gibbons hadgiven
his evidence, and he felt bound to say that it was
impossible for any person who had heard that
man give his evidence, to doubt that it was given in
a most indirect manner. To upwards of twenty re-
plies which he had - given to questions on one
day, on the subsequent day, when he had
forgotten what he had previously said he
gave the most direct contradiction. What
aggravated the offence was, that this man, who,
in a petition had thrown himself upon the mercy of
the House, and expressed his contrition, yet endea-
voured to justify his conduct by stating that it could not
have any effect upon the issue of the case before the
Committee. In his (Mr. H.'s) opinion, they ought
not to discharge him from custody.
Mr. LABO COHERE wished to state the grounds
on which he would give his vote on the present
occasion. He placed the greatest confidence in the
decision of a Select Committee of that House. He
felt bound so to do. It was scarcely possible for those
who were not present to know what was the real con-
duct of this witness, from what was stated
in the House . He felt himself unable to come
to a correct conclusion upon - the matter,
upon the simple ground that the Committee Having
reported that the conduct of this man had been ex-
tremely improper, the Members of that Committee ex-
pressed the same opinion in the course of that debate
He thought it most desirable that all Committees
should be armed with a kind of summary power
with regard to such cases as the present one, and it
was most essential that any decisions they might come
to should be supported by the House. On these
grounds he felt bound to vote against the motion.
Mr. CHILDERS, as a member of the Committee,
would support the decision, and vote against the
motion.

Sir R. PEEL said that he should vote in concurrence
with the opinion of these
gentlemen who had fat on

the Committee. The gentleman who spoke last said,
it was a case of the most impudent and determined
perjury. They who had seen the man in giving
his evidence, were the best judges of his conduct.
With respect to the intelligence.and station in life of
the man Gibbons, he (Sir R. Peel) agreed with the
Hon. Baronet who spoke on- that-(the: Ministerial)
side of the House, that his respectability and educa-
tion greatly aggravated his offence.—(Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL perfectly concurred in what
had been said by the Right Hon. Baronet, but, as the
man was not always to remain in prison, it would be
necessary for the House to come to some decision
upon his case. He (Mr. O'Connell) would move that
the evidence be reported.
Mr. T. DUNUOMBE had never said that the
man's respectability was a palliation of his offence.
He understood that the evidence taken before the
Committee had been submitted to the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General with a view
to ascertain whether in his opinion there were suffi-
cient grounds for proceeding against Mr. Gibbons
on a charge of perjury. He should like to
hear what was the opinion to which the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman had dome
upon thisi übject. If the Committee were light
in their view of the matter, it appeared to ;him
(Mr. Duncombe) that c3nsidering the statioi of
tha individual charged, the proper course would
be for the House to proceed against him up.* an
indictment for perjury, and not to keep him, from
day to day, in Newgate, to his great injhry,
whether he were innocent or guilty.—(Hear.)
He had only to repeat that he had no per-
sonal interest in the matter, but he had reson
to think, from the representations that had been niade
to him, that Gibbons was incapable of the ()Once
with hich he was charged. He would move that
the evidence be printed, in order that the House might
be enabled to come to a decision on the subject.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a note of
the evidence taken before the Committee had been
sent to him, but that he had not as yet
had an opportunity of reading it over, and he
could not give any opinion with regard to
it. He would remind the Honourable Gentle-
man, that though the House might have reason
to think that the witness had prevaricated, there
might still not be sufficient ground for proceeding
against him by indictment for perjury.
Sir J. Y. BULLER then moved that the evidence
taken before the Committee should be printed and
laid upon the table.
Lord MAHON suggested, that that portion only
of the evidence should be printed, which related to
the evidence given by Gibbons.
Sir R. PEEL said, that the evidence giveq by
other witnesses might throw light upon that of Gib- '
bons ; and it might, therefore, be desirable that the
whole should be printed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that he
had been given to understand that the only evidence
of any importance in the case was that of Gibbons
himself.

Mr. COWPER said that the only part of the evi-
dence that bore on the charge of perjury was that
given by the witness on two different days.
The SPEAKER then put the question that the
minutes of evidence taken before the Great Marlow
Election Committee be laid before the House.—
Agreed to. •
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said as the Lord Mayor
of London had been created a Baronet, he wished
to ask the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite
whether he intended to advise her Majesty to confer
a similar distinction upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
—(Cries of " Hear," from all parts of the House.)
Sir R. PEEL said ho hoped that neither the Hon.
Gentleman nor the House would consider it disre-

..- • SA...MS! %OW • S.,
spectful if he refrained from making any statement
as to the advice which he intended to give to the
Crown with respect to conferring civil distinctions.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
ADJOURNED DEBATE—DIVISION.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE inquired of the Right
Hon. Baronet when he wished to bring the debate to
a close.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had no wish at
all upon the subject.—(Laughter.) There certainly
was a general concurrence of opinion last night
that the debate should close to-night.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought a legacy duty that would impose a per-
manent duty in the transfer of real property formed
quite a separate proposition. As the Hon. Gentle-
man had expressed his disposition to enter into his
-wishes with respect to expediting the debate, he
hoped he would not delay the House by introducing
unnecessary machinery.
Mr. ELPHINSTONE • wished to know if he
should be in strict order, if, when the Report was
brought up, he should move that it be recommitted?
He could assure the Right Hon. Baronet that he had
no wish to produce delay ; it was solely that he might '
bring forward his proposition.
Sir R. PEEL asked why the Hon. Member could
not bring it forward at a subsequent stagb, and in a
separate form ?—(Hear, hear.) It was for imposing
a permanent duty, while this Bill was temporary.
A conversation ensued between the Hon. Gentle-
man and the -Right Hon. Baronet, in which
Sir It. PEEL stated that he could not, as an advi-
ser of the Crown, give the consent of the Crown with
respect to any measure that should not be permanent.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, on bringing up the Report,
he should move that it be recommitted, in order to
bring forward his two propositions, which would go to
the extent of suuerseding the income tax altogether.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that when last night he
gave his concurrence to the proposition of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, he had said that he could not
answer frir those Gentlemen who had motions on the
paper

BONDED CORN.
Mr. HUTT said he had no wish to press his Bill
on this subject, in consequence of the wish expressed
by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would abandon his right, because if he did .not do so,
it would place him (Sir R. Peel) in an invidious posi-
tion. As other Hon. Gentlemen waived their right, he
was sure he would consent not to throw any obstruction
in the way. He had consented to the first reading of
the Bill, r.nd had done every thing in his power to
facilitatr, it. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would
do what others had done, and would not stipulate for
any mr.ticular exemption.
