HC Deb 31 May 1842 vol 63 cc1024-48

The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the third reading of the Property-tax Bill read.

Question again put, that the bill be now read a third time,

Mr. Hume

wished to state his opinion, having not hitherto had much opportunity of doing so, respecting this measure of the right hon. Baronet's Government. With respect to the distress of the country, it appeared at last that the amended Corn law was all the alteration that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose, and that the Income-tax was the other measure which he intended to propose to relieve the distress and difficulties of the country. He must say, that he took a very different view of the measures necessary to meet our present difficulties. In the first place, he thought that the right hon. Baronet had not taken into consideration what had been the causes of the present distress; and, next, he thought it was an error to state, as the right hon. Baronet had done, that the distress was of a temporary nature, and that we might expect, as on many former occasions when the manufacturers of the country had been distressed by casual circumstances, that we should find the distress pass away. He could not come to the same conclusion. Years had been rolling on, and he had humbly endeavoured to raise a warning voice against the evils which had at length overtaken the country. Then he thought the commercial policy of the right hon. Baronet was another mistake, and he still maintained, as he had always done, that to open our commerce and give facilities for exchange with other countries was the true policy of this country. With respect to this bill, it was his opinion that taxation was already too high and too large for the community to bear, and that every mode of adding to the burden, which an Income-tax certainly would do, would only increase the difficulties with which the country was assailed. The right hon. Baronet had not carried out the principles which it appeared from the public records of their proceedings to which he was obliged to refer, as he was not present in the House when the right hon. Baronet's speech was delivered—he had himself laid down in the opening of his speech on bringing in this bill. The right hon. Baronet laid it down as a principle, that the financial affairs of nations differed but little in the treatment they demanded from the affairs of individuals, and that he thought it right, therefore, to deal with them as he would with his own affairs. Now, this he thought, that the right hon. Baronet had not done, but that, on the contrary, he had violated the pledge then given. The right hon. Baronet had said, that any new measure of taxation at this juncture ought to press as little as possible on the labouring population. How had the right hon. Baronet observed this principle? He contended that this bill, taking as it would at least 4,000,000l. sterling from the capital of the country, would increase the pressure on that portion of the population. The right hon. Baronet had done nothing to reduce the great expenditure of late years, which he contended had led to the present difficulties of the country. There was another point which it was important that the House should notice. The right hon. Baronet, and all the speakers who had taken part in the debate on the bill, so far as he knew, had gone upon the assumption that the revenue had been falling off for some years back. Nothing of the sort —.just the reverse was the case; the revenue had been increasing every year. Then what was the cause of the distress? It arose from the want of employment, and the want of means to pay labour. Did the right hon. Baronet intend, by taking 4,000,000l. from the capital of the country, to be wasted in war and useless expences, to afford relief? Judging from past experience, he should say, that the right hon. Baronet, if he expected to give relief by these means, was very likely to be mistaken. But he thought the right hon. Baronet had not gone to work in the right mode. He knew of no other period of financial difficulty in former times in which the House had not proceeded to inquire what was the state of the revenue and what reductions and retrenchments might be made before they passed any measure, and he thought that in this case also the House ought to have appointed a committee for this purpose. In 1828 a finance committee had been appointed, which, though it only sat, he was sorry to say, for one Session, had done enough to show, that much of the present deficiency might have been met without any new taxes. One mode of relief to which he would have had recourse was the putting legacies of real property on the same footing with personal property with respect to the stamp duty, by which he thought that an increase of nearly 2,000,000l. would have been made to the revenue. He considered the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the noble Lord would excuse him for saying so—to have been the evil genius of the late Administration, and to have led them from war to war, and to waste million after million in unnecessary expence, to entirely violate all the principles on which the Whig Government came into power, to have left them in the mire in which the right hon. Baronet had found them, and to have led to the imposition of this tax. It was no Queen's letter that could give relief to the present prevailing and general distress; it was only complete free-trade in corn and everything else. He thought, after the clear and admirable exposition of the principles on which trade ought to be carried on in this country, which the right hon. Baronet had given, that he was not acting after his own conviction, but on the opinion of other people. Was it to be supposed, that the small and trifling changes in the tariff could have any effect in affording employment for the people, and relieving the existing distress? Yet, not with standing the present distress, the right hon. Baronet was about to add 3,000,000l. to the amount of taxation. What he complained of was, that the right hon. Baronet did not fairly meet the difficulties of the case. Why had he not taken into consideration the 24,000,000l. of our expenditure, and reduced it instead of adding to it? If a sacrifice were to be made, surely it ought not to be made by the suffering classes of the country. The right hon. Baronet might have curtailed those two great causes of expenditure, the army and the navy. He had in his hand a statement, showing the number of men in arms, in the army, the navy, and the artillery, at several different periods. In 1792, the whole force of seamen and marines in this country, amounted only to 16,000 men; and the army and navy together amounted only to 65,000 men. In 1817, it was determined to come as speedily as possible to a peace establishment, and the large force kept up during the war was reduced to 19,000 seamen, and the army to 92,000 men. In 1822, the army amounted to 68,000 men, and the navy to 21,000, and with the artillery amounted altogether to 97,000 men; but this year, the navy amounted to 42,000 men, the army to 95,600, and the artillery to 8,864, making a total of 146,464 men. Was it, therefore, to be wondered at, that the expenditure of the country was greatly increased, when we had a force of 49,500 more men than we had in 1822, when we supposed ourselves to have a large establishment? The right hon. Baronet had asked, "Would you reduce the naval establishment of the country? "He said," Yes." Owing to the mistaken policy of the late Government, 15,000 men were locked up in Canada, which force had cost the country no less than 5,000,000l. sterling. The next foolish policy had been to interfere with the affairs of Syria. What had warranted our interference there? In 1821, there were only 12 ships of war in the Mediterranean, whilst at this moment there were 34. The expense of keeping up this armament amounted to 1,000,000l. a-year. This showed how the public finances had been mismanaged, and that they ought to have had an inquiry how far this immense force was necessary. Upwards of 900,000l. of this expenditure might have been reduced, and such a proceeding would have been more calculated to secure the friendship and co-operation of France, than keeping up this enormous force. In almost every branch of the expenditure there might have been a reduction. In order to see the expense of this Don Quixotic expedition on the coast of Syria, he would state to the House the force which had been kept there. In 1839, there were 38 ships of war, carrying 1,272 guns, and 3,940 men; and during parts of the year, there had been 12,000 men on the coast. In 1840, there had been 47 ships of war there and 14,767 men; within 1,300 of the whole naval force of Great Britain, at the period before the great French war began. In 