Debates ant( illrottaings in Varliamtnt.

THE NEW FINANCE MEASURES.

The debate on the resolution which Lord John Russell moved as an amendment on bringing up the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, on Friday the 8th instant, continued on Monday the 11th, Tuesday the 12th, and Wednesday the 13th. Before proceeding to the new matter, we go back to select some of the more important passages in the speeches of Friday, which were excluded from our columns last week by the want of space.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who accused Ministers of taking too gloomy a -view of public affairs, compared the present aspect of the finances with that when the Income-tax was formerly proposed- " For several years you had been engaged in war, and you were adding every year to the amount of your debt ; borrowing money on very disadvantageous terms, and increasing every year, therefore the interest of the Public Debt. In the year before the lncome-tax was proposed, a loan of 15,000,000/. was raised for the service of the year. In that year the Assessed Taxes were, I think, trebled ; but there was this addition with respect to them, that every person who was obliged by those Assessed Taxes to pay more than one-tenth of his in- come should declare that such was the fact, and be thereby exempted from the payment of any overplus beyond that amount. In the following year, not- withstanding the imposition of those Assessed Taxes, which then produced more than 4,000,0004 it was found that there was a deficiency of 10,000,0001. for the service of the year. The pressure of the war required a very great effort to be made; and the Minister of that day, having the House and the country with him in favour of the prosecution of the war, then thought it necessary, and I think rightly, not to go on increasing the debt in such an immense ratio, but to ask for a still further effort from the country in order to make the revenue more nearly equal to the expenditure of the war. As soon as the war was over, the succeeding Minister, Mr. Addington, came down to the House and proposed at once that the Income-tax should be discontinued. When the country was again engaged in war, that tax was revived, in order that an immense accumu- lation of debt might not be produced. In 1806, when that subject was often referred to, the tax was raised to 10 per cent. It was afterwards stated by Lord Lansdowne, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, that he found that the loans, which in some years were 10,000,0004 had in the previous year increased to 20,000,0001.; and it was in order to avoid, if possible, such a growing accumulation of debt, that the Government of that day proposed an increase of the Income-tax. As soon as peace arrived, it was proposed, indeed, to continue the tax for two years, I think, for the purpose of paying off part of the debt ; but that was resisted by Members on both sides of the House : it was resisted generally by independent Members of the House who then sup- ported the Government; and after several weeks' discussion, the proposition was defeated; and I think it is stated by Lord Brougham in the Introduction to one of his Speeches, that it was considered to be thereby established that an Income-tax should be reserved for war, and war only. For many years after- wards such was considered to be the case; and when there was very great pres- sure on our finances and a great deficiency in our resources, yet this tax was not made a matter Of discussion in this House during the times of peace. It was not only not discussed as a direct proposition, to which I shall not further refer, but in the course of the year 1833, a motion having been carried for a reduction of the Malt-tax to 10s., and a motion being before the House for a further reduction of the House and Window tax, Lord Althorp proposed a re- solution to the House that a reduction of the Malt-tax to 10s., with the repeal of the House and Window tax, would occasion SO great a deficiency of the re- venue, that it could only be supplied by an Income-tax, which at that time was not expedient Lord Althorp said he thought it not prudent to have a very small Property-tax: if it were adopted at all it should be as a system, that some 10,000,0001. or 12,000,000/. should be raised by an Income-tax ; but then he went on to say, that he never knew any tax so unpopular as was the In- come-tax, and that during the time it MIS in operation it was detested." Thus it appeared that the Income-tax was imposed to meet a defi- ciency within the year of some ten or twenty millions : and in 1798 Government were borrowing at a very high rate of interest— ask, m there any resemblance in that to the present situation of our deficiency is about 2,500,0001., about one-twentiath of e. .Although there has been a deficiency for some yetis, the credit of the country is unimpaired. During that time you have had your Three per Cents at 89 and 90, and have been able to borrow at less than 3/. 108. frm the 1004-while othernations, anti believe even now Austria, Russia, and Noland, aremrsising thattmeney at fiae per cent There is, therefore, nothing in the state ofdie public credit that requires an extraordinary effort—nothing halite amount of the public deficiency that requires it—nothing to make you contradict the assertion of former Parliaments, the general assertion of politi- cians, that this is a tax which ought to be reserved either for times of war, or difficulties with great Powers in times of peace making them equal to times of war."

He recommended the Budget of last year as supplying the means to meet a great portion of the deficiency. The argument used on the Ministerial side in respect to sugar was that the reduction of duty might for a time produce a decrease of revenue : but that did not touch Mr. Baring's proposition- " My right honourable friend stated that foreign sugar was subject to a duty of 63s. the hundredweight. From this high duty no revenue was derived, nor WSS it imposed with a view to revenue, but merely to act as a prohibition. Yielding no revenue, there could be no diminution of revenue ; for except in one or two very extraordinary years, no sugar from any foreign colony has been imported into this country for home consumption. This prohibitory duty, my right honourable friend proposed to reduce to 36s. By this he expected to obtain an increased revenue, not merely from the increased consumption to which the reduction of the duty might give rise, but (rein the amount of duty paid on foreign sugar over and above that paid on the sugar of our own colo- mea. Supposing, for instance, that a million of hundredweight of foreign sugar had displaced the same quantity of British West India produce : you might, perhaps, argue that it was unfair to diminish the protection on the pro- duce of our own colonies ; but, as a question of finance, as a question of re- venue, there cannot be a doubt that foreign sugar paying 36s. would yield a greater amount of revenue than the sugar of our own colonies paying only 24s." If new taxes must be resorted to, lay a tax on the succession of real property, or reimpose taxes which have been repealed, such as some assessed taxes. Sir Robert Peel had himself admitted that Mr. Baring's addition of 10 per cent to the Assessed Taxes had been productive- " Sir, a return moved for by Mr. Herries with regard to the Assessed Taxes be- tween the years 1827 and 1831, showed that after this tax had been reduced, the amount of the estimate was 3,623,000/, while the sum actually received was 4,371,0001.; being an excess of receipt over estimate of 648,0001. Now, this shows the buoyancy of this source of revenue, and how preferable such a proposal would be to an Income-tax. There is this advantage too in such a proposal over the plan for imposing an Income-tax, that in the latter scheme

i

you set all your machinery n motion for a term of five years. If you then find your revenue has increased, and that your establishments may be safely decreased, you have unnecessarily incurred all the odium and encountered all the difficulty of imposing your Income-tax. In the other case, you can take off 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, as easily as you laid it on. Lay your tax upon— say windows or carriages—and you can take it off again : but once impose an Income-tax, which is to produce you, as I imagine, four millions a year—for I think the right honourable gentleman has under-estimated the produce of his tax—you may be quite sure there will be no hurry, on the part of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, to take it off again. It is certain to be continued for three years ; it appears highly probable it may be continued for five years; and if I were to add five years to that, I dare say I should not exceed the truth." MT. GOULBURN adduced statements of figures to prove that a tax on the succession of real property would not be productive, and that it would fall on those who are least able to bear it— Mr. Pitt, in 1796, introduced two bills ; the object of the one being to at- tach a legacy-duty to personal property, and of the other to attach a legacy- duty to all lands passing by devise, descent, or voluntary act. The bill im- posing a tax on personal property passed into a law ; the other, imposing a like tax on real property, was rejected, or rather was withdrawn. This last trill excluded all settled property, on the ground that a man who bad merely a life- interest could not, strictly speaking, be considered as liable for the tax. In 1805, Mr. Pitt, not disheartened by what had taken place in 1796, introduced a bill which included all the protium& of the two bills of 1796; the legacy- duty was thus imposed on all lands passing by devise or descent, excepting settled property. As the law then stood, all property unsettled, personal as well as real, paid a duty. The bill of 1796 affected personal property only ; and the amount of legacy-duty on personal property received for the Biz years, from 1796 to 1803, was 5,109,635/. The bill of 1805 made charges on landed property subject to legacy-duty; and the amount received for the six years following 1805 was 14,700,000/. From this, however, would have to be deducted 5,800,0001., being the amount of duty received on legacies ; there remained 8,900,000/. as the amount of duty received during those six years in charges on landed property. In the six years following 1796, the duty received on personal property amounted to 5,109,635/. If, therefore, they deducted the one sum from the other, they would find that the duty on charges on land exceeded that on personal property by upwards of 3,760,000/. He trusted that he had shown to the House that it was an error to suppose that landed property was not sub- jected to legacy-duty.

Mr Wriaxsza WILLIAMS discussed the financial measures of the late and present Government; giving the preference in some cases to Sir Robert Peel's scheme. Timber was a case in point— By reducing the duties on timber, he conceived that the building of ships would be greatly promoted ; and this he thought a most important considera- tion, for an addition would thus be made to the capital and to the labour em- ployed in the shipbuilding trade, and there would be a consequent increase in the number of seamen required. Nothing would have a greater tendency to prevent aggression on the part of foreign powers, than the employment of an increased number of seamen in our mercantile marine, for we should thus have at command a powerful and efficient body of seamen for manning our ships of war. The article of coffee was another item in the noble lord's reolution, but he thought that her Majesty's Government had in their measure dealt libe- rally with regard to that article. He considered, however that a differential duty of 50 per cent would have afforded ample protection to our Colonies; and it was desirable, considering the state of our relations with China, that every encouragement should be given to the consumption of coffee. He proposed two measures in lieu of the Income-tax,—a tax, equal to the Probate and Legacy duty, on the bequest or inheritance of real property ; and a tax on all annuities, pensions, or stipends, paid out of the Public Funds, on this scale— For every such income of the annual amount of 1501. to 3001., for every twenty shillings, sixpence; of 3001. to 500/., for every twenty shillings, one shilling; of 500/. to 750/. for every twenty shillings, one shilling and sixpence ; of 7501. to 1,000/, for every twenty shillings, two shillings; of 1,000/. to 1,5001., for every twenty shiffings, three shillings; of 1,500/. and upwards, for every twenty shillings, four shillings on the value thereof. The distinction between landed and real property left by inherit- ance or legacy operated most unjustly— Let them take two instances. If a respectable mechanic died leaving to his children furniture or wearing apparel to the value of 20L, the children might be obliged to pay a legacy and probate duty ; while on an estate of 100,0001. A

year left by a rich nobleman, neither legacy nor probate duty might be pay- able. The right honourable gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exhequer) ex- pressed his dissent ; but he asked, had the Duke of Cleveland, the Duke of Norfolk, or the Marquis of Hertford, who had recently inherited vast estates, paid probate or legacy duty ?