Mr. .HUrr said that if there was any advantage
in opposing his request, he would not press it.
FOREIGN FISH.
Captain PECHELL said, previous to the recess he
had pointed out to the Right Hon. Baronet that
unless some steps were taken with respect to the con-
veyance of foreign fish, the proposition of the
Right Hon. Baronet would be rendered nugatory,
as foreign vessels were allowed to enter our ports.
He was glad that he had attended to his suggestion,
and that the fish of foreign countries were
not to be imported except in fishing vessels.
He now wished to know, whether the Right
Honourable Baronet was prepared to give pro-
tection to English fish, and whether there
were any treaties of reciprocity with other powers on
the subject.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he would give
proteclion to English fish, and there were
treaties of reciprocity, but he could not consent to
postpone the alterations he intended till the treaties
were con eluded.
Mr. J. RICE thought the proposed alteration in
the tariff." would lead to collisions between the Eng
lish and foreign fishing-boats.

RETURNS.
Captain BOLDER() brought up certain returns,
which were laid on the table.
FEES TO SCOTCH JUDICIAL OFFICERS.
Mr. •-FOX MAULE said, that certain returns
had I ieen moved for on the 9th day of
March, of the names of those judicial offi-
cers m Scotland, who had taken fees in the
executia nof their official functions. He believed
that those returns might have been made be-
fore itb is time, as, in most instances, he
thought the returns would be nil. He wished to
know N Awn it was likely they would be laid on the
table ?
Sir J:AMES GRAHAM said many of the 'returns
had be en already made, and he apprehended the re-
maindc a- world be made shortly.
IN( :0 SME TAX—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Carder of the Day for resuming the adjourned
debate having been read,
Mr. A LDHAM said that in moving the adjourn-
ment o ft' ee debate last night, he was not actuated by any
desire tp delay the measure of the Right Hon. Bart.
His in ofolive for making the motion was, that there
were s e' ;eral Hon. Members, connected with large
constitute ncies, who had not spoken on the question,
and we re entitled to be heard by the House upon asub-
ject of s• ach importance as , this was. Besides, the
debate ii of having been resumed on last evening till
eight (;( ;lock, only three Hon. Members of each side
had ha d. an opportunity of speaking, and he consi-
dered, tAerefore, that they were entitled to have
anoth( r night's debate. Hon. Gentlemen on the
other rid e taunted Hon. Members on that (the Oppo-
sition) side with representing hole-and-corner meet-
ing•A as • assemblages of the public, convened to express
their dis approbation of the income tax. For his own
part, bye had not engaged in any agitation against the
income, • tax during the Easter recess, but he had been
reques to d to attend a meeting of his constituents,
which ly as crowded with artisans and members of
the mai idle classes in that borough (Leeds)
and th to feeling of the meeting was one of uni-
versal t !ondemnation of the income tax.—(Hear.)
The pe op le of every country, but more especially
of Engl'ta nd, had naturally a great aversion to any interfer ei ice with their private affairs. This was
a very .natural feeling. The result of a man's I
(mbarre 14 sments being known would almost effect 1
his ruin., That House would always be subject to

• -
the charge of 'class legislation, unless real property
was niece(' on the
_same footing, as personal property.
He thought that if any machinery could be contrived for
discovering the exact amount of every man's income,
the tax would not be so objectionable. With respect to
the timber duties, he thought that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had acted with great disinterestedness, as- -he got
no thanks from any class of the community. The re-
duction would have the effect of making houses and
shipping cheap, which of course was not agreeable to
those who had houses and ships, and, whose property
would be depreciated. But still it was desirable to have
cheap shipping to compete with other countries, and to
have cheap houses for the comfort of the people.—(Hear,
hear.) The latter were of more importance than many
might suppose. In those countries where (as in Scot-
land and Ireland) timber was scarce and dear, not only
were the elwellings of the people bad and comfortless,
but their whole condition was miserable ; but in Norway
and Switzerland, where timber was cheap, the houses
were good, and the people wealthy. He objected to the
ineeme tax proposed by the Government, because he
believed it would place men in such a position
that they would "be tempted to commit perjury.
By the income tax the word and the interest
of a man would be brought into direct contradiction.
-He did not believe that after the machinery of the income
tax came to beunderstood, that when. surcharges had been
made—when the kind of, inquiry became known which
the Income Tax Commissioners would have to institute—
when these things became known and felt, he did not
think that the income tax would be tolerated. The first
assessment might be made, but he doubted whether a
second assessment would be practicable.
Mr. ESCOTT thought the 'Government measureione
admirably calculated to meet the exigencies of the esiun-
try, and just the sort of measure which, under existing
circumstances, the Government ought to present to the
consideration of Parliament. Before going into ithe
question, he wished to clear away certain impediments
which had been thrown in the way by Hon. Gentleinen
opposite.. They had taunted Gentlemen on his (Mr.
Escott's) side of the House, with their silence. Was it
extraordinary that the independent majority of the
House—(A laugh)—should take time to consider the
great questions which had been proposed to them, before
coming to a decision ? The Noble Lord, too, had taunted
them with coming to the House, not for the per-
p,:se of voting for what they believed to be the right,
but for the purpose of voting for what they
thought necessary to keep a Ministry in power.
That charge appeared to him most extraordinary,
when he recollected that it came' from the Noble Lord
who had taken as prominent a part in reforming Par-
liament, and who was so complacent and contented so
long as the,majority of that Parliament suited his pur-
pose and kept him in power.—(Hear, hear.) So far as
was consistent with the respect which he felt for the
Noble Lord's character, he was bound to give that charge
an unequivocal denial. There was a silence which had
been observed on the other side of the House as well as
on that—a total silence as to the causes which had made
it necessary to resort to these measures. The question
was not between the old financial system of this country
and the new one. The financial systems of Lord Liver-
pool, of Mr. Canning, of Lord Ripon, of Lord Grey, of
the Duke of Wellington, had been annihilated and
destroyed by the late Administration and the late House
of Commons. On both sides of the House it was
admitted that the old financial system could not supply
the necessities of the State. The question, then, was
between the system proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet
and the system of last year, rejected by Parliament and
the country.—(Hear, hear.) The country had, no
doubt, well weighed the advantages which they were
likely to derive from those measures. Witlerespect 'to
sugar, they had incurred great risk to their colonial
possessions, and gave a stimulus to slavery, which they
had paid twenty millions to abolish. With respect to
timber, he knew, from consultation with persons inte-
rested, that at first they were in favour of that part of
the Noble Lord's budget becoming a law, in the hope of
getting cheaper timber, but, on an examination of the
question, they were persuaded that the only way in
which they could obtain cheap timber was by giving en-
couragement to the importation of Canadian timber.