1841, there were 41 ships of war there, and 12,700 men; and now there were 50 ships of war there, and upwards of 15,000 men. Between 2,000 and 3,000 souls had been destroyed in this war, and 7,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. sterling spent over it, and what had been the result? At this moment, the Sultan had requested Mehemet Ali to march again into Syria, and take possession of it. There were other items on which he blamed the conduct of the late Government as extravagant. They had paid no attention whatever to economy. They had paid no attention whatever to useless brevets. They had given promotion to a far too many officers in both services. It was a fact, that there were seven naval officers on half-pay for every one employed, and in spite of the recommendation of the committee of 1833 to reduce the army, no less than 585 military officers received promotion during the year 1837. Many of those officers had seen little or no service; but he need scarcely say that, for service very little influenced promotions in these days. The fact was, that no Government in the world—not even the rulers of nations which were purely military—ever thought of making such vast and preposterously useless promotions as we were in the habit of making—promotions, moreover, made in the face of a distressed nation, unable to bear the additional burdens they entailed. He had now shown, that our extra expenditure was entailed on us by the wars in Syria and China, and by the useless brevet promotions of the late Government. He now came to a more important branch of the subject, and was prepared to show the evils of an increased taxation, and the benefit which sometimes accrued even to the revenue by lessening rather than by augmenting the national burdens. He held in his hand a paper showing the stale of the taxation in this country from 1830 down to the present time. In 1830, the national burden was 52,018,000l., in 1842 it was 52,465,000l. so that we were subjected even to more taxation now than when the Tories were in office at the commencement of the reign of William 4th. Now, what occurred in 1830? When Lord Grey's Government came into office such was the cry for a reduction of taxation that the Administration was obliged to yield. In the first four years of their being in power, no less than 8,000,000l. of taxation was reduced, or rather, 872,000l. being re-imposed in other forms, there was an actual reduction of 7.280,000l. Now, the effect of this reduction upon the revenue, was not, probably, what many Members would have expected. In 1833, although 7,000,000l. of taxation had been taken off, the revenue had only fallen 2,750,000l., as compared with the revenue of 1830. Nor were the taxes thus taken off, unimportant taxes to the community. On the contrary, they were taxes upon articles entering into every day's consumption. In 1831 there was a repeal of the duty upon cotton, and he was sure his hon. Friends around him would bear him out in saying that the effect of that repeal was, to give elasticity to the cotton printing, and to every branch of the cotton manufacture, their Then there were taken off duties on candles, soap, tiles (chiefly used, he supposed, for agricultural purposes), starch, sweets, spirits, glass, and a variety of other things the result being a total reduction of 2,000,0001. in the customs duties, 4,000,000l, in the excise, and 1,500,000l. nearly in the taxes, thus making up the 7,000,000l. he had spoken of as reduced. Well, what was the result of this reduction? In 1834 the taxation was 49,000,000l.; in 1835 about the same; in 1837 it was 51,300,000l; in 1838, 51,700,000l.; in 1839,53,000,000l.; in 1840,53,000,000l.; in 1841, 54,000,000l. It was a curious fact that the taxation of the last mentioned year exceeded that of 1834 by no less than 5,000,000l. It was profligate conduct of the late Government in plunging the nation into war that caused this considerable increase; and let the House recollect too that these 52,000,000l. were at the present time a greater burden on the in- dustry of the country than 70,000,000l. would have been in 1833. In that year trade was better, and the legitimate profits of the merchant were considerably larger than they were now: and yet by the very measure which was now under discussion they were about to add 4,000,000l. more to the burdens of the people; and those 4,000,000l. were to be added at a time when trade was so bad and profits were so greatly reduced throughout the country. He could not anticipate how much more they might be reduced, but he had great fears. If the French government carried out the measures which he understood they were about to take, trade would be more depressed still; indeed, he should be afraid to picture the distress which must ensue in the part of the country which he had the honour to represent. He did, therefore, contend that it was scandalous to attempt making such additions to the taxation. Why did they not resort to another step, and reduce the salaries of public officers and the cost of their establishments? Or why did they not endeavour to revive our drooping commerce by making an efficient alteration in the Corn-law? He was appealing to a Christian Legislature, and he did ask on what ground they could refuse to take off the tax upon the chief article of food when they found it absolutely necessary to send round a begging letter from her Majesty imploring contributions for the relief of their poor? Would it not have been better to have given the people cheap food at once than to have made an appeal through the Church the Church which might be said to be at enmity with the people? Unfortunately the whole of the clergy were leagued against the people. The tithe system almost of necessity rendered them the enemies of free-trade. Was there a single clergyman who lifted up his voice against the Corn law? [An hon. Member: Mr. Spencer.] Ay, Mr. Spencer was worthy of honour—he was an exception to the general rule—but let them take the majority, and they would find it otherwise. The whole of the legislation of the country was adverse to the interests of the working classes, and it was a mere mockery of justice that the House of Commons should starve an entire people, by restricting trade on the one hand, and imposing a new tax upon the other, at the same time that no remedy was proposed to meet the distress which was acknowledged on all hands. Under such circumstances the House would be greatly in fault if it allowed the present bill to pass. If the right hon. Baronet had attended to his suggestions upwards of 3,000,000l. would be saved to the country, and the public business would be as well done as it is at present. Before now he (Mr. Hume) had suggested that a very considerable saving might be effected by adhering to the principle of non-interference. This suggestion had not been attended to, and the expenditure of the present year had increased by upwards of 4,000,000l. beyond what it was in 1836. This was in the military and naval expenditure, and he was sure that, from the Chinese war and other causes, it would be found the war expenditure would be 20,000,000l. He deemed that there had been an expenditure not required by the late Government. [A cry of "Vote of confidence."] It was true that he had given a vote of confidence to the Whigs, because they were not, in his opinion, so bad as the Tories; but now he thought it would have been wise if they had turned out the Whigs three years ago. If he had known that the right hon. Baronet would have come forward with the principles he had lately professed, they might depend upon it, that as far as his efforts went, they should not have been directed to keep that right hon. Baronet so long out of office. But in saying this, he could not but express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would carry his principles into effect. He might suggest that one of the surest means of curing the existing evils was an enlarged reform of Parliament. Nothing but a reduction of taxation, a reduction of expenditure, a free-trade in corn, would give relief to the people. He wished not to be understood as objecting to a property-tax, but what he would desire to see would be a real property-tax, and the removal of taxes to the amount of 6,000,000l, which now pressed most heavily upon the industry of the country. Why would not the right hon. Baronet grant a committee? Did not the committee on the import duties afford the right hon. Baronet some information which he did not possess before? Why not then have a financial committee fairly composed and inquiries fairly made, with a view to amend the Income-tax, and improve the tariff? Such a committee might be enabled to inquire into the real causes of the existing distress—to lay the case fully before the country, and endeavour to devise a fitting remedy.