For his proposal to tax Government salaries and the like, he found a reason in the altered state of the currency— He was dealing only with large salaries or pensions; and it must be remem- bered that those salaries as well as the pensions bad in former years been in- creased to a very great extent, in consequence, avowedly, of the depression of the circulating medium of the country. If they looked at the value of money during the war, when these advances were made, and its value at the present time, they would see that a far greater amount of the produce of industry was now required to pay the same amount of taxation than at a former period. He found, from an able work of the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

i

(Sir James Graham,) that the difference n the value of money at the present time and in 1813, one of the last and most expensive years of the war, was at least 30 per cent. The amount of taxes in 1813 was 81,000,000/, the value of gold being 5/. 6s. 2id. an ounce. The taxes for the present year would be 54,000,000/. or 55,000,000/, the value of an ounce of gold being Si. 17s. Rid., which was equal to 52,000,0001.* of taxation in 1813; thus making the taxes of the present year heavier than they were in 1813, although in amount the taxes in 1813 were 81,000,000/. and in the present year 52,000,0001. In 1813 the price of wheat was 6/ 2s. 6d. a quarter ; now it was about 31. Is. or 3/. 2s.; so that the people had now to give two quarters of wheat instead of one in 1813. In 1813, beef was contracted for at Greenwich Hospital at 9d. a pound; now it was 6d. Take, again, the case of the hand-loom weavers : they would now have to pay four days and a half's labour for the tax which one day's labour in 1813 would have paid. Thus it went on in these proportions, snaking the tax a much heavier burden now than it was in 1813.

He exhorted Government most earnestly, not to he satisfied with having a sufficiency of means voted to meet their expenditure, but to take care also to have the means in their exchequer, and not depend, as they had hitherto done, on the Bank of England—

The Bank of England had been very acquiescent in the views of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer hitherto, but this country ought not to be depending on the acquiescence or caprice of any body of individuals. It had been stated that on the 5th January in the present year the Government had only 3,600,0007. in the exchequer to pay an amount of 9,000,0007. of demands. Suppose, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer went and asked for his Deficiency-Bills, that the Bank of England had refused to grant them : it was only necessary for thirteen of the Directors of the Bank of England to have said "No," and what condition would the country have been placed in ? How could the right honourable gentleman have met the vast demands of the country ?

Sir ROBERT Nous suggested, that not only incomes under 150/. a year should be exempted from the tax, but that that amount should be deducted from all incomes of a higher value, and the tax fall only on the overplus ; so that a person receiving 2001. a year should be subject to a tax only on 507.— The 60/. a year tax paid by the man of 2,000/. a year, or the 600/ a year tax paid by the man of 20,000/ a year, would be comparatively lightly felt; but this 6/. a year paid by the individual of 200/ a year would abridge him of many comforts, and he might almost say of many necessaries ; and at any rate his sacrifice was immeasurably greater than that of the rich proprietor nomi- nally paying ten times the amount. Therefore, if it were fit to make any re- serve whatever on incomes of 150/. a year, it would be proper to permit a similar advantage to incomes above 150/. a year.

Sir ROBERT PEEL vindicated himself from the charge of having overrated difficulties ; and contrasted the state of the finances which the Melbourne Government found on entering office in 1835 with that which they left on their departure, in the British and Indian empire—

"In the year 1836, you, the then Ministry, found the affairs of the two great empires in this state. In this country the surplus of income over expenditure was 1,876,0007.; in India, 1,556,000/. You then entered on the performance of your duties with a net surplus in these two empires of about three millions. How have you left matters ? You say I overrate the difficulties. You found a surplus of three millions ; you left a deficit of five millions. There is a de- ficiency on the 5th April 1842, in the finances of the United Kingdom of 2,570,000/, in the revenue of India of 2,430,000!.: you therefore, on quitting office, left a deficit, which it is my duty to attempt to supply, of five millions. The difference in the finances of the country, from the time you undertook office to the day you quitted it—the difference against this country and against its credit is no less than eight millions per annum. You do not deny, I ap- prehend, that the difficulties of India will recoil upon you ? If you do, I can convince you that the time is approaching when you will know by experience that position cannot be maintained." Lord John Russell had suggested two measures to meet the deficiency, first, one for the remission of the duty on corn, and then another which he now spoke of for the first time, for a Legacy-duty on landed property and the reimposition of Assessed Taxes : now Sir Robert hoped that his agricultural friends—who were inconsistently taunted with being subservient to him, while he was charged with being sub- servient to the agricultural interest—would bear in mind the nature of that proposition. An eight shilling fixed duty on corn must be a pre- carious source of revenue, because in time of plenty it must be unpro- ductive. He doubted whether the arguments against a Property-tax might not with equal justice be urged against the Assessed Taxes-

" When the noble Lord proposes to resort to Assessed Taxes as a means of supplying this deficiency in the revenue, I think I could show him that every addition he made to Assessed Taxes would be more prejudicial in its effect on the labouring and industrious classes than a Property-tax. But observe, if you choose to supply your revenue by Assessed Tutu, how are you to exempt certain parties; professional men, for instance? You charge it against a Property-tax, that the income from professions is rated under it in the same proportion as that applied to the profits of manufacture or the interest of capital. Increase the Assessed Taxes, and then parties would be liable to the same charge. You do not allow them to go free of the House-tax, the Window-tax, or any other Assessed Tax, under which it may be asserted (as in the case of the professional man) their respectability is to be rated. And let it not be forgotten, that the higher you raise the Assessed Taxes the greater you make the temptation to quit this country. Here is a great propnetor, of 50,0001. or 60,000/. a year; tax his house 20 per cent, and you cannot prevent his closing it ; and you thus add an additional temptation to repair to a foreign capital, where he finds him- self free from Assessed Taxes. By the measure 1 propose, I reach him by means of an Income-tax. 1 touch his landed property through the intervention of his tenantry; and if he have no tenants, I affect him through the Funds. He may go abroad, but he is subjected to the charges he ought to bear in meeting the difficulties of the country. But tax his windows, or his house, and he will dis- miss his establishment, and reduce the demand for productive labour by going to Milan, Rome, or Paris. The noble Lord will not touch him there ; but I shall. The noble Lord, however, will chit clergymen and widows, and all those • There is an evident error in these figures—which we want data to correct.

who have not the means of travelling, with his impost. And just in propor- tion as he creates encouragement to go abroad by an exemption from the tax, does he press more severely on those who remain at home and cannot relieve themselves from contributing to the necessities of the state."

Responding to Mr. Ellice's approval of his change in the Timber-duties, Sir Robert recited more distinctly the advantages which he expected to flow from that alteration-

" H there be one article which more than another forms an element in ma- nufactures, and ought on that account to be exempted as much as possible from taxation, it is this very article of timber. I wish I could present to the 11011138 the proofs which have been brought before me of the effects which will result from a reduction of the duty on timber—of the extent to which it will be em- ployed in a variety of ways, which I had not contemplated—in local improve- ments, in the construction of bridges, piers, and other buildings. What in- creased sources of employment will not the measure open to the manufacturing classes ? We hear of the distress of the shipping interest, of the immense im- portance, commercially and politically, of reviving the prosperity of that in- terest. How can we do so more effectually than by facilitating the purchase of timber ? If we enable the shipbuilder here to compete with the ship- builder abroad, to how many men shall we not give employment ? What vast sources of maritime strength may we not expect to accrue to WI. Has not the high price of timber been a great impediment to the construction of houses ? Hu it not affected the very mode of building ? What has been its influence upon the construction of cottages ? I wish the House would read the evidence with respect to the cottages of the poor in Ireland : you would there see the effect which the high duty on timber has had in restricting the use of the article in every possible way, so that the cottages of the poor are rendered scarcely habitable. The high duty also operates moat injuriously upon British fishermen : owing to the better construction of their boats, the foreign fishermen enjoy a monopoly of fishing in deep seas. Reduce the price of timber, and you at once enable our fishermen to compete with them—to thrive; and thus you give the means of employment to a large number of men." Lord John Russell had misapprehended his argument respecting the Sugar-duties--- "I never denied that the consequence of reducing the duty upon Foreign sugar must be an increase of revenue. I said before that that was not my objection to the proposition of the noble Lord. If the proposition were made now to retain the existing duty upon British sugar, and to reduce the duty on Foreign sugar to 36s., I would oppose it. If we must deal with sugar, I think the way in which we ought to deal with it is by making a considerable reduction of duty as well with respect to Colonial produce as to Foreign produce. Why have I dealt so liberally with respect to timber, but because I want the profit arising from the reduction of duty to be obtained by the consumer? It is infinitely better to deal on a large scale with great articles of consumption, and to make a great reduction of duty, in order that the consumer may obtain the advantage of it, than, as has been done in some cases, to reduce the duty so that we lose the revenue and put the profit in the pocket of the wholesale dealer. The ground on which I opposed the reduction of the Sugar-duties was, that, after the sacri- fices we had made for the abolition of slavery, it would not redound to the ho- nour or credit of the country to permit the introduction of sugar the produce of Slave Colonies, without an effort at least to obtain some corresponding conces- sion with respect to the slave-trade. I must say, that without closing my eyes in the slightest degree to the advantages to be derived from reducing the price of sugar, I do think, in the present state of the controversy with other coun- tries in respect to the slave-trade, and seeing the suspicion which is most un- justly thrown upon our motives, if we were now for mere pecuniary considera- tions, for the first time, to admit sugar the produce of Cuba and the Braille, without having said one word with respect to any stipulation as to the slave- trade, we could net continue to maintain the character and influence which we now possess." Lord John alluded mysteriously to other taxes which might be re- sorted to, but he had taken care not to name them—

"I hope the labouring classes will observe that the noble Lord threatens them with renewing some of the taxes which have been repealed during the last twenty years; for that was his object in referring to them. I propose an In- come-tax, from which all persons having incomes under 1501. a year shall be exempt. The noble Lord opposite has stated that many taxes which had been repealed may be again imposed. What are they ? are they the duties on salt, on leather, or on beer? It is quite true, I have no doubt, that you might raise revenues from these sources ; but which plan is most for the advantage of the productive and industrious classes, a tax on income falling principally on what I may designate as the comparative ease of the country, or a revival of taxes falling upon the labour, the productive industry of the country?" It was true that he took more than seemed requisite to supply the deficiency ; but that deficiency would really be more than 2,500,0001.—

" We have sent six regiments to India. There have been no supplemental Army Estimates as yet laid before the House; the expenses of these six regi- ments are yet to be provided for. I propose to raise taxes to the amount of 4,300,000!.: but how do I propose to employ it ? Why, partly in remission of taxation on the raw material of manufactures. Does any man question the policy of the remission of 270,0001. on the raw material of manufacture ? When I lay on my proposed measure, I give a relief to productive industry ; I afford the best prospect of reviving manufactures, of stimulating trade. I take two measures—I employ direct taxation, that I may be enabled to relax the pres- sure of other taxation, which bears heavily upon the manufacturer. Such im my measure ; such is what the country ought to understand by my measure. The country ought to see through those indirect references to other modes of taxation which have been hinted at as having been in operation, and which it is possible to revive again."

