rous his self-devotion, the crusade was hopeless. (Cheers and laughter.)

He then proceeded to describe the position in which the party with whom he had hitherto acted were now placed: "We are here a soi-disant Liberal Opposition, with the ground cut away from under us, in a most helpless, hopeless state-a popular Opposition, without a solitary puff of popular sympathy. (Much cheering and laughter.) What then remains for me, who most sincerely thinks that free-trade, the gradual abandonment not of prohibition only, but protection, is absolutely essential to the welfare of your population, and therefore to the security of property, and the safety of the State?" It would be presumptuous in him to say what should be the course of opposition; but he felt quite sure what it ought not to be. He was quite sure that it ought not to give a factious resistance to measures which they had advocated when sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. How could Liberal Members advance their views? By Whig instrumentality? He thought not. Were they to organise an agitation for Universal Suffrage? He was not prepared to do so. How then was the chasm to be bridged which the noble Lord had created, when he slammed the door of the Constitution in the face of the unrepresented? What should they do?

They ought to make the best use of all the measures which showed that the right honourable Gentleman opposite designed to do justice to the people. And upon all those measures he would take the liberty of judging for himself.

He concluded by an earnest and
VOL. LXXXIV.

emphatic invocation to Sir Robert Peel, to avail himself of his unbounded power and influence for the benefit of the community:"You have the power to do justice to all classes. What a fearful responsibility that fact announces! Will you not, by timely concessions to the claims of justice and humanity, avert that fearful union of the starving workmen and their ruined masters, when they shall merge their mutual animosities in one fell cry for vengeance, and bury you and your monopolies under the ruins of the Constitution?"

He would say to the right honourable Gentleman, and he spoke with all sincerity and respect-he would say to him once more, in his own emphatic language, "Elevate your vision! look forth beyond a few feverish evanescent years, beyond the tiny segment of time with which we are personally conversant-when all the familiar faces which haunt these precincts have departed-when every pulse which beats within these walls shall have ceased for ever-when my name, and the names of ninetenths of those who hear me shall be utterly forgotten, or remembered only as household words, cherished by children and descendants-you will then be spoken of: for you there is no oblivion, you belong to history. You will be spoken of as an astute and able Minister, as a statesman fertile in expedients, as a debater perhaps unrivalled, as one who achieved pre-eminence in a field of the intensest competition. All this your enemies and detractors must admit. Will you not claim a higher and more enduring eulogy? Will you not enter among a far scantier and more glorious band-among those [H]

master-spirits, who have achieved supreme power, and used it like gods, to do justice to mankind(Loud cheers)-who have stamped their impress on the age in which they lived, and given an impulse, large, continuous, and abiding to human happiness and human virtue ?"

Mr. Roebuck made an elaborate comparison of the rival propositions before the country, noting their points of agreement and difference, which he concluded in this manner: "Taking, therefore, the House as it was, and judging between the leaders of both parties-seeing that the total abolition of these duties could not be effected, and that the House was not prepared to make such fiscal alterations as would give the people their rights, opposed, as such a proposition would be by the noble Lord and the right honourable Baronet-what was to be done? Was the country to be left in the financial state in which it would remain if the noble Lord's resolution were carried a state in which no man of forethought, honour, or courage could allow it to remain ? Under such circumstances, every man was called on to make a sacrifice; and he was not to be daunted by the cuckoonote of 'inquisitorial.' For his own part, he should vote in the way which he thought right; and if his constituents thought he was wrong, they could give an intimation to that effect in the proper way. We had acted like careless spendthrifts for more than ten years, and it was high time that we should make up our accounts, and pay over the counter. The money must be had somewhere: and if it pressed upon the industry of the people, they had the remedy in their own hands. It was in the power of

the constituency to turn out any man who voted against the reduc tion of the expenditure. As regarded the present proposition, he concurred in the opinion that a direct tax was the least expensive; at the same time, that it gave to the people the advantage of knowing what they had to pay. He should therefore vote for the proposition of the right honourable Baronet; and he hoped he should be able, hereafter, to persuade him to alter what was crying injustice in the measure when it went into Committee."

