propose to act in regard to the income tax than the case quoted by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle this evening, but with the most opposite intention-I allude to the case of the bishop and the judge. The right hon. Baronet said, that the bishop may draw 5,000l. a year, and the judge may draw 5,000l. a year as the salaries of their respective offices, and that we propose to call upon the bishop to pay 7d. in the pound of his income, while we only ask the judge to pay at the rate of 5d. in the pound. Why, then, the right hon. Baronet asks, should there be this difference? Why, simply because between the bishop and the judge there exists that very principle of difference which in justice we propose to recognise. The bishop is the holder of an estate, and has really his income for life. But the judge is the holder of a salary which he may not possess for his life. [An Hon. MEMBER: The bishop may be deposed.] Whatever arguments may be directed against the view of the Government upon this subject, that now suggested by an hon. Member is the last I should expect to have heard. A bishop may be deposed! Why, it was possible that he might; but I can only say that I am not at all driven by that argument from the position which I have taken up, that the distinction between a bishop and a judge is, that the one holds an estate for life, the other a salary-which the visitation of Providence any day may, if not altogether take away, very seriously reduce; and in the supposed case of a deposed bishop, I doubt whether the House of Commons or the country would trouble themselves much about the amount of income tax which such a bishop should pay. Sir, Her Majesty's Government have deeply considered this most important question; and, in their opinion justice requires that the distinction to which I have adverted should be drawn. I believe too, it is a distinction which will be supported by an immense majority of the country, and by a very large proportion of the House of Commons. The views entertained on the other side with respect to this question evidently are extremely various. The Government are now threatened by a combination of parties on the other side. Four different parties, having little in common of agreement, seem to think they may combine together to assail this Government. I doubt the success of the combination. I do not believe the public will approve of such a combination for such a purpose. I am confident the sense of the majority of this House will sanction a principle which, in argument, hon. Members have been unable to contravene. If they should go a step further, they will find such a combination held together by a rope of sand. If they prove successful in their combination they must deal with the finances of the country. The income tax is one of the indispensable parts of the public income at this moment. Whether permanent or not-I hope it will not be so they cannot dispense with it at this time. How, in their proposed combination, do they propose to deal with the income tax? The hon. Member for the West Riding, the hon. Member for Montrose, a large portion of this House, consisting of Members who sit on the other side, had declared that the re-enactment of the income tax on any other principle than that which the Government advocates will be unjust. Such is the voice of the country. The right hon. Member for the Uuiversity of Cambridge, the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, say that what their friends behind them called justice, they call spoliation and breach of faith. I should like to know how such a combined party mean to settle the income tax. I believe the majority of the House of Commons will feel that, while the Government have no desire to dictate to the House arbitrarily with respect to details, they call on it, and successfully, to support the principles on which the measure of the Government is founded. These principles are principles to be acted on in strict justice; they are founded on a regard to the comfort and welfare of all classes. There are those who have endeavoured to excite dissatisfaction and discontent in the country against the propositions made by the Government. I believe they have signally failed. lieve that even in those populous towns where such arguments might appear most likely to meet success they have failed. They had failed to excite the public feeling; and I do not believe that any large class can be found who will be prepared to uphold any principle, such as that of having an exempted class in the country— a principle which I consider most dangerous. The very class which hon. Gentlemen are seeking to exempt is that which have been most benefited by the commercial legislation of the country. I believe, Sir, that such will be the general feeling of the I be country. I shall await with perfect satisfaction and content the decision of the Committee. Whatever it may be, the Government will at all events have the satisfaction of having submitted to Parliament a plan having for its object to promote the welfare of all classes, and which will be approved by the calm judgment of a reflecting people. MR. CROSSLEY said, he could assure the Committee that he would not detain them on that the first time he had had the honour of addressing them, further than to express his opinion in accordance with the statements he made on the hustings before he was elected representative for his native borough of Halifax. He would not oppose the Budget because it was brought forward by any particular Chancellor of the Exchequer, but because he did not approve of the principle of it. Show him a good case and he would vote for the imposition of any one of the taxes that was proposed; but he maintained that the proposition now before them was not fair and just to the people. For instance, if a person in business chose to leave his friend 100,000l., the Government took 10,000l. of it as a legacy duty; but if a landowner left to a friend the same amount in land, the Government took nothing at all. Was that fair? If a tradesman wished to insure his property from the risk of fire, he was charged a duty of 200 per cent; but if a landowner or a farmer wanted to insure his farming stock, he paid nothing at all. Was that just? If a manufacturer sent his horse and cart to the coal-pit, he was charged 16s. 8d.; but if he sold that same horse and cart to a farmer, and that farmer took them to the coal pit, he had nothing at all to pay. Was that just? He was as much in favour of direct taxation as any man, but he could not agree with what was an inconsistency. He must first know that the direct tax was a just and an equal one; and, secondly, that it was needed by a real deficiency in the revenue. And if they were going to create a need by taking off some indirect tax, he must also know that that was the best indirect tax that could be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that malt liquor was a prime necessity of life. But there was a large class of persons in this country-hard-working men, toowho never tasted malt or any other kind of intoxicating liquors. Instead of doing them harm, they found that this did them For good. He was himself a living proof of what of what he had been stating. six years he had not tasted malt or any other kind of intoxicating drink, and he was not the worse for it-at least if he was, he did not know it. He thought, therefore, the malt tax was the very last that should be taken off. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said last night that not a single meeting throughout the country had been held by the consumers of beer to petition against the tax; and yet hon. Gentlemen on the Ministeral side of the House had said that it was for the benefit of the consumer that they wished to repeal that tax. SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN moved that the debate be adjourned. LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, before the debate was adjourned, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he thought to be of the utmost improtance to enable the Committee to arrive at a conclusion of the debate. He wished to know what was really the proposition upon which the Government wished to take a division of the Committee. He thought the Committee was at least entitled to know what the proposition was to be. He had certainly had supposed that the proposal of the Government was, that the existing house tax should be doubled, and be extended to houses of the value of 101. a year. But he had heard in the course of the evening certain expressions which seemed to imply that the part of the proposition which went to double the house tax, was to be abandoned, and that the only proposition to he put was one for extending the area of the tax. If that was the case it materially altered the proposition, not only with regard to the house tax, but even with regard to the whole of the Budget. In the first place, he believed that in point of form the proposition should be different from what was contained in the Resolution before the Committee, which ran in these terms :— "That from and after the 5th day of April, 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the following Duties (that is to say)-" If it were merely intended to extend the area of the tax, it would not be necessary nor right in form to resolve that the duty should cease and determine. It would only the whole of the first Resolution, there be necessary to propose additionally that would not have existed the slightest diffithe tax should be extended to houses of culty. But it was most important that 107. value. But, in the next place, it appeared to him that the whole plan of the Government depended upon the existence of a surplus of 2,500,000l., to enable them to take off one half of the malt tax. Now, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that 150,000l. would be gained by extending the house tax to houses of 107. a year; and that the remaining sum required to make up the 2,500,000l. would be gained by doubling the amount of the house tax. That sum was absolutely necessary to be provided for in order to enable the Government to carry their other propositions for the reduction of taxes into effect. The words he had heard fall from different Members of the Government, especially from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, would induce him to think either that some alteration had been made in the proposition of the Government, or that hon. Members on his (Lord J. Russell's) side of the House had not rightly understood the proposition; so that the whole Budget seemed to be left in a state of considerable uncertainty. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he wished the vote to be taken on the first Resolution, and he should consider the result of that vote of the Committee to be conclusive on the whole Budget on the whole of the propositions he had submitted to the Committee. the Committee should know whether they were really going to vote on the whole matter contained in the first Resolution, although, in point of form, the words of the Preamble only were put to the Committee. If they were going to vote for the first Resolution in its entirety, the Committee then knew perfectly well what they were about; but if they were only going to vote for the Preamble, he thought that no Gentleman could possibly know what he was about. A person who wished to diminish the house tax might, with perfect consistency, vote for the Motion; and a person who thought that any improvement might be made in the house tax might also vote for it. That was a most awkward position for hon. Members to occupy. He wished, therefore to ask whether a vote on the Preamble was to touch the substance of the Resolution or not? If not, then, as far as the Preamble was concerned, it might be allowed to pass sub silentio, and the vote be afterwards taken on the substance of the Resolution. MR. MILES said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be driven from his object. The country would fully understand the meaning of the opposition to it. The question really was, were not the principles laid down in the Budget acceptable, just, and useful to the country? He would not even pledge himself to every single detail MR. GLADSTONE said, nothing could of the Budget, therefore he thought every be more clear and intelligible than what Member of that House had every right, had been stated by the right hon. Gentle- when he voted for the principle, to say he man, but he apprehended it did not cor- did not pledge himself to all the details of respond with what was stated in the Reso- the Budget. Therefore he hoped that the lution. The right hon. Gentleman wished House and the country would clearly unthe vote to be taken upon the whole Bud- derstand how this vote would be takenget, but he apprehended that the Chairman that was, whether the principle of the of the Committee, no doubt in conformity right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of with the rules and customs of the Commit- the Exchequer was right or wrong. He tees of that House, had not put the ques-himself thought that those who voted for tion upon the first Resolution, but merely it would not be expected to agree to all its upon the preamble of the Resolution namely details. SIR CHARLES WOOD said, the part "That from and after the 5th day of April, of the Resolution put by the Chairman 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the simply repealed the existing house tax, for Act 14 & 15 Vic. cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwell- the purpose of substituting other duties. ing Houses in Great Britain, according to the an- That was stated in the former part of the nual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made Resolution, and was the first substantive payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the follow-enactment, and stated that 1s. 6d. should ing Duties (that is to say)—” -a sentence which was in itself incomplete. If the question had been put upon be imposed on every house, and ls. on every shop, and the proposition was, that the extension should take place to every 101. house. The question was, whether he had frankly stated it was the intention the Committee would agree to double the of Government to propose an extension of house tax or not. [Cries of "No!"] That the area and an increase of the house tax, was substantially the enactment. Had he reserved to himself and to the Commithon. Gentlemen read the Resolution? That tee the right of moving any Amendment proposition was an extension of the house they thought fit upon it. duty to houses of 101. and upwards. That COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he felt that was practically the proposition. The hon. the observations of his right hon. Friend Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) the Chancellor of the Exchequer were had moved a Resolution to substitute pro-worthy of the very deepest consideration. perty paying Probate and Legacy Duty, He would support the views of the Governand the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. ment, which he believed to have been most Hume) urged him to withdraw that Motion, frankly expressed, reserving to himself the in order that a vote might be taken, aye right of hereafter giving his opinion upon. or no, for doubling the house tax. Up to their various propositions in detail. He this night they had argued the question, was entirely opposed to the attempt which that however necessary it might be to con- was being made to overthrow Her Masider the other portions of the Budget-as jesty's Ministers by hon. Gentlemen opthe malt tax and tea duties-it was a clear posite, who were so ready to take their understanding that the first vote was to be places-an ebullition of party feeling which taken, aye or no, for doubling the house would meet with no sympathy from him. tax. To-night, however, it seemed there He would give no countenance to the enwas a doubt thrown out whether that was deavours of hon. Gentlemen, who had no the question on which they ought to divide. principles of their own, to climb into the If the mere proposition was for an exten- places of the right hon. Gentlemen below sion of the house tax to houses of 201. and him-an effort, let him tell them, in which upwards, it would be utterly unnecessary they would not succeed. to repeal the existing duty, and consequently this Resolution ought to be withdrawn. If they intended to alter the duty, well and good; but if they did not, they should withdraw this Resolution altogether. All they (the Opposition) asked was, that the Government would tell them what they meant; if they meant to say they abandoned the notion of doubling the house tax, let them say so-and tell them what they intended. Of course, that would involve the abandonment of some portion of the Budget the remission of the duty on tea or the malt tax. If that was so, why did they not say so, and say what they really intended? - The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he thought he had frankly answered the question of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and it appeared to him that the noble Lord was perfectly satisfied. He said that he thought it was perfectly understood they should take the division on the first Resolution, and that he should consider the opinion of the Committee on that proposition conclusive with respect to the general principles of the Budget. He had no hesitation now in saying, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government not only to extend the area of taxation, but to propose an increase of the house tax. After the whole debate had been taken on the Budget, and after LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he was entirely satisfied with the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether or not it would be more convenient to take the division on the preamble, or, as had been suggested, to postpone the preamble, and take the division on the substantive part of the Resolution, was a matter which he thought well deserved consideration; but as to the explanation of the intentions of Government he was entirely satisfied. He supposed the adjournment would be to Thursday, and he hoped the House might be able to come to some understanding that the debate should close on Thursday evening. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that it was certainly of the utmost importance that some such understanding should be arrived at. MR. V. SCULLY said, that every English Member had been patiently listened to, but the moment he got up he was not heard, because he was an Irish Member. Ireland was considerably interested in this Budget; but, with one exception, none of the Irish representatives had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. Before the debate concluded, he trusted that opportunity would be given. The House resumed: Committee report progress. The House adjourned at One o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, December 15, 1852. MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Lisburne, LAW OF SETTLEMENT. MR. WISE begged to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether there was any intention of altering the law of settlement, or of proposing any change in the mode of charging the rates for the relief of the poor? also, whether there was any information in the Poor Law Office as to the quantity of land which had been hired or purchased by Boards of Guardians for the purpose of cultivation by the inmates of union workhouses? and whether any statements had been transmitted to the Poor Law Board showing the result of the employment of the inmates of workhouses on the land so hired and purchased? and, if any such information and statements had been given, or existed, whether the President of the Poor Law Board would place a copy of the same on the table of the House? The object of the second question was to ascertain whether the Poor Law Board approved of the system of cultivating land by means of ablebodied paupers ? SIR JOHN TROLLOPE said, that during the time he had held office he had given his best attention and consideration to the very important subject which the hon. Gentleman had brought before the House. So much consideration and care were required in the preparation of any measure on the subject, that he was not in a condition at present to lay a Bill before Parliament; but, feeling that it was a subject which could not be decided on without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government at large, he had laid before them all the papers he had thereupon at the Poor Law Board, and for some time past they had been giving their anxious attention to the matter. In reply to the second question, he begged to say that the Poor Law Board could furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information he desired in regard to the quantity of land either purchased or hired by boards of guardians for cultivation; but the boards of guardians were not in the habit of furnishing detailed reports, either of a financial nature or with respect to moral effects. The Poor Law Board were acquainted with these only as they came to their knowledge oecasionally through the reports of the poor-law inspectors; but, if the hon. Gentleman wished a return only of the quantity of land so employed, the Poor Law Board were in a condition to furnish the information on his moving for such a return. TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE. Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [7th December], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Question again proposed. Debate resumed. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he begged to draw the attention of the House to certain proceedings that had been taken in reference to this subject since the ques tion was last before them. After the debate and division on the subject of adjournment on the previous occasion, when this measure was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department acceded to a proposition that was originally made by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), to have the Bill at present before the House, and the Bill commonly called Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill, referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was present on the occasion, and expressed no dissent from that arrangement; and he (Mr. Fitzgerald) conceived that when one Member of the Government (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) made that arrangement, and when another Member of the Government (the Attorney General for Ireland) was present and did not object to it, the natural inference to draw was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assented to it. Although some Members on his side of the House apprehended that the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would be strangled in the Select Committee, still they abided by the proposition that had been agreed to. Although he (Mr. Fitzgerald) dissented from the principles of the Tenants' Compensation Bill, he felt himself bound, after assenting to what had been done by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny not to oppose the second reading; but after that proceeding had taken place in that House, he heard with great surprise an account of what occurred when a noble Earl in another place proposed a question in reference to this subject to the noble |