Debates ants Vested:fags in Varlfament.

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S FINANCIAL MEASIGIE£3.

When the motion was made in the House of Commons, on Monday, to go into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Fox MAIILE said that parts of Sir Robert Peel's financial scheme, the Income-tax and the alteration of the Tariff respecting the importation of live cattle, had created considerable alarm in Scotland ; and he asked Sir Robert to defer taking the sense of the House on his Income-tax duty until after Easter, in order that the people of Scotland might have an opportunity of communicating with their Representatives.

Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that as the resolution was only preliminary to the introduction of a bill, the people of Scotland would have ample opportunity of urging their claims in the progress of the bill. He had received many communications from Scotland about the Income-tax ; and, generally speaking, considering that they referred to a tax, their tenour was extremely satisfactory.

After a conversation on the order of proceeding with the Income-tax and the Corn-importation bill, the House went into Committee; Lord JoHN RUSSELL first,;.onouncing that he should oppose the Income-tax at every stswz.--on the resolution, on the report, the first reading, the rof....1-4:441den'g, and the third reading. Mr. HAWES reopened the arguments against the measure in Com- mittee. So odious was the tax in 1816, that, although Lord Bexley made many important modifications in it, the Ministry, which was as strong as the present is, was obliged to abandon it. He cited two peti- tions presented by the Corporation of London in that year, which com- plained in strong terms of the vexatious and oppressive nature of the impost. He denied that the imposition of an income-tax should be taken as a proof of a desire to uphold the interests of the poor ; for it was impossible that the tax could be levied upon the capital of the rich without ultimately affecting the poor. And be denied its necessity. Mr. Macgregor's pro forma Tariff in the Import-duties Report proposed to raise the revenue derived from timber, by an adjustment of duties, from 1,600,194/. to 2,500,0001.; Mr. Deacon Hume thought that 1,290,000/. might be obtained by similar means ; but let it be taken only at 500,000/. No one doubts that 750,000/. might be obtained from an alteration of the sugar-duties, and 500,0001. from corn; making in all, from timber, sugar, and corn, 1,750,000/. Sir Robert Peel had made no mention of a tax on real property by descent, from which an enormous revenue might be derived. And there were many other sources abundantly sufficient to enable them to dispense with an in- come-tax ; which could never be justified merely by a retaliatory war on the Afghans—a people fighting bravely, if barbarously, for their inde- pendence. Mr. Hawes next proceeded to show the unequal bearing of an income-tax— Mr. Sayer, in his work on the Property-tax, attempted to show the ratio of value between different kinds of property. He assumed 100/. derived from land by the owner in fee-simple as the standard : he compared with that the interest on mortgages and incomes secured on land, and estimated the latter as compared with the former in the ratio of 90/. to 100/. Annuities in perpetuity from the public stocks and securities he estimated at a ratio of 85/. to 100/.; the produce of capital employed in manufactures at 75/. to 100!.; the rents of lands entailed at 70/. to 100!.; the pay of public officers at 60/. to 100/. But when became to the profits of trade and occupation of land, principally or alone arising from skill and industry, and the profits of professional men arising from the same sources, then he said that they only bore a ratio of 50/. to 100/. Let them take the calculations as they pleased, still they must know that there was an enormous difference between incomes derived from land in fee-simple and from the labour and skill of the manufacturer ; and though perhaps not perfectly accurate, yet still the scale showed the inherent injustice of any thing in the shape of an income-tax. But there was another way in which that might 'be answered very successfully. Application had been made to the right honourable Baronet by many persons in London, to consider some adjustment of the duty on Terminable Annuities. From a paper which be held in his hand, it appeared that there were 1,500 annuities for a term of years which would terminate in October 1859, and 800 which would terminate in January 1860. The total number of the two descriptions was 2,300. The value of those annuities was estimated at 30,000!.; and if that sum were invested in the Three per Cent Consols, the income arising from it, when charged with the duty of 7d. in the pound, would produce only about 291. 3s. 4d. ; but the annuities themselves, being charged with the tax, produced a sum of three times that amount. Could that be just ? Before they were warranted in imposing such a tax, the Government were bound to show them that it was perfectly inevitable ; but the right honourable Baronet had not done that. There was another observation in Mr. Sayer's book—a most able work—which he would state to the House. Mr. Sayer stated that the gross estimated amount of income, when the former Property-tax was imposed, was 170,000,000/. ; but taking that as the gross amount, yet in schedule A, according to the returns made to the Tax-office, 10,000,000/. were never returned at all. In schedule B, 10,000,000/. were never subjected to the tax. In sche- dule C, 6,000,000/. were deficient ; and in schedule D, 13,000,000/ ; in all, 39,000,000L, or about 30 per cent, were never subjected to the Income-tax. So that, with all their imposition of this odious tax, their power of summoning witnesses and inquisitorial efforts, they failed, and justly failed, to realize any thing like the assessed amount. How they did that fall on the honest man! Sir Robert Peel had drawn a distinction between a tax on property or income and a tax on the necessaries of life : but by the Corn-laws he imposed a tax of 20 per cent, according to Mr. Jones Loyd, on the in- come of the lowest class of artisans the band-loom weavers. He should join in every opposition to so Odious a bill.

Sir Wrt.uem CLAY argued against direct taxation, and adduced many objections to the collection of an income-tax ; which he denounced as the means of upholding the monopolies in corn and sugar. Sir Robert Peel's measures had lost him the support of the middle class, who form the strength and pride of England.

Sir GEORGE CLERK spoke at considerable length ; but his speech con- sisted mainly of a repetition of Sir Robert Peel's arguments in favour of the measure. In respect to the inequality of the tax, he observed that the objection was unavoidable, and not peculiar : the House-tax fell with peculiar severity on the poor lieutenant with a large family, while the rich bachelor was able to avoid it altogether. He reminded the House, that when the Land-tax was first laid on, it was meant to apply to personal property and stock in trade ; but, after existing for some time only in name, that law was repealed sub silently in 1833, and personal property is now entirely exempt.

