-not to taxation, but to confiscation. Nor was the evil only experienced by those who were taxed. Let them continue that system upon an equal or upon a greater scale, as was the tendency of their present legislation, and they would attack the capital of the country-they would diminish the capital of the community, and the very means of the employment of the multitude who now cried out for direct taxation. Be

cause, therefore, it dealt most crudely with the principle of direct taxation itself-because in its mode of assessment it was most inequitable and injurious to those classes whose interests they ought to support in that House, especially the professional class-for those reasons, and for those alone, he felt it to be his duty to support the amendment. If it were an amendment from either side of the House positively calling on them to negative the imposition of the Income Tax, he could not in the present state of affairs sanction that course; but because the present amendment did not interfere with the financial arrangements either of this year or the next, but allowed ample time to the Government to meet the difficulties of the day, and because he was sure no Government would attempt to meet those difficulties or redress those grievances unless the House took such a course, he should give it his support.

Lord John Russell made a strong effort to rally his party in his support. He said-if Mr. Hume was anxious to establish direct in the place of indirect taxation-to abolish many millions of indirect taxation, which he alleged to be excessive, and to supply its place by

a general system of direct taxation

he was immediately supported by those who were in favour of indirect taxation, who would carry it to a far greater extent than was the case at present, and who would abolish direct taxes with a view to increasing indirect taxation. Mr. Hume must have been rather alarmed when he saw the care that was taken of his child by those who differed from him upon all his financial views, and at the dandling and nursing which his infant had received during the whole course of the debate from those who were most strongly opposed to its existence. He must have been rather alarmed as to the future fate of that equal, just, universal, permanent tax, which he had in his imagination. his imagination. But there were other grounds upon which gentlemen opposite, in very considerable numbers, had supported the proposal in the course of the debate. Those grounds, however much Mr. Disraeli had tried to conceal them from the House, were founded on the necessity of getting rid of the Income Tax and of as much direct taxation as possible, with the view of imposing import-duties upon foreign produce. The words of Alderman Thompson, who rose so immediately as the fugleman of his party, to support the amendment, were "foreign produce,”meaning, as the House perfectly understood, that foreign produce usually known by the name of corn. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Disraeli, however, could not bear the eagerness with which his friend Alderman Thompson rushed forward in favour of the amendment. They never had a question brought forward in that House with regard to local taxation, or

the Malt Tax, or any matter affecting the landed interest or the general taxation of the country, but some of Mr. Disraeli's supporters got up, and, with the manliness which belonged to their character as a party, made the avowal, After all, our real object is the restoration of protection." Then Mr. Disraeli always had to rise after them, and to say, "Don't take them at their word; whatever you may have heard, I did not hear it." (Renewed laughter.) Indeed, he happened always to be in such a situation that he did not hear a word of protection, though most gentlemen on both sides might have heard the necessity of a restoration of protective duties frequently reiterated. He would at length get tired if his friends would always march forward when he wished them to keep back-if they would persist in constantly getting out of the line, and be always firing off their muskets when he wished them to reserve their fire. He would at last say, one of these days, Upon my word you are too bad; I will not march through Coventry with you any more." (Loud laughter.)

66

Lord John Russell then adverted to the great event of the preceding day, the Inauguration of the Great Exhibition of Industry of all Nations, adroitly seeking to press that topic into his argument. "They had seen only on the previous day a magnificent sight in this metropolis-a sight which was gratifying on many accounts. It was gratifying to see this nation and other nations of the world assembling in one place the various products of their talents and their industry; it was gratifying to see that the means had been found to

place in a splendid and magnificent building those products of art and of industry. But what was most gratifying of all was, to see the great mass of the people, some said half a million, some nearer a million of persons, in the utmost good-humour, with content upon their countenances - (Cheers) – with loyalty in their hearts-(Renewed cheers)-assembled to witness the spectacle that was exhibited before them. Those people, some of them in the poorest and meanest habiliments, showing that they had difficulty by their industry to earn their daily subsistencethey saw without envying, without repining, without complaint, the equipages of the rich and the splendid pass before them: they did so, as he believed, because they felt that injustice was not exercised towards them. (Cheers.) But if we were to tell the people that the rich were to have their incomes increased by adding to the price of the daily food of those masses, we could then no longer expect to see those cheerful countenances; we could then no longer expect that the institutions of the country would meet with ready and contented obedience; but we must expect the heartburning, the ill-will, and the discontent which must follow the imposition of unjust laws."