He endeavoured to allay the alarm of some among his friends at alterations in the Tariff-

" I hope that my agricultural friends will suspend their judgment with re- ference to the probable operation of the new Tariff until I have had an oppor- tunity of laying the case fully and fairly before them. I am very sure that, although 1 propose to make a great reduction in the duties on articles of sub- sistence—although I propose to permit the introduction of fresh meat at a very low duty—although ,1 abate the duty on salt meat, and permit live cattle to be introduced for the 'first time—yet I do not despair of being enabled to show that it will be for the interest of all classes that prohibitory duties should be done away with. I mean to show the progressive rise that has of late years taken place in the price of meet. I mean to attempt to convince my agricultural friends that in this country the production of cattle does not keep pace with the increase of population. I am sure my friends will act on the dictates of their own reason and judgment ; and although I am also sure that they will not abandon me on the Property-tax because they may differ from me on certain points of the Tariff, yet I ask them to suspend their judg- ment until I can state fully the case of that proposed measure. I shall show them that in other countries the same inconvenience has been felt. I shall show them that in France the population has increased more rapidly than cattle could be supplied, and that the moat extraordinary rise in the price. of cattle was the consequence. 1 will show them from documents the authonty of which cannot be controverted, that there was also a great diminution in the France ; I will prove that France is a cattle-importing

high prices of cattle in country ; and that consumption of meat in France. I will prove the

that great neighbour of ours, with a population of upwards of thirty-three millions, so far from being likely to inundate this country with cattle, will actually be a rival of ourselves in purchasing them from other nations. I shall show my agricultural friends that there are but slight grounds of appre- hension from the importation of cattle from Belgium ; slight grounds of ap- prehension from Holland. I will prove that the apprehension must be limited to a narrow district of Europe; and I will also attempt to prove, that if im- portation of cattle into this country should take place, that that traffic will be for the advantage of the agriculturist as well as the manufacturer."

Lord John had hinted at a loan-

" If you are afraid to submit to sacrifices—if you paint in glowing. colours the miserable condition of those who are to pay taxes—if you say it 18 better to go on on the present system, increasing the Debt a little more, funding at 91 —(Cries of "hear, hear I " from the Opposition benches)—why are the Funds at 91? who has made them 91? (CUers from the Ministerial benches.) Public credit is high ; the Funds have risen, and, say you, 'You, can have a loan easily now.' Oh, you miserable financiers (Laughter and cheers.) I beg pardon if, in the beat of debate, I have used a word that may give offence: but the Funds are high because you have shown a disposition not to resort to a

system of loans in a time of peace. The Funds have risen ; but throw out my Income-tax and ask for a fresh loan to cover your deficiency in the revenue, and you will see the force of the argument that because the Funds are at 91 you may wait a little longer and have a loan. No, that will depress the Funds; that will prove a visionary scheme, and have the effect of sinking the Funds.

Funds are high while you maintain public credit, and all our disasters may be repaired while there is a conviction that you are willing to meet your diffi- culties."

In opening the renewed discussion on Monday, Dr. BOWRING gathered consolation in the progress of debate from the concessions made on either side to those great principles to which a few Members had been faithful through good and evil report. He rejoiced that he had been no party to the policy which had led to the deficiency—the disturb- ance of friendly relations with France, the war in Syria to establish Turkish supremacy, and the invasion of independent provinces beyond the Indus. He thought a property-tax, equitably levied, might be the most popular of all taxes; but the Income-tax as assessed by Sir Robert Peel appeared to him full of injustice.

Mr. GALLY KNIGHT thought that the Government could not repair the difficulties created by the late Government in a less objectionable mode than by an income-tax. He averred that the landed interest were prepared to " suffer " for the good of the country. As to Lord John Russell's taunts that the agriculturists were made of the same clay as their own acres, they would deserve the taunt if they abandoned those who would give them some protection for those who would give them none. And were not others liable to the imputation ? was there no Clay in the Tower Hamlets ?

Mr. ELPHINSTONE admitted, that if a new scheme of taxation were to be devised, a tax upon property or realized capital might be one of the fairest; but then it ought to be levied in a large amount, so as to enable Government to dispense with the smaller branches of taxation : Sir Robert Peel retains all such taxes, and raises only three or four millions, in a most vexatious manner ; while it is so imposed as to press with less severity on the agricultural than the manufacturing in- terests.

' Sir WALTER JAMES said that his constituents in Hull complained of the delay caused by these protracted debates: it inflicted the greatest injury on trade and commerce, and a gentleman had told him that it had created quite a panic on the Exchange. Sir Walter followed up this objection to lengthened discussion with suggestions of small altera- tions in Sir Robert's plan of levying the tax.

Mr.' WALLACE also raised several small complaints,—such as that the Budget had been brought forward at an unusual time, before the close of the financial year ; that it was propounded piecemeal ; and that it would not affect Ireland. In 1833, Sir Robert Peel had said that only extreme necessity could justify the resort to the inquisitorial process inseparable from an income-tax ; that to resort to such a machinery to levy two or three per cent would be most unwise; and that if Ireland were exempted, England and Scotland would have reason to complain: Mr. Wallace would take the sense of the House on the question of exempting Scotland.

Mr. LIDDELL replied to some of Mr. Wallace's minor objections, and in turn reproached the Whigs with abandoning their watchword, "Reform, retrenchment, and peace." Reform they had carried; but their retrenchment was retrenchment of the revenue with increased expenditure, and instead of peace they had the Afghan war. He ridiculed the difference of opinion among the Liberal Members for Durham ; one of whom supported Lord John Russell's policy in all but corn ; another opposed him in sugar ; two others supported him in corn and sugar, but opposed him in timber. Mr. Liddell made a laboured defence of the Ministerial alteration of the cattle-duties ; adducing many figures, and coming to the conclusion that the agri- culturists have no country to fear but Denmark, where farming is expensive, and the great thoroughfare of the Elbe is closed one part of the year and dangerous at another. He contended that the principles on which Sir Robert Peel had proceeded were fair and just ; but he deprecated their application to the particular articles of coals. (Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.)

Mr. RIGBY WASON took some pains to combat an incidental remark by Mr. Wallace that he knew no distinction between a Property-tax and an Income-tax ; Mr. Wason advocating the former, while he objected to Sir Robert Peel's imposition of an Income-tax in order needlessly to experiment in such reductions of duty as that on timber.

Mr. CHARLES WYNN supported the Income-tax on the ground of necessity. He objected to Assessed Taxes, that they fall, not upon in- come, but upon expenditure, which depends not upon a person's means, but upon the circumstances of his situation. What led to the Income- tax in 1798 was the fact, that persons opposed to the war not only abstained from subscribing to the voluntary contribution of 2,500,000L, but refused to pay even the duties which were imposed. Mr. Wynn explained the reasons which caused the repeal of the tax at the peace— It was felt by those with whom he then acted on the other side of the House, [the Whig Opposition ] that as there had been a pledge, as far as one Parlia- ment could bind another, that the tax should not continue longer than in time of war, it was due to the country that the tax should be repealed. The imme- diate repeal, however, was in consequence of the peace establishment then pro- posed being, as they thought, beyond the exigencies of the country, and in con- sequence of the proposal being accompanied by an inclination to carry on the duties which could be more properly conducted by civil officers through the medium of military establishments. It was thought that there was no way in which resistance to these proposals could be so effectually made as by a refusal to continue the Income-tax. The House of Commons joined in that feeling ; the Income-tax was repealed ; and in consequence the Estimates were reduced to a degree not beyond that originally suggested by the Opposition.