Lord DALWENY opposed the Government measure— The right honourable Baronet's measure had the merit of boldness and comprehensiveness : it was a bold and courageous attempt to relieve the finances, and to apply a vigorous remedy to a lingering and chronic disease. The measure proceeded on an intelligent and definite principle, and was cer- tainly a more fair and creditable one than any paltry and pusillanimous expe- dient that would substitute palliatives for remedies. There were, however, only two cases in which he could support the proposition. The first case would be, supposing the empire to be assailed by a foreign foe, desirous of anni- hilating her power and blotting out her name among the nations. The second case would be, if the right honourable Baronet had come forward and stated that a great financial deficiency existed, together with an unprecedented de- pression of trade and industry—that enterprise was paralyzed, manufactures without a market, capital vanishing, and cities, once flourishing, reduced, like Paisley, to ruin and bankruptcy ; and further, if he said that he was about to find new channels for commerce and industry, by doing away with the restric- tions that pressed upon trade and giving a new stimulus to enterprise—if he then added that the effects of his measures would be slow and gradual, while the necessity for an increase of revenue was quick and immediate,—in such a case, Lord rialmeny should have been as willing to support the right honourable Baronet's proposition as he was now determined to give it his un- qualified opposition.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD had in 1833 supported Sir Robert Peel, against his own friends, in the opposition to an income-tax ; and he was not therefore chargeable with a factious opposition to the tax now proposed— Although ready to vote for the necessary estimates—although not prepared to deny even the necessity for such a tax—he still demanded that its necessity should be proved ; but Sir Robert Peel had not shown that he bad exhausted every other resource. In 1833, Sir Robert Peel thus characterized an income- tax—" It was a tax which, accompanied by severe and unsparing scrutiny into private affairs, would encourage fraud and perjury." No one could say that it would not have the effect of forcing capital abroad ; and if this was admitted, how could it be maintained that the working-classes would not be affected by the measure ? For these reasons, then—first, because he believed that the universal feeling of the country would be opposed to such a tax ; in the second place, because he believed it would drive capital abroad, he left bound to give the tax his determined opposition. He had always considered the income-tax as one reserved for time of war, not such a war as that in India, but a European war—for a time when the circumstances of the country were such as to prevent the transfer of capital: the people then would submit to the tax, obnoxious as it was, because they knew that the existence of the country would almost wholly depend on it. He contended that it was unnecessary ; pointing to many other sources,—as Mr. Baring's propositions of last year, which would have raised 1,500,0001. ; Sir Robert Peel's own plan for raising 400,0001., in Ireland ; the revival of the tax on leather, which produced 300,0001. or 400,0001. ; or the renewal of some of the 25,000,0001. of taxes repealed since the war. He admitted that a revision of the Tariff would be generally advantageous ; but bow was it proposed to deal with the main articles of import in the Tariff before the House ?— Be remembered, that before the Import-duties Committee a table was given in by Mr. Porter of seventeen principal articles, the revenue on which amounted to no leas than 94 per cent of the whole revenue arising from the Customs. How were they dealt with by this Tariff? They were literally untouched, ex- cept in some trifling degree, for the purpose of introducing these pernicious differential duties. The Tariff dealt with three of the main articles, it was true; but how ? It had dealt with the article of corn, but in a manner which was utterly insufficient for any good purpose to the country : next, it had dealt with coffee, and with the principle upon which the right honourable Baronet had dealt with coffee nobody could quarrel; but he thought that even upon that article the right honourable Baronet bad made an unnecessary sacrifice. If the course had been adopted wh'ch his noble friend (Lord John Russell) had suggested, of leaving the colonial duty as it was and of reducing the foreign duty to 9d., it would have produced a great benefit to the consumer by the re- duction of price' and an increased revenue might have been obtained. In re- spect of timber also, he conceived the right honourable Baronet to be making a large, a needless, and a wanton sacrifice of revenue—a loss estimated at not leas than 600,000/. If this were so, then the necessity of an income-tax would be done away with. The great articles of sugar, of wines, and fruits, were untouched.

Mr. Wood finished by quoting three sentences from the speech of Mr. Fox, when arguing against an income-tax in 1798. He said- " It seems the state requires great sacrifices : I grant it : but let me ask if the necessity is such as to require great injustice ? "

Mr. Pot:m=1r &ROPE and Mr. Wzimax Wn.azaata advocated a pro- perty-tax in opposition to an income-tax. Sir GEORGE GREY then rose and taunted the Ministerial Members with their silence— He was not surprised that honourable gentlemen opposite should wish to come to a division; but he was surprised that, upon a question of such magni-

tude and of such importance—upon a question that vitally affected the consti- tuencies of the two most important parts of the empire, Scotland and Eng- land—there should be such a remarkable silence observed among those who

were anxious, by their votes upon that occasion to show their confidence in the

right honourable Baronet. (Cheers.) Yes, they were willing to testify their confidence by their vote, whilst they shrunk from the obloquy of advocating

his measures by their speeches. Be knew not whether this remarkable silence was part of the discipline that had been imposed on honourable gentlemen op- posite, whose votes were accepted by the right honourable gentleman on condi- thm that his measures should not be marred by their speeches. ( Vociferous

Opposition cheers.) They had recently expressed to their constituents their vote and confidence in the right honourable Baronet, and their belief that his

measures would be acceptable to those constituents : would any one of them get up and say that the right honourable gentleman's measure would be accept- able to his constituents ?

He did not deny that some tax might be necessary—

He did not stand there to assert that no tax should be imposed ; or that, if the measures proposed by her Majesty's late Government were now to be

adopted, it might be unnecessary to impose some tax in order to make up the present amount of deficiency ; but the question was, whether a tax which had been denounced in 1816 as the most odious, the most inquisitorial, and the most intolerable that human ingenuity could devise, should, without the exist- ence of that necessity which was created by the circumstances in which the country was then involved, be the very first they ought now to have recourse to, in order to meet what the right honourable Baronet himself conceived to be a slight deficiency in the revenue as compared with the expenditure of the country. He had no doubt, whatever might be the opinion of many honour- able Members on the opposite side of the House, who had so recently and so deeply pledged themselves to their constituents, that, in spite of those opinions, and in spite of the opinions of their constituents, the right honourable Baronet's proposition would be supported by a large majority of the House. He, how- ever, was fully confident, that, after a short experience of this tax, with its in- quisitorial process, which the right honourable Baronet was so slow to detail to the House, its repeal would be Indignantly demanded by those who were now about blindly to follow the right honourable Baronet. He called on Colonel Sibthorp to resist the new appointments in- volved in the construction of machinery for the collection of the tax, and reiterated his taunt of silence ; urging the silent Members to bring forth their valuable explanations in favour of the plan.

Colonel Sum:four did not know why Sir George Grey should have poked him up, as it were ; but he had no objection to give his opinions. And so he went on to say, that instead of asking that great man, Sir Robert Peel, why he resorted to these financial measures, they ought rather to ask the late Government how it happened that their mis- management, their duplicity, and their scandalous misgovernment, had placed the finances in so deplorable a condition ?

The late Government (continued the Colonel, interrupted by frequent cheers and laughter) were afraid to meet the evil: they were not men of courage enough to adopt an efficient remedy—they only dealt with low, vulgar, and flippant artifices, which deserved not to be called remedial measures. The noble Lord was now shrinking behind the two pillars which had so often hid- den him : he felt indignant when he saw that noble Lord venting his spleen against the right honourable Premier—spleen which had its origin in the smart he felt at the loss of power, of place, and of salary—spleen which resulted from envy of that manliness of conduct on the part of the present Premier which so strangely contrasted with his own.

The debate was here broken off by the motion of Mr. BLEwrrr, that the Chairman should report progress ; and the House was cleared for a division, hut none took place. Mr. BLEwirr, however, persevered. Sir ROBERT PEEL called upon Sir George Grey to resist the motion for adjournment, after the language which he had just used. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he should vote against the adjournment. It was ne- gatived, by 328 to 51. Mr. BLEwlyr then moved that the Chairman do leave the chair ; urging that the country ought to have further time to consider Sir Ro- bert Peel's propositions. A sharp altercation succeeded. Sir GEORGE GREY wished the debate to continue. Mr. Fox Mainz had voted in the minority, and intended again to vote on the same side' as he wished to see the vote on Sir Robert Peel's resolution definitively delayed. Mr. VERNON SMITH censured Sir Robert Peel's discourtesy to the House, in not entering into any argument to defend his machinery. Sir James GRAHAM said, that there would be ample opportunity for discussion at future stages of the measure. Sir ROBERT PEEL complained, that some- tunes he was charged with speaking too much, and sometimes too little : he really thought it more respectful to keep silence than merely to re- peat former arguments. As to the absorbing interest in the subject, he had counted the Members present in the House since half-past seven, and upon one occasion there were but twenty-three on the opposite benches, and but few more, he must confess, on his own side of the House. Sir GEORGE GREY said he had at the same moment counted, and he saw that there were precisely twenty-three Members on each side of the House. After some more contest, the House again divided ; and Mr. Blewitt's motion was negatived by 241 to 91.