Mr. Muntz and Mr. Roebuck supported the amendment. Mr. Geach feared that by supporting it he should not get practically what he wished. Mr. Hume replied, with a declaration that he would take the support of any side of the House.

On a division, the amendment of Mr. Hume was carried, by 244 to 230. The Protectionists hailed

the result with repeated bursts of cheering. The clause was then amended so as to limit the tax to a duration of one year.

A few days afterwards, the order for proceeding in Committee on the Income Tax having been read, Lord John Russell announced the views and intentions of the Government in consequence of the late decision of the House limiting the Income Tax to one year. He had not agreed, and he did not now think that it was desirable, so to abridge the duration of the tax for the purpose proposed by Mr. Hume, namely, that an inquiry should take place with the view of making the tax more just and equitable; but, the House having decided otherwise, the question for the Government to consider was the course they should take in order to sustain public credit, and to provide for the expenditure of the country. Although his own opinion was that it was inexpedient to limit the tax to one year, he did not suppose that the majority of the House intended to place in jeopardy the national credit, and with that conviction the Government had to determine whether or no they could adopt the resolution of the House, and proceed with the Bill in its present shape. It had been suggested to him that, if the opinions of Mr. Pitt and the late Sir R. Peel as to the difficulty of modifying the tax should be supported by the Committee, the country would be better satisfied, and in the present state of affairs the Government thought it desirable that there should be an inquiry into the subject-that it would be wrong to refuse such inquiry; they therefore were prepared to agree that there should be a fair and full inquiry. But

there was a further point connected with other modifications of their financial arrangements. The House had agreed to the continuance of the Income Tax for a limited period, and had rejected the motion of Mr. Herries for a diminution of its amount; it had likewise consented to repeal the Window Tax, substituting an equitable House Tax, as well as to reduce the duties upon timber and coffee; and the Government would be extremely reluctant to forego the repeal of the Window Tax, which was only a financial burden but a social evil. At the same time, it ought to be made clear that, during the pendency of the proposed inquiry, there would be no further alterations of the Income Tax during the year, nor any diminution of the means of supporting public credit. and of defraying the cost of the establishments which the House had agreed to maintain.

not

After a few words from Mr. Hume justifying the course which he had pursued, Mr. Disraeli explained the new basis of policy which the altered views of the Government would lead himself and his friends to adopt. The House having now determined that the Income Tax should last only one year, he did not consider Members bound by anything that had passed previously with respect to the other financial propositions of the Government, which proceeded under the impression that the Income Tax was to last for a much longer period. He reserved to himself the right to consider those propositions as new propositions, made under circumstances so different, that with reference to the great point the noble Lord had dwelt uponthe maintenance of the public

credit of the country-they must be considered as new. Referring to the imputation made by Lord John Russell, that Mr. Hume and Mr. Disraeli's party had combined to defeat the Ministry, though Mr. Hume and his new colleagues had very different objects in view, Mr. Disraeli continued-" It might be very true that Mr. Hume wished the principle of an Income Tax to be a permanent principle of our finance; it certainly was true that that was not the dogma which many gentlemen who voted with him wished to support; but neither Mr. Disraeli nor any gentleman on his side of the House with whom he had the pleasure of acting had attempted to lay down the principle, that the reimposition of the Income Tax under the circum. stances ought to be opposed. If they had wished to terminate the Income Tax, that was not the course they would have taken; but, after well considering the subject, all that they counselled was that the tax should be gradually terminated; and the circumstance that they thought it could only be terminated by a very gradual procedure, proved that they did not anticipate that there could be an immediate or a very speedy termination of the tax. He could not himself-he should think very few could-anticipate that when the year had passed they would be able to carry on the affairs of the country without some imposition of that tax. Then the question arose, when the tax had a character of such perpetuity, at least of such permanence, was it not a duty to make it, if possible, more equitable?"