He regretted that the tax now proposed was not to be applied simply to meet the emergency that had arisen ; though he felt the value of the proposed alterations of duty. Mr. MACAMAY said, that as constitutional right and public conve- nience mast yield to the mere usage of a hundred and fifty pars, he should state as concisely as possible the substance of a petition intrusted to him by his constituents against the Income-tax ; and he did so, going on to put some of the current objections to the tax in somewhat more forcible language of his own. He denied that Sir Robert Peel had made out any necessity for the tax. Addressing himself particularly to the state of affairs in India, he sincerely deplored the painfully-disas-

trous destruction of troops in Afghanistan ; at the same time disclaiming any responsibility for the expedition, as it was planned and carried into effect before he had joined the Government. But this was not the time to consider that policy or its disastrous result to the sufferers— To introduce it into this debate for the purpose of aggravating the existing difficulties, that was what he said was making an unfair, sophistical, and rhe- torical use of this great calamity. The question they had now to discuss was only as to how this calamity bore upon the Income-tax, as it affected the pounds, shillings, and pence. Let him ask whether the right honourable gentleman contemplated this calamity when he brought in the Income-tax ? Was it not all an afterthought? Yet this very event was now put in the fore- front in every discussion that took place upon the Income-tax, although when the tax was proposed this disastrous result was never thought of. Had the right honourable gentleman added one farthing to his demand on the Com- mittee of Ways and Means on this account ? If not, how could he call upon them for this tax because his finances were greatly impaired by a disaster such as was never heard of in the history of this country ? Although the House had not as yet before it the supplementary Estimates, he was not without the means, as a late Secretary of War, of considering the effect which these dis- asters would have upon the Estimates. If due prudence and vigour were used, the reverse sustained might be repaired. He did not feel justified in asserting what would be the exact amount of the charge for such a purpose, in the ab- seuce of any estimate contained in the votes of the Supplies; but still, in the absence of any such estimate, he did feel satisfied and justified in saying, that nothing could be more futile or unfounded than to institute any thing like a comparison between the charges that would attend this disastrous event and those which had resulted from even the cheapest European war. He did not anticipate, if we acted with vigour, the least danger to our empire; though it must always be remembered that a great Mahometan success could not but fall like a spark upon tinder, and act on the freemasonry of Islamism from Mo- rocco to Coromandel. It was usual to charge troops sent to India upon the Indian revenue ; yet suppose they were charged on the British revenue. He did not know how many would be sent ; but 10,000 or 12,000 troops would be enough to meet the danger. He thought that a regiment of 1,100 men serving in India cost annually 32,0001.; he believed that the whole charge, therefore, for such a force as the right honourable gentleman contemplated would be 400,000/. a year. He did not say that this charge should not be met ; but it was not enough to take for such a charge the imposition of an Income-tax.

He alluded to the effect of the resort to such an extreme measure on the Continent ; reading from a French paper-

" It is a sign," say they, "that the English aristocracy, which has long been the envy and dread of Europe, is fast falling into its decline ; a tax the most odious that could be imposed in war has been renewed in the time of peace!" And they praise the Minister who would consent to so bold a measure' which they look upon as an evidence, if not of the destruction, at least of the decline of this country. Were those the terms in which an English Minister would like to be spoken of? Were those measures of which an English Minister would like to boast? when it was a demonstrable fact that England was better capable of fighting for her own defence, and of maintaining a great war, than she ever was in the whole course of her existence as a nation ?

Sir Robert Peel had intimated that some assistance might be needed to support the credit of the Indian Government : that might be a fit subject for after consideration, but it was no argument at all for the Income-tax at that moment ; for surely it was a good principle, that before they voted money they should know precisely what the scheme was to the maintenance of which it was to be applied. Mr. Macaulay charged Sir Robert Peel with having taken a party advantage of the outcry—the "howl of an old slave-driver "—against the Whig proposi- tion to alter the Sugar-duties : in support of his own consistency, he is obliged to abstain from availing himself of that alteration, and to im- pose the Income-tax instead ; and then, unable to find any reasons for the Income-tax, he made them, pitching away the timber-duties—a greater misfortune than the disasters in Afghanistan. And so, by that and similar means he made the deficit which was to justify the Income- tax. Mr. Macaulay thus summed up his arguments— It had been proved thatfuothing but the greatest extremity could vindicate the Income-tax ; that the country was not in such an extremity as alone could justify it ; that the right honourable Baronet had greatly exaggerated the financial difficulties of the country ; that he had brought into this discus- sion matters which had nothing to do with it, when he formed the plan which he had brought forward; that he bad brought into it vague and mysterious hints bf certain possible expenses which might be hereafter incurred, but of the nature of which he had not given the House the slightest notion ; that he had given up the obvious means by which the position of our finances might have been improved : that he had enlarged the deficit by throwing away a source of revenue which would have materially tended to relieve the country from the difficulties in which it was placed : and under these circumstances, Mr. Macaulay could only discharge his duty by giving his vote in favour of the motion of his noble friend.

Lord STANLEY was anxious to state the considerations upon which, not without reluctance, but from a full conviction of its necessity, he concurred in the course which had been unanimously resolved upon by the Cabinet. On no occasion of such importance was there such a general concurrence in the House as to the premises upon which these conclusions were founded — On every side of the House, we have these admissions, that there is a great and growing deficiency ; that that deficiency must be met ; that no temporary expedient can meet it; that it is impossible you can go on raising loans, and issuing bills, and postponing the evil day; that meet it you must ly taxation ; and that the commerce of the country, now labouring under distress, must not be subjected to additional burdens for the purpose. The question came, how to proceed? The Opposition by no means carried their agreement to that point-

Here was Mr. Wason with a scheme of his own, for a property-tax ; Lord John Russell said that a property-tax and an income-tax must be thrown out together; Mr. Wallace also said that they must go together; while other gentlemen were for throwing all burdens upon landed and funded property ; Mr. William Williams had another scheme of his own ; but he approved of the Government scheme in respect of timber ; to which Lord John again objected; and Mr. Macaulay declared that the loss of the timber-duties is a greater financial disaster than the melancholy event in Afghanistan.

Then it was said that the Income-tax could only be imposed in war-time, and that this was a time of profound peace— A state of profound peace Why, look to all the relations which have been bequeathed to us by the late Administration. Look to the state of prepara- tion which it is necessary to be in, north, south, cast, and west. (Cries of " Oh I " responded to by enthusiastic cheering.) I earnestly hope, and am sanguine enough to believe, that our existing differences with the United States of America may be brought to a happy and friendly conclusion; but, let me ask you, when before was it necessary to have 20,000 bayonets in the province of Canada ? A profound peace ! Look to the wars you have had in China, and tell me the amount of finances which your difficulties in that part of the globe have incurred. Tell me, if you can, the amount you have guaranteed to us for the future by your policy in China. Do not measure it by 9,000 or 10,000 armed men, or by the fleet which you have sent there. You have brought us into a war in that part of the world of which no man, and we told you so at the time, could foresee the result, but from which every man must know and foresee that there is little of glory to be reaped to the British arms, while it is a doubt whether it may not result in signal disaster and defeat. A state of profound peace! Look to India. Let the honourable gentleman turn his eye to that pertion of our Indian empire, Afghanistan, which my right honourable friend has been charged with using as a mere sophistry and plausible argument. What ! the state of Afghanistan a matter of sophistry ? Why, the right honourable gentleman wan himself glad enough to disclaim personally all responsibility in the matter. The right honourable gentleman, who subse- quently filled the situation of Secretary of War, must have had means, in his offi- cial capacity, of calculating the dangers anddisasters we were likely to meet in that part of our Indian empire, and well and wisely did the right honourable gentle- men tell us, that when that expedition was undertaken he was not in Parliament. But then there was the warning of the Duke of Wellington, in the first instance. I recollect the prophetic speech with which that noble Duke told you, when you undertook that ill-fated expedition—" Triumph you may ; I have great confidence in the discipline and gallantry of your troops ; but when you have succeeded, then will come your embarrassment." How have you succeeded ? You slept upon the top of a volcano, and awaking you find your- selves surrounded by danger. The right honourable gentleman admits that it was a disaster, but that really in a financial point of view it is nothing at all ; and yet a financial point of view is the only one in which we have to look at it. (Cries of "Nis, no!,, and "Hear, hear! ") But how did he follow up that declaration ? What did he say to you of the freemasonry of Islamism ? What did he tell you of the religious feelings of the people—of the great Mahomedan success that could not fail to fall like a spark upon tow ? And when he has estimated by pounds, shillings, and pence, the loss of those brave men ?—(cries of " Oh/ ")—when the right honourable gentleman has made his calculation of the sum of money, he has admitted all those frightful anti- cipations which must necessarily arise to any man who gives a moment's con- sideration to the subject ; and ;when the right honourable gentleman declares that this great Mahomedan success was falling like a spark upon tow, and that the freemasonry of Islanaism was extending from Morocco to Coromandel in an empire which rests upon the prestige of opinion, who shall calculate, even in a financial point of view, the expenditure, the ruinous and extravagant ex- penditure that we must be led into if we intend to support our character in India, and to renew and to maintain against that spirit, and against those feelings which the right honourable gentleman has referred to, as well as against the recent disasters, the prestige of the invincibility of the British arms in that part of our dominions?

Mr. Macaulay said that Government knew nothing of the disaster in India when the Income-tax was proposed- " True, Sir, we did know nothing of the fate of the forces at Cabal at the time

we agreed to lay a new impost tax on the people; and I admit that, ill as we thought of that unhappy and ill-fated expedition, our worst fears did not pic- ture any thing so calamitous and disastrous as the result which has occurred. Bat, whatever might have been the course of the late Government, her Majesty's present advisers deemed it their duty to look a little in advance. We thought it proper to calculate the probable expenditure ; not to act, as I believe the honourable Member for Ipswich advised, on the principle that 'sufficient for the day is the evil thereof,' but to make provision for the addi- tional expenditure which we clearly foresaw we should be called upon to meet. But, although we knew nothing of the fate of our Cabal army, it must be borne in mind that so far back as January last we knew of the state of the Indian revenue—we knew of the probable deficiency of income over expendi- ture in that country—we knew of the exigencies of the China service."

Lord John Russell called upon them to go back to the Budget of

last year—a Budget rejected not by one, but by two Parliaments— though he still admitted that it would leave a deficiency of two millions! And now he proposes a probate and legacy duty on real pronerty. He did not think that Lord John would persuade his agricultural friends that they would be better of' in his hands than in the hands of the pre- sent Government. But was land already subject to no equivalent bur- dens ? were there no stamps on marriage-settlements ? Having re- peated a few arguments already used by Mr. Goulburn and Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley alluded to a quotation which Mr. Sheil had made about Sir Robert Peel, to whom it was permitted to make changes de- nied to the late Government— The lines ran thus- " Still as you rise. the state, exalted too.

Knows no disturbance when 'tis changed by you."

The quotation was certainly very applicable, but why did not the right honour- able gentleman go on with another part of the quotation, which would equally apply ? Why did he not add- " Changed as the world's great scene, when without noise The rising sun night's vulgar lights destroys."

Lord Stanley concluded by quoting the words of Mr. Roebuck, a strong political opponent of the present Government, who said that their measure was "honest, direct, and straightforward."