Mr. THOMAS Dtrzacorafax then renewed the motion that he Chairman report progress ; in order' he said, to allow time for a discussion of the measure in the country. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that at the former division the late Ministers voted with the majority ; at the last, they re- tired from the House ; which indicated their opinion against adjourn- ment on the preliminary question. Nevertheless, he counselled his friends not to protract a contest with a minority determined to perse- vere: but he was persuaded that for all that trouble they would reap their reward. The Committee then adjourned, till Wednesday. On Wednesday, the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair was met by Mr. BLEwrrr with two amendments ; but the SPEAKER declared them to be out of order, and the House went into Committee.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR had hailed Sir Robert Peel's measure as a means of revising the taxes which weigh most heavily on the national industry; but the Tariff and the apportionment of the Income-tax had severely disappointed him, and he never could consent to such a tax unless more cogent reasons were adduced.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER had been disappointed in Sir Robert Peel, because he had not acted with his usual moderation and firmness : he had brought the Income-tax forward with some degree of precipi- tancy; and he had kept up a tone of constant incrimination agaiust the Opposition side of the House, with constant appeals to party- spirit, as though he rested h.a case less on justice and good policy than on party. The ominous silence which greeted the details of the Income-tax and the Tariff had induced him to have recourse to such appeals to secure votes. Mr. Buller would not enter into party topics. He thought the measure likely to exercise a great influence on the financial history of the country — The proposition to have recourse to an income-tax in a time of peace was the most Important innovation ever proposed in that history. He was not versed in the language of praise, he not often used it ; but he would give the right honourable Baronet credit for the great holiness and scope of his measure. It was not the production of a narrow-minded man. The right honourable Ba- rone did not propose to glide over the difficulties of the moment and avoid collision with them. But, great, bold, and honest as the measure was, it seemed to him to be nothing but a great mischief, and as rash, unwise, and pernicious a measure as was ever proposed in the history of this country. This was no question of how they would get their supplies for a single year. The right honourable Baronet proposed this tax for three years: but was there any gen- tleman in the House who believed that if the right honourable Baronet sue. ceeded for three years the experiment would rest there ? It was far too conve- nient a plan to a Minister for raising his supplies; far too easy a mode of getting over the Budget of the year, instead of proposing new taxes. merely to propose an addition of one half or one per cent to the Income-tax, in order to provide any amount of revenue Ile might want. They must view it, therefore, as a great change in the financial policy of the country, and as substituting the theory of direct for indirect taxation.

Unlike speakers who had preceded him, Mr. Buller was opposed not merely to an income-tax. hut to a property-tax- If the owners of landed property in this country, and funded gentlemen in that House, wished to ;dace a tax upon themselves and not on others, he should say that it was a very just. wise, and noble measure; they had a perfect right to do so, and he would not gainsay it It reminded him of the observation of the Bishop, when be and another right reverend Prelate were asked by James the First whe;ber he had a right to take his people's money without their consent? one of them answered, that undoubtedly his Msjcsty had a right to take such property : then turning to the other Bishop, a more independent man, the King put the same question to him; and the Bishop's answer was a memorable and striking one—" Undoubted'," said he, " your Majesty has a right to take my reverend brother's money, because he has given your Majesty his consent." In the same way, if that House came forward and offered a property • tax out of its own income, there was no doubt that a great part of the tntding commu- nity would not object to it ; hut he must frankly say, he was afraid that when he opposed an income-tax be was also opposing a property-tax, because he feared there was not magnanimity enough in the Houses of f'arliament to in- duce them to carry a property-tax without an income-tax.

Mr. Buller recited several objections to an income-tax— It is laid equally on income derived from realized property and on income for uncertain periods. In some cases they laid it on the whole income of the year, in others not; for the whole of a professional man's gains would he taxed, but a legacy received within the year would be treated as capital, and escape. Sir Hobert said that he took the machinery adopted by Lord Henry Petty, hoping that the esteem felt for Lord Lansdowne among the Opposition would neutralize objections : but that was the very bill against which the country had revolted. One strong objection to the measure is its demoralis- ing tendency, in the encouragement to men to commit fraud in order to deceive each other. The statistics of fraud it was difficult to get at, except when they were exemplified at assizes. (Laughter.) Therefore, to tell the exact extent to whirls this species of fraud had been carried at the last Income-tax was impossible. But one fact be might mention, illustrating very strongly the truth of what lie was urging: under the tax of 1816, it was found that the great manufacturing interests d' Manchester were assessed at only 300,000/ per annum, while it was stated in the House at the same time that Glasgow, the manufactures of which were not half so extensive as those of Manchester, was rated at 600,000L; making it clear, that if .Glasgow had been fairly rated, Manchester had paid not one quarter of what was fairly due. The tax was for the first time to be imposed during peace, when capital can be transferred to the Continent ; and if the right honourable Baronet bad read the history of British commerce and manufactures for the last dozen years, he must be aware that this transference of capital had actually, to a great extent, taken place to Belgium, Germany, France, and other Continental states.

These reasons would apply to any income-tax, but to Sir Robert Peel's there were peculiar objections— The first of these peculiar objections was to the smallness of the sum that was to be raised. Had it been a large amount that was to be raised—had it been for some stupendous object f v which the country was to be called upon to make a gigantic effort, ea, for instance, for the proposal of Mr. Ricardo to tax property directly in order to pay off the National Debt—for such an object it might be worth while to raise by an income-tax 10,000,000/. or 12,000,000/. But when the right honourable Baronet proposed to raise, in this manner, only 3,500,01101, was it not fair to put it to him whether the objections to such a tax did not mainly apply to the machinery—to the difficulty of assesstnent- to the demoralization—t, the injustice of the levy—the inquisitorial nature of the inquiries, and so 011 ? and whether these objections did not apply with equal force to a levy of one million or ten ? Was it not, then, a pity to incur all the odium and tisk all the evil for the small sum now required ? Let it he borne ii mind, that party is certainly more violent now than when the former tax was abandoned ; and could men help dreading to reveal their affairs to neighbours, and perhaps to their bitterest political opponents? To foreign nations, so extreme a resort would appear, not an act of vigour, but of alarm : at home, the hatred would he augmented by the reflection that the tax was imposed, not for the purpose of secur- ing a revenue, but to prevent a revenue being raised from other more legitimate resources—to keep up monopolies. To him it appeared a most unwise thing, in a country where so large a portion of every man's income was taken from him for public purposes, to let each individual know the exact anmunt of his contribution—

The advantage of indirect taxation was, that it was paid by the tradesman you dealt with, being virtually charged in the bills ; prices, too, varying much more from other causes than the amount imposed by taxes (at least, except in the cases of sugar, tobacco, tea, Ike.); so that when the price of an article muse, and you complained, you were convinced that it could not be owing to the tax, which had remained stationary, and the rise in price being besides far greater than the amount perhaps of the tax, you would complain probably of your tradesmen, and say. " What a cheat that butcher isl" but you would never complain of the Government on account of such casual rises in price. Now, if you substituted for this system a plan of direct taxation, you would

increase the danger of making the people perpetually discontented with the amount of taxation they were called upon to pay. Perhaps it would be Bind, that the people knowing what they bad to pay, extravagance would be more effectually checked. He wished that the introduction of this tax should lead to a more careful checking of the national expenditure. But he asked this— might it not lead to something more important and not so beneficial? might not the people be led to think, with a large direct tax, that reduction was use- less, and that the only thing to be looked for was an extinguishment of the National Debt ?