Sir C. Napier

wondered that the hon. Member for Montrose should complain of the increase in the naval expenditure in 1837 and 1838, whilst at that time the whole country was crying out because of Russia having twenty-seven sail of the line in the Baltic, and at another period the French had a sufficient force in the West-Indian ports to seize the whole of the islands. If such a calamity had occurred, the hon. Member for Montrose would have been the first to inveigh against the measures by which it had been caused. By this day's paper he perceived that an addition of eight sail of the line had been made to the French naval force, and for his own part he would rather that the right hon. Baronet should, if necessary, make the proposed property-tax 5 per cent, instead of 3, than that the army or navy should be reduced by a single man. He objected, however, to the unequal manner in which the proposed tax would press upon property and upon income, and it was on that ground only he should oppose it; and he also objected to the tariff, because it kept up the duty upon corn, coffee, and sugar, articles which formed so large a portion of the consumption of the poorer classes.

Colonel Wyndham

repelled, in the strongest Parliamentary language he could use, the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for Montrose upon the aristocracy and the clergy. He had before now heard the same classes attacked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, the hon. Member for Montrose, and an hon. Baronet who sat now on that (the Ministerial side) of the House. These attacks were made in times of violent agitation. They were in the times of Thistle-wood, and who (said the hon. Member, pointing to Members on the Opposition benches) brought him to the scaffold? It was you Gentlemen.

Mr. Curteis

wished to know who those were whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman included in such a charge? As regarded the hon. Member for Montrose, he always regarded with admiration that hon. Gentleman's strenuous efforts to enforce a system of economy and save the country from unnecessary burdens.