Mr. Lsnourelizaz, in a quiet speech, replied to some of Lord Stanley's sallies. He deprecated the misrepresentation of Mr. Macaulay, that be had estimated the loss of brave men in Afghanistan in pounds, shillings, and pence : he had merely said that in reference to the present motion the results of military operations in India must be so viewed. Mr. La- bouchere defended the Budget of the late Government ; though be be- lieved that under present circumstances direct taxation must have been resorted to. But there was this difference, that had the proposition of the late Government been affirmed, the deficiency to be made good would have been smaller. He contrasted the conduct of Sir Robert Peel, who objected to Mr. Baring's Budget, but refused to " play the Chancellor of the Exchequer," with Lord John Russell's frank decla- ration of the course which he recommended instead of that which he con- demned. Now that Sir Robert Peel found it impossible to resist the practical application of the principles advocated by his predecessors, he took advantage of the turning tide, and endeavoured to persuade the people of the country that to him were those principles indebted for their final success.

Lord STANLEY disclaimed the intention of attributing any personal indifference to the loss of human life on Mr. Macaulay's part.

Lord Passers EGERTON quoted two petitions from Manchester and Bury, numerously signed by leading persons of each party, recom- mending despatch in making good the deficiency. Against Mr. Mac- aulay, he cited Paris papers, from which he gathered that they regardel the measures before Parliament as proving that the people of England were ever ready to meet difficulties.

Lord Josur RUSSELL retorted on the Ministerial party the charge of delay, for obstructing the measures of finance in May last, and for taking from the time of their entrance to power until March last to bring forward their own measures. He was quite prepared to identify himself with Lord Auckland in his Indian policy.

Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE avowed the like willingness.

MY. LABOUCHERE asked for the amended Tariff. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he never made a promise without being in a situation to fulfil it : "here is the amended Tariff, which I now lay on the table."

On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the debate was then adjourned.

Mr. BROTHERTON took up the discourse on Tuesday, with some ge- neral condemnation of the measure and recommendation of substitutes, including taxes on real property, funds, mortgages, houses, mills, ware- houses, and manufactories; but exempting firms, trades, and profes- sions. He acknowledged that the feeling against the tax in Manchester and its neighbourhood was not at all what he expected it to have been ; not at all like that which was excited by the similar tax in 1816. He accounted for the difference by men being willing to sacrifice their own and their neighbour's interest to their party feelings, and by the popular difficulty of distinguishing between an Income-tax and a Property-tax. He had met with another reason— A friend had very frankly confessed to him that he should have been opposed to the tax if Sir Robert Peel had not inserted in his measure a clause which allowed persons to compound for the three years tax : now, as he had not realized any profits during the last three years, he thought that, if he com- pounded upon the return, he was conscientiously able to make, he should effect a good bargain with the Government.

Colonel Wool) (Brecon) quoted Parliamentary papers relating to the Income-tax of 1815; from which he made a calculation that the total number of contributors to the tax in Great Britain would not exceed 200,000/., out of a population of 18,000,000, with 3,444,000 inhabited houses.

Captain MANGLES made a copious use of figures to show that the state of the Indian finances furnished no justification of the Income-tax— With a rate of interest varying from 9 to 12 per cent, the debt of India rose from 17,059,192/. in 1797, to 31,638,827/. in 1805; the revenue in the latter year being 15,403,409/. In 1839 the debt was still but 31,987,0004 while the revenue had risen to 20,000,000/.; and it is flourishing at present. But while the rate of interest in India is 8 to 9 per cent, the Company can borrow at 5 per cent. In Lord Wellesley's time the pay of the civil servants was often twelve months in arrear ; now not a single monthly salary is unpaid. The Burmese war imposed a debt of 13,000,000/. on India, and the number of deaths was larger than in the Afghan war ; yet it was not made the excuse for adding to the burdens of this country. Of the six regiments now scut out, two are to replace regiments sent to China, and one was to replace the unfortunate regi- ment that had ceased to exist; thus leaving only three additional regiments to be provided for in India. lie thought Mr. Macaulay had overrated the danger to be apprehended from the Mahomedan powers of India : our empire rests on our truthfulness, on the sense entertained of our justice, and on our:generally upright bearing.

Mr. GRANVILLE VERNON remarked, that Captain Mangles only brought his statement of the debt down to 1839; but Sir Robert Peel had said that there was a great present deficiency ; and he attributed the policy which led to it to the Russophobia of Lord Palmerston, shared by too many on both sides of the House ; and the general deficiency to the system of " bullying " pursued in Europe, Asia, and China, with the assumed necessity of colonizing Australia. Ile recommended to the consideration of the Government a regulation which had already been introduced to a great extent into our rules of fiscal government, by which affirmations or declarations are substituted for oaths.

Mr. CHARLES HULLER began by remarking that Sir Robert Peel's language was ominous as to the continuance of the tax : first, he said that it would last for three years; then that it would last for five; and then again he would not assure the House that it should be removed in five years. Mr. Buller viewed the measure with alarm, when he con- sii1bgqd how the agitation to which its working would give rise would affe -the stability of our finances. He could see no logical bearing in some of the recriminatory arguments that had been employed-

" This is in aome degree the fashion of them. We say that this tax is an unequal tax. ''Ah ! but,' say honourable gentlemen opposite, 'did you not give us the war in Afghanistan ? ' We say it is unjust. How can yon think so,' say they, when you remember China ? ' We say that it is unnecessary. But,' say honourable gentlemen opposite, 'you saddled us with the expenses of the Post-office.' (Ministerial cheers.) And that cheer of honourable gen- tlemen on the other side of the House, reminds me that whenever these argu- ments are advanced, however irrelevant and absurd they may be, gentlemen on the opposite benches are ever ready to cheer, merely on the ground of their entire inapplicability. But suppose, what indeed it is impossible to suppose, that you should happen to be right—that there should be some sense in what you say— (Laughter and cheers)—I mean, of course, suppose that your arguments should be valid, how could they bear on me ? Suppose you made out to me, that I. placed the country in its present position—that I took away its revenues—does It follow evil?

that, as a logical result, that therefore I should vote in favour of a pro- position for supplying the deficiency by a means which would only increase the Did not such arguments bit on the other side as well?-

" They tell us that all the increase of expenditure is owing to us. Referring to the Chinese war, we had a long debate in this House two years ago upon this subject ; and the position taken by those who defended the policy of the Government was never refuted, because we relied on what had taken place before, and said that this dispute was attributable to the policy of the Govern- ment and of this House five years before, when in spite of all practical autho- rity on the subject, the China trade was opened, and some collision was ren-

dered absolutely inevitable. Then the expenses incurred in Canada were re- ferred to. Upon this subject everybody must know that this is an argument

which I might use against the late Government, because I voted against almost

every vote proposed by that Government upon this subject. But how does the case stand with reference to those who bring forward this case? What part of the policy of the late Government was there of which they did not approve? Then we are told by a facetious county Member, that one of the legacies left by the late Ministry to their successors in office was the disputed boundary of the United States: allow me to introduce to him the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the distinguished negotiator of the treaty of Ghent—the gentleman to whose industry and energy It is owing, that after a long-continued negotiation with America, we did succeed in securing a right of passage for British vessels through an impassable branch of the St. Lawrence. It was to that right honourable gentleman that the care of settling this dispute was com- mitted; it was he who might, in the year 1816, before the territory was of value to any one, have settled the dispute easily ; it was his carelessness or mistake which had entailed upon his successors the difficulty of negotiations ; to which I confess I can hardly see any satisfactory result. Then, as to the Syrian expedition, Lord Stanley unequivocally approved of the treaty of the 15th of July. The Duke of Wellington had warned them of the Afghan war, but his warning had been unheeded by the Members opposite."

As to the charge of extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure brought against the late Government, what votes had the then Oppo- sition given on the side of economy 2— They had saved the country 20,000/. a year out of the income proposed to be given to Prince Albert, and had endeavoured to cut down the scanty grant to Maynooth College. But when the Army Estimates were before the House, the Navy Estimates, or any other branch of the public service, they charged the Administration with a miserable economy. They accused them also of a great reduction of taxation : but Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham were members of the Cabinet which took off the House-tax, which produced 1,500,000/. a year. And the Whig majority was swelled to 100 when it was proposed to make the change of postage. Sir Robert Peel had manifested much irritability when allusion was made to Afghan and still more when some allusion had been made to Walcheren. Mr. Buller found that Sir Robert's first speech in Parlia- ment, in 1810, was made in defence of the Walcheren expedition. Mr. Buller then reverted to India. It was said that the deficiency was 5,000,0004 [Sir Robert Peel was understood to dissent.] Why then, if England was not to make up the deficiency of Indian revenue, leave it out of the calculation 2— In India there had been a deficiency from year to year since 1810; but during nearly all those years the House had been taking off taxes. In 1830 particularly, when this deficiency had arrived at the highest, a great sin must have been committed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, by a cu- rious coincidence, was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time. He came down to the House and proposed that the Beer-tax, which was paying to the revenue 3,000,000L a year, should be remitted. The right honourable gentleman had, then, better leave India to the management of her own finances, as he did after she had contracted 13,000,000/. of debt for the Burmese war, and when there was an annual deficiency in the revenue; for he might depend upon it that India could always deal with her own debt.

He finished by describing all that the Whigs had done before they left office,—Catholic Emancipation, the reformed franchise, municipal reform, and so forth, as their real bequest to the country ; their greatest omission being the delay of the Free-trade measures, which they at last propounded and left to their opponents as their executors to complete. Mr. BORTHWICH addressed the House amid great interruption, and the debate was soon after adjourned; Sir ROBERT PEEL expressing a hope that it would close on the following night.

On Wednesday, Mr. ALDAN resumed the debate, with some strictures on the Income-tax and some general remarks on the Tariff; giving a preference to the Whig Budget. Mr. Escorr cast back on the other side the reproach made by Lord John Russell, that the measures of Ministers were supported solely to retain a particular Minister in power; and he taunted Lord John with having a majority against him in the Reformed Parliament. He pleaded the cause of the smaller interests whose protection had been invaded—the glove, the shoe trade, and the like, doubting whether the principle of free trade had not been pushed too far in their case. Mr. Josisi PARKER did not deny merit to the Tariff, but he thought the Income-tax too great a price to pay for it.