After a few more speeches the House divided, and Lord John Russell's Amendment was rejected by 285 to 188: majority, 97. The Bill was then read the first time.

When the Motion was made a few days afterwards for going into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Wallace suggested as a substitute for so odious an impost, that there should be an issue of Exchequerbills; but he added, that as he was unwilling to delay the production and discussion of the Tariff, he would not now press his Amendment on the House.

The House then went into Com. mittee, and the first question discussed was, at what period the operation of the tax should commence. The time finally decided on was the 5th of April, 1842.

The original proposition respecting schedule A was then affirmed. On schedule B, Lord Howick raised some objections, but without effect. On schedule C, Mr. Ricardo moved an Amendment, to exempt terminable annuities, and to subject them to special scales according to their market value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed this, quoting precedents against

the distinction; and the Amendment was rejected by 253 to 117.

A more important discussion took place on schedule D, whereby the incomes derived from professions, trades and employments, are made liable to the tax of 7d. in the pound. Mr. Roebuck moved that it be fixed at 34d. instead of 7d. He took the value of income arising from those sources to bear the same proportion to the value of an income arising from realised property, that an annuity for the life of a man of middle age would bear to the income of fixed property;that was about one-half; and he thought the tax on either species of income ought to bear a similar ratio. Mr. Goulburn opposed the proposal, pointing to other instances of inequality in taxation, which it was equally desirable, but impossible, to obviate, observing also, that the Amendment had no tendency to mitigate the inquisitorial nature of the tax, which was the great objection urged against it.

Mr. Hawes supported the Amendment, urging that the uncertainty attending professional gains, ought to exempt them from taxation in the same ratio as incomes derived from fixed property.

Sir Robert Peel observed, that no distinction had been proposed for incomes in schedules A and B, whatever the various durations of interest; fee-simple, tenancy-atwill, and life-interest, were all taxed equally. It was to be noted, however, that trade had a special exemption; the assessment being calculated on the profits of the three preceding years; if it were unsuccessful, it would be proportionably or altogether exempt; and various allowances were made for outgoings.

The other speakers by whom Mr. Roebuck's Amendment was supported, were Mr. Leader, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. James; it was opposed by Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Borthwick, and Sir R. Inglis. Finally, it was rejected by 258 to 112.

Mr. Sharman Crawford moved another Amendment to defeat this clause, which was rejected by 259 to 50.

A proposition by Sir Charles Napier, to exempt officers in the Army and Navy from taxation, under schedule É, which imposes the tax on pensions, stipends, &c., payable out of the public revenue, was also rejected by 205 to 32,

Having advanced so far, the progress of the Bill through Committee was afterwards very rapid, more than eighty clauses being disposed of in one night's debate, and a second sufficed to get through the Bill. But few amendments of any importance were proposed : among those was one by Mr. F. T. Baring, to exempt annuities, dividends, or shares, held by foreigners not resident in Great Britain. He quoted the opinions of several eminent statesmen in favour of such an exemption.

Sir Robert Peel said, that Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox exempted fo reign stockholders from political motives; but he did not see the distinction between property held in the funds, and mortgages or railroad shares; and if the foreign fundholder felt aggrieved, the recent rise of 4 per cent, in English funds gave him an opportunity of relieving himself.

On a division, Mr. Baring's Amendment was rejected by 203 to 40.

Mr. Hume endeavoured to limit

the duration of the Bill to one year, by moving that it should be in force till the 6th of April, 1843, which was negatived by 174 to 52 and another Amendment, moved by the same Member, that the profits of trade should be calculated on the last year only, instead of the average of three years, shared the same fate.

Mr. Benjamin Wood moved the clause before referred to, for enabling persons to set off losses under one schedule of income, against profits under another; but Sir Robert Peel declared himself against this Amendment, saying, that the admission of such a principle would totally change the Bill, and require a material enlargement of its provisions. It was consequently rejected by 110 to 66.