With respect to corn, it appeared strange to him that the
Noble Lord, who, in the last Parliament, was strongly
in favour of a fixed duty, should, in the present one, have
declared that his fixed duty of Bs. was to end in a va-
nishing point of Is. Ile explained that, by stating
that he reserved to the Qneen the power of re-
scinding the duty by an Order in Council.
What ! the Noble Lord, the great leader of
the Whigs, make the Queen the imposer of the bread
tax ? Was that the Noble Lord's idea of the Consti-
tution ? He knew that among many agriculturists there
was an opinion that, a fixed ditty of some kind, though
not an Bs. duty, would be a better protection to agricule
ture than the fluctuating duty. The Noble Lord said
that when the price rises he would take off the duty,
and he therefore hoped that the farmers, when he ap-
plied to them for support, would remember that a fixed
duty was to be taken off as soon as the price rose conve-
niently high.—(Hear, hear.) He would now say a few
words on the measure proposed by the Right'Hon. Ba-
ronet. His measure consisted of two parts—one impos-
ing a tax, and the other remitting taxes. Now, what
was the state of the country ?et,There was a deficient
revenue- for which they must impose taxes, and the
commercial depression of trade demanded that they
should remit those taxes which
,pressed upon its elasti-
city. Both these parts must be taken together, and one was
not to be considered separately from the other.—(Hear,
hear.) The tax which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed
was to be imposed according to the annual income of
each individual to pay, and, in that respect, there was a
distinction between the present proposal and any other
income tax which preceded it.—(Hear, hear.) All per-
sons who had not an annual income of 1501. were to be
exempt from the tax, and he did not hesitate to state
that, by fixing the tax at that amount, no poor man in
the kingdom would be liable to it.—(Hear, hear.) Then
looking to the other part of the measure, he thought that
the remission of taxes would compensate those whose
incomes subjected them to the tax.—(Hear, hear.) The
income tax would fall eventually and justly on the' two
great classes of the community—the owners of land and
the hoarders of money. Those were classes which he
believed every man in the country would wish to see
made contribute to the exigencies of the State on great
emergencies. He did not think that those classes would
contribute more than they ought, and whatever they did
pay they ought to consider it as an insurance
paid on their great possessions. (Hear, bear.)
He would take the measure as a whole, and he would not
be captious in looking into the different articles of the
tariff—whether it may not press heavily on one class or
another, or that one individual might be injured by the
adoption of such a measure, unless he saw there was in
that tariff any provision which might be likely to cause
great distress to large classes of the people. Upon this
principle he must object to one part of the tariff. He
alluded to the two articles of shoes and gloves. Ho was
a little afraid that pushing the principle of free trade to
the length to which it was proposed to push it upon
those articles would do more harm than it would benefit
the consumer. He thought this applied particularly to
the case of gloves. With respect to the glove trade, at
all events, he thought there could be no doubt that the
wearer could better afford to pay a shilling more than
the maker could to sell for a shilling less. Still taking
the measure of her Majesty's Government as a whole,
he was bound to give his vote for it ; for the only pledge
he had been required to give at the last general election
was that he would support the Right Hon. Baronet,
whom the country at large bad pointed to as the man
to whom -the Government should be entrusted. He
had considered the' propositions which had been made
by her Majesty's Government ; he believed it was tie-
nessary for the good of the country that those proposi-
tions should be adopted, and there was nothing in the
taunts of the Noble Lord which should deter him from
expressing his opinion. He thought all men of property
ought to be thankful for the opportunity afforded them
of contributing to the exigencies of the country ; and
the Right Baronet was entitled to the gratitude of the
country, for his foresight in providing a remedy for
these evils.
Mr. PARKER, as the representative of a large con-
stituency, felt that he should not do his duty to those
who sent him to the House if he did not shortly state.
his reasons for saying " No" to the proposition of the
Right Baronet. He was ready to admit that if the likeht
Hcn. Baronet had brought forward a liberal and
enlarged system of commercial policy, he for one should
not have objected to adopt his income tax at such a price.
But the Right Hon. Baronet in his tariff had not placed
upon a satisfactory basis the great questions of corn and
sugar. It was clear that the income tax was a tax which
could only be defensible, either upon the ground that it
was expedient to submit to it as the price of some
great advantage, or that it would be advisable to resort
to it in order to meet some great national danger.
Agreeing with 'the Right Hon. Baronet as to the expedi-
ency of keeping the income equal to the expenditure,
and admitting the great evils which arose from a finan-
cial disorder, lie could not concur with him has to the
necessity in the present case of resorting to an income
tax ; neither, so far as he was able to judge, did the
state of our foreign affairs justify the Right Honourable
Baronet in asking for such an extraordinary supply.
It did not appear to him a fair proceeding to attempt to
justify those measures by events that had occurred since
they were first submitted, to the House.--(Hear, hear.)
Whether right or wrong, they were propounded before
the melancholy news that had recently been received
had reached the borders of this country, and must
therefore be considered without reference to that
intelligence. He saw nothing, therefore, to justify
the House in resorting to an income tax. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had alluded to an ob-
servation of' his Noble Friend, to which he thought too
much importance had been attached. He believed that it
was applied to a class of gentlemen in that House who
had certainly thrown the first stone at the Noble Lord,
and if they entered into a crusade against the Noble i
Lord in this style, they could not complain r his Noble
Friend did that which he was perfectly able, though not
always willing, to do, and gave them as good as they
brought. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the
merit of this property tax was that it would give an
increase to the buoyancy of the mercantile interests of
the country. But how did it stand with regard to mea-
sures in themselves 'creative as to commercial, and
productive of a revenue at the same time,
while they did not make any demand on the
pockets of the people ? In other words, he begged
to contrast it with the budget of the late Government,
which would have produced a large revenue from sugar,
corn, and other articles. He regretted that he had come
to the conclusion of voting against the propositions of
the Right Hon. Baronet.