Mr. Bailer showed how the general dislike had always been directed against direct taxes : the Hearth-tax, the Property-tax, the House-tax, and a part of the Window-tax, and last year the tax on stock in trade, revived by a decision in a court of law' had been abandoned, in defer- ence to popular feeling. And was not Sir Robert Peel's tax needlessly enhanced, even on his own data ?-

The amount of property liable to the income-tax in 1815 was 141,150,000/. ; which at 7d. in the pound would produce 4,100,000/.; and had the country made no advance since then ? In 1815, the Legacy-duty was paid on 26,000,0001.; in 1839 on 42,945,0001.; from which it might be inferred that the personal property of the country had increased in the proportion of 42 to 26. Since the war, the taxes repealed were 25,000,0001.; but the revenue did not suffer to that extent, for there was an increase on the other branches of the public income to the extent of 10,000,0001.; which left the total deficiency arising from the repeal of taxes at only three-fifths of the sum repealed. From these facts, nothing could be more evident than that the right honourable Baronet asked for more money than he wanted.

Why should not some of those repealed taxes be reimposed ? Not that he would resume the old postage ; for were it proposed to retract that boon, so energetic and so numerous would be its defenders that no Ministry could resist. And no argument had been brought to show that the Budget of last year was any thing like so fallacious as Sir Robert Peel had represented it to be : why not carry out that plan ? Indeed, the smaller changes proposed in the Tariff would make it im- possible much longer to maintain the monopolies of corn and sugar : Mr. Buller gave one year's duration for the corn-monopoly, less for sugar.

Dr. ROWRING reiterated the objections to the Income-tax. He ac- knowledged that Sir Robert Peel's Tariff made the first step towards establishing a system of commercial liberality ; but as to the details of that measure, he must reserve his opinion ; and in respect of the measure immediately before the House, he must vote against Sir Robert.

Mr. Wii.ussi Smrrn O'Biumi found it hard to know how to vote ; for he had formerly heard many Liberal Members contend that a property-tax was preferable to any indirect taxes ; but now that a property-tax was pro- posed, for such it was in principle, many of those gentlemen were about to oppose it. He had studied the subject ; and the highest Whig au- thorities, as Sir Henry Parnell, advocated a permanent property-tax, moderate in time of peace, to be increased during war. He thought it should only be resorted to in a time of emergency ; but it is so now. Although he preferred a fixed corn-duty, he could not say that a great revenue might not be derived from that duty under Sir Robert Peel's bill. With respect to sugar, due regard must be paid to the protection of our Colonies in competition with Slave-countries ; and in that view perhaps, the duties could not be lowered : and he thought that Sir Ro- bert Peel could not have gone further in the changes of the Tariff. Many said that some of the 25,000,000/. of taxes repealed since the war might be revived ; but nobody had laid his finger on a particular tax as the one which should be renewed. Mr. Hawes proposed to lay the whole burden on land : but when such a proposition was brought forward by Mr. Hume, it was repudiated by the late Government. In short, he was of opinion, that Sir Robert Peel had resorted to a tax that was un- objectionable, because it called only on those to pay who had the means. He thanked him for his tax on Irish absentees, and saw no objection to the additional tax on spirits in Ireland : he was without the means of offering an opinion as to the increased stamp-duty. He should have reckoned the propositions wise and statesmanlike had they been made by the late Ministry ; and he could not pronounce them unwise and un- statesmanlike being made by their successors.

Mr. ROBERT PALMER disliked the Income-tax, but admitted its ne- cessity. He proposed, however, that the tax on trades and professions should be lowered from 3 to 2 per cent ; and the deficiency thus created might be made up by withholding the reduction of the Timber- duties, of which he did not approve.

Mr. TENNYSON VEYNCOURT denied that the Income-tax could be called a Property-tax. He proposed that the income of trades and professions should be charged 2d. instead of 7d. in the pound ; the difference to be made up from other sources, such as the renewal of taxes repealed since the war. And, on the part of his constituents, he expressed a fear that the Commissioners for the tax would be Tory agents. (Cries of "No, no !") Sir Joint Raz Ram, as a man of business, declared that whatever ob- jection he might entertain to an Income-tax, he thought it necessary under existing circumstances ; and he gave his general approval to the Minister's plan.

Mr. WARD said, it was edifying to mark the humility with which honourable gentlemen on the Ministerial side expressed their approval of measures of which they declared their dislike. He did not, however, insist that an income-tax was only a tax for war-time—it might be ne- cessary in peace. According to a minute calculation that had been made, for every shilling that a poor man places on a grocer's counter, he receives 6id. in goods and 5id. goes to pay taxes ; and such an im- mense amount of taxation, it must be remembered, has to be paid out of wages already lowered by competition. If, then, Mr. Ward had to choose between a tax of 3 or 5 per cent on property, and this system of indirect taxation, he should prefer the former. Sir Robert Peel's, how- ever, was not a tax upon realized property, but upon property in course of accumulation. He could not conceive how Sir Robert could make out that his Tariff would save as much to a man in living as the pro- perty tax would take from him : for his alterations not only left un- touched the great articles of corn and sugar, but also others, such as butter and cheese, in which the humbler classes have a deep interest. He did not see either how the reduced duty on cattle could increase the importation : for cattle are nowhere scarcer than in France ; from Germany we can loillgor no supplies ; and he believed that Holstein is the only place wlieifce eattle are exported to any extent.

Mr.411rX.7-rnx.is Arrwoork, thought the question ought not to be hur- ried forward; for the more consideration it received, the better would it be for Ministers themselves. He thought that a modification might be devised of the most unjust principle in it, which went to tax the doubt- fed profits of trade equally with fixed property, short annuities equally with permanent annuities. He cited a case in illustration, with a threat— He was himself a partner in a trading concern, and he and his partners were the purchasers of an annuity from the Government in 1835 for ten years : the amount of that annuity was, in round numbers, 21,700/. a year ; and it would expire in January 1845, having somewhat less than three years yet to run. Did he and his partners carry that 21,700/. a year to their account as permanent in- come? No they accurately discriminated what was capital and what was in- come : 6,000/. was the annual sum they divided among themselves ; the ba- lance, 15,7001., they carried to the account of capital. Was it just, then, that they should be taxed on more than the 6,000/. ? And yet by the proposed measure they were taxed for capital as well as for profit. Unless the Govern- ment meant to tax the capital of the country' Mr. Attwood and his partners objected to having their capital taxed. Would they tax the rent and the pur- chase-money of an estate ? He would put the case of a man who had a mort- gage of 20,000/. on an estate and who received the principal in the coarse of the present year, and the 1,000/. interest with it : would they tax the principal with the interest, or the interest alone? His belief was, that if the Govern- ment should proceed to impose this tax not only on the 6,000/. income but on the 15,700/. of capital, he and his partners would have a right to call on the Government, as sellers of the property, to reimburse them the 3 per cent paid. They had purchased the annuity from the Government on the authority of a contract which explained the conditions, what the Government had to sell, and to what they would bind themselves. The consideration which he and his partners had given to the Government was 200,000/. of Bank Annuities for this Terminable Annuity. The conditions on which they had bought the pro- perty were, "that it would not nor should not be liable to any other imposition than what the Bank Annuities should or would be liable to." This was one of those cases which showed the necessity for mature consideration. Nevertheless, he should support the Income-tax as a whole, yielding to the important necessity of supporting his political party. But he would not pledge himself to vote for the duty on coal or the alteration in the timber-duty. He reprobated a declaration of Sir Robert Peel, that the country had reached the limits of taxation on consumption— The right honourable Baronet had told them that the attempt to raise 1,900,000/. on articles of consumption had succeeded in nothing but in the impoverishment, destitution' suffering, and want of the people. He thought that no statement had ever fallen on his ear more fatal to the interests of the country, more ominous of declining power and sinking empire ; and then the right honourable Baronet proceeded to say, "Now, in the midst of this distress, I proceed with great measures of commercial reform." Commercial reform! he took up that word, and asked the Committee to consider what had been the amount of taxes levied upon the necessaries of life consumed by the people at the time the war commenced ? What was the amount levied on the same com- modities? Why, at the time the war was commenced, 80,000,000/. were levied upon the people; and even then it had been stated that the limits of taxation had not been reached. Now the taxes levied on the people are 50,000,000/. During twenty-five years of peace the distress of the country has increased; and in that period there have been continued "commercial reforms"! the foundation of Joint Stock Banks, reciprocity treaties, and alteration of the Navigation-laws; and the Chinese war is the result of another "commercial reform "!