Mr. F. T. Baring

concurred in the tribute which the hon. Member behind him had paid to the hon. Member for the Montrose burghs, whose voice he was ready to testify had always been raised to advocate economy, even when other hon. Members called out for lavish expenditure. He wished on this occasion, however, to direct the attention of the House to the principle of the Income-tax. Was it, he would ask, a fair and equal mode of levying the people's money? Would the burden of taxation be laid on in proportion to the ability of individuals to bear it? One great objection to the bill was, that it might actually charge with the tax parties who were in the receipt of no income whatever. A man might have an income arising from sources classed in one schedule of the bill while he was losing on another schedule; but he had no power of setting the gain upon one schedule against the loss which might occur on another. This point had often been adverted to, and he thought it open to great objection. Take the case of a merchant who was the holder of stock, at the same time that he carried on some branch of commerce. Suppose him to receive a dividend of 1,000l., while he lost several thousands of pounds on his business, he would be charged with the Income-tax on the stock, even though he might remain a loser of 2,000l. or 3,000l. on the whole transactions of the year. Again, with respect to the operation of the tax on agricultural estates on which the farms were small, under 300l. a-year value, they would be relieved from the Income-tax, which would weigh heavily on those on which the farms were large. Another gross injustice was, that terminable annuities were charged at the same rate as those of a permanent nature. He looked with alarm at the different circumstances of the country from what they were when the Income-tax was proposed before. At that time there was no country where capital could be more profitably invested than in this; but now the whole of Europe was open to the capitalist, and the result of a tax upon his profits would be to drive him to other countries. To the mercantile man, too, the investigation under this bill was as strong as it had been under any other. Let them modify the bill as they might, reduce the charge as they pleased, it was that searching investigation which mercantile men felt as the main objection to the measure, and that one from which it was impossible for them to be relieved, although he would admit, that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to effect that object. But with regard to the composition for the tax upon the average income of the last three years, it was always admitted that that was abandoning the principle of the bill; for the man who was looking to an increase of income would, by that composition, be relieved from paying upon the actual income he might make, whilst a person whose business was sinking had either to com pound and pay upon the income he was not really in receipt of, or go on paying, upon the income he was making from year to year, and submit to that investigation which to him would be most objectionable. And then as to the moral effect this bill would have upon the trading population of this country. Nothing could be more unfortunate than when the revenue laws were of such a nature that a large and respectable body of the people were in the constant habit, without the slightest scruple, of setting them at large; but he regretted to be obliged to fear, looking at the history of all former Income-tax bills, and the still greater opportunities of evasion that the circumstances of the times afforded, that the result of this investigation would be productive of perjury and fraud to a degree which, if it continued long, would materially injure the character of the British merchant and our working classes. And then a to the injustice of the tax from its inequality. To take a person with a casual and uncertain income and charge him the same as a person who derived an equal amount of income from funded property, which he would leave behind as a provision for his family, was an injustice that hardly existed under any other system of taxation. Or let them take the case of a half-pay officer, who, after devoting himself to the service of his country, had but a life income to support his family. Was it just that such a person should be taxed equally with one who without any labour of his own came into the hereditary possession of the same amount of income? Was it fair, too, in the same manner to tax professional men, who for the course of only a short period were reaping the harvest of that which they had sown night and day for many years? There never was a bill which appeared to have combined in it more inequalities in taxation than the present, and he was proud to say, that to the objec- tions which had been made to it no answer whatever had been given. The only attempt at an answer was, not that the injustice did not exist, but that it was an injustice 1o which numerous persons were liable. He contended that the bill was full of injustice. He made not that an accusation against the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, but he believed it to be in the nature of the bill, a part of the system which it was impossible to get rid of if they had recourse at all to such a measure; and believing this, that when they came to charge income in this manner they created inequalities greater than in the whole of their taxation put together, he should give his cordial opposition to the third reading of the bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not, in his opinion, very felicitously selected this stage of their proceedings as a fit opportunity to take a review of the objections he had before taken to the bill, with the view to induce the House to reject it. In answer to the first objection of the right hon. Gentleman, he would remind him this was not the first measure of an income or property-tax which had been submitted to the adoption of Parliament, for a property-tax had been deemed expedient by the Government, and adopted by the Legislature in 1803, which was followed in 1806 by a similar measure of finance, proposed by a Ministry of very opposite principles, and of very different public men from the principles of the Government of 1803, or the men who composed that Cabinet. The principle, however, of both these bills had been the same; and a similar measure, with some important improvements, was now brought forward by the present Government, in order to repair our financial difficulties, and to make up the deficit of revenue which had been accumulating for several years past, to the great injury of our trade, and embarrassment of our finances. The necessity for imposing this tax under similar circumstances had been admitted by public men of exalted virtue, and great political integrity, including Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had expressed himself convinced of the propriety of the principle which he recognised, and which, he said, he would not suffer to be frittered away in this instance, nor allow the bill to be rendered inoperative by quarrelling with its details. The House had sufficiently displayed its opinion on former occasions as to whether this was a measure called for by the peculiar exigency of the period, and by the necessity there existed to adopt this as a means of providing for the deficit in the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman complained in his speech to-night that the measure in effect is fivefold, and contains so many separate and distinct classes or descriptions of taxation. He had objected to them as so many different laws upon the subject, and as they were not all regulated alike or by the same rule as respected the persons subjected to taxation, the right hon. Gentleman had taken up this as a strong ground of objection, and had therefore charged the promoters of the bill with inconsistency. This necessity for classifying the persons liable to the payment of the tax had been apparent to the original promoters of the first property-tax, and the plan had been adopted in that bill. If this had not been so, he thought no one would have been found to complain more loudly than the right hon. Gentleman, because then all the classes numerated in the five schedules of the bill would have been called upon to account and undergo that stringent investigation of their affairs and circumstances which was now only intended to apply to the class described in schedule D. Even the regulation with respect to the liability of farmers to the extent of half the rent paid for their farms, to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected as forming no proper test of income, was borrowed from the property-tax of 1806. An objection had been taken to the measure, as being a species of armoury to which they ought not to resort except in time of war. If the principle were wrong, why apply it in time of war only, and abandon it in time of peace? The right hon. Gentleman had objected to the principle of taxing the occupiers of land in proportion to the rent; but was not that the principle upon which all taxes upon land were now imposed? In assessing the county-rate, the poor-rate, and all other burdens to which the occupier was subject, was it not the charge made upon the value of the property as tested by the rent paid? That principle had been acted upon in this country for centuries, and was not, as the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, introduced now for the first time; and it had been adopted in the present bill, not merely as affording the best test of value, but because it would relieve the parties from that close investigation, into their affairs which had been so strongly objected to in regard to the former property tax. The right hon. Gentleman had further objected that this measure of the Government would induce landlords to subdivide their property into small farms, in order to relieve the occupation from this impost. He did not admit, that the measure would produce any such result; neither did he admit, that farming tenants would be anxious to occupy only such farms as would be exempt from the tax, for if they invested their money in any other way, so as to make the whole income more than l50l.,they would still be liable to the tax; and on the other hand, looking at the advantage which the landlord derived from dividing his land into large farms, and the objections he would naturally entertain to making frequent changes in the limits of the various holdings on his property, he did not believe, that any such effect would be produced as that which the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman had also repeated the often-urged objection to the levying of any tax upon incomes derived from funded property, and especially upon the inequality of charging the same rate of taxation upon the terminable as upon the permanent annuity. He would not detain the House by entering again into those arguments, for the House had already decided that those objections were without any real foundation. He was prepared to rest his defence upon the arguments which had been previously adduced, and with which the House had by its decision declared it self to be satisfied. The objection to taxing the foreigner who had money invested in the British funds had also been fully answered. Those foreigners who were so circumstanced could withdraw their property from those funds at any moment, and at the present time with advantage to themselves; but to those who, confiding in the security of the British funds, preferred to allow their money still to remain invested in them, it was surely of importance that the national credit should be kept up; and seeing that they were free from those other taxes persons residing in this country were subject to, he did not think this 3 per cent, would induce them to withdraw their property from this coun- try to invest it in less certain securities elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had argued also, that the bill was likely to produce a prejudicial effect on the moral feelings of the country, and he had told them (and told them truly, he admitted) that it was a serious objection to any tax, that it would induce ignorant people to commit breaches of the law. But he did not admit that any such effect would result, for this law would operate not so much upon the lower and more ignorant classes, as upon those who were comparatively of the higher orders. For by acting, as far as it was possible to do so, upon the recognised principle that the property of the country should bear the burden it exempted those who had no property, and therefore in his opinion was calculated to prevent those evils which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated from it. But talking of moral effects, what would be the moral effects of the substitutes for this property-tax, supposing the property-tax were not imposed? Would not any increase in the excise or customs duties to the amount necessary to meet the deficiency occasion more numerous and more serious breaches of the law than could ever result from the property-tax? The next objection was to the application of the tax to incomes derived from trades and professions; but the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the clergyman's income being taxed, because that income arose from the land, though held only for life. Land was to be taxed in every shape, and all incomes arising out of land were to be taxed; but incomes of ten times the amount, arising from professions and trades, ought, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) to be free from the impost ! The right hon. Gentleman had adverted also to the hardship of taxing the half-pay officer, but the principle of the bill was that all incomes amounting to 150l a year and upwards, from whatever source derived, should pay the tax; and, although cases of inequality and hardship might arise, still those inequalities would be attended with advantages to the parties which would go far to compensate them. With regard to the investigation which would be required, it was absolutely necessary to prevent fraud, and to protect the honest man, who gave a correct return of his income, that that investigation should be stringent; but in speaking of this part of the measure the right hon. Gentleman had altogether omitted to notice the facilities which were afforded for composition where parties chose to avail themselves of them. On a former evening, a question had been put to him as to the probable charge of levying this tax, and he had been most anxious to lay upon the Table of the House an estimate of the expense before the bill came into operation, but not being able to say how many special commissioners it might be necessary to appoint, it was difficult from that and other similar circumstances to calculate accurately beforehand the probable cost of collection. He would, however, state the result of the best estimate he had been enabled to form. The expense of collecting the Income-tax of 1815 had been 300,000l.; the cost of collection of the tax now about to be imposed, he had every reason to think, would not be expected to amount to one-half of that sum. He was not able to form a correct estimate of the amount that would be required to meet the expenses of collectors, clerks, and other persons that must necessarily be employed. The establishment for collecting the old property-tax cost 117,998l.; but the House was aware, from the provisions of this bill, that it was intended to give to the commissioners of assessed taxes the collection of the property-tax; and, by the best calculations he could make, he believed that 30,000l. added to the cost of the present establishment for collecting the assessed taxes, would cover the additional cost of collecting the property-tax. But, in making that estimate, he had thought it right to ascertain the number of officers at present employed, and to call upon the superannuated officers to furnish their names and ages, in order that those whose ages would permit them might be employed in collecting the property-tax, and the public saved from the consequences of their superannuation. It was by that means he hoped to reduce the actual cost of the establishment for collecting the tax within the limits which he had stated to the House. He thought, therefore, he might confidently assure the House that the cost of collection, establishment, and collateral charges would not amount to one-half the sum which the former property-tax cost. With respect to the two propositions which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, for exempting certain classes of individuals from the opera- tion of this tax, nothing would give him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) greater satisfaction than to acquiesce in a proposition of the kind. He had given the subject the greatest attention, and he found that were he to agree to his right hon. Friend's first propositions, to make 150l. per annum the starting point, from which the tax should begin to apply; by which arrangement a person with an income of 200l. a year would have to pay the tax upon the last 50l. only; no less than 33,500,000l. of income would be exempted from the property-tax; and were he to agree to the second proposition, he found that upwards of 27,000,000l. of income would be exempted. Therefore, if he were to exempt incomes to this extent the consequence would be, that a higher amount must be paid by others. He, therefore, regretted that he could not consent to the propositions of his hon. Friend. It was not necessary for him to trouble the House further. He could not doubt that the House would adopt the present measure. The opinion of the country had been taken, and he was happy to say, that it was with the Government. The country had not been taken by surprise: it had been, from the first stage to the last, admonished of all the possible objections to which ingenuity could suggest that this measure was liable. Everything that had taken place proved that the country sympathised with the Government on the necessity for this measure so far as the number of petitions could speak the feeling of the country. He believed that there had been less petitions presented against his measure than against the toll on Waterloo-bridge. He trusted that the House would confirm the opinion of their constituents and the people at large, and that by means of the tax now proposed and carried to its last stage, they should be able to repair the state of their finances and to give that relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country which all concurred in believing to be necessary.

