The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-24 00:00:00

distinction in the countl, as well as those of the noble
marquis, as to the great worth and ability of that gentleman.
it was five or six years since he had been dismissed, the
ioble marquis might have attributed his restoration to some
other cause rather than a wish to gratify the editor of a
)üblin paper.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he had applied, and
lad been refused—the editor of the paper had applied puh-
lely (he did not know whether he had made any private p-
plication) and had succeeded. He thought it was a bad e;..-
ample after a retraction had been demanded and refusel to
restore a magistrate without obtaining it subsequently.
Lord FITZGERALD said that the noble marquis had done
himself great credit by the course he had pursued in the'
matter, and added that Mr. St. George had not personally
sought to be restored.
The adjourned debate on the third reading of the Income
Tax Bill was then resumed by

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, who contended that if
ever there was a time when taxation should be laid on as
Ightly as possible, that time was the present. Yet at such
time the bill on the table was brought forward, which was,
short, replete with all the evils of the former tax on in-
The only reason assigned for passing it was that the
;overnment was in want of money, and no other tax was so
ikely to bring it into the treasury. He objected to the whole
measure as it was proposed by government, which so far
'corn relieving would augment the distress and difficulties of
he country, and he therefore moved that it be read a third
Ime that day three months. _ _

The Earl of WICKLOW regretted that the operation of the
bill was not extended to Ireland, as in that country it would
not in its present shape at all affect the tenantry. He wished
to see a similarity of legislation and taxation adopted for both
countries.

Earl STANHOPE objected to the income tax, which, how-
ever odious in its nature, was much more odious in its prac-

tical effect, and thought that parliament should reimpose
some of those taxes which had been repealed, and the repeal
of which had led to the financial difficulties of the country.
He would suggest the re-adoption of the house and assessed
taxes, increasing the charge in proportion to the magnitude
of the house. and increasing also in proportion to the number
of servants kept. He also suggested raising the postage from
one penny to twopence, and raising the duty on French
wines, and contended that the revenue thus derived would
supersede the necessity for an income tax. The noble lord
concluded by supporting the amendment, and declaring that
he would enter his protest against the bill.
Lord BEAUMONT felt convinced that the principles upon
which the income tax were based. were untenable. When
the landed interest complained, they were referred to the
income tax ; and when the commercial classes complained,
they were referred to the tariff. Still, objectionable as he
deemed. the income tax, he should support the bill as a
choice of evils.
Lord FITZGERALD restated many of the arguments used
on former occasions in support of the bill, and contended that
the public would never tolerate the re-enactment of the taxes
referred to by Earl Stanhope. With respect to the regret
expressed by the Earl of Wicklow, that the bill was not ex-
tended to Ireland, he must say he did not share in that regret;
and it was to be recollected that Ireland had only escaped
the income tax ; thas country had not escaped paying its
full share of the new taxation, though by a different species
of taxation. . . .

Lord MONTEAGLE said he had exacted a pledge from the
other House of Parliament, when the postage was reduced,
that should a deficiency in the revenue be the result of the
measure it would be made good by parliament. This might
seem to bind him to support the present measure, but he
could not think that because he was pledged as a member of
the House of Commons at the time to supply that deficiency,
that he was, therefore, bound to supply it by the imposition
of an income tax. It was assumed this tax was not unpopu-
lar because of the few petitions presented against it, but they
would find the case in that respect amazingly changed as
soon as the tax came into operation, and as soon as the
surcharges would cause the real nature of the impost to be
experienced. The absence of petitions was to he accounted
for by the exemption of persons having incomes less than
£l3O a year; for on reference to the list of dividends he
found that out of 282,000 dividend warrants, only 13,000 ex-
ceeded £l5O a year. When so large a portion of the pro-
perty of the country was exempted, the absence of petitions
was easily accounted for. He referred to the speech of Sir
R. Peel when Lord Althorp gave the House of Commons
the alternative of an income tax, if it persevered in repealing
the malt tax, in order to show that the measure he now pro-
posed was brought forward under circumstances, which, he
then contended, would not justify its adoption.
The Earl of RIPON said that the arguments of all the noble

lords opposed to this bill resolved themselves into the one
question of the necessity of the case. He contended that
the re-imposition of the house and assessed taxes would not
produce a sufficient revenue to supply the deficiency.
Their lordships then divided, and the third reading was
carried by a majority of 99 to 28.
The bill was then read a third time and passed, and their
lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TUESDAY.
Sir G. COCKBURN stated that he had ascertained, beyond
all question, that the seamen of the Pique were not paid
in light sovereigns. Every sovereign was weighed before
given to them. It did happen, however, that the tradesmen
of the town demanded one shilling each for changing them
on the ground of their being short of weight. They brought
them back in consequence, but were perfectly satisfied on
seeing them weighed in their presencte. The workmen in
the dockyard were also paid in coin weighed before it was
given to them.
In reply to a question from Mr. POSTER,
Mr. GLADSTONE said it was doubtful if there was any
real scarcity of silver coin; but if_there was, steps should be
taken to supply the deficiency.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUTT,
Sir R. PEEL said that negotiations had not yet been
brought to a conclusion respecting the Stade duties. A
proposition had recently been made to the Hanoverian go-
♦ernment on the subject, to which as yet no reply had been

received.
_ In reply to a question respecting the invention of Captain

Warner.
Sir R. PEEL stated that he had caused every facility to be
offered to Captain Warner for the purpose of testing the
value of his invention. but the gallant captain had required
some conditions which could not be acceded to.

