tbates anti tirotetaingsfit Varliament.

WATS AND AfEANS : INCOME-TAX.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Hr. HUME called for an ex- planation of the "ways and means" which- Ministers intend to adopt since they have abandoned an additional Income-tax. He called upon Sir Robert Peel to 'say whether it was usual, when there was a deficiency, to allow a budget to proceed without a statement from Government as to the ways and means? Sir RonEnT PEEL responded to this appeal— If the honourable gentleman asked him whether he ever recollected a budget being brought forward, when a deficiency existed, without a statement as to the in 1842, was in favour of that course. Laughter.) During the time he held means of supplying that deficiency, his experience, before his acceptance of office office he bad no such experience. In the four years 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, there was an admitted deficiency, and yet the budget was allowed to proceed. The House went into Committee; and the Chairman read the resolution proposed by Ministers, that the Income-tax be further continued for a period to be limited. Mr. HureE having repeated his questions, Sir CHARLES WOOD said that Ministers intended filly to avail themselves of the system introduced by Lord Althorp, and since followed, of appro- priating balances in the Exchequer to make good deficiencies in the esti- mated revenue, instead of paying them annually in reduction of the Na- tional Debt and making them up again by substantive votes. The con- venience of this course had been found very great. The CafFre war and the Irish distress expenses would be drawn from the Ex- chequer balances. It was hoped that the remaining deficiencies would be balanced by surpluses in future years; so that on the average the deficiency of this year would be made up. Mr. HERRIES protested against this extravagant provision. The balances are only cash in hand, which was already appropriated and pledged. The course defied reduction to a proposition on which a vote could be taken. The deficiency will be aggravated in future years. Mr. HosrE called the proposal a taking of trust money to eke out the means of the trustee. The average expenses of 1833, '4, and '5, were ex- ceeded by those of 1845, '6, and '7, to the amount of more than 6,000,0001.: the present estimate exceeded that average by 8,000,0001.: repudiation and bankruptcy would shortly stare the Chancellor in the face if he persisted in such improvidence. Mr. Hume moved an amendment, substituting in place of the words "for a time to be limited" the words "for a period not exceeding one year." Sir Cu-sates WOOD called on the House to support the national credit by supportina' the Government proposition to continue the tax for three years instead of one. If he entertained any doubt that the revenue would in a certain time not only restore the balances now drawn upon for present deficiencies, bat also exhibit a taro surplus, he would not make his proposal. It was not only possible but wilily probable this would be so. If the means of additional taxation are refused by the House, and the only course remaining were also denied to the Government, the repudiation will lie at the doors of the House itself. He thought that the additional Income-tax had better have been acceded to; but surely, he continued, the House was bound, under the circumstances, to grant them the renewal of the tax for such a time as would enable us to realize a surplus. "If you do not, public credit will undoubtedly suffer; and I must say that, let whoever may undertake the task of carrying on the Government in such circumstances, her Majesty's present advisers will not be a party to so discreditable a course." Sir Charles reviewed the history of the tax; denied that it was imposed on the country by stealth; and asserted that it was part of the scheme of commercial reform since carried out by the late and the present Government. The great natural and commercial calamities that have occurred pat out all calculation, and brought about the present state of the national finances. "-I cannot say that I see any early prospect of revival; because, if there were no other circumstance to interrupt its progress, I am afraid the state of affairs abroad, and the uncertainty that this will produce in trade and commerce, will prevent a revival at an early period: but that is a reason for continuing the Income-tax for a longer period than a year." Mr. SPOONER and Captain TOWNSUEND enlarged on the unjust opera- tion of the tax. The first insisted, that taking it for one year only would in nowise shake national credit. The latter thought the country had done foolishly in granting the tax, and must now bear the penalty; he therefore would not oppose Ministers. Mr. G. I. TURNER argued elaborately in the track of Mr. Spooner. The injustice was the greater in his eye as the dif- ficulty -of equitable adjustment was by no means insuperable.

Sir WILLIAM CLAY supported the Government proposition; and Mr. Ro- hm= opposed it.

Mr.- LABOUCHERE was satisfied that nothing but true peace abroad and union at home were wanted to restore prosperity and dispel traces of cala- mity like clouds. He adduced the history of past progress.

The property assessed under all the schedules of the Property-tax in 1814-5 was but 179,176,6001.; the corresponding assessment of 1842-3 was 240,374,0691. Since 1,814, the country's taxation had undergone reductions amounting to 39,777,000/. These facts were reasons for his favourable hopes.

