The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-05-03 00:00:00

DEBATE ON THE BUDGET.

The adjourned debate on the resolution for imposing
the Property and Income-tax for seven years, and ex-
tending it to Ireland, was resumed by Mr. COBDEN, who
spoke generally in favour of the Budget, but condemned
the relief of advertisement supplements only from stamp
duty, as a boon to one paper.
In the course of the discussion which ensued, Sir Chas.
WOOD entered into an elaborate defence of the Budget
against the various objections to it which had been raised.
The debate was then adjourned till Friday.
SCOTCH SHERIFFS COURT.—The Sheriff Courts (Scot-
land) Bill was referred to a Select Committee.
FRIDAY, APRIL 29.

Petitions were presented on a variety of subjects.
TIIE KOSSUTH AFFAIR.—In reply to inquiries by Sir
Joshua Walmsley, as to the result of the legal investiga-
tion into the seizure of warlike stores at Rotherhithe, and
to the employment of the police to watch the residence of
M. Kossuth or other political refugees,—Lord PALMER-
STON said, the house was aware that one of the proceed-
ings before the police-court had closed, and that the
magistrates had thought the other matter ought to be
inquired into before another tribunal. 'With re-
spect to the second question, it was the duty
of the police to watch the proceedings of English
men or foreigners suspected, rightly or wrongly, of coos

templating a breach of the law, and neither M. Kossuth
nor any other political refugee could be exempted from
the ordinary precautions.— Mr. BRIGHT complained
that Lord Palmerston abstained purposely from saying
anything that could lead the public to feel that there was
no evidence against M. Kossuth. He asked whether the
Home-office had instigated the proceedings, and whether
there was any evidence to show any connexion between
Kossuth and the making of the warlike stores.—Lord
PALMERSTON, with some degree of warmth, expressed his
extreme surprise at the ignorance evinced by Mr. Bright
of the constitutional principles which ought to govern
minister of the crown, and every member of that house,
in taking him to task for not choosing to answer a ques-
tion which no man had a right to put to him, and which
it would be contrary to his duty to answer, as to the effect
of a judicial inquiry now pending. To the question
whether the proceedings were authorized or directed by
him, he answered that they were. It was the duty of the
Secretary of State, if he had reason to think that refugees,
who while in this country were free as the air they
breathed, abused its hospitality, to take steps to obtain
information, and to punish any man who offended the
law, whether Englishman or foreigner.

- THE BUDGET.
The adjourned debate was resumed by Mr. MOORE,
who contended that the measure, as applied to Ireland,
must be justified upon one of two separate and distinct
grounds—either that Ireland was not sufficiently taxed,
or that she would not be more taxed under the budget
than at present; and neither had been or could be
established. But, whatever became of the budget, he
was sure there would be a universal feeling on the part
of the committee that it ought to be pruned at least of
one unnatural excrescence which occasioned a suspicion—
s bare suspicion only (" but Caesar's wife should be above
suspicion")—that there might have been a bargain be-
tween her Majesty's government and a portion of the
press—a suspicion which ought to be removed, for it
should not be permitted even to be suspected that the
government was capable of trafficking with. the press, or
that the first journal in the empire was a hireling scribe.
Mr. J. WGREGOR, Col. HARCOURT, Mr. H. ITERDERT,
—SIr. C. FOSTER, and Mr. C. URQUHART snpported the
budget, and Mr. C. R. MORGAN, Lord A. VANE, and
Lord JOCELYN opposed U.—Mr. CARDWELL said the
question was, whether we were so satisfied with past ex-
perience of the income tax—upon the happy results of
which in effecting financial improvements he dcielt with
much force—that we were willing to make another great
experiment. The inequalities of the assessment had: been
pressed into the discussion, but no plan had been offered
by which those inequalities could be redressed.—Mr.
HENLEY subjected the general scheme of the budget to
a minute critical examination, observing that it did not
hold out any particular charm for the landed interest,
and that the continuance of the income tax for seven
years would, in effect, exempt our whole taxation front
the constitutional control which parliament had always
exercised over a certain portion of our revenue.—Mr.-
CAIRNS spoke against the budget, and the debate was
adjourned till Monday.