A good deal of desultory discussion ensued with reference to the predicament in which certain Members who had given notices of

motions respecting the Income Tax were now placed by the altered position of affairs. It ended in several of these motions being withdrawn, and the Bill, as altered with respect to the duration of the impost, passed through Committee.

Although Mr. Hume had succeeded in carrying his motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the Income Tax, an unexpected difficulty arose when the time came for nominating Members to serve on it. The hon. Member for Montrose declared that he had found the formation of his Committee a very difficult task, and remarks were thrown out from various quarters of the House which indicated that even some of those who had voted with Mr. Hume would now be better pleased to get rid of the Committee altogether. Mr. Herries stated that, though on the late occasion he might not have opposed such a step, he had never expressly assented to it; indeed, he would have thought it a good reason for not entering into inquiry, that the tax was limited to one year only; his expectation being that that would have been a bona fide limitation of the term itself. His proposition was, "Either amend the tax or abolish it;" but Mr. Hume's proposition is, "Amend it if you can; but if not, keep it as it is." He must decline to serve on the Committee; and having declined, he felt at liberty to object that the proposed constitution of the Committee was unfair, as there were ten in favour of perpetuity and only four who voted on the other side; while the landed interest also was not properly represented.

Mr. Vernon Smith questioned whether the Committee ought to be appointed at all. The Chan

cellor of the Exchequer remarked on the difficulty in which the House was placed by the union of two extreme parties to carry a vote. Mr. Freshfield moved that the order of the day for the Committee should be discharged.

Mr. Disraeli explained that he had acceded to the motion made by Mr. Hume in deference to the feeling of the House; he had not supported the motion under the idea that a Select Committee should follow; still if Mr. Hume went to the vote he must support him. Mr. Aglionby protested against the unfairness of abandoning the Select Committee, and threatened to move that the tax be renewed for three years.

Mr. Hume said that he had in vain attempted to induce some of the best-qualified Members in the House to serve. He had now done his duty, and left the matter to the House.

Mr. Henley anticipated no benefit from the inquiry, and would vote for the amendment.

Mr. Cobden never expected good from the Committee, but did expect that gentlemen opposite would at least have acted with good faith on the occasion.

Lord John Russell remarked sarcastically upon the "concordia discors." It was more than ever plain that 230 Members had voted for Mr. Hume's motion on very different grounds; "and, considering those grounds, it was no wonder that there should now be such misunderstandings. The difficulty had arisen out of Mr. Hume's disregard of Mr. Cobden's advice to put before the House a plain motion for a modification of the tax; in voting on which, the House would have known what it was about. Lord John should de

cidedly object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer going into the Committee along with two or three of his friends, to contend with a large majority pledged against his views.

Eventually Mr. Hume succeeded in forming a satisfactory representation of Members to serve, and the Committee was appointed.

The vexed question of the Income Tax being thus laid at rest for one year at least, by the adoption of Mr. Hume's amendment, the Ministry experienced very little difficulty in carrying the other main element of their financial scheme, the enactment of the Inhabited House Duty. The provision, indeed, for exempting all houses below the value of 201. a year incurred a good deal of criticism, and several amendments on that and other points of detail were threatened, but the opponents did not succeed in effecting any alteration in the Bill, which was passed in its original shape, the rate imposed being 9d. in the pound assessed on the value of dwelling-houses, and 6d. on shops, beer-houses, and farm-houses. But previously to this measure receiving the sanction of the House, Mr. Disraeli interposed a motion, having for its object to induce a comprehensive discussion of the financial policy of the Government, and to afford him an opportunity of developing his own views on that subject. The hon. Member for Bucks embodied the conclusions to which he proposed to ask the assent of the House of Commons in the three following resolutions:

"That, according to an estimate of the probable future produce of the existing taxes, sub mitted to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears