The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-13 00:00:00

justice in taxing the foreigner who had money in our
funds ; and he thought, if foreigners were exempted, a
door would be opened to fraud, inasmuch as Englishmen
residing abroad would put money into the English
funds in the name of foreigners. If they escaped
taxation it must fall heavier on our own subjects; and
with regard to the precedent set to other countries,
he thought they would not hesitate if they imposed a
property-tax, in making foreigners contribute to it.
Lord BROUGHAM explained, that he did not
allude to foreigners resorting to a measure of a
precisely similar nature. But human nature
was so unfortunately constituted, that if we did one
unjust act, the probability was that they would resort
to another still more unjust, and quote our own injus-
tice as the precedent.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE objected to the im-
position of the Income-tax. He could not agree with
the Noble and Learned Lord in considering it expe-
dient, and was surprised at his approving of it.
Lord BROUGHAM—I said it was unfortunately
necessary, and that I yielded to the painful necessity.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE could not see the
necessity of it. He thought they could do without
it, and although he was glad to give his support
to the Government, he objected to the Property-
tax and the Tariff.

Lord MELBOURNE owned that he had some
doubts as to the justice of exacting: from fo-
reigners having money in our funds, a tax for the
protection and advantage they received in this invest-
ment of their property. They did not receive the
general protection and advantages which the natives
of the country obtained from the Government, and he
(Lord Melbourne) entertained considerable doubts as
to the wisdom, the policy, and expediency of impos-
ing such a tax upon them. Indeed, in the present
circumstances of the country, he thought it both im-
politic and inexpedient to impose this tax on foreigners.
It was the expectation of foreigners that the same
course should be pursued on the present occasion as
had been hitherto, when foreigners were exempt from
the imposition of the tax. Mr. Rose and Mr.
Huskisson had both doubted the policy and expe-
diency of subjecting foreigners to this tax, and
if he recollected aright, Mr. Long, late Lord
Farnborough, concurred in their opinion. He
thought it was not advisable to discourage the
foreigner from taking advantage of the security that
belonged to the finances of this country. On all
these grounds he regretted the course taken by her
Majesty's Government.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the imposition
of the tax appeared to have so little effect on the
funds as a discouragement to investment, that they
were at the present moment unusually high. He
considered the advantages that would arise from
taxing the foreign fundholder would outweigh the
objections that might be made to it. With respect to
the general question, the present was not the time to
enter into discussion upon it—they ought to wait tiP
the • --re was fully before the House.

meaiu
BRIBER i INQUIRY BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM moved that the House
should go into Committee on the Bribery In-
quiry Bill. He did not intend to go into any
details upon it, but he should propose to
add a clause that would not only embrace the Com-
mittees of general inquiry into bribery at elections,
but the cases in which corrupt compromises had been
made. In these inquiries all parties should cordially
unite. In conducting an inquiry of such immense
importance and interest, everything like party and
personal motives should be sedulously avoided.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE did not rise to object to
proceeding with the Bill, but he doubted very much
its regularity, as the other House of Parliament had
instituted a Bill upon the subject.
Lord BROUGHAM said that no Bill had been
introduced, but a notice had been given. The present
Bill had been introduced before the slightest notice
or intimation had been given on the subject in the
other House.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE doubted whether the
other House would not think they were interfering
with that which was strictly their privilege.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Earl of WICKOW said that the House of
Commons could not be considered to have their privi-
leges infringed by the present Bill of the Noble
and Learned Lord. It was a Bill showing the House
of Commons the willingness of this House to co-
operate with them in putting down one of the great-
est evils of this country—one that was increasing
every day, and was productive of immorality, perjury,
and bribery.—(Cheers.) He thought the House of
Commons, the country, and the constituency of the
country ought to be grateful to the Noble and
Learned Lord for bringing forward this measure.
Lord CAMPBELL would not object to the pro-
gress of the Bill. He would candidly and zealously
promote the object of his Noble and Learned Friend
to put down bribery, which was now so much re-
sorted to. But he confessed he was rather disap-
pointed that his Noble and Learned Friend did not
produce something more effectual. The Bill of the
Noble Lord, however, would produce no harm, and
he would not therefore oppose its progress. Unless
his Noble Friend inserted words which would make
the Bill applicable to the Committees appointed in the
other House, he thought no advantage could be de-
rived from it. Another objection which he enter-
tained to the Bill was, that it did not make it com-
pulsory upon witnesses to give evidence. That omis-
sion arose from a desire to prevent the witness from
criminating himself. But it was a settled point in
Courts of Law, that when a party had been guilty of
contempt, he was bound to answer ; and he appre-
hended that unless it were made compulsory upon the
sitting Members and agents to answer the questions
put to them, the Bill would be little better than waste
paper. It was, in his opinion, the only
way by which bribery could ever be detected.
He was afraid that their Lordships would legislate in
vain if they legislated on this principle. It must be
by rendering the offence unavailable that bribery
only could be stopped ; by asking every one to tell
all he knew, at the same time indemnifying him,
would be the only way to get at the truth of this
matter. The second clause of this Bill he thought
was very unconstitutional, and in many respects ob-
jectionable. On these grounds he thought this Bill
would not answer the expectations of its proposer,
and he thought it would be much better if his Noble
Friend would exert his great talents in the framing of
another Bill on the subject, more general and more
extensive.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that while he admitted
the force of the observations of his Noble Friend, he
could not bring himself to insert a compulsory clause
in the Bill. Such a clause would be opposed to the
general principles of our Legislature ; it would be
unjust and oppressive, and would probably only lead
to perjury in self-defence on the part of those who
might be subjected to its operation.
The Bill then went through Committee, and was
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.

Lord CLIFFORD presented six petitions from
Norfolk and other places, complaining of Catholic
grievances.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Vord CLANCARTY presented a petition from a
place in Ireland against the present system of
National Education.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Seven o'Clock.