The real cause of the distress, Mr. Attwood insisted, is the fluctua- tion in the currency ; and he pledged himself clearly to demonstrate, to any body of men that might be appointed for the purpose, ready and facile means of preserving the value of money free from all fluctuation, and of preventing the rise of prices.

Mr. ROEBUCK, remarking that Sir Robert Peel's bitterest critics were on his own side, rendered his meed of praise for having proposed a measure plain easy of comprehension, straightforward, honest ; a mea- sure which the country understood to mean this—" If you are deter- mined to raise a gross revenue, the people shall know distinctly and directly in what manner they are to pay for it." It was a most compre- hensive scheme ; and it did not lie in the months of those who supported the late Government in the attempt to supply the deficiency to criticize the present measure—

The revenue was deficient, and no complaint against the right honourable Baronet for that deficiency could be justified from either side of the House. The deficiency had been created not by this or that side of the House, but by both sides of the House. It was not a Whig or a Tory deficiency, it was a deficiency created by the House of Commons itself. Honourable gentlemen opposite might talk of the wars in Syria and elsewhere : but they were as much the wars of one side as the other, for both sides had concurred in the increased expenditure of the country ; in fact, all were intent upon spending, and never thought of saving.

He thanked Sir Robert Peel for no longer " botching " the finances of the country. He could not comprehend Mr. Charles Buller's ob- jection to direct taxation—

Why, if 20,000,000/. were to be paid, could it be important to the commerce of the country whether it were paid directly by the people, or raised by indirect taxation on commodities ? "But," said his honourable and learned friend, "there is danger in letting the people know how much they pay." What ! was a Representative of the People—sitting on the Liberal side of the Commons House of Parliament—one prepared to have faith in the powers of the people to govern themselves—was his honourable and learned friend to create himself now into a sort of high priest in financial affairs, to keep the good things in his own hands, and to say to the people, "Be blind, but have faith !" Was that the course to be pursued in these times ?—No. He again thanked the right honourable Baronet for coming forward to let the people see and know what they had to pay.

It had another advantage, that it brought the conduct of the House of Commons into broader light— The charge he made against the House of Commons was brought more out into day and made more distinct by this direct tax than it could have been by any other method. The House refused to abolish the Corn-laws; they were consequently now obliged to impose direct taxes, not for the benefit of the community, but of the landowners. First a large sum was given for the benefit of the landowners ; then there were the expenses of the Government to meet. How were these to be met ? The House said, "We will do it by means of a tax "—spread over the land and the funded property only ?—no, but by means of a tax which, for shortness, he would call an income-tax, What was the consequence? They taxed the people to put money into the pockets of the landowners, then they taxed the people again to pay the cur- rent expenses of the Government. They said, "We must be careful in our generation : wee will not tax the people; we will appear to be exceedingly careful of the people's interests ; we will preserve the working classes from the operation of our tax." Exceedingly artful:all this! They had before taxed the people's food, exempting the landholder; and then, preserving their arti- fice, they proceeded to tax the landholder, relieving, as they said, the people. Mr. Roebuck urged the propriety of not equally taxing fluctuating and permanent income; referring to tables in the hands of Government, from which the relative -value of the several kinds of income could be deduced. He made light of the imputed inquisitorial nature of the income-tax, and its ill effect on credit— He could not understand how credit multiplied the resources of a country. It was very well to say that if a man had credit he could begin trade : but how ?—by other men's means. That credit was an honest credit when a man was willing to give it ; but if one obtained credit by any false appearance of substance, that was not honest; that was not a benefit to the country : and therefore as to the inquisitorial nature of the plan, he said that he should care very little to tell any man what his gains were. The honourable Member for Lambeth bad said that he should like to know whether the bankers would like the public to know the state of their affairs : the honourable Member had happened to choose the very persons who on the last day of every year knew precisely what each depositor's gains were for the year preceding. The banker knew how much he had made to a certainty ; and why he should wish that people should think he made 10,000/. when he only made 5,000/., he could not understand.