Mr. Mangles

said, that the right hon. Baronet had alluded to the embarrassed state of the finances of the East-India Company as one of the reasons for the imposition of a Property-tax. The right hon. Baronet merely interjected the statement, and left others to draw their inferences. [Sir R. Peel: I merely spoke of the excess of expenditure over income.] That was the case mostly with countries which were at war. The right hon. Baronet had depreciated the resources of our Indian empire for party purposes, which was a course unworthy of any Statesman. He contended, that the state of the finances of India did not warrant the assertion that they were in a state of embarrassment. In 1805 and 1806, the revenue of India was only about 13,000,000l., whereas in 1841 and 1842, it was above 20,000,000l., being an increase of more than 7,000,000l. The Indian debt in 1841 and 1842, amounted to 34,194,000l, not a rupee of which paid more than 5 per cent, interest, while the larger portion of it paid only 4 per cent. During the administration of the Marquess Wellesley, the interest of that debt was 8, 9, and even 12 per cent., and the whole amount was greater than at present. The revenue was not now so deficient as the right hon. Baronet repesented it. The right hon. Baronet was not justified in bringing forward the Income-tax on the ground of the embarrassed state of the finances of India. He opposed the tax as unjust and unnecessary, and as a serious injury, both to the morals and prosperity of the people. It was totally unwarranted either by the circumstances of England or India.

Sir R. H. Inglis

said, that though his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had done justice to his motives in the course taken with regard to his suggestion to make the operation of the tax commence at 150l., he had not dwelt upon the results that would follow from the adoption of that suggestion. His right hon. Friend had overlooked the point of his suggestion, which related to the effect which the adoption of the suggestion would have upon the feelings of the public, and of those on whom the tax was to be levied. It would have removed one great temptation for violating the dictates of conscience and honour, and concealing or understating the amount of revenue. He did not affirm, that it was unjust to levy 4l. 7s. 6d. on incomes amounting to 150l., but when the income of 149l. was exempt, and that of 150l. liable to it, there was a temptation to understate it in the case of persons possessing the latter. Persons who possessed 200l., and would willingly pay the tax on the surplus over 150l., might be very unwilling to do so on the whole sum. He did not think that so much larger a sum could be collected under the bill as it stood as was expected, or that the loss which his right hon. Friend feared would have taken place had the alteration been made. They should deal with men as they were, not as they ought to be, and diminish the temptation to palter with conscience and honour. His right hon. Friend had made no allusion to the third suggestion he had thrown out that of applying a sliding-scale according to the amount of income. He gave his right hon. Friends in the Government credit for being actuated by the best motives towards the country, and as in the present state of the House it was impossible practically to obtain a vote on it, he should not trouble them any further, though he could not help expressing his conviction, that had his proposal been acted on, it would have tended to reconcile the majority of those who would now try to evade or resist the tax.

Mr. Villiers

said, he had risen after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of an observation that he had made. [Cries of" Divide."] If the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman were so anxious to divide, be would have done well not to have made the observation; for it was one certainly calculated to provoke reply. The right hon. Gentleman declared, that the country having had time to reflect upon this bill, expressed in consequence the warmest sympathy with the Government. Now, as he had the misfortune, together with many around him, to represent sections of the country where no such sympathy was known, and as it was his ill-fortune to know that they were suffering the severest privations, and extremely dissatisfied with the measure, he would not suffer his silence to be construed into an admission of so extraordinary a statement. They had, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, been taking time to reflect upon the measure, and they now better understood the purpose for which it was proposed, and the nature of those other proposals which were said to be compensatory for the evil it would inflict, and he believed, that the conclusion to which the people generally had arrived was, that this measure was, financially speaking, wrong, that it was politically most unwise, and atrociously unjust. As a measure of finance, as a means of supplying the deficiency, he had great doubts if it would be successful; he doubted very much whether, when the revenue declined, being collected from indirect taxation, and dependent on the expenditure of the people, you could super add direct taxes and collect all you intended. You may collect as much as you expect, from the direct source, but inasmuch as the indirect taxes fall off", from the inability of the people to consume the articles that are taxed, I question whether, by imposing a fresh tax, you do not add to that inability, and that your whole revenue will be yet deficient. It is difficult to speak with confidence on these subjects, but it is more reasonable to expect this than the contrary. Again he thought it was justly deemed unwise at this moment of general embarrassment and depression to expose the productive classes to all the pain and inconvenience incidental to this tax, and most unjust if it is imposed with the view to save those whose protection has caused the deficiency. And here it was, that he grounded his dissatisfaction with the whole scheme of the right hon. Baronet. This tax was imposed without any inquiry into the cause of the deficiency, without any admission of the real causes of the decline of our finances and our commerce, and consequently no remedy proposed or in prospect, that any man can believe or expect has their revival in view. He said a statesman in his position ought duly to have inquired, and fully to have explained the present anomalous and critical condition of this country. There was a twofold deficiency to account for—not only that which falls short immediately of the expenditure, but that deficiency which if seen in the revenue not increasing, for it must be remembered in this country the greater part of their taxes were in the nature of poll-taxes taxes upon what the great mass of the population do, or want to, consume; and yet, while the population is increasing, the revenue is declining. He said there was but one way to account for that, which was, that the condition of the people was deteriorating; and he should believe, till it was disproved, that their condition was so declining, owing to the laws which they persisted in maintaining, which interrupted their commerce with the world, and enhanced the cost of their food. Laws which were attended with this twofold cruelty, that they diminished the demand for their labour, and, by enhancing the cost of food, lowered the value of that labour; and that, too, combined with a continual increase of population augmenting the competition for labour—all combining to lower the reward for labour. That was the case; and it was wonderful that such a cause existed, that the necessary consequence should be perceived in the diminished power of the people to consume those articles which they were accustomed to tax for revenue? What, then, he asked, should a wise and prudent statesman have done; but seeing this fully to have admitted it, and applied himself boldly and ably to meet the evil; and how should he have done it? He ought to have seen how he could have extended the trade with those countries which were sure of supplying our wants, with whom mutual interchange would have been mutually beneficial, thus to have secured fresh and instant demand for our labour, while he ought to have studied how he could have improved the condition of the home consumer. By this means he would have alleviated distress, and increased the revenue legitimately and beneficially, and the Government well knew—as every man who has given thought or consideration to our condition at home and relations abroad well knew—that this could have been and would be effected. Where could we extend our trade instantly and usefully. Why, with the United States and the Brazils, in a manner to give instant demand for labour. And how could they put the home consumer in better condition? Why, by instantly reducing the cost, by increasing the quantity and necessaries of life, which would have the immediate effect of setting free a fund for the consumption of manufactures on other products than food; and yet is there a man hardy enough to say that there is a prospect, this year at least, of this being the result from any measure that has been proposed? Yet this is no speculative result that he said might follow; it is matter of experience, on which they might calculate with certainty; it has been so invariably, when food is low instantly is there a large demand for manufactures, when it rises there is an immense sum withdrawn from the consumption of manufactures. He was, he knew, admitting then what hon. Gentlemen opposite repeated so often in all their debates, namely, that the manufacturers depended upon the home trade for their best customers. It was true. They did depend upon them, and they could not suffer without the manufacturers feeling it; that was what they were suffering from then. The sum is immense that the people expend in food in this country, and that cannot rise or fall without being felt in every branch of industry. If hon. Gentlemen would inquire, as it was their duty to do, with patience into these matters, they would see that they were capable of demonstration, and they would learn the extent of the mischief they were doing by raising artificially the cost of food. The right hon. Baronet quoted a pamphlet the other night to support some view he was taking, and as he had deemed it a sufficient authority, he would refer to it also; it was Mr. Greg's pamphlet, in which he had gone into the calculation of what had been withdrawn annually for the last three or four years from manufactures to be consumed in food. And, if he remembered rightly, that gentleman had shown that, between 1835 and any of the years since 1838, the people had been spending nearly 25,000,000l. more for bread, and 35,000,000l. more for other articles of necessary consumption, simply owing to the enhanced cost of the articles, which is occasioned by restrictive laws. Why, what an enormous sum is this to be withdrawn from a market, and what proportion will all the charity subscriptions bear to it? Can it be wondered at, then, when the trade is gradually declining with old customers abroad, and the trade so sesiously impaired at home, that the people should be unable to consume your exciseable articles, and that the revenue should decline? How could it be otherwise? And will any man in his senses say how this further tax is to remedy these evils?—how it is to repair the resources of the country?—or, indeed, permanently increase the revenue? He had a right, then, to complain that nothing was done to meet fairly or fully the alarming state in which the country was; for alarming every man of sense must admit it; and he complained the more, because he believed the Government well knew all these things. It was not as if they denied them; they had made extraordinary admissions this year. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester dis- tinctly admitted that the working classes were worse off now than they had been. He traced the evil to the cause, and concluded that the time was come when the cost of the necessaries of life must be diminished. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade, in bringing forward the Corn Bill, conjured their Lordships to remember that the people were increasing, but the subsistence of the country did not keep pace with the population, and prayed them to avert in time the frightful evil that would result from it. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade the other night rebuked an advocate of restrictive duties by admitting that, in truth, they ought long since to have been removed, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, going farther than the rest, declared that the community ought to exchange the fruits of their labour wherever they could at best advantage, and has repeatedly this Session declared the importance of relieving the distress of the working people, and the immense importance of reducing the high cost of living in this country; and yet what is done to accomplish all this? Is there a prospect of any necessary being cheaper, or of trade being better? What is there certain but the privation which this Income-tax will submit all classes of the people to? For no honest man, of any intelligence, can believe that the exemption professed to be in favour of the poor will benefit them, or that they will escape the injury which it will inflict on others. It was only yesterday that a witness in a committee of this House, in describing the condition of the manufacturing districts, said, that bad as the working people were off at present, they expected to be worse when the Income-tax came into operation, for the masters had declared that whatever they lost by the tax they must take out in the wages; that their profit was as low as would allow them to use their capital, and that they must suspend their works if they did not reduce wages, and, as the man said, the Income-tax will be worse for the poor man than the truck system. Was he not right, then, in saying that this tax would be an unmitigated evil to all classes? He did not want much evidence to convince him that whatever diminished the capital of the country when trade was bad, must diminish the fund for the employment of labour, and make that trade worse. Be- lieving, then, as he did, that this tax will aggravate every evil under which they were then suffering, and believing in no immediate benefit likely to arise from any of what are called the" remedial measures" that had been proposed, and feeling sure that instant relief might be given by just and wise legislation, he should have deserted his duty to his constituents if he had not risen then cordially to denounce this bill on its third reading.

Mr. D'Israeli

said, the lion. Member for Guildford had impugned his statement with respect to the finances of India. The hon. Gentleman's statement, however, was most monstrous. He had stated the amount of the revenue of India, but he had not stated the cost of collecting, which was 15 per cent. The hon. Member for Guildford had stated the amount of the revenue of India at 20,000,000l., while the real revenue, arising from taxation and territorial income, was 15,200,000l. The hon. Gentleman had admitted, that the expenditure was 19,000,000l., and as the real revenue was only 15,200,000l., the excess of expenditure over revenue, was nearly 4,000,000l. There had been, for a number of years, a surplus revenue in India, amounting, on an average, to about 2,500,000l. per annum; for the last three years, on the most moderate calculation, there had been an average annual deficit of 2,500,000l. Three years ago, a surplus to the amount of 10,000,000l. had accumulated in the Indian treasury, but of that sum, every rupee had now disappeared. An attempt had been made to raise a loan, and the hon. Gentleman had referred to this measure in a tone of triumph. That loan had now been open for nine months: it was opened for a sum of 4,000,000l., and of that sum, 2,700,000l. only had been raised, and the loan was already at 3 discount. A statement had been placed in his hands which showed, that the 4 per cent loan of 1832–1833 was at 15 to 16 per cent, discount; and the 4 per cent, loan of 1835 and 1836 was at 19 to 20 per cent, discount. He considered the subject of Indian finance, a most important question, and it was desirable, that its condition should be clearly understood. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that he had authorised the temporary advance of 500,000l. to the Indian government; and it was well known, that that government had no money in this country, and that they were unable to obtain a loan in India. The disordered state of Indian finance, was, he conceived, attributable, in a great degree, to the war which existed in that country, which had tended to increase the financial embarrassment.

Mr. Brotherton

said, it had been asserted, that the labouring classes would not be affected by the Income tax, but he contended, that its pressure must ultimately fall upon upon these classes. He considered the adoption of this tax a most unjust measure, and that it would operate most oppressively; and if the measures proposed by the late Government had been adopted, there would have been no necessity to have recourse to it. It had been said, that a tax upon the raw material was injurious to trade, but the Income-tax would prove equally injurious. The lax would press with peculiar hardship upon persons whose income was about 160l. a-year, and who would have to pay a sum of 5l. out of that income.