Lord SANDON remarked on the frequency with
which the budget of the late Government had been re-
ferred to, after the ,condemnation it had received from
the former House of Commons, whose verdict was con-
firmed
not nio
edbythree
tp h people
itple atni etrhieted ; general election. He believed
that the condemnation which was given to that budget
nay, he believed that it
was hardly equal to it. As a measure of commercial re-

form, it might be open to dispute, but as a measure
of finance for supplying the deficiencies of the revenue,
it was perfectly worthless. What single item could they
rely on to make up the deficiency ? They touched corn,
timber, and sugar. Take the article of corn—on what
could they rely fora revenue from that ? Did it not depend
entirely on the coming harvest ; whether it was a good One
or a bad one, they, would get nothing, as if it were good,
they would not have occasion to import, and if it were
not, the:price:would probably be so high that they would
have to take off the fixed duty. In the article of sugar
there would have been a total uncertainty, depending on
the extent to which foreign sugar displaced our own.
And in timber-the same uncertainty would exist, their
getting any revenue arising entirely from the proportion
in which the Canadian timber displaced the Baltic tim-
ber, which had hitherto paid the highest duty. As a
means of supplying a deficit, the budget was totally
worthless, and was it now to be called from the sepulchre
in which it had- been entombed, and have a new life
breathed into its body by those who were the
most interested in opposing the present propo-
sition ? An attempt was made to prop it up by
vague and general allusions to other kinds of
taxes that hail been repealed since the end of the war.
They then relied upon the revival of taxation for meeting
the deficiency. Would they thenhave increased customs
for the purpose of reviving the languishing trade and
manufactures of the country ? , No. Would they in-
crease the excise or the assessed taxes ? What class
would find the assessed taxes wore burdensome than pro-
fessional men did ? With respect to all that was said
about the effect of the income tax on the commercial com•
munity, he would state, one fact which would show the
fallacy of those arguments. In Liverpool a petition was
got up against an income tax, and laid on the table of the
Exchange for signature, ut after lying there for
some hours not a single signature was added,
though the petition had been read by several merchants.
The disasters in Affghanistan were not to be estimated
by the mere loss of men ; they should also take into ac-
count the circumstances under which these disasters had
occurred. It was not like the case of a loss in a victory,
because the 10,000 men who had perished in Affgha-
nistan might require 30,000 or 40,000 men to replace
them. Whether any portion of the expenses in India
• were to be borne by this country, or whether we should
come to the assistance of China merely by a loan, in
either case it was fitting that the country should know
that England would, in some way or another, guarantee
the payment of those expenses. It should net be for-
gotten that the effect of our resources in India might
be deeply felt iii China, and might necessitate increased
expenditure in that quarter. In any case the Chinese
war was a heavy burden upon the nation. He thought
the evils of the income tax would be compensated
by the improvement which it would enable the Govern-
ment to effect in our commerce. For his part, he hoped,
that the tax would realise a larger sum than that antici-
eated by the Government, and w Juld enable them
further to diminish the restrictions upon commerce. At
all events, he believed that they should not hesitate to
support the temporary pressure of the tax in the present
circumstances of the country. Complaints had been
made of the severities with which the tax would press
upon men of professional incomes ; but, it appeared to
him, that it would be impossible in a matter of the kind,
to take into consideration individual exceptions. It
should be recollected, at the same time, that the large
inroad which was made upon the protective duties
would tend greatly to, reduce the expense of living. He
should not have expected so badly of the reformed House
of Commons, as that it would present the aspect which it
did at present. The large constituencies of the
country said not a word about the tax, whilst their
representatives in that House were doing all they could
to paint it-in the most odious colours. He believed that
the first impression made upon the House, by the an-
nouncement of the Right Hon. Baronet, was the most
correct—(Hear, hear)—for no one could deny that
there was a distinct acquiescence of the measure.—
(Hear.) The Morning Chronicle hesitated for some
days to give any opinion on-the income tax, and then that
organ of the late Government thought it convenien t to en-
ter a protest against it. But the example of that Journal
had not been followed by the Whig papers in Lancashire
and Yorkshire, whose editors had praised the tax as
worthy of the occasion.—(Hear, hear.) Before he sat
down, he must beg leave to say a few words on the pro-
posed alteration of the sugar duties. The most distin-
guished advocates of the abolition of slavery, Dr. Lush-
ington, Sir F. Buxton, and Lord Brougham, had ex-
pressed, at different times, views in accordance with those
of the present Prime Minister, and were of. opinion that
nothing could be better calculated to induce Martinique and
Guadeloupe to follow the example of this country, than
showing them that free labour could compete with slavery.
Without admitting foreign sugar they had gained as
much revenue in their 40,0001. as had been calculated
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer as the amount derivable from his proposed
alteration. This was not beside the question before the
House, inasmuch as Hon. Gentlemen opposite had
taunted the Government for their conduct in reference,
to that question. He felt it necessary to make this re-
ference, and he thanked the House for the attention
with which they had listened to him.
Sir C. NAPIER said, it he believed an income tax was
necessary for the interests of the country, it should have
his immediate support ; but he believed that sufficient
might have been derived from other sources to supply
the deficiency. With 'respect to the sliding scale, which
was part of the plan of. the Government, he did not
believe that that was at all calculated to re-
lieve the distresses of the country. He could
not believe that it would have any tendency to
remove the old evils. The Right Hon. Baronet, in
taking off the duties upon live cattle and meat, said,
that that proposal need not excite the fears of the agri-
culturists. Now, he (Sir C. N.) was not at all of that opi-
nion. He thought that establishments would 'be formed
abroad to fatten cattle, and to introduce them into this
country. That measure, however, would, he thought, do
good to the consumer, and he should support it. He
thought the Right Honourable Baronet was right in
his plan with regard to the timber duties, and
would support it.—(Hear, hear.) He did not look
upon the disasters which had occurred in India
as a light matter. Nothing had happened since , the
mutiny at the Nore likely to be of such disastrons con-
sequences to this country. The disasters of Monte Video
and of Walcheren could not be compared to them,
and he hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet, in the mea-
sures which he was about to take to repair those disas-
ters, would send out a sufficient force • that he would
remember those words of the Duke of Wellington, which
Hon. Gentlemen opposite were so fond of quoting, and not
engage in a little war.—(Cheers.) He must, at the
same time observe, that the little wars which the late
Administration had engaged in had all been successful.