Speaking on behalf of the interests of Canada, Mr. Roebuck said that the colonists would be -willing enough to get rid of the timber-trade altogether, which only benefits the owners of a few rotten ships in this country, and a few consignees ; and he would lower the duty on Baltic timber by one-half, and raise the duty on Canadian timber by one-half—which would compensate for the reduction of the tax on mu- table incomes. He finished by drawing a moral from the tale. The Whigs had failed to get up their popularity by the attempt to improve the Corn-law, because the people had no confidence in them. The middle-classes had broken all the promises which they made to the working- classes in 1830, 1831, and 1832, and said that they dared not trust them with power lest they should put on a property-tax ; yet what was this but such a tax ? The middle-class now learned that they could not cope in that House with the power arrayed against them on the Conservative side : let them confess, then, to the working-class, that they could not obtain justice for themselves unless they obtained justice for all.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. In reply to Mr. Boller, he appealed to those who had heard his financial statement on Friday week, to vindi- cate him from the charge of exciting party feelings. In his speech on the following Friday, he stood in a different posture ; for he had to de- fend himself against party attacks, and he had never heard a speech of greater bitterness than that which fell from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The subject of the Income-tax must have come under the consideration of the late Ministers; and if they had arrived at the con- clusion that it was so unjust and inquisitorial, why did they not say so on the first night? In the mean time, however, his measure had under- gone consideration—not, as Lord John Russell promised, by philoso- phers in the closet, but the attacks of the Opposition bore much more the character of a meeting at the Reform Club. He was surprised that the Whig leaders denounced the Income-tax, because financiers of their party had recorded their opinions in favour of such a tax,—Mr. Poulett Thomson, Lord Althorp, Mr. Hume, and Sir Henry Parnell. Sir Robert passed in review the chief objections to his measure— He repeated his explanation of the necessity of providing for an accumulated deficiency of 10,000,000/. in six years, to be enhanced by the cost of wars in the East; while the credit of this country may be required to support that of India. He had at the time objected to the first expedition for placing Shah Soojah on the throne from which he was expelled in 1809; quoting the opinion of Sir Alexander Barnes, and remarking that the policy of doing so was as if we had attempted to restore Charles the Tenth to the throne of France. But remonstrate as you may at the first, do not, when the position of affairs is fixed, tamper with the spirit and ardour of your troops by any public announce- ment of dissatisfaction with the duty on which they are sent. As to the charge that the measure is ill-timed, it is a mere delusion: he did not propose it simply on account of the war in Afghanistan or the war in China, but on account of the increased expenditure from whatever cause. The Budget of last year, it was pretended, would supersede the necessity of his measure : Mr. Baring reckoned upon receiving 700,0001. additional from the sugar-duties: that amount has unexpectedly been realized, without diminishing the defici- ency. The produce of either corn-duty it was impossible to estimate. With respect to timber, he admitted that more revenue would have accrued under Mr. 13aring's plan ; but no reduction of duty would have a greater effect in enc( waging the industry of the country than that which he proposed on tim- ber: in proof of which, he cited the testimony. of Mr. Deacon Hume, who said that we only want timber added to our coal and iron to make our case complete ; and of Mr. Mitchell, who contrasted the superior cottages of Nor- way with those of the population of our fisheries. Sir Robert denied that his Income-tax was proposed in a gloomy view of the national resources: he always said that they were not exhausted, and that they only required time to revive; but the failure of Mr. Baring's additional five per cent on the Customs and Excise justified the inference that it would not be wise to lay any further duties of that kind. He certainly thought a property-tax preferable to i reim- posingburdens which bad been removed ; since they would incur a heavy ex- pense n the collection, and disturb the trade and manufactures of the country. Ile agreed with Mr. Charles Buller, that indirect taxation is less sensibly felt in its operation; but he was surprised to hear that sort of argument from the Opposition side of the House. As to the shock to public credit, which it was said his measure would create, look to the index, the state of the Funds. If a tax on income would drive people abroad, did not indirect taxation, by increas- ing the cost of living, notoriously do the very same thing ? The travellers thus escaped the impost of indirect taxation on consumption; but his tax, levied on income, would prevent those who travel abroad for pleasure from evading their due share of the burden. And would it not thus conduce to the return of absentees ? Against the proposition to throw the burden on land alone, he quoted the authority of Lord Althorp. It was said that an income- tax would press unequally; but what tax did otherwise ? did the Beer-tax, the House-tax, the Window or Assessed Taxes ? Would his opponents exempt the income of 10,000/. a year derived from trade or a profession and come upon the half-pay officer's small fixed income—exempt the rich fundholder, and charge the widow with a life annuity? How would they distinguish between a fee-simple and a life-interest in land ? If he were called upon to make cal- culations in every case, he had better abandon the measure. He could not un- derstand the terrible inquisition into men's affairs ; nor could he believe that for 21. 18s. 4d. in every 100/. there would be to the people of this country so mul- tiplied a temptation to perjury. His tax, too, was proposed not merely to meet the deficiency, but to cover extensive alterations in the Tariff; the value of which, he thoaght, there was a disposition to underrate ; a disposition, he must in which Dr. Bowring did not participate— He had removed the prohibition from the importation of cattle ; though in- deed he did not expect that large importation which the exaggerated fears of some of his friends anticipated. He thought the change of duty on salt meat would facilitate commerce, and remove the cause of frauds, by which meat is shipped as cargo and used as provision. The reduced duty on woods, he ex- pected, would lead to the establishment in this country of new manufactures of furniture. Under reciprocal concessions, not provided for in his Tariff, but left for negotiation, he looked forward to mutual benefit to France and Eng- land from the greater consumption of French wines and brandies here and ot Sheffield goods there. From the increased timber-trade he anticipated an aug- mented demand for our manufactures in Norway and Sweden. And nits- mately, he hoped to convince the Prussian League, Sardinia, Portugal, Spain, and Brazil, of the benefit of mutual reductions of duty. On that ground he bad not included many articles in his Tariff. The reduction of duties on furs would benefit both the consumer and the honest trader : the present duty sounds as if it were prohibitory ; but it only subsists for the benefit of the smuggler, who will undertake the importation at a cost of 10 per cent. The case was similar with respect to gloves, shoes, and boots; and in short, a re- view of the whole Tariff would show that it must diminish the cost of many articles of consumption. A friend bad told him of a particular union in which a contract had been already made to supply necessaries to the poor for the en- suing year, at a cost of 20 per cent less than last year. He was taunted with refusing to make certain alterations because he -had a majority ; but it was precisely because he had a majority that he was inclined to listen to reasonable proloiitions of amendment. As to the differential duties in favour of the Co- lonic% he was disposed to consider them as English counties ; but the uni- versal application of differential duties be left open to consideration.

Sir Robert reminded the House of the difficulties which he found upon entrance into office,—war in India and China, disunion with France, unsatisfactory relations with the United States, and the finan- cial deficiency : he had proposed measures which he considered ne- cessary to the welfare of the country, and on them he had staked his existence as a Minister : and he concluded with an animated call upon the House to act at the juncture with vigour and energy.

Lord Joust RUSSELL reiterated Mr. Buller's charge against Sir Robert Peel, of speaking with asperity ; and he accused him of refusing to answer a question put by Mr. Baring, with a sneer ; conduct which he contrasted with Mr. Pitt's admirable equanimity under more trying difficulties. Ile agreed that Sir Robert had better abandon his Income- tax than undertake all the calculations demanded of him to make it press equally— It must be taken as it stood, and dealt with accordingly. But taking it as it stood, it had every kind of inequality attaching to it. These inequalities they could not remedy. Such inequalities were only tolerable in times of ex- treme danger and peril to the country ; but for no such danger as now existed, and for no such necessity as now existed, ought they to establish by law this inequality in taxation. Sir Robert had quoted Whig authorities for making such a tax per- manent; but the Marquis of Lansdowne and Lord Grenville, who pro- posed it, both declared that it would be intolerable except in war-time. It was justified in 1798 by the mutiny at the Nore, rebellion in Ireland, and anarchy in France ; in 1806 by the arrogant elevation of Napoleon, who had just put his foot on Austria. To compare the wars in Af- ghanistan and China with such occasions, were ridiculous. Grant- ing a deficiency of 2,500,0001. for three or four years to come, it did not justify such a tax ; for it might be made good out of taxes which had been given up : the taxes on carriages and riding-horses alone produced 700,0001. To parry. Mr. Roebuck's accusation that the Whigs courted popularity, Lord John appealed to their unpopular measures, Catholic Emancipation and the Poor-law ; and he defended their right to oppose measures of which they foresaw the evils, and which their constituents would hereafter reproach them with not opposing.

Mr. BENJAMIN WOOD gave instances of the unequal working of the Income-tax.