House divided:—Ayes 255; Noes 149: Majority 106.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T, D. Bramston, T. W.
A'Court, Capt. Broadley, H.
Ackers, J. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Acton, Col. Bruce, Lord E.
Adare, Visct. Buck, L. W.
Adderley, C. B. Buckley, E.
Allix, J. P. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Antrobus, E. Bunbury, T.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Arkwright, G. Burroughes, H. N.
Ashley, Lord Campbell, Sir H.
Bagot, hon. W. Cardwell, E.
Bailey, J. Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Bailey, J. jun. Charteris, hon. F.
Baillie, Col. Chelsea, Visct.
Baillie, H. J. Chetwode, Sir J.
Baird, W. Cholmondeley, hn. H.
Baldwin, B. Christmas, W.
Balfour, J. M. Chute, W. L. W.
Bankes, G. Clayton, R. R.
Baring, hon. W. B. Clerk, Sir G.
Barneby, J. Clive, hon, R. H.
Barrington, Visct. Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Codrington, C. W.
Beckett, W. Collett, W. R.
Bell, M. Colvile, C. R.
Beresford, Major Compton, H. C.
Bernard, Visct. Coote, Sir C. H.
Blackburne, J. I. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Blakemore, R. Courtenay, Lord
Bodkin, W. H. Cresswell, B.
Boldero, H. G. Cripps, W.
Botfield, B. Darner, hon. Col.
Bradshaw, J. Darby, G.
Dawnay, hn. W. H. Jones, Capt.
Denison, E. B. Kelburne, Visct.
Dickinson, F. H. Kemble, Henry
D'Israeli, B. Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E
Douglas, Sir H. Knight, H. G.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Douglas, J. D. S. Law, hon. C. E.
Duffield, T. Lawson, A.
Dugdale, W. S. Lefroy, A.
Duncombebe, hon. A. Legh, G. C.
Duneombe, hon. O. Liddell, hon. H. T
East, J. B. Lincoln, Earl of
Eastnor, Visct. Lindsay, H. H.
Eaton. R. J. Litton, E.
Egerton, Lord F. Lockhart, W.
Eliot, Lord Long, W.
Emlyn, Visct. Lopes, Sir ft.
Escott, B. Lowther, J. H.
Farnham, E. B. Lowther, hon. Col.
Fellowes, E. Lyall, G.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Lygon, hon. General
Ffolliott, J. Mackenzie, T.
Fuller, A. E. Mackenzie, W. F.
Gaskell, J. Milnes M'Geachy, F. A.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Mahon, Visct.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Mainwaring, T.
Godson, R. Manners, Lord C. S.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Manners, Lord J.
Gore, M. March, Earl of
Gore, W. O. Marsham, Visct.
Goring, C. Martin, C. W.
Goulburn. rt. hon. H. Master, T. W. C.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Masterman, J.
Granby, Marquess of Meynell, Capt.
Grant, Sir A. C. Miles, W.
Greenall, P. Morgan, O.
Greene, T. Morgan, C.
Grogan, E. Mundy, E. M.
Halford, H. Muntz, G. F.
Hamilton, J. H. Murray, C. R. S.
Hamilton, W. J. Neeld, J.
Hampden, R. Neville, R.
Hanmer, Sir J. Newport, Visct.
Harcourt, G. G. Newry, Visct.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sit H. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Heathcote, Sir W. Norreys, Lord
Henley, J. W. O'Brien, A. S.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Ossulston, Lord
Herbert, hon. S. Owen, Sir J.
Hervey, Lord A. Paget, Lord W.
Hillsborough, Earl of Pakington, J. S.
Hinde, J. H. Palmer, R.
Hodgson, F. Patten, J. W.
Hodgson, R. Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Holmes, hn. W. A.'Ct. Peel, J.
Hope, hon. C. Pemberton, T.
Hope, A. Pigot, Sir R.
Hornby, J. Plumptre, J. P.
Hughes, W. B. Polhill, F.
Hussey, T. Pollington, Visct.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Pollock, Sir F.
Jackson, J. D. Price, R.
Jermyn, Earl Pringle, A.
Jocelyn, Visct. Pusey, P.
Johnstone, Sir J. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Johnstone, H. Rashleigh, W.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Reade, W. M.
Reid, Sir J. R. Talbot, C. R. M.
Repton, G. W. J. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Richards, R. Thornhill, G.
Rolleston, Col. Tollemache, J.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G. Tomline, G.
Round, C. G. Trench, Sir F. W.
Round, J. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Rous, hon. Capt. Trollope, Sir J.
Rushbrooke, Col. Trotter, J.
Russell, J. D. W. Tumor, C.
Ryder, hon. G. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Sanderson, R. Verner, Col.
Sandon, Visct. Vesey, hon. T.
Scott, hon. F. Vivian, J. E.
Seymour, Sir H. B. Waddington, H. S.
Seeppard, T. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Shirley, E. J. Welby, G. E.
Shirley, E. P. Whitmore, T. C.
Smith, A. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Smyth, Sir H. Wodehouse, E.
Somerset, Lord G. Wood, Col.
Sotheron, T. H. S. Wood, Col. T.
Stanley, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S.
Stanley, E. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Stewart, J. Young, J.
Stuart, H. TELLERS.
Sturt, H. C. Baring, H.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Fremantle, Sir. T.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Ainsworth, P. Craig, W. G.
Aldam, W. Crawford, W. S.
Anson, hon. Col. Curteis, H. B.
Bannerman, A. Dalrymple, Capt.
Barclay, D. Dawson, hon. T. V.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Drax, J. S. W. E.
Barnard, E. G. Duncan, Visct.
Bell, J. Duncan, G.
Berkeley, hon. C. Duncombe, T.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Dundas, Admiral
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Dundas, D.
Bernal, R. Ebrington, Visct.
Bernal, Capt. Evans, W.
Blackstone, W. S. Ferguson, Col.
Blake, M. Fielden, J.
Bodkin, J. J. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Bowring, Dr. Forster, M.
Brocklehurst, J. Gill, T.
Brotherton, J. Gordon, Lord F.
Browne, R. D. Granger, T. C.
Browne, hon. W. Grey, rt. hn. Sir G:
Buller, C. Guest, Sir J.
Buller, E. Hall, Sir B.
Busfeild, W. Hastie, A.
Byng, G. Hay, Sir A. L.
Callaghan, D. Hayter, W. G.
Carew, hon. R. S. Heathcoat, J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Heneage, E.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Heron, Sir R.
Chapman, B. Hollond, R.
Christie, W. D. Horsman, E.
Clay, Sir W. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Clements, Visct. Howard, hn. J. K.
Clive, E. B. Howard, Lord
Cobden, R, Howick, Visct.
Hume, J. Roche, E. B.
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Rumbold, C. E.
Hutt, w. Russell, Lord J.
James, W. Russell, Lord E.
Johnstone, A. Scholefield, J.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Seale, Sir J. H.
Langston, J. H. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Layard, Capt. Smith, B.
Leader, J. T. Smith, rt hn. R. V.
Leveson, Lord Somers, J. P.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mangles, R. D. Stanton, W. H.
Marjoribanks, S. Stewart, P. M.
Marsland, H. Stuart, Lord J.
Martin, J. Stuart, W. V.
Mitcalfe, H. Strickland, Sir G.
Morris, D. Strutt, E.
Morison, General Tancred, H. W.
Murphy, F. S. Thornely, T.
Murray, A. Traill, G.
Napier, Sir C. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Turner, E.
O'Brien, C. Villiers, hon. C.
O'Connell, M. Vivian, J. H.
O'Connell, M. J. Vivian, hon. Capt.
O'Connell, J. Wakley, T.
Ord, W Wall, C. B.
Paget, Col. Watson, W. H.
Palmerston, Visct. Wawn, J. T.
Parker, J. Wemyss, Capt.
Pechell, Capt. Williams, W.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Philips, G. R. Wood, B.
Philips, M. Wood, C.
Phillpotts, J. Wood, G. W.
Plumridge, Capt. Worsley, Lord
Protheroe, E. Wrightson, W. B.
Pryse, P. TELLERS.
Redington, T. N. Hill, Lord M.
Rice, E. R. Tufnell, H.

Bill read a third time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up a clause to exempt literary and scientific institutions, from the operation of the tax.