With regard to China, he thought that if in the begin-
ning of the contest with the Chinese there had been
a little more expenditure of powder, and a little
less expenditure of ink—(" Hear," and a laugh)—
the Chinese affair would have been settled long ago.—
(Cheers.) He hoped we should make our war with the
Chinese strictly a naval war—take possession of their
coasts, and declare our intention of keeping possession
until our demands should be satisfied. That he thought
would be much better than undertaking any expedition
into the interior of the country. It would be much
better for the interests of the country if the two great
parties would consent to a compromise. If the Right
lion. Baronet had accepted the Bs. fixed duty in corn,
the sugar duties, . and the legacy tax, he (Sir C. Napier)
believed he would have been able to have done with a
tax of 2 per cent. upOn property, and 1 per cent on income.
Nevertheless, if the present proposition should be carried
by a large majority, and he believed it would be, he
trusted that his' Noble Friend would allow the Bill to be
brought in without further obstruction, as he thonght
the time of the House might then be better employed
than in discussing it night after night.—(Ministerial
cheers.) He did not think that too much time had as
yet been devoted to the discussion. The Hon. Member
for Winchester had just told them that he had felt it
necessary to take time to consider the subject ; yet after
all his consideration that Hon. Member had not brought
forward anything very extraordinary.—(A laugh.) In
allusion to the proposition made by the Noble
Lord to give her. Majesty the power under certain
circumstances to do away by an Order in Council
with the corn duties, the Hon. Member said, " What,
will a great Whig Lord ask the Queen of England to put
on a bread tax ?" Now, the Noble Lord's proposition
was, that the Queen should have the power to take the
bread tax off—not to put it on—so that in his (Sir C.
Napier's) opinion, the Hon. Member had not benefited
much by his consideration.—(Laughter.)
Mr. TROTTER regretted that the Noble Lord
should have indulged in the language he had
done when speaking of some of the agricultural
supporters of the Right Honourable Baronet. Whe-
ther or not the agricultural Members had excited the in-
dignation of the country, he would leave the Noble Lord
to deternmine. For himself, hedid not fear the decision.,
He (Mr. Trotter) had full confidence in the measure of
the Right Hon. Baronet. He concurred in the opinion
expressed by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Co-
lonies, that the war in the East was of great magnitude,
and required the deep consideration of the House and
the country. Great expenses would inevitably be en-
tailed on the
,country by the war. From what he knew
of India, and from what he had heard from persons who
had been connected with India, he believed that when

they conquered in the East, then would their difficul-
ties commence. This war would hang. as a min..: ton•
about their necks. With respect to the pro-
posal of the Noble Lord opposite, he must say
that if those proposals were calculated to make up the
deficiency in the revenue, he did not see how it could be
necessary to have recourse to a loan at 3 or 4 per cent.
interest, The table of the House had been loaded with
petitions as to the distress of the manufacturing coun-
ties, but those petitions also went for the repeal of the
tax, as it was termed, on bread, and he believed that
this would have the contrary effept to that sought. Ile
believed that the distress would not be relieved by the
repeal of the duties on corn. With respect to the in-
come tax, he must say that he was compelled to vote for
it as the best measure that could be brought forward. A
large meeting had been held at Guildford, called
by the enemy, if he might say so, for the purpose
of addressing the Queen and the House of Lords
in deprecation of that income tax as proposed by Sir
Robert Peel. At that meeting, instead of deprecating
the proposal, a resolution was passed, thanking her Ma-
jesty for consenting to bear her share of the burden of
the State equally with her subjects, and the meeting
concluded with another resolution to the effect that, con-
sidering the -circumstances of the country, the income
tax, as proposed by Sir Robert Peel, was the best mea-
sure that could be propounded.—(Hear, hear, from the
Ministerial benches.) He trusted that Hon. Member:
opposite would allow that the opinion he had expressed
was not an individual opinion.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, he did not think that the
speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down was ;
any powerful reason why they should resort to an in- i
come tax. If this were a tax bearing upon Ireland, !
he should demand the liberty of expressing his l'

sentiments upon it ; but he did not •thinli
he needed the slightest indulgence in addressing the
House on that occasion. It was his duty to give the
reasons for his humble vote in favour of justice to Eng-
land. Having arrived at the conclusion that the income
tax was unjust - and. oppressive to the people, he was
bound to give it all the opposition in his power. He
said income tax, because if they had a property tax pro-
posedthere was no one in that House that would sup-
port it more strongly than he should, for lie might
be said to carry his views on that subject to an ex-
travagant height. The results of labour should not be
taxed until they assumed the form of fixed capital. He was
not, therefore, aguing against a property tax, considering
as he did, that a property taxwas powerfully contrasted
with an income tax. He should-endeavour to compress
-the arguments which had convinced him of the injustice
of an income tax into as small a compass as possible. The
first of those arguments he derived from what was ad-
mitted on the other side of the [louse, viz., that to im-
pose an income tax, they must have a case of urgent
necessity, that there must be a most stringent necessity,
-to justify such an imposition. He confessed that that
necessity had not been made out. The alleged case of
necessity assumed a double aspect—first, the want of
money; next, the want of means for supplying that slant.
The money that was deficient was fire millions in the
course of two years. Hari they no other mode of making
this, what he should term for England, paltry defi
ciency, than that proposed ? That was all they wanted—
how, then, must they. supply it ? • Was it necessary to
have recourse to an income tax' to supply it ? He could
not believe tharsuch a necessity existed until it was de-
monstrated. The Noble Lord, the Member for Liver-
pool, said, talk of sugar and talk of timber, the revenue
from these articles was not productive. Now, there
were no two articles so certain of consumption
as these, and when the Noble Lord talked in this way, he
should bring a practical demonstration. He (Mr. O'C.)
believed they might make up the deficiency by these two
articles. Why not make the experiment—why not try
these means ? There was no tax oftener spoken of, and
more frequently heard of in that House, than the probate
duty. They had an instance of a Nobleman who had
lately died leaving a million of motley, on which duty
was paid, and landed property worth 100,0001. a-year, on
which there was no tax at all. Was this fair, and in
the face of it to resort to an income tax ? It was net
right to give a preference to a single class, and to tax
the labouring industry of the country. It was not just
to resort to an income tax until they had tried the other
experiments. They had taken off 24 millions of taxes,
and was here not one of those that would raise the five
millions of deficiency ? They had taken off 24 millions,
and was he not therefore safe in saying there were other
rosources from which to obtain this dficiency ? Why
could they not revive some of them ? He said that one•
sixth of what had been taken off would prevent tho
necessity of an income tax, so that it seemed to him
that they had made out no case for the necessity of this
income tax. For his own part he never would
consent to an income tax short of real war. He thought
it ought to be a war tax, but not such a war as that in
the eastern dominions. He was sorry to hear the Noble
Lord exaggerate, he hoped, but described, he feared, the
perils that attended that war. This might be supposed
to make out a case, but he (Mr. O'Connell) did not think
that for such a war as that they need resort to an income
tax, more especially as they themselves owned the defi-
ciency, even with this war, was only what he named.