Mr. COBDEN said that Sir Robert Peel's explanations deserved mature consideration ; and he moved that the Chairman do report progress. Hereupon arose a contest somewhat similar to that of Monday night. Mr. VERNON &inn, as Sir Robert Peel had at last come forth in defence of his measure, would vote against the motion. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said that he had heard Sir Robert before Monday night, and he hoped to hear him again many times ; but he should support every motion for ad- journment, for he thought that the deliberation of the holydays would make honourable Members' votes more consistent with their speeches. Lord HOWICK thought the present course of opposition to the measure would defeat itself; and deprecated the abuse of the power to move ad- journments. Mr. WAHLEY insisted upon the measure being referred to the public consideration ; and read the Northern Star to show that it is not popular with the working-class. Mr. Cuiernrs, amid continued interruption, declared that he would do every thing to stop the progress of the measure, which had caused a panic in his neighbourhood. Mr. MILNER Ginsox explained, that to vote for Sir Robert Peel's resolution would pledge the House to the principle, and they could then only dis- cuss the details. The House divided, and negatived Mr. Cobden's mo- tion, by 290 to 87. Mr. H. BERKELEY then moved that the Chairman do leave the chair ; and that motion was rejected, by 225 to 84. Pre- sently afterwards, Mr. BERNAL moved that the Chairman report pro- gress. Amid a din of confusion, Sir ROBERT PEEL protested against such a course. Mr. COBDEN said that it caused no real delay ; for if the resolution were affirmed by the House, it could not be reported till the 4th April, and no bill could be brought in till then. Ultimately the motion was agreed to ; the House resumed ; and the Committee ob- tained leave to sit again on the 4th of April.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NAVY.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER, on Tuesday, called attention to the state of the Navy. He was decidedly opposed to the custom of placing a civilian at the head of the department, which he thought should be under a Naval Commander-in-Chief. That the First Lord is at present wholly irresponsible, was proved by a letter which Lord Minto addressed pri- vately to Sir Robert Stopford, signifying his wish that the British squadron in the Mediterranean should assemble off Cyprus and await further orders : the Board of Admiralty were kept unacquainted with that letter. Sir Charles admitted that the victories of Copenhagen and Trafalgar had been won during the administration of civilians ; but on the other hand, the mutiny at the Nore occurred under a civilian ; and had an Admiral been at the head of the Board, the submissive remon- strances of the sailors would not have been unattended to. Under the York administration, four ships were lost in the Baltic, because they were kept there at an improper season. During the American war, under the administration of Lord Melville, ships were sent out impro- perly manned, and three were taken by the Americans. It is unfortu- nately in this country impossible altogether to resist political interest; but some decency should be observed in the appointments which are made: Lord Minto had ransacked all Scotland to find an Eliot for pro- motion ; and, not satisfied with his search there, he went to Plymouth, and even to the Cape of Good Hope: whence he promoted a person possessing the fortunate name, who had never seen service, to be Store- keeper at Halifax. An instance of the ill effects of this system was this fact: one of Earl Grey's sons joined the Jupiter in 1822, at the same time with a young gentleman named Davis : Captain George Grey has been a Post Captain tor eight years ; Mr. Davis. slit a Midshipman after seventeen years' service, has left the Navy in disgust, and is now in the Coast Guard. Sir Charles finished hy moving three resolutions,— declaring that the advantage of having the Boards of Admiralty com- posed of Naval officers should be fully considered, as well as the expe- diency of having a Naval officer attached to the Board of Ordnance ; that before the preparation of the Naval Eoiroates of 1843-4, a plan of retirement for Naval officers ought to be framed, with a view to render the service efficient, and to reward old and meritorious officers; and that civil situations connected with the Navy ought to be reserved as rewards for service.

Mr. WARLEY seconded the resolutions.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, acknowledging the frank and manly manner in which the question had been brought forward, opposed the motion. It should be remembered that the Sovereign surrenders to the Board of Admiralty the whole command and management of the British Navy ; while the very reverse is the case with respect to the Army, for no portion of the prerogative of the Crown is surrendered to the Military Commander-in-Chief. He denied, however, that the First Lord is not constitutionally responsible for the administration of the Navy : in 1782, Mr. Fox made a motion to remove the Earl of Sandwich from the head of the Admiralty. The First Lord is responsible for the dis- tribution of the patronage, which he retains exclusively in his own hands. And, with all respect for Naval officers, he must observe that a knowledge of civil affairs is at least as necessary in a First Lord of the Admiralty as of naval affairs. Undoubtedly there may be Naval officers fitted to the post ; but would it be wise to limit the choice of the Crown to the narrow circle of Naval officers ? As to political in- fluence, that would weigh no less with a naval officer than with a civi- lian; while a civilian would be more likely to act with strong impar- tiality in the exercise of patronage than one liable to the pressing influences of personal and professional attachments. As to the letter written by Lord blinto to Sir Robert Stopford, Sir James was persuaded that the si stem of private correspondence with officers in important commands, was not only conducive to the safe conduct of the public service, but was quite consistent with the practice of the best periods of our constitution. The Board of Admiralty, too, are not generally cog- nisant of great naval operations: in the operations against Copenhagen, Lord Gambier was placed directly under the orders of the Secretary of State for the Foreign department ; and on ordinary occasions of mixed operations of the Army and Navy, it has not been the custom of the Board of Admiralty to send out orders ; but they are sent out by the Cabinet, through the Secretary of State. Sir James quoted the autho- rity of William the Fourth, who had held up two examples of Ministers of the Navy, Lord Sandwich and Lord Spencer, neither of them naval men : the Administration of Lord St. Vincent had not been fortunate ; and Mr. Pitt contrasted his Administration with that of Lord Spencer. As to the insufficient manning of the Navy, abstractedly he agreed with Sir Charles Napier; but he questioned the propriety as a matter of discretion, of speculating as to what might have occurred had the Mediterranean fleet encountered an enemy : he believed that under any circumstances it would have sustained the honour of the national flag. He objected to promotion by purchase, that it would shut out meritorious but poor men. The affording to officers certain advantages on retirement, would no doubt make an open- ing for junior officers ; but such matters were best left to the consider- ation of the Executive Government. Sir Charles had thrown out a suggestion for a compulsory clause in the Poor-law Act for apprenticing pauper boys to the Navy : but there was no necessity for so unpopular a measure, for there was no difficulty in procuring any number of boys ; the sons of the peasantry along the Coast are always found to be willing and anxious to enter the Navy. He was unwilling to meet the resolu- tions by a direct negative, and therefore he should move the previous question.

The motion was supported by Captain BERKELEY, Lord Ismegrae, and Captain PECHELL.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, with some variation, followed up Sir James Gra- ham's arguments. He cautioned the House against a Dad precedent in restricting the discretion of he Crown. The custom had been sanctioned by long usage, not to exclude laymen and unprofessional members from the Board of Admiralty. Of course, Sir Charles Napier did not mean his motion as one of censure on Lord Mioto or Lord Haddington ? [Sir Charles Napier intimated his assent.] Then, was it not inconsisteut to ask the House to affirm a resolution wh.ch would make it impossible for Lord Haddington to administer the affairs of the Admiralty? And w. a it certain that the appointment of a Naval officer would give satisfaction ? Lord Keppell and Lord Howe had both been worried out of office by gip House of Commons. Sir Robert could not see any advantage in speulatiog upon the probable results of hypothetical actions with another great power, with whom we are happily now at peace : he did not think it wise to indulge in those useless speculations as to whether our Navy would defeat that of France, or would be defeated by them. He would not seek to induce Sir Charles to abandon his motion by any concession ; but he hoped he would see the inexpediency of pressing it.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD—who defended Lord Miuto—was of opinion that the Admiralty, as at present constituted, was constituted in the best possible way. Sir Thomas TROUBRIDGE did not think that the constitu- tion of the Board could be changed for the better but he thought that advantage might arise from having a Naval officer at the Board of Ordnance. He declared that the vessels in the Mediterranean were in a most effective state. After a few words from Sir HENRY HARDINGE, to explain that undue favour is not shown to the Army in promotions, and a brief reply from Sir CHARLES N4eren, the House negatived the first resolution without a division ; the second by 138 votes to 40; and the third by 139 to 47.