The Bribery at Elections Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Tuesday next.
Mr. WARD then brought forward his motion—" That in
all future elections for members of parliament, the votes be
taken by the way of ballot." The hon. member admitted
that the two great parties in the country were open to the
charge of bribery, the only difference being one of degree,
and not of principle. Bribery had recently got to such a
height that some remedy must be adopted to put an end to
practices which were a disgrace to the country; and no
remedy could be so effective as the adoption of the ballot.
Freedom of government should be tne first principle of re-
presentative government, but amongst the rural tenantry of
England freedom of election was utterly unknown. The
ballot was said to be unmanly and un-English, but it would
prove a corrective, not only to bribery and intimidation, but
to various other malpractices which now prevailed. The
hon. member concluded by calling on the house to support
his motion, and to forego the illegitimate influence always
derived from open voting.
Mr. H. BERICELY seconded the motion, and asked, if the
ballot was unmanly and un-English, what could the present
system be termed? Electors were influenced by the " screw."
but of all " screws " the banker's was the most potent. in
the country, however, the electors were driven to the poll
like a herd of cattle to market. He stated, as an illustration
of this assertion, various occurrences which had taken place
at the last election for Bristol, and appealed to his colleague
as to the correctness of his statement. _

Captain LAYARD and Mr. CHRISTIE supported the mo-
tion.

Mr. V. HARCOURT opposed the motion, contending that it
would lead to a system of surveillance on the part of the
landlords, and of hypociisy on the part of the tenants, each
constantly watching and trying to deceive the other.
Captain BERKELEY said, that heretofore he was opposed
to the adoption of the ballot, in the belief that the malprac-
tices complained of would he corrected by the influence of
public opinion. Circumstances had, however, since occurred,
which compelled him to change his opinion, and he would
support the motion, believing now that the ballot was the
only means of putting down that which Lord Abinger had
judicially designated as " the abomination of the land."
Captain BERNAL supported the motion, and charged the
government with shirking the question.
Mr. M. MILNES said that it was usual for members of the
government to state their opinions in the early period of such
a debate. He admitted the force the question of the ballot
derived from recent occurrences arising out of the last gene-
ral election, but he still was of opinion that the people were
acquiring a knowledge of the value of their political rights,
and that the malpractices complained of were diminishing,
and therefore there was no pressing exigency for resorting to
such an organic change as that of the ballot.
Mr. C. PONSONBY contended that the adoption of the bal-
lot would tend to raise the character of the country.
Mr. BYNG thought its effect would be precisely the re-
verse, by making hypocrites of the people, teaching them to
conceal their sentiments and actions, and to pay no regard
to the dictates of truth.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL supported the motion, as calcu-
lated to produce much benefit, though he by no means
thought it would have the effect of curing all the vices of our
electoral system.
Lord J. MANNERS opposed the motion, and contended
that public opinion was unfavourable to the ballot.
Mr. SHEIL said that the ballot must ultimately be carried
like all other great questions, by the constant repetition of
the truths on which they were based. It would be remem-
bered that at the time of the Reform Bill the ballot was dis-
tinctly understood to be a question left in reserve. It was
said that the ballot would diminish the influence of property,
whereas its real operation would be to act as a bar to the
despotism of property. If it was to be an understood thing
that the tenantry held the franchise in trust for the landlords,
then the exercise of that franchise ought to be open, that the
landlords might be satisfied the trust was not abused ; but if
it were a trust held for the community, the voter should have
protection for the conscientious discharge of the trust reposed
in him. The ballot was the only protection that could be
devised to shield them from the intimidation to which they
were exposed.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought that Mr. Sheil had not ac-
curately described what took place respecting the ballot at
the time of the Reform Bill, and contended that thatbill was
passed as a bond fide final measure. His opinions on the
ballot were the same as those entertained by Lord J. Russell,
and he was himself an example of the freedom with which
the franchise Was at present exercised, for though possessing
considerable influence in Cumberland as a landed proprietor,
and supported by a large number of the other landed pro-
prietors of the county, he was yet defeated by the constitu-
ency he had previously represented. The ballot was opposed
to all the habitudes of the English character, and he hoped
the house would defeat the motion by a large majority.
Mr. Mu RPHY contended that by the influence of bribery
and intimidation at the last general election, the people of
England had been delivered over, bound hand and foot, to
the aristocracy.
measure,
Lord
J .a and
swsetlll, calculated
sail
that t
toh ceo rr e ct
secretenormouse
ee
oi lfs .
Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the ballot was an honest
which
Sir James Graham was a member, at the time of the passing
of the Reform Bill, had proposed the adoption of the ballot,
and a limitation to the period of the duration of Parliament,
neither of which propositions were adopted by the Cabinet of
Earl Grey. He confessed he still saw great objections to the
adoption of the ballot. The noble lord contended that the
experience of the ballot in other countries, both in ancient
nd modern times, was not such as to cause it to be adopted
without the most inature.consideration.
Mr. WAKLEY would vote for the motion, though he feared
if it should be adopted, with our present constituencies, there
supported the motion; and, after a reply
never would be any extension of the suffrage.
Lord V
* NNa
°m7Rsa'rjr(lol:-rity of 290 to 157.
The house divided, and his motion was de-
feated fromi o r A
bi
y\'•
a
The house then went into committee on the Customs Bill,
which occupied the remainder of the night.

-ii P.---

HOUSE OF LORDS.—NVEDNESDAY.
The royal assent was given to the Income Tax Bill and se-
veral others.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAy.
The Drainage (Ireland) Bill went through committee.
The house then went into committee on the Mines and
Collieries Bill.
In the room of the second clause,. Lord ASHLEY moved
age
a
clause to the effect that no person under 13 yrs f
should be employed in collieries and mines more than 12
hours in each alternate day, and that it should not be lawful