He thought it Was Lord Brougham that first said that
England was bound in her Own recognizances of
800,000,000/. to keep the peacewith all the world. He
(Mr. O'Connell) had heard Mr. Hume repeat that sen-
tence, whose voice he hoped soon to hear again.—
(Laughter.) This debt showed to the world the weak-
ness of England, and prevented her from speaking in that
authoritative tone in which she should Speak to the na-
tions of the earth. He thought their policy was to slims;
to the world their resources, and not their weak-
ness.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
He thought they might have occasion for
their resources, and they ought to husband them.
Were they safe with Russia ?—(" Hear, hear," from
Col. Sibtliorp.) There would be the perils of real war.
Were they safe with France ? He had heard the King
of France lauded in that House until at last he felt dis-
gusted. He had heard him praised because he was not
a war maker. But they were not safe with France,—
(" Hear, hear," from Col. Sibthorp.) They were not
secure in their lauded King. They had great peril, too,
in America.—(Cheers from. Ministers.) He understood
that cheer, and he expected it ; but he repeated they
were in peril in America, and they were in greater peril
because they were in the right in the present dispute of
the right of search. In the case of the Creole they were
most unquestionably in the right---(Hear, hear)—but
they were not on that account one bit safer from Ame-
can pride and American jealousy.—(Hear.) Aud he was
told that having shown their perils, they ought therefore
to lay on an income tax. Not so ; they ought to hold
back that income tax as a weapon which they could
hold in terrorem for the enemy, to which they could re-
sort if necessary, and show their capabilities for defence
when actual dangers arose. It would be an answer
to their 800,000.0001. argument.—Hear, hear). Let
them not, then, throw away that tax now, butretain it for
the perils which might happen. When that tax 'shad
have been laid on, when the burdens were felt, when the
operation of it on the intellect, and on those who had
but life annuities and precarious incomes, did they think
that the knowledge then that they laid it on when it was
not necessary, when it was not required, coupled with
its own injustice,would not make them many arid formida-
ble enemies, and raise a cry which was raised before. too
loud and too universal to be stopped, when the people
gained a ReformParliement?—(Hear,hear.) And let them
recollect that those who would call out would be men of
intelligence and understanding, active and industrious,
who form the most formidable. leaders and fomenters of
-public opinion in Europe. That cry would go abroad,
and with that' cry, raised so' powerfully, would they throw
that weapon away which would be magnified in reality
even beyond its own capacity, if they kept it in their
armoury for active war. He had opposed this tax for
two reasons, because there 3vas no necessity for it, and
because no necessity short of actual war should induce
them to rescrt to it. He opposed it also from its vexa-
tious nature, its inquisitorial, prying nature, which would
be made use of in many instances fur the purpose of
gratifying idle curiosity, and in others to exercise a
power of despotism Over private property. Their accounts
were subject to be examined by the surveyors, the in-
spectors, and 'then there were additional commissioners,
and general commissioners ; they were authorised to
inspect hooks, to require statements, to demand accounts
of profit and: loss, at their own discretion and caprice ;
they would reject any statement, and make estimates of
their own ; they would take the clerks of mercantile
. men, and question them. This tax was of that species
which this House should be exceedingly. loth to intro
duce into the country, and he (Mr. O'Connell) repeated
. that it should not be introduced except at a time when
actually required, a state of war, at which he hoped this
country would not soon arrive. He had objected to this
tax as unnecessary, as being-not justifiable except in the
case of war, because it ought to be a war tax; because or
its inquisitorial character ; and lastly, because of its
arrant, gross, and palpable injustice. What injustice
could be so great as that of the unfortunate clerk with
300. a year, whose salary is not worth an hour's pur-
chase, whose dependence rested upon the caprice or ill-
temper of their masters, whom ill health or a hundred
other accounts might deprive of their situations, should
be compelled to pay, as long as he holds that precarious
subsistence, the tax upon 300/. a year. Take the man
with 30011 a year fee simple estate—he would pay no
more than the -clerk ; yet if he were to die to-
morrow, there would be 9,0001 worth of pro-
perty at least for his children. They might call
that justice if they pleased; in the name of common sense
he denounced it as arrant injustice.—(l-lear, hear.)
These were the -reasons which convinced him that he
ought to oppose this tax ; he opposed it, therefore, as
being an income tax, and not at all as mixed up as a por-
tion of a property tax. He considered this as a struggle
to•maintain the landed aristocracy alone, to enable them
to keep up their rents at a period when destitution and
distress existed in every other branch ; it was a tribute
to the landed interest, and they must accede to it, be-
cause the landed interests were the masters. At a pe-
riod like the present, when so much distress existed, was
it well to declare that they were legislating for a single
class ?—(Hear, hear.) Every one of these propositions
went to support the aristocracy in their wealth. For his
own part, he was unquestionably an advocate of free
trade, but not for basthrt free trade—not free to le in
one article and restriction in another. Show him free
trade in corn and he would support it.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord ELIOT said the Hight Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman commencad his address by apologising for speak-
ing on a subject which referred only to England. He
thought such an apology was quite unnecessary. In the
observations with which the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman followed up his argument relative to the
budget of the Noble Lord last year, he followed
the course of the Noble Lord, of studiously
avoiding to mention what taxes might be instituted for
the income tax. They did, indeed, mention the pro-
bate duty on landed property. After what the Right
'Hon. and Learned Gentleman said relative to the perils
of this country he was .surprised at the deductions he
had drawn ; he (Lord Eliot) thought they were never
better prepared to meet perils than when the credit of
the country was sound.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded to the inconveni-
ences of this tax, but in his (Lord Eliot's) opinion, his
Right Hon. Friend had essentially obviated that by the
machinery he proposed to employ.—(Cheers.) But the
occasion of their discussion now, was, for the bringing
up of the report only, and would it not be much better
to discuss that part of the question when they were
made acquainted with the machinery?—(Hear.) He
(Lord Eliot) had, in the course of this debate, been made
the subject of :one misrepresentation. His Hon. and
Learned Friend, the Member for Liskeard, did not
allude to him personally, but he spoke of all the'repre-
sentatives of the agricultural counties who opposed the
Noble Lord last year, and supported the Right Hon.