WEST INDIES AND AFRICAN MIGRATION.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord STANLEY moved fortwo Select Committees,—first, one " to inquire into the state of the British Possessions on the West coast of Africa, more especially with reference to their present relations with the neighbouring native tribes " ; and then one " to inquire into the state of the different West India Colonies, in reference to the existing relations between employers and labourers, the rate of wages, the supply of labour, the system and expense of cul- tivation, and the general state of their ;ural and agricultural economy." He prefaced both these motions by one speech— The great experiment of Negro Emancipation, he said, had produced the happiest results in the physical and moral condition of the Blacks in the Wed Indies; and he quoted despatches by Sir Charles Metcalfe, the Governor of Jamaica, and Mr. Light, the Governor of Demerara, with other documents, to show the thriving and comfortable condition of the labourers, great numbers of whom have become landowners. Nevertheless, from the same causes that pro- duced those results, the planters are suffering severe loss and injury ; for even if an enhanced price on a diminished supply of sugar has prevented any con- siderable diminution of their income under that head, the cost of working their estates has become such that the cultivation cannot be carried on with- out a change. A report of the cultivation of sixty-two estates in Demerara showed a gross loss of 983,000 dollars from the 1st January to the 31st October 1841; and on three out of four estates upon which a gentleman "of moderate opinions" made a report, (forwarded by Governor Light,) there had been a loss. Two remedies suggested themselves—increasing the population by a large amount of immigration, and diminishing the cost of production by a better system of management. A Committee might inquire whether it was not prac- ticable to introduce a system more assimilated to our English plan, by placing the labourers more in the condition of tenants, giving them an interest joint and inseparable from the landlord, and making them share in the amount of produce. He knew the practical difficulties connected with the introduction of such a system ; but he desired the matter to be investigated. Immigration of Africans had hitherto, unlike the immigration of Europeans, been perfectly sue. useful; but there were great obstacles in the way of an unlimited immigration from the West coast of Africa : it might lead to abuse, and it would certainly be viewed with jealousy by foreign powers. Exclusively of Sierra Leone and Gambia, the House was aware that this country possessed along the Gold Coast a number of detached settlements, each about one square mile in extent. Those settle- ments were managed exclusively by a committee of merchants, who administered what was stated to be British law ; though he was sorry to say that it was hardly to be called such, for there was neither judge, nor he believed any settled authority: it was rather rudely administered; but still it was said to be British law. Around these settlements were native tribes, among whom slavery pre- vailed; and one of two things was likely to follow—either immigration would consist of runaway slaves, with whom, when once beyond our limits, we had no right whatever to interfere, or, on the other hand, the result would be, that under the name of a proposition to emigrate to the Colonies for the purpose of furnishing free labour to the colonists, those colonists would begin to enter into a traffic with the chiefs of the tribes for the emigration of their subjects for a sum of money,—in other words, that they would buy the subjects of those chiefs for money; and there would be a strong suspicion that we were com- mencing a new slave-trade on the coast of Africa. If, however, they could sur- mount those difficulties, he did not hesitate to say that such immigration, upon the principles of entire freedom, would not only be productive of benefit to the subjects of that immigration, but in the result would tend to the interests of civilization, humanity, and Christianity throughout the African coast.

Dr. BOWRING wished the inquiry to extend to the causes of failure of

the Niger Expedition. Mr. VERNON Statsst thanked Lord Stanley for instituting the inquiry. Mr. WAKLEY feared that the happy. free- labourers of the West Indies would be swamped by the intended Immi- gration. Mr. Herr approved of the proposition. Both motions were put and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS.

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. In answer to Mr. SHAW, on

Monday, Lord ELIOT said it was the intention of Government to in- clude in the Estimates for the ensuing year the usual grant, without proposing any alteration in the system of national education now in force in Ireland.

THE PHILIPSTOWN FROLIC. Mr. SMITH O'Biuost moved, on Tues-

day, for copies of documents relating to the inquest on James Flana- gan, the man who died from burns received while he was drunk, in the house of Mr. Megan. He recapitulated the facts of the case, so far as they are known, and contended that there was a prima' facie case for inquiry. Lord ELIOT said that a Coroner's Jury had unanimously returned a verdict attributing the man's death to accident ; and the Law Officers of the Crown were satisfied that the verdict -was a proper one. Mr. Megan had exerted himself to extinguish the fire which had caught Flanagan's clothes ; and the latter said, while he was lying ill, that had it not been for Mr. Megan he should have been burned to death. That gentleman had proceeded against the Dublin Monitor, which had put forward a charge against him, not by criminal information, but by an action for damages on the ground of libel, so that there would be ample inquiry into the facts. The motion for papers, unopposed by Lord Eliot, was agreed to.

NORFOLK RURAL POLICE. Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE moved for

papers relating to the treatment of one Smith, a person whom he charged the Norfolk Rural Police with cruelly treating. He had been seized by them for selling tracts without a hawker's licence, and chained up in a stable. The owner of the stable coming in, wrenched off the ring to which he was fastened, and released him: but he was found in the streets of Norwich, nearly naked, with handcuffs on ; taken before the Magistrates, again charged with selling the tracts without a licence, and committed for one month to the House of Correction with hard labour. The Superintendent, also named Smith, by whom he had been chained up, it appeased, made a practice of confining prisoners in that way. An investigation took place by order of Government ; but Mr. Morton, a clerical Magistrate who had supported Superintendent Smith in his illegal conduct, was Chairman of the Commission by whom the inquiry was conducted. Sir James GRAHAM did not think that the Police or the Magistrates had any thing to fear in the production of the papers ; and the motion was affirmed. PRIVATE BtLes. On the motion of Lord GRANVILLE SoarEasro, it was ordered that no Committee on a private bill shall commence sitting until Friday the 8th of ApriL

Banacn or Pssynxos. John Ashworth appeared at the Bar, in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to answer for having, on the previous Friday, interrupted a witness while under examination before the Cli- theroe Election Committee. He had called ont to the witness, who was a fellow labourer, "Don't answer any questions." At the bar of the House, he expressed himself sorry for what had happened ; and then he withdrew, amid loud laughter at the ludicrous humility of his de- portment. He was called in again, and, after an admonition from the SPEAKER, discharged.

BUSINESS OF THE ROUSE. Sir ROBERT PEEL stated on Wednesday, that on the 4th April, the bill for the appointment of Commissioners to inquire into the Exchequer Bill Fraud would be proceeded with ; and the financial resolutions would then be gone on with. On the 5th, he should take the Corn-importation Bill, with a view of sending it up to the other House as speedily as possible.

13D3H POST-OFFICE. On the motion of Lord INGESTRE, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Post-office communica- tion between Great Britain and Ireland.

BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. In reply to Dr. BOMBING, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that in some parts of Syria efforts had been made to excite a hostile feeling against the Bishop of Jerusalem who had been sent from this country ; but he had not received any accounts from which he could infer that his personal security was in danger ; and he was not aware that any measures were necessary for insuring his personal safety.

The ROYAL ASSENT was given 'by commission, on Wednesday, to the Consolidated Fund (8,000,000/.) Bill, the West India Clergy Bill, the Apprentices Regulation Bill, Mitford Divorce Bill, and some others.

THE EASTER ADJOURNMENT. The House of Lords adjourned, on Wednesday, to Thursday the 7th April. On the same day, the Com- mons adjourned to Monday the 4th.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD brought up the report of the Lewes Election Committee on Monday ; which declared Mr Summers Harford not to be duly elected, and the Honourable Henry Fitzroy to be duly elected. Mr. Frrznov took the oaths and his seat.

The report of the Clitheroe Election Committee;brought up by Mr. boo, declared Mr. Edward Cardwell to have been elected, and not Mr. Matthew Wilson, Mr. CARDWELL took his seat.