Mr. G. W. Wood

said, he feared the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would not effect the end desired. He moved to insert the words," or any part of any building."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

opposed the insertion of the words, on the ground that they would open a wide field for fraud.

The House divided on the question, that the proposed words be inserted:—Ayes 96; Noes 199: Majority 103.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Bernal, Capt.
Aldam, W. Bowring, Dr.
Barclay, D. Brotherton, J.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Browne, hon. W.
Bernal, R. Busfeild, W.
Callaghan, D. Martin, J.
Cavendish, hn. C. C. Mitcalfe, H.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. Morris, D.
Chapman, B. Murray, A.
Christie, W. D. Napier, Sir C.
Cobden, R. O'Brien, C.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. O'Connell, M. J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. O'Connell, J.
Craig, W. G. Paget, Col.
Crawford, W. S. Palmerston, Visct.
Curteis, H. B. Parker, J.
Dalrymple, Capt. Pechell, Capt.
Douglas, Sir H. Philips, G. R.
Duncan, Visct. Philips, M.
Duncan, G. Plumridge, Capt.
Duncombe, T. Protheroe, E.
Dundas, Admiral Pryse, P.
Dundas, D. Pulsford, R.
Ebrington, Visct. Redington, T. N.
Evans, W. Ricardo, J L.
Fielden, J. Russell, Lord J.
Forster, M. Russell, Lord E.
Gill, T. Scholefield, J.
Gordon, Lord F. Shiel, rt. hn. R. L.
Greenaway, C. Smith, J. A.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G. Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Hastie, A. Stewart, P. M.
Hayter, W. G. Stuart, Lord J.
Heneage, E. Stuart, W. V.
Holland, R. Strickland, Sir G.
Horsham, E. Strutt, E.
Howard, hn. C. W. G. Thornely, T.
Howard, hon. J. K. Tufnell, H.
Howard, P. H. Vivian, J. H.
Hume, J. Wakley, T.
Hutt, W. Watson, W. H.
James, W. Wawn, J. T.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Wilshere, W.
Langston, J. H. Wood, B.
Layard, Capt. Worsley, Lord
Leveson, Lord Wrightson, W. B.
Mangles, R. D. TELLERS.
Marjoribanks, S. Hill, Lord M.
Marsland, H. Wood, G. W.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Beresford, Capt.
Acland, T. D. Bernard, Visct.
A'Court, Capt. Blackburne, J. J.
Acton, Col. Blakemore, R.
Allix, J.P. Bodkin, W. H.
Antrobus, E. Boldero, H. G.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Botfield, B.
Arkwright, G. Bramston, T. W.
Ashley, Lord Broadley, H.
Bagot, hon. W. Brooke, Sir A. B.
Bailey, J. Bruce, Lord E.
Bailey, J. jun. Buckley, E.
Baillie, Col. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baird, W. Bunbury, T.
Baldwin, B. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Bankes, G. Burroughes, H. N.
Baring, hon. W. B. Campbell, Sir H.
Barneby, J. Carnegie, hon. Capt.
Barrington, Visct. Chelsea, Visct.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Chetwode, Sir J.
Beckett, W. Chute, W. L. R.
Clayton, R. R. Jones, Capt.
Clerk, Sir G, Kemble, H.
Clive, hon. R. H. Knatchbull, right hon.
Cochran, A. Sir E.
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Knight, H. G.
Collett, W. R. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Colvile, C. R. Law, hon. C. E.
Compton, H. C. Lefroy, A.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Liddell, hon. H. T.
Courtenay, Lord Lincoln, Earl of
Cripps, W. Lindsay, H. H.
Darby, G. Litton, E.
Dawnay, hon. W. H. Lockhart, W.
Denison, E. B. Long, W.
Dick, Q. Lopes, Sir R.
Dickinson, F. H. Lowther, hon. Col.
Douglas, Sir C. E. Lyall, G.
Douglas, J.D. S. Lygon, hon. General
Duffield, T. Mackenzie, W. F.
Duncombe, hon. A. M'Geachy, F. A.
Duncombe, hon. O. Malier, V.
East, J. B. Mainwaring, T.
Eastnor, Visct. Manners, Lord C. S.
Eaton, R. J. March, Earl of
Eliot, Lord Marsham, Visct.
Escott, B. Martin, C. W.
Farnham, E. B. Master, T. W. C.
Fellowes, E. Masterman, J.
Fuller, A. E. Meynell, Capt.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Morgan, O.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Morgan, C.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Munday, E. M.
Godson, R. Neeld, J.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Neville, R.
Gore, M. Newport, Visct.
Gore, W. O. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Goring, C. Northland, Visct.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H O'Brien, A. S.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Owen, Sir J.
Greenall, P. Paget, Lord W.
Greene, T. Pakington, J. S.
Grimsditch, T. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Grogan, E. Peel, J.
Halford, H. Pemberton, T.
Hamilton, J. H. Pigot, Sir R.
Hamilton, W. J. Plumptre, J. P.
Hamilton, Lord C. Polhill, F.
Harcourt, G. G. Pollington, Visct.
Hardinge, rt. hn, Sir H.. Pollock, Sir F.
Heathcote, Sir W. Pringle, A.
Henley, J. W. Rashleigh, W.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Reade, W. M.
Herbert, hon. S. Repton, G. W. J.
Hervey, Lord A. Richards, R.
Hillsborough, Earl of Rolleston, Col.
Hinde, J. H. Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Hodgson, F. Round, C. G.
Holmes, hon. W. A'Ct. Round, J.
Hornby, J. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hughes, W. B. Ryder, hon. G. D.
Hussey, T. Sanderson, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Sandon, Visct.
Jackson, J. D. Scott, hon. F.
Jermyn, Earl Sheppard, T
Johnstone, Sir J. Shirley, E. J.
Johnstone, H. Shirley, E. P.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G, H Somerset, Lord G.
Sotheron, T. H. S. Vesey, hon. T.
Stanley, Lord Waddington, H. S.
Stewart, J. Welby, G. E.
Stuart, H. Whitmore, T. C.
Sturt, H. C. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Sutton, hon. H. M. Williams, T. P.
Talbot, C. R. M. Wood, Col.
Thompson, Mr. A Wortley, hon. J. S,
Tomline, G. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Young, J.
Trollope, Sir J.
Trotter, J. TELLERS.
Tumor, C. Baring, H.
Tyrell, Sir J. T. Fremantle, Sir T.

Other amendments agreed to.

On the question, "that this bill do pass,"

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, that he had given notice of his intention, when the report on this bill was brought up, to move a clause to the effect, that the payment of the tax this bill imposed, should not be an essential ingredient for the registration of electors, and he had received a promise, that such a clause should be inserted. He did not, however, see it in the hill, as printed, since the report.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

replied, that a clause almost in the words the hon. Gentleman had himself suggested was incorporated in the bill, though it did not appear in the printed copy.

Mr. T. Duncombe

said, he was perfectly satisfied with that assurance on the part of the right hon.

Gentleman, Bill passed.