Viscount SANDON declared that the rickety bantling of last year, the 'Whig Budget, had not received so strong a condemnation as it deserved : it was utterly unworthy, and not one single item of it could be relied on. For instance, there could have been no revenue from corn ; for if the harvest had been good, none would have been imported—if bad, the fixed duty would have been taken off. Then as to the proposal to recur to taxes repealed, was it for the comfort of the people to reimpose taxes on glass, soap, or other articles of domestic use ? The attempts to raise a popular cry against the Income-tax had failed : a petition against it

lay in the Liverpool Exchange for five or six hours before it received a single signature ; and that was before it was known to be a rule of the House not to receive petitions against pending measures of taxation. Attempts were made to throw difficulties in the way of the tax by un- dervaluing the emergency ; but the war in Afghanistan was not to be measured by the loss of lives : they could not compare lives lost in a defeat to lives lost in a victory—the loss of 10,000 men under circum- stances shaking our moral hold over India, with that of 10,000 men in a hospital. And might not the event even influence the Emperor of China to resist the demands of this country, and thus farther increase the expense of the China war ? As a proof that the tax was not met with dislike, he observed that the Opposition journals at first approved of it ; and when they turned to a different opinion, the provincial journals of the same party very slowly followed the example. He vindicated the part which he and others had taken in resisting the proposal to re- duce the Sugar-duties- The only ground almost upon which their arguments had been impeached WSS this, Bo long as you consent to take other slave produce, why should you not take sugar ? Now, neither he nor those he had acted with on this question ever pretended to say that they would not trade in slave-grown articles. They confined themselves to the article of sugar alone. A great experiment had been made in the emancipation of Negro slaves ; and it was their wish to see that experiment pursued throughout the globe. Their efforts, therefore, were exerted to induce foreign nations to follow the example. He, and those with whom he acted, wished to show the planters of Cuba and Brazils, of Mar- tinique and of Guadeloupe, that they might without injury to their own in- terests follow the example of this country. They wished to show that the cultivation of sugar in Brazils and in the islands he had mentioned might be continued with a free population without endangering their prosperity. Our Colonies did not depend upon the growth of coffee or of tobacco : what there- fore this country did with regard to those two articles would not affect the success of the experiment they were now making to abolish slave-cultivation of sugar. Sugar was the article alone that could constitute the test of the ex- periment, and the success of which only could induce France, Brazil, and Spain, to try a similar experiment. If the effort to cultivate sugar by free- labourers should fail in our hands, those would be but little encouraged by a spirit of mere philanthropy to follow our example. On the other hand, if we used our best efforts to keep capital in the colonies where slave-sugar had once been grown, and if we furthermore encouraged the cultivation of sugar by a free population, and enabled the planters to carry on a profitable and successful trade permanently, then we might reasonably hope that other nations would adopt the same humane policy."

Sir CITA ALVA Narrea relied upon the assurance of Lord John Russell and Mr. Baring, that if the Whig Budget had been adopted, and with it a succession-duty on real property, the Income-tax would be unnecessary. He would, however, support that part of Sir Robert Peel's measures which was calculated to do good to the consumers of the country. He altogether approved of the change in the Timber-duties, only wishing that the reduction on foreign timber had been carried further. He thought it impossible to overrate the importance of the disaster in Afghanistan ; and wished that more powder and less ink had been in the first instance spent in China, and then perhaps it would not have been necessary to send out a large force now.

Mr. Tito'rrEn vindicated the agriculturists from Lord John Russell's attacks ; and read a letter from a relation at Candahar, who said that the conquest in Cabal was a millstone about our necks.

Mr. O'CONNELL argued for a Property-tax in contradistinction to an Income-tax. Nothing could justify the latter but the most absolute ne- cessity—a necessity which must rest upon a double assumption, the want of money and the want of means to supply the want of money ; and they must try other sources already pointed out, especially timber and sugar, and have practical demonstration that a revenue could not thence be raised to the extent of two and a half millions before they resorted to an Income-tax. It was not wise to depreciate the national resources in the eyes of foreign countries, while peace was as yet un- safe with Russia France, and the United States ; but the Income-tax - ought to be hoarded up in terrorem. Ministers ought to recollect what enemies they were raising against themselves by the operation of such a tax ; arraying against themselves all the active talent of the nation— the rising lawyers, the rising physicians, the skilful clerks, whose cape- nor talents enable them to obtain larger salaries. For his own part, he objected to the tax on account of its gross injustice, and because it was - imposed to maintain the landed interests in the possession of their high . rents.

Lord ELIOT, in brief and general terms, defended the Income-tax and ' the TarifE

Mr. HAWES cited the authority of Sir Francis Baring in 1798, and Mr. Huskisson in 1830, in opposition to an Income-tax and in favour of a Property-tax ; insisting that the Income-tax would fall on the produc- tive industry. of the country. With respect to the Tariff, the step taken

i

was the right direction, but towards the mass of the people it was an injustice, because it retained the great monopolies; for the difference • between the present plan and that of the late Ministry was, that the latter sought to obtain revenue by grappling with great monopolies, while the former think it their duty to maintain those monoplies and to impose great additional taxation upon the country. The farmers even, as at the late meeting at Harlestone in Norfolk or Suffolk, had begun to prefer Lord John Russell's fixed eight-shilling corn-duty, which they had before rejected ; and if they had the two general plans before them now, Mr. Hawes thought that they would prefer that of Lord John Rus- sell. But is the Income-tax necessary 2— We were even now paying off 2,000,000/. a year of the National Debt. (" Where, where?" from the Ministerial benches.) He would show them where. He saw the honourable gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Sir George Clerk) present, who was well acquainted with those details; and he would refer him to a Parliamentary paper laid on the table of the House on the 22d June 1841, by Mr. More 0.Ferrall, the then Secretary of the Treasury, which had not been alluded to in these discussions. From this paper it appeared, that between the year 1831 and the year 1841 we had paid off 22,600,000/. of the National Debt, and that we were going on to pay off the debt after the same rate. The whole amount of Public Debt in 1831, funded and unfunded, both as to capital and charge, supposing the Terminable Annuities to be converted into equivalent perpetual annuities was 838,549,9031. In the year 1841 it had fallen to. 815,957,9361.; making a difference of 22,591,9671. And the decrease is going on at the same rate.

Sir Robert Peel had assumed that an immediate increase of reve- nue could not be obtained from the reduction of duty on articles of large consumption. Mr. Hawes referred to an article of large consumption— corn, to prove the reverse— To give a perfectly fair view, he had taken the price and quantity of corn sold in the market-towns making returns to the Corn-Inspectors for the first thirteen weeks of every year since 1829 inclusive; from the figures (which lie - quoted at length) it appeared that the quantity sold varied in a direct ratio with the amount of the price; in 1829 the price was 74s. 11d. (the highest price,) and the quantity sold was 514,470 quarters; in 1835 and 1836 the price had . fallen to 40s. 5d. and 41s. 7d., and the. quantity had risen to 977,135 and 1,076,128 quarters ; and in 1842, the price being 60s. 6d., the quantity sold was 703,892 quarters. From the year 1829 to the year 1842, with every fall of price there had been a clear augmentation of consumption ; as regularly as the price fell, the quantity consumed was increased. Here was a fair indica- tion of what would be the effect of reduction in articles of great consumption.

He further objected to the tax, that it would enable the Government to pursue what policy they pleased, encouraging war and increased expense.

Sir Jannis Gassissi defended the measure in a speech which con- sisted partly of special replies to remarks by previous speakers, and partly of arguments repeated after Sir Robert Peel. He ridiculed Mr. Fox Maule for the use which he had been able to make of the opportu- nity to visit his constituents and take their opinion on the Income-tax— He had been told that the right honourable gentleman did visit his constitu- ents and that a distinct opinion had been expressed to the right honourable gentleman as to the measures of her Majesty's Government : the right honourable gentleman had been told that if he held a private meeting of his friends, he would find himself in a miserable minority ; and that if he held a meeting in the open air, the unhappy Budget of the late Government, when con- trasted with the measures of the present Government, would be scouted as much as it was at the last election ; and that the measures of the present Government would have received the sanction of an overwhelming majority. Then in Manchester, he had yet to learn that there had been meet- ings in Stephenson Square of persons whose incomes were under 150/. a year, and who were dissatisfied with the measure. Government, yielding to the necessities of the times, and looking to the rapidly Increasing population, had taken effectual measures gradually to reduce the price of corn, meat, and other articles of the first necessity ; but not hastily, so as to aggravate the immediate evil by leading to a farther displacement of labour. Captain Mangles had drawn a flourishing picture of the state of the Indian finances : when Lord Auckland entered office, he found a surplus of about 1,500,0001.; within the last four years there had accrued a gross deficiency of 7,000,0001.; and now the expenditure exceeds the income by 2,500,000/. Mr. Buller had alluded to a notice of motion which he (Sir James) had given in 1839 respecting the commencement of the war on the Western frontier of India : he withdrew it, and he had no difficulty in stating his reason— He certainly thought the entire conception of that expedition improvident ; but when the information reached him that this measure was contemplated, he had reason almost simultaneously to know, that solemn engagements had been entered into by the Executive Government with native princes, that the honour of the British nation was committed to their fulfilment, and that British arms were about to be used. He therefore felt, that as any motion on the subject supported in that House by a large party might have the effect of embarrassing the Indian Government in the execution of those engagements, it was not for the public good that he should press the motion of which he had given notice, and upon those grounds, and those alone, had he withdrawn it.

