The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-15 00:00:00

Vllll/.1.3114* Co

,wPott Coosoptta to tho ad.louroroont; oodd
. accordingly to be resumed on I,?tirlay,
,01": called attention to the practice adopted by
efore committees of the boost, with the view of pro.
That remedy, he thought, would be found
n agreeing-to two resolutions, which he proposed ; one im-
on the suitoethe necessity of naming his counsel en.
first day of the sitting of the committee; the other to
ke it an order of the house that no counsel should attend

sir, V
counsel

viding a remedy

shGlild have closed its proceeding;
Sir J. GRAHAM was not awart

--„,e that there was any such in-
convenience in the present practice as should lead the house
to make any alteration. The second resolution would prac-
tically have the eflect of pre% enting the suitor from selecting
such counsel as he might, from their experience, be desirous
of having.

After some discussion, in the course of which it seemed to
be admitted that the new mode of trying election petitions
was a failure,

Sir R. PEEL contended that they had not as yet any proof
whatever that the present plan, which had been suggested by
himself, was a failure.

Mr. WA SON withdrew his motion, declaring, however, that
he would not lose sight of the subject.
The adjourned debate on the income tax was resumed by
11,1 r. BROTFIERTON, who admitted that in Manchester, and
other places, there was not such an opposition to the income
tax as he expected there would have been. (" Hear, hear,"
from Sir Robert Pi el.) The cause of this lie attributed to
the fact that a new generation had arisen wholly ignorant of
all the evils accompanying an income tax. The hon. mem-
ber concluded by declaring that he would oppose the in-
come tax as unnecessary.

Colonel WOOD supported an income tax, because it would
not fall on the great body of the people, and under existing
circumstances was indispensable, for the purpose of extrica-
ting the country from its difficulties.

Captain MANGLES said that at this moment the Indian go-
vernment had a loan open to it at five per cent., which was
about equivalent to three per cent. in this country, whereas
on former occasions they had borrowed at nine, at ten, and
even at twelve and a half per cent. How then could it be
said that the revenue of India was in such a state as to call
upon this country to saddle itself with an income tax to re-
lieve it? The hon. and gallant captain concluded by stating
that as yet there were no sufficient circumstances before the
house to justify it in agreeing to an income tax, and he must
therefore oppose its adoption.
Mr. G. VERNON, in supporting the income tax, said he did
so because he thought that two millions taken from the
people by indirect taxation, was much more than two mil-
lions taken by an income tax. This was not with him a new
opinion, for in 1816, he had voted in the minority against
abolishing the income tax of that day. He bad then but one
constituent—the Duke of Newcastle--and that noble lord
was desirous of abolishing the tax. He told the duke that
he thought the tax a fair and just one, and offered, as their
opinions differed, to accept the Chiltern Hundreds. " No."
said the duke, " you may vote according to your opinions,
! for I have spoken to all my members, and one half are going
to vote for, and the other half against, the tax." (A laugh.)
Mr. C. BULLER said that some observations which had
dropped from Sir R. Peel appeared to him to be particularly
ominous, as respected the duration of this income tax. He
first proposed that it should continue for three years only ; a
few days subsequently he talked of five years as the extreme
period ; and since then he had intimated that at the close of
five years it would be seriously taken into consideration
whether the circumstances of the country would not eriable
them to do without it altogether. The hon. and learned
gentleman said it was common for hon. members who were
pleased to be facetious—after the manner of country mem-
bers—to charge upon the whigs every difficulty which now
existed. Thus, an hon. member on the previous evening had
said that the late government had left the Canadian expendi-
ture and the boundary question as a legacy to their succes-
sors, forgetting that in all the policy pursued respecting
Canada the late government majorities bad been swelled by
all the members of the present gGverrin- eut, wl,!:•.; he (Mr.
C. Buller) had all through disaopro‘ed of, and voted against
that policy. And, again, on the c -of the boundary ques-
tion, if blame was to be attril;, anywhere it was to the
present Chancellor of the Excl, who nad a share in the
treaty at Ghent long before the %, .11gs came into power. He
denied that the conservatives i any claim to the practice
of economy, for he never rery .nbered more than two in-
stances in which any of thew had voted for a curtailment of
expenditure—one was in saving £20,000 to the country by
voting for the reduction of the proposed income to Prince
Albert from £50,000 to £30,000 a year, and the other in
voting against the very restricted grant to the College of
Maynooth. The hon. and learned gentleman then contended
that if the rival budgets (that of the right han. baronet, in-
cluding the new tariff and the income tax) were once more
placed before the country on the hustings, the people would
readily accept that of Lord J. Russell to the budget of the
present government.

Mr. BORTHWICK supported the proposition of the govern-
ment, but the noise in the body of the house was so great that
the hon. member at length moved the adjournment of the
debote. The gallery was cleared, but no division took place,
and on our re►urn we found Mr. Borthwick still speaking
and attacking the ministerial side of the house for their share
in the interruption he had received, for upon their gratitude
he had some claims, whereas he had none upon the other side.
On the motion of another hon. member the debate was ad-
journed as soon as Mr. Borthwick sat down, Sir R. Peel ex-
pressing a hope that tomorrow night the house would come
to a division with respect to the income tax, as until its
opinion was expressed on that proposition it would be incon-
venient to bring the alterations of the tariff under the con-
sideration of the house.