On the third reading being moved on the 30th May, Mr. Sharman Crawford moved the following Amendment:

"That as by the existing laws a large proportion of the people of this realm are excluded from voting for Members of Parliament; and as it also appears, by the reports of different Election Committees, that corrupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of Members to this present House of Commons; and as from both these causes, this House cannot be considered a fair representation of the people, it is therefore unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by Parliament, until all just causes of complaint with regard to the mode of electing the Members of this House shall be first redressed." Sir Robert Peel trusted that he should not be charged with disrespect, if he declined to discuss the Motion. It amounted to a declaration, that the House of Com

mons was incapable to discharge its functions.

Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Hume supported the Motion; Lord John Russell opposed it. It was rejected by 156 to 51.

Mr. Hume took the opportunity of stating his opinion, that instead of attempting to relieve the distress of the country, by imposing four millions of additional taxation, Sir Robert Peel should have reduced the expenditure; much of that excessive outlay was caused by Lord Palmerston, the evil genius of the country, who had led it into war after wat: "In 1792, the entire marine of this country numbered 16,000 seamen, boys, and marines. The amount of the Navy in 1817, after the war, was 19,000; the Army in that year numbered 22,000. In 1822, the number of our forces, Army, Navy, and Artillery, was increased to 97,000; and now the number is 146,000. The sending out 15,000 troops to Canada has cost 5,000,000l. The fleet on the coast of Syria used to cost 120,000l.; now it costs 1,000,000l.; and the employment of so greatly-increased a force there had altogether cost not less than 7,000,000l. or 8,000,000l. He objected to the needless and lavish promotion, unequalled in France, or Prussia, or any other country of a decidedly military character. The amount of our taxation in 1830 was 52,018,000l. Lord Grey's Government made a net reduction of 7,220,000l.; but, instead of the revenue falling off in proportion, it only fell to forty-nine millions and a quarter, the reduction having given a great relief to commerce. In 1837, the taxation began to increase, till in 1841 it was 54,000,000l.; and the distress of the country has grown so great,

that that amount will press as heavily as 70,000,000l. would have done in 1833. To send round a begging letter was not the way to meet it, but to reduce the military expenditure."

Mr. Hume added, that it was true he had given a vote of confidence to the Whigs, but he now thought it would have been wiser to have turned the Whigs out three years earlier.

Mr. F. T. Baring opposed the Motion with a recapitulation of the oft-repeated arguments against the nature of the tax.

Mr.Goulburn, having made some reply to Mr. Baring, stated that the expense of collecting the Property-tax of 1815 was 300,000l. He thought that under the present Bill the expense would not exceed half that sum. Under the old Act, the expense of the establishments was 117,998.; it was now intended to employ the Commissioners of Assessed Taxes, which would increase the expenditure of that department by only 30,000l. He had considered Sir R. Inglis's proposition to make 150l. the startingpoint, exempting incomes of that amount, and also the same amount in larger incomes, by taxing only the surplus above 150l. He found, however, on calculation, that such a modification would affect incomes to the aggregate amount of 33,500,000l.; and to exempt so large an amount, would materially affect the calculations on which the measure was based. The delay in passing this measure had elicited the proof, that the people sympathised with the Government in their endeavours to meet the exigencies of the country, without laying a burthen on the industrious classes. The number of signatures to the petitions

against the Bill had been insignificant.

After some further discussion, the House divided on the third reading, when there appeared for the Motion, 199; against it, 69: majority for the third reading, 130. The Bill then passed.

In the House of Lords it was subjected to little discussion. It passed a second reading sub silentio, and went through committee without alteration; and it was not till the third reading, that any debate on the measure took place. On that occasion, the Marquess of Lansdowne, recapitulating some of the arguments against the Incometax which had been urged by its opponents in the House of Commons, and which have already been noticed in our summary of the proceedings there, moved a resolution in the following terms :

"That while this House is unwilling to obstruct the progress of measures calculated to supply the present deficiencies of the public income, and make it fully adequate to meet the public charges, it cannot refrain from recording its opinion, that a judicious alteration of the duties affecting corn, sugar and timber, would have greatly diminished the amount of additional taxation required by the exigencies of the State; and would, at the same time, from its effect in increasing the comforts of all classes, and lessening the privations of the great body of the people, together with such additions as might have been obtained from some other sources, have been preferable to a tax on income in the present circumstances of the country."

Lord Brougham condemned the Income-tax with all his powers of invective, but said he could find no