Mr. Bailer charged Lord Grey's Government with repealing the House-tax : but then they had a surplus revenue. He had also enume- rated the bequests of the Whig Government : what were they ?-

The honourable Member for Liskeard said "Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Test Acts." But were these the property of the testators ? He thought they belonged to the Government of the Duke of Wellington and his right honourable friend. (Cries of" Oh! ") Was it really come to this, that in the absence of all property of your own you come to filch that of your neighbours ? (Cries of" Oh 1") W hat! Catholic Emancipation not the act of his right honourable friend ? (A Member, " The Test Acts.") Well, they claimed the Test Acts. But did Lord Melbourne's Government claim Reform, the-A.bolition of Slavery, and Municipal Reform ? These, he maintained, were the property of Lord Grey. (Cries of" Oh!" and " Hear !") He distinctly said so. (Loud cries of "Oh I ") But he would tell them what was entirely their own. There was the China war, which, as far as he could see, it would be exceedingly difficult to conduct with advantage or close with honour. Then there was the rupture in our alliance with France, which was the keystone of the foreign policy of Lord Grey's Government. There was also the smoulder- ing embers of a Canadian rebellion, the unsettled state of the Caroline, Mr. BPLeod's trial, the right of visit, and the Boundary question. These were the bequests which they had left to the present Government. This was a sketch of their policy abroad. What was it at home? A five years' deficiency, a growing, accumulating deficiency, with 1,500,000/. of productive revenue prodi- gally and imprudently sacrificed in one-year ; and then, in a vain endeavour to bolster up this flagrant mistake, and hesitating to deal with property, they attempted to impose 5 per cent additional on all Customs and Excise—thus increasing the price of all articles of consumption to the great body of the people—and 10 per cent additional on Assessed Taxes. Their 5 per cent, so far from producing an increase, left the deficiency greater than it was before, and their 10 per cent went a very slight way indeed to reduce it. Mr. Labouchere had made the important admission, that although a revenue were obtained from an alteration of the Corn and Sugar duties, still there would be a deficiency to be supplied by direct taxation. It was hinted that repealed taxes might be reimposed: look at the most productive of them, the taxes on beer, malt, leather, candles, soap, printed cottons, or coals carried coast-wise : would Mr. Baring, who was about to address the House, specify which of those he would have reimposed ? Sir James wound up with a declaration that Ministers would stand or fall by the measure of taxation which they had imposed so as to bear upon the rich and powerful and to spare the humble and poor, while they diminished the protection to powerful interests ; pay- ing a passing-compliment to the "unparalleled generosity" with which some of the supporters of Ministers had treated them— They were quite satisfied that the measures they proposed were prudent ; they believed them to be indispensably necessary. They had not lightly pro- posed them ; they would not timidly abandon them ; and it only remained for the House to determine whether they should be adopted. "You need expect no Appropriation-clause shirking from us ; you need expect no Jamaica Bill resignation. That which we believe to be right we will manfully maintain ; and we place our reliance for support in our present financial measures on the wisdom of the Parliament and on the patriotic spirit and virtue of the nation.', Mr. F. T. BARING contrasted the manner in which Ministers magni- fied the difficulties of the time with the calm spirit of Mr. Pitt's speeches when he brought forward an analogous measure ; and he accepted Sir James Graham's wish to see meetings composed of persons who enjoy less than 150/. a year as a proof that the Income-tax is an excellent bid for the "physical force" of England ; while he threatened Ministers 'with a future agitation among the shopkeepers and industrious classes— an opposition so strong as to force them either to give up the tax alto- gether, or to exempt incomes and lay the burden on property alone. He. went on to discuss particular points in the Tariff, comparing it with his own Budget, which he declared would not be unpopular. He did not see how, with a yearly deficiency of 1,200,000/. made by the Tariff, amounting in three years to 3,600,000/, the Income-tax could be taken off in that time. He entered into some details to show that the late Mi- nisters had not saddled the country with a debt of 41,000,0001., as they had been accused of doing : the real increase of the debt from 1835 to 1841 was only 8,500,000!.; or, leaving the 20,000,000/. of West India compen- sation out of the account, there was a decrease of fully 13,000,0004 But a sinking-fund had been at work : 2,500,0001. a year had been paid for converting perpetual into Terminable Annuities. Mr. Baring denied that he had ever condemned the principle of taxing the succession to land : he had only objected to making good the Post-office deficiency by that means, because that was in effect unfairly transferring the burden to the agricultural interest, which did not benefit so much as others by the reduction. He called on the House to appeal to past experience of the various kinds of taxation, and they would find, that of all taxes the Income-tax had been the most odious to the people ; for in 1816 the

agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing classes exclaimed unani- mously against it, and demanded that, before all the rest, it should be repealed. He reverted, however, with satisfaction to the fact, that amid all the discussion, nowhere was there a single word of a breach of national faith.

Mr. FERRAND reproached the Opposition with opposing Sir Ro- bert Peel in his efforts to give food to the poor. Lord WORSLEY declared that he could not support the Government measure, nor Lord John Russell's resolution, which involved the principle of a fixed duty on Corn.

The House then divided; when the numbers were—

For Lord John Russell's amendment Against it Ministerial majority 106

Mr. Wintztax Wria.rems then moved the resolution which he de- scribed on Friday ; but afterwards withdrew it Lord ROBERT GROS- VENOR proposed a graduated Income-tax, varying with the extent and nature of incomes; but he made no formal motion. The report was then brought up and read. Mr. LABOUCHERE now recommended that the Income-tax should be postponed, in order that the Tariff might be proceeded with. Sir ROBERT PEEL was quite sure that Mr. Labouchere had no appre- hension with regard to his intention respecting the Tariff— He had no wish to press the Income-tax Bill with any haste ; but the House would agree with him, that it was necessary that he should have the Income- tax Bill so far advanced as to give him a reasonable hope of its being agreed to, before he introduced the Tariff, which depended upon it. He was as much bound to the Tariff as to the income-tax; and he should feel himself bound to relinquish the office he had the honour to hold, as much if the House did not agree with him upon the Tariff as upon the Income-tax.

Leave was then given to bring in a bill founded on the resolutions moved by Sir Robert Peel.

THE CORN-LAWS AND SIR ROBERT PEEL.

Presenting a petition from the farmers of Essex to the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord WESTERN complained that the agriculturists had been deceived by Sir Robert Peel, who had framed the new Corn- law, and by their Representatives in Parliament, who bad supported it. [Earl Stanhope was observed to cheer loudly.] The Duke of WELLINGTON replied thus- " I think, my Lords, that it would be quite as well if noble Lords would ab- stain from such harsh expressions as that the country had been deceived by my right honourable friend at the head of the Government, and that the people had been deceived by their Representatives. My Lords, I think that such ex- pressions should be avoided—at least until the House came fairly to the ques- tion, and noble Lords should have the opportunity of stating the when, and the where, and the how, and in what words my right honourable friend had de- ceived the public. I think it would have shown more candour in the noble Lord if he had taken that course, than the making use of such an expression in presenting a petition. I say again, my Lords, that the noble Lord should have waited for the opportunity of stating the when, and the where, and the how, and in what words my right honourable friend had deceived the public. But, my Lords, I deny the fact ; and, as formally and emphatically as the noble Lord has stated it, I tray it is not true; and that's the end of it." ' Lord WESTERN observed, that it might not be true, but Sir Robert Peel's altered conduct justified him in saying that the country felt deceived.

RIGHT OF PETITION.

When the debate in the House of Commons, on Mr. Dancombe's motion, that a petition against the Income-tax be brought up, was re- newed on Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated the grounds on which he opposed it— Ms objection was founded on the practice of 150 years not to receive such petitions. It must be borne in mind, that only two days out of the seven were set apart for Government business, and he objected to any thing that would have a tendency further to restrict the time reserved for public business. But it was urged that as no debates took place now upon petitions, there was no reason for objecting to petitions against taxes pending. The practice of not debating on petitions rested on a resolution of the House, but that resolution could have force only during the session in which it was passed. In the one case the practice had prevailed 150 years, and in the other only five: why should not the House adhere to one as well as the other? He could not, however, conceal from himself that Members would still have the power of offering those petitions, and provoking debates upon them; which would be productive of greater inconvenience than their unopposed reception.

Lord HOWICH thought there was no further reason for adhering to the old practice, since the resolution against debating on petitions. Mr. MONCIETON Milano explained his fear, amid repeated laughter, that if such petitions were received the people would get a habit of petitioning against taxes ; the House might unanimously approve of a tax to which the great body of the people were strongly opposed ; and in that case a notion might get abroad that the feelings of the people were not fairly represented in the Rouse; and the consequence might be that petitions of this nature would be got up, and that they would succeed, not only in annoying the Government, but in making the people dissatisfied with the present constitution of the country. Lord Faaticis EGERTON was for throwing open as widely as possible the doors of the House to the petitions of the people. Lord JOAN RussEiz observed, that the argument from ancient precedent would lead to a return to the practice of their ancestors, the unlimited presentation and discussion of petitions. Mr. STUART WORTLEY and Lord JOHN MAN- NERS both supported the motion. Sir JAMES Gas Ham could not sur- render what he believed to be a prerogative of the Crown, in the sole restriction on the popular right of petition. After some further debate, Mr. Dmicoatsz intimating his intention of persevering from night to night, the motion was rejected, by 222 to 221; majority in favour of Ministers, 1.

The question was raised again on Tuesday, by Mr. WiLmats Cow- PER; who moved that a petition which he had to present from Hertford be brought up. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON thought it most advisable to come to some settlement ; and he asked Mr. Cowper to withdraw the petition, and he would shortly move a resolution which should have the effect of admitting such petitions, but of preventing the discussion of them. A long conversation, rather than a debate, followed. Sir ROBERT PEEL admitted that these continued motions might ultimately lead to a victory fog those who made them ; and he intimated that if the Oppo- sition would agree to give to the sessional resolution which was passed

202 308 in 1839 the more permanent character of a standing order, [which is binding upon future Parliaments until rescinded,] he would forego his opposition ; or he would concur with any Member who might think it better to appoint a Committee to consider the matter. The latter sug- gestion was not very well received ; but Lord FRANCIS EGERTON shaped his resolution so as to meet Sir Robert Peel's view ; and the debate was adjourned till Friday.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON briefly moved, on Thursday, the following resolutions, as standing orders of the House— "1. That every Member offering to present a petition to the House, not be- ing a petition for a private bill, or relating to a private bill before the House, do confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, of the number of signatures attached to it, and of the material allegations contained in it, and to the reading of the prayer of such petition. "2. That every such petition not containing matter in breach of the privi- leges of this House, and which, according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, be brought to the table by the direction of the Speaker ; who shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon or in relation to such petition, but it may be read by the Clerk at the table if required. "3. That if such petition relate to any matter or subject which the Member presenting it is desirous of bringing before the House, and if such Member shall state it to be his intention to make a motion thereupon, such Member may give notice that be will make a motion on some subsequent day That the petition be printed with Votes.'

