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

of distinction in the county, as well as those of the noble
marquis, as to the great worth and ability of that gentleman.
As it was five or six years since he had been dismissed, the
noble marquis might have attributed his restoration to some
other cause rather than a wish to gratify the editor of a
Dublin paper.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said he had applied, and
had been refused—the editor of the paper had applied pub-
licly (he did not know whether be had made any private ap-
plication) and had succeeded. He thought it was a bad ex-
ample after a retraction had been demanded and refused 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.

Tile 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
lightly as possible, that time was the present. Yet at such
a time the bill on the table was brought forward, which was,
in short, replete with all the evils of the former tax on in-
come. The only reason assigned for passing it was that the
government was in want of money, and no other tax was so
likely to bring it into the treasury. He objected to the whole
measure as it was proposed by government, which so far
from relieving would augment the distress and difficulties of
the country, and he therefore moved that it be read a third
time 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 re-impose
some of those taxes which had been repealed, and the repeal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 re-stated 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 bad only escaped
the income tax ; that country had not escaped paying its
full share of the new taxation, though by a different species
of taxation.
Lord AlowrEmar, 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
Xl5O 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