Mr. OSBORNE replied to the Mr. Labouchere of today with the words of the same gentleman of 1842. He repudiated Mr. Horsnian's plans; the bringing forward of which, he thought, had damaged the hopes of those who opposed the tax. Sir ROBERT PEEL .replied warmly to insplatationil cast on him of having originally carried the Income-tax by stealth. -

One Member' 'aid he had been fascinated -by deceptive accents, and another said the measure had been "smuggled" throtigh the House. Sir Robert exclaim- ed, "Smuggled indeed! 'smuggle' through the House an income-tax imposing at least 5,000,0001. a year upon the people of this country ! " If the House is ashamed of its vote, let it rescind it: it would be absurd to throw aside the expe- rience of ths past: if events have shown the error, alter the course.

Sir Robert vindicated the majority who imposed the tax. When in 1841 he was called to the Ministry, there had been a succession of deficits from the year 1838. The aggregate deficiencies of the years from 1838 to the 5th April 1843, he had estimated at not less than 10,000,0001. The House had itself caused a large pa of that deficiency by surrendering to the nation a revenue of nearly 1200,O 0l. a year from the Pest office, and had thought itself bound to make an attempt in support of public credit. What was the source whence to obtain any augmentation of the revenue? ^Experiments made by the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer of the day, in 1841, had demonstrated that indirect taxation had already been tasked to its full powers; the additional 10 per cent on Customs and Excise having yielded but 700,0001. in place of the 1,900,0001. looked for. Not so with direct taxation; the 10 per cent added to the Assessed Taxes having, in place of the expected 275,0001., given above 300,0001. Such was the financial part of the case; but there was the commercial also. It bad been thought de- sirable to remodel the Customs-duties of the kingdom; to remove all prohibitions, and to simplify the protective tariff to an immense extent, by a far more uniform system of duties. The duties on 700 articles were to be lowered, and on 500 were to be repealed. The advantages to trade were expected to be immense; but they could only be had at the price of 7,000,0001. to the public revenues. How would it have been possible to accomplish such financial objects and such a commercial revolution, but on the foundation of the Income-tax? in full cognizance of these things, the House assented to the scheme of financial policy submitted to it. Sir Robert gave explanations on the matter of the famous Elbing letter. That letter had been urged as evidence that his real intentions in proposing the Income- tax were that it should be permanent, though he had declared the contrary in Par- 'lament. Part of the error may have arisen from the obscurities of a double translation of the letter—written in English, it had been first published in Ger- man, then retranslated from the German to English. Sir Robert read the follow- ing passage from the original—" The Property-tax was intended not merely Is supply a deficit in the revenue, but to lay the foundation for a juster principle of taxation; to afford the means for repealing duties on the raw materials of im- portant manufactures; for exempting great branches of domestic industry (the manufacture of glass, for example) from vexatious regulations of excise; and for remitting or reducing taxation OD several articles imported from abroad, which are essential to the comfort and enjoyment of the industrious classes of the com- munity." He appealed to this passage to prove that the tax had been intended as the foundation of a commercial policy aimed at the removal of vexatious and onerous restrictions and exactions. In proposing the tax, he had no covert de- sign of perpetuating it, but had sanguine hopes that the prosperity of trade under the policy of relaxation would have so increased the ordinary revenue that the new impost might drop. Sir Robert rejoiced to believe that the experiment had been greatly successful, though unexampled natural calamities had disappointed his fullest expectations. He exclaimed— As long as I live I shall never repent that I proposed that alteration in the commercial policy of the country; and that I induced the House of Commons—not by fascination, not by smuggling, but by a fall and explicit statement of the financial affairs of the country—to continue the tax; and that I induced the House, in lieu of the large reduction of duties upon imports, to impose a tax upon the income and property of the country." (Cheers.)

Sir Robert dealt with the question of the incidence of the tax. "Taking the circumstances of individual cases into consideration, instances of hardship cannot be denied; but I du not assent to the proposition that it is therefore an unjust tax. . . . . If you were to attempt to make a distinction such as the honourable Member for Cockermouth has suggested, it would be fallacious, and the same difficulties which are now pointed out in respect to the incomes of professional men and men of real property would occur. No principle can, in my opinion, be devised which would be more just—or, I would rather say, wonkl be more free from objection—than that which you are desirous of sesing removed."

He should give his decided support to the Ministerial proposition to renew the tax for three years. He had himself been alarmed at the great increase Of ex- penditure; and in giving consent to that proposition he said nothing in denial of the necessity for most searching investigations. If the Government had called more strenuously for the means to relieve their financial wants, ho would have supported them. Still, he did not blame them for the discretion they had used in retiring from contest on their proposal to increase the tax. The difficulties of their situation are very great. " I am quite aware that it is probable there may be some increase of revenue from the ordinary sources. Some observations have been made with regard to the recovery of the Customs: but I must say that there never was such a combination of circumstances as those by which the trade and commercial enemies of the country have for the last two years