"4. That in the case of such petition complaining of some present personal grievance, for which there may be an urgent necessity for providing an nnme- diate remedy, the matter contained in such petition may be brought into dis- cussion on the presentation thereof.

"5. That all other such petitions, after they shall have been ordered to lie on the table, be referred to the Committee on Public Petitions without any question being put. "6. That, subject to the above regulations, petitions against any resolution or bill imposing duties for the current service of the year be henceforth re- ceived, and the usage under which the House has retrused to entertain such petitions be discontinued."

Mr WALLACE objected to the resolutions being made a standing order; and declared his intention of dividing the House against the first of the aeries.

Mr. Tumuli DUNCOMBE made the same objection, and added that he did not see the necessity for the resolutions : he simply wished petitions against pending taxes to be received as other petitions were received ; but Lord Francis admitted them "subject to the above regulations," which were quite needless. The concession of Government had been made in a most ungracious manner.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that having acknowledged that he was over- ruled, he had no interest in the resolutions, and he had suggested none of them.

Lord Joan RUSSELL did not wish the rule against the discussion of petitions to be converted to a standing order ; but as the resolutions ad- mitted the presentation of petitions against pending taxes, he should vote for them.

Mr. Rozpoex declared, that as the discussion of petitions was destroyed, the remainder was a shadow not worth fighting for: the presentation of petitions was made a farce. Under the form of a defeat, Government had gained a victory.

Lord Howicx said, that if the right of petition was made a farce, it was by such useless speeches as Mr. Roebuck's. To return to the old practice of discussion, when such cart-loads of petitions are sent in, would render it impossible to carry on the public business.

Mr. WALLACE hoped that the electors of Sunderland would talk to Lord Howick on the hustings about his speech.

After some more debate, retracing old ground, the first resolution was put, and carried by 268 to 46. The other resolutions were then affirmed ; and it was ordered that they be standing orders of the House. ATTENDANCE OF COUNSEL BEFORE COMMITTEES.

Mr. RIGBY WASON drew attention, on Tuesday, to the evil resulting from the attendance of counsel before many Committees at the same time Committees are sometimes obliged to adjourn because the attend- ance of counsel cannot be secured; hence delay and multiplied ex- penses. In 1832, a petition was presented against the return of Lord Ashley for Dorchester ; when Lord Ashley declared in his place that he believed his seat to be safe, but he really had not property enough to support the enormous expense of resisting the petition : his consti- tuents, however, raised the necessary funds ; the inquiry took place ; and he was declared duly elected. This was but one instance to show how the expenses of the present system operate to obstruct the adminis- tration of justice. Mr. Wason moved two resolutions, which went to prevent the attendance of counsel before more than one Committee at the same time.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM must oppose the motion. Although some incon- venience might occasionally arise from the non-attendance of the more eminent counsel, whose numerous engagements occupied them in more places than one, yet, upon :the whole, the business before Committees of the House was generally conducted by the gentlemen of the bar in a -very able and satisfactory manner. Mr.. STUART WORTLEY said, that a far more effectual method to diminish the expense of trying election petitions would be to establish a more safe and competent tribunal. He felt daily more convinced that Sir Robert Peel's measure had failed of its object— In his opinion, some sort of judicial tribunal was imperatively called for, which would not only lessen; the expense and shorten the time of the pro- ceedings, but would also prevent a great many petitions being brought before them ; for, at present, parties, knowing the uncertainty ot their decisions, thought it was worth their while to take their chance. They came before a Committee, whom they found ignorant of law, and called on to act according to the most contradictory and impracticable code of laws, and to follow prece- dents which were quite as applicable to one side of the case as the other. -What could they expect from a tribunal or a code of laws of that description, but the most uncertain decisions—tempting parties to litigation like gamblers, for the chance of success?

The necessity of change in the constitution of the tribunal was agreed to by Mr. O'CONNELL ; who said, that since the passing of Sir Robert Peel's measure, the question is no longer of what party is the majority, but of what politics is the chairman ? Captain Frrzaor, Mr. AGLIONDY, and Mr. CHILDEES also subscribed to the same opinion : the Iasi did not ascribe no much of the evil to party bias as to the inability of the mem- bers of the Committee to decide the difficult points that came before them. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET and Sir Rosner PEEL argued against the necessity and expediency of change: Sir Robert Peel said that the Committee ought to prescribe limits within which counsel should conduct their case; and he observed, that the appointment of a chairman was no part of his original proposition, but was the suggestion of Lord John Russell. The motion was withdrawn.

LORD CAMPBELL'S BILLS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord Comma. moved the second reading of hit bill to transfer the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council to the House of Lords ; at the same time explaining two auxiliary measures, to appoint a permanent Judge in the Court of Chancery, and to enable the House of Lords to sit in a judicial capacity during the recess. Having fully explained the bills when he first in- troduced them, he now chiefly confined himself to showing the want of an appellate jurisdiction in Ireland: and he contended his measure would be a return to the ancient practice of appealing to the King in Parliament ; the separate jurisdiction of the Privy Council having ori- ginated under the arbitrary rule of the Tudors. The LORD CHANCELLOR declared the bill to be unnecessary ; as Lord Brougham's measure appointing the Judicial Committee of Council and the recent change in the Court of Chancery work well ; and he held it, as well as the auxiliary measures, to be impracticable; pointing out several anomalies in the measures.

Lord BROUGHAM observed, that should any inconvenience arise from the coordinate jurisdiction of the Privy Council and the House of Lords, which was most unlikely, it could at once be removed by a de- claratory act. After a short debate, the second reading was negatived, without a division.

MISCELLANEOUS.

THE NEW Coasi-Bn.a. Lord MELBOURNE gave notice, on Tuesday, that, should a motion which Earl Stanhope had announced, to postpone the second reading of the Corn-Importation Bill, be negatived, he should move, upon going into Committee on the bill, a resolution-

" That it is the opinion of this House, that a fixed duty on the importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to trade and conducive to the welfare of the people, than a graduated duty varying with the average price in the markets of this country.'

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF CHURCH PROPERTY. LI reply to Mr. LAMB- Tom, on Tuesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he could hold out no hope that Government would this session propose any measure for the enfranchisement of Church leasehold property.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. MI. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL obtained leave, on Thursday, to bring in a bill to regulate the exercise of church pa- tronage in Scotland. Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not oppose the introduc- tion of the bill; but uttered a caveat against its being imagined that Government were prepared to legislate on the question.

A FALSE WITNESS BEFORE AN ELECTION COMMITTEE. Mr. THOMAS DITNCOMBE presented, on Wednesday, a petition from Mr. Richard Gibbons, who had been ordered into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms and committed to Newgate, for giving false evidence before the Great Marlow Election Committee. The petitioner ascribed his error to confusion under cross-examination respecting the votes of Charles Gibbons and Jason Povey, and between the names of Posey and Povey. Mr. Duncombe moved that Richard Gibbons be called to the bar, reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged. Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER said, that there was no appearance of confusion while Mr. Gibbons was giving his evidence ; and the Committee were unanimous in the opinion that "he did to an extent know that he was not speaking the exact truth." Mr. COWPER, Mr. HEATHCOTE, and Mr. Cm:lamas, members of the Committee, corroborated that statement. The motion, which was opposed by MY. LABOUCHERE and Sir ROBERT PEEL, was withdrawn ; and, on the motion of Sir JOHN BULLER, it was ordered that the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee should be printed and laid before the House.

MEMBERS' SEATS. Mr. WAKLEY complained to the Speaker, on Thursday, that Sir John Easthope had taken his seat, which he had left for a few minutes in order to ask a question ; and he requested the Speaker to expound the custom. The SPEAKER said, that it was usual for Members to be understood to retain the seats which they occupied when at prayers, until the first division ; but there was no rule which they were bound to recognize. Sir Joni; EASTHOPE said, that the seat had been demanded by Mr. Wakley in a manner which he could not put up with : he was not aware that a hat which he saw on the seat, but which another Member put under it, belonged to Mr. Wakley.

Ban. TO BE TAKEN BY CORONERS. Captain Pomum. obtained leave, on Thursday, to bring in a bill to authorize Coroners to take bail in cases of manslaughter. Manslaughter is construed to be the killing of another without malice; and prisoners charged with that crime, which varies in all degrees, are often put to very serious inconvenience by protracted imprisonment before trial.

The AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND LANDS Bnl. was read a second time on Thursday. In reply to some suggestions by Mr. Sierra O'BRIEN, Lord STANLEY said, that the provisions of the measure could not be extended to the Cape of Good Hope, on account of the distribu- tion of the lands there. Of 83,000,000 acres in the colony, 44,000,000 are granted already ; 17,000,000 are unfit for cultivation ; about 20,000,000 are in a rocky country, unfit for settlement ; and 2,500,000 or 5,000,000 acres of available land (according to varying estimates) are scattered among the barren land. He could not authorize loans to aid emigration in anticipation of funds accruing from the sale of land in the Colonies, because he would not sanction the practice by which colonies involved themselves in debt. With respect to religion, he re- cognized no distinction in the choice of emigrants. He thought the New Zealand Government had exercised a sound discretion in the en- deavour to restrict the colonization of that country to the Northern Island ; as the investigation into prior claims to land, before the formal occupation by the British Government, made it unwise to encourage the dispersion of the settlers over the islands.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

The report of the Wigan Election Committee was brought up on Monday. The Committee declared that Mr. Greene% one of the sitting Members, was duly elected, but that Mr. Charles Standish ought to have been returned in place of Mr. Bright Cross. This was the result of a compromise between the contending parties.

The Committee on Great Marlow election had resolved that Mr. Hampden ought to have been returned instead of Sir William Clayton.

Mr. REDINGTON brought up the report of the Sudbury Committee on Thursday. It was to the effect, that Mr. Frederick Villiers and Mr. David Ochterlony Dice Sombre were not duly elected, but the election was void; that they were, by their agents, guilty of gross, systematic, and extensive bribery ; and the Committee recommended that the borough be disfranchised. Mr. Redington moved that the proceedings of the Committee be laid before the House ; and that the Speaker do not issue a writ for a new election before the 7th of May. This was agreed to.