Baronet now. He certainly did, in common with others,
condemn the budget of the Noble Lord, and he
did now object to the principle of a fixed duty
because it did not benefit the consumer, neither
was it beneficial to the producers of corn. He
told his constituents that, and he did exhort
them to resist the proposition of the Noble Lord ; they
concurred with him in his opinion, but he did not know
whether that was the reason why they sent him to Par-
liament. At his own hustings he was asked by Sir W.
Molesworth how he should act if a material alteration in
the Corn-laws were proposed by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet ; he said he was inclined to stand by the sliding
scale, but he was not prepared to support that altera-
tion, which was not calculated to benefit the agricul-
tural body.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman op-
posite had talked about class interests, and yet they told
him that he had been inconsistent. He thought those
two statements could not agree. He always had voted
for support to the British farmer. He did not think that
a man who had entered his fortunes in a Government
was justified in giving up his situation under that Go-

vernment, and therefore he did not think it right toeeei
up his place and go back to his constituents e bete►ee
go to his most influential constituents, and said e ff
thought that he had deceived ,them he was reedit:oi
up his seat in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Therltill‘
all replied, that he had not been guilty of ail
they all approved of his having supported tlinenfol
e
Hon. Baronet. With regard to the tariff he
me °
he was not at that time able to give an ' tls
on the subject., but he would say "eel. se'
many of his constituents had expressed gre_e.ete2. we
at certain parts of it, which he thoug"e
entirely without foundation ; more particular.re . es9
regard to the importation of cattle and meat set
thought their fears were quite ungrounded, he teee
ee
believe that the importation for many years .`f.kir,g'
would be such as to influence the marliets of thise. 00
dom. With regard to the income tae; he theugetobi
not necessary to say much on that question, he tell Tie
it would be better for Hon. Gentlemen, who had all
mated that some tax was necessary, should have 1103
out what tax was better- —(Hear, bear.) Thee of
pointed out the assessed taxes ; but he thetee' ore
had been shown by his Hon. Friend to peeeteee
unequally than the income tax on the poorer ee'efisi
hut as tke main objection to this tar too
that it was inquisitorial, he thought it would hsvere 0'
better that they should have waited till they rete ere
qeaieted with its machinery. He believed that te
position had given great ancrgeneeral satisfaction. e
sy
Mr. HAWES said it afforded him a great deal lee
tisfaction that the Noble Lord who had just sat epee
and who answered the Right Hon. and Learned G theman, who spoke so well and so pertinently to the
question, should have given so little of kis speech "eed
important subject. His speech was purposely oeteeel
in defending himself from some charge which had eeesetl
made against him relative to the Corn Bill. But -e dig'
the Corn Bill was not the question they were neiyrcegb
cussing he (Mr. Hawes) should not follow him at s
that part of his speech.. He would beg to Pettl:e
strange
.inconsistency between the Noble Le eerl
the Right Honourable Baronet. The Nebteesed
said to his constituents that he did not 0
that there would be so large an importation of es, el
lul be,
to affect the prices at home. He (Mr. Hawes) sheen
eteene°
glad to know how the saving then was to be 0 the
which the Right Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord I''
Treasury, held out as the inducement to accept °foie,
of the tariff.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hone
man said that he thought there would be a saentgof
to the tax imposed—the Noble Lord, a Member 6000
Government, having access to the same inforroaej vo
the Right Hon. Gentleman, said he exPeeteical'
such thing. (Hear.) But with reference to the iq'fotteo
tural part of the question, the Noble Lord had fbiletbie
what he said on the hustings. He said there teii ose
was a landlord's question, and that. would justify • eeer
had been said—that this was a party questionlectiag
law ought not to be a party question, but one ttetbe
the whole community.—(Hear, hear.) He ent 5 gee
permitted to state that when the Hon. and Learn,e., ~
rote'
tleman pointed out the injustice, arbitrary "tie gate .
and inequality of the income tax, the Noble Ltr te
no sort of answer to that ;• and this brought hart 0
question now before the House—Was it neee'refele
resort to an income tax ? Was. the expenditure -Gee
country such as to justify their referriug to tltey
the most odious and unpopular, and which could
called for in the time of great necessity, and 1e",,,,,ete
tional danger was to be apprehended. He thetere
was most insecure to place the finance of the cew'eerref
a tune of peace upon such an unsafe foundation•
t.,,A
were now two distinct plans under the considerl:etil
the House—that'which comprehended such a reeeeili"
of the, duty on the great articles of consumptionaeie
f
increase our trade and revenue; and if that shoal ° ejee
successful, other sources were open; there would be° Fee
culty in finding taxes which should not press ne- the
He contended that they diminished the Pre , bier
capital of the country by the tax, and that the 'seen/
had, on that account, an interest in the ePe4e beet
(Hear, hear.) The opinion of Mr. Huskiesson -14 -tor
alluded to, who, in 1830, said that he was adVelyo
income tax, while he was in favour of a Feet. Oil
And many others drew a clear distinction-betwe7ae,
both. In the year 1798, when Mr. Pitt proposed
ee
Sir Francis Baring drew the distinction betel, ir
°
income and property tax, and contended that tbeir
Spector ought to interfere with those who lived by
talents and professions. The whole course of t'
sent debate showed that they ought not to have r°
to an income tax, except on some great and Pee ew
necessity. The plan of the Right Hon. Bertoriri
utterly at variance with the plan. of the late 113 due
e
ment, and was very different from what they VI
down previously to the late dissolution.—{Hear') Pte
Noble Lord, the Membei for North Lancashire, stuff
last June, what he considered to be the ere. ,0
the dissolution, and what were the expectan
stP
raised ? That Noble Lord said the Ve.,e te
for the country was, whether the corn monopole' %le°
be done away. They certainly declined to touch
and the other great monopolies, and that was th
f
the
tinguishing characteristic between the plans never";
Right Hon. Baronet and the plan of the late -44
ment. Let them first seek to obtain the neeee.eir
amount of revenue, by means of the removal of Pj,,iti
tions on trade, and let them seek to do so b,Yees
away with the great monopolies. The Corn-15,,, pee
the sugar monopoly were retained, and though "-„f 00$
vision laws were altered they had the admission le 0 I
Noble Lord (Eliot) that the alterations w°11,10.111,6
much benefit the consumer.—(Hear, bear.) But
same time' they exposed the labourer of this o,ll_,,are
the competition of the foreigner. He acknowleaFe'j
the alterations would be beneficial, but he regrettert es:e
the weak, and not the powerful, monopolies
tacked. Those great monopolies were. the esti, tir, •
the national distress, and therefore it was theseeele
should be attacked. The Noble Lord (6,t;lber,
said that the Corn-law of the Noble Lord, the "''„iteel'
for London, was scouted ; but by whom was it secseesee
thase-counties which returned -Metiebers fev°e-oreele
to the Corn-law,, monopoly, and they had net epee
what was the faeresentation of the Noble Lord ru; be,
ing county conetituencies.—(Hear, hear.) Beeteille
country he believed was beginning to open its 0* ce ho,
real nature of the question, and at a late MeetTe eli(e
at Ralston, the farmers said they preferred a fix lant'e:/
to the plan of the Government, and carried a reset, ee
to that effect. The Noble Lord proposed last year bYntialber, •
duty ()les. on °ore, and by a reduction of the duties eeeetre,:
and sugar, to meet the exigencies of the ene eoe
and the late ' Chancellor of- the Excheenereeire
that he believed by those means he should re f the
money enough to supply the deficiencies_
I.°o be
country, and t v
.that he did not think be vf:lotet;
compelled to have recourse to an issue of Elcievele
bills.—(Hear.) And if the Right Hon. Baronet, be re;
reduction in the tariff, let it be recollected tht ode(
quired money in hand to supply the deficiency "'bevel
occasion. But the Noble Lord did not content ett
with opposing the plan of the Right- Hon. BBur°anne
he showed there were other sources &Zan which "1161
mentation of the revenue could be made withoutbeliey
recourse to an income tax. He (Mr. Hawes) bece.L'4B
there was no necessity for resorting to such a tax of IR-
they were paying off at that moment 2,000,00
national debt.
.Mr. MASTERMAN asked when ?
Mr. HAWES would show that it was so from jeer "e
which were equally accessible to the Hon Diet Neu
to himself. There was a paper laid, before re
on the 22d of June. 1841, by the Secretary of t't e lea
sury. which showed 'that between 1831 and 1841 thtejeeti,
paid 22i millions of the national debt and they
going on at the same rate of payment.—(Cheers' ea 101
amount of the debt in 1831, was e 38,549,9-03 1. , ece
1841, it was. 815,957,9361., making a diner- f the
22,591,2.67/. lie begged to call the attention
Hon. Member to that statement, and to ask hint teeter
were not still reducing it at the same rate? Hie'ret, th',l
fore, asked if they had not other resources was tee,
without going to an income tax ? and while that 114
case.he would never consent to suchan
tetfe'
held in his hand another paper which 'showed ee el
which a reduction in the price of articles in gebeile
sumption had in increasing that consumption'
'gig'
the first 13 weeks in every year, from the Yeareauetie
1842, and such was the regular indication of r the
in consumption when there was a Tilt wee
not rice,
be amore accut if a baroratemeter
in could be appla
"er ieue eeedel.
tee'
of one upon the other.—(Loud cheers.) wee ,
year 1829, the quantity of corn sold in thirteen. is tn!
was 514,407 quarters, and the price was 745. tl°
year 1830, the quantity was 905,000 quarters. ;id,
price 58s. 4d. He would not trouble the Houeeeee c 0
entire statement, but the dependence of incru4:r a,
sumption upon reduction of price, and, vice vf ot,hs
invariable.—(Hear. hear.) Therefore there werweree
sources besides that to which the Right Hon' but el
went to make up the deficiency of the revenue;
who bt,e4
regard to the income tax itself, every person the tee tu,
spoken admitted the inequality and injustice of
the ct..
—(Oh, oh)--why, the person who commenceatbet snuw.
bate admitted it. No person could fairly saY. tto th
profits of a man's skill or talents should be snb.lecfit de -
, same amount of taxation as the same amount of Pro ear I
!rived from land—(Hear hear)—or that 100 h a derif
rived from the one was equal to 100 L a year .4., see'
f •
from the other ; but that was only one „tesue et:
qualities out of many others. As an l" to 0-4er
dts h,
er of the mode in which it would operate, be "rnvl sand t
example of what had occurred under the old laeet. if •
House might depend on the truth of the statenee.nhe ealeT
individuals in the same business, and living in x,
street, were called upon by the collectors of thet. tae' pat
d .wit
one of them paid 400/. of taxation while the aese'ieeers
nothing at all. And he explained to the coenTdi that II
the reason why he did not pay the tax. He said belt
was not in the receipt of any profits by his busene
seee
that being in possession of property elsewhere, 'er°
far independent of public opinion, and did not
_eLliivs
persons were aware that he was not making ane 'oes.ese.
his business, while his neighbour, being 0'
of no property.. was obliged, for the
bsa."_- pro'
would cc)-ie
his credit, to say that he was making t lat's°l,
fits which he was not. (Hear, hear.) le
()Ejected to the tax because he thought it
_env'
toobe
ar, muchower
hear)—and in
wouldth e hbaends likely of
ttoheitiGa4oceveer3tse;orotoe
engage in war and incur expense.—(Hear, har ere
late Government, then, as far as was
monopolies,determitied atondranisoet ab3r,eavtetnauekeibnygsttrhiekillwg:?sKsti:fl"l"lee:ngert-h:e.11::::.ili,
successors had done, and that was the reatuteneeoct
between the plans of both Governments.. The Pv`7,,"
general were favourable to the alterations in the e
tateleteeuld
they
sso altered
thttLinqai,soiateoritahlaptairtt ofra might
esetivee.:. „
be ;
He mould ask whether any paper in the countrynot 'ef
ported the income tax in all its provisions ? In fa flare):
otirl,epossuipteptltaonfatihlattbpeairpesrpewelelibcehs.didltmwoarse
notfor
ts7ppoororne'l.se
by the Times Newspaper. He believed that ne '""as the
would act unwisely in accepting such a measure whieb .
income tax, while it rejected other massacre
ountels.
would necessarily promote the welfare of the Le teo
Lord ELIOT said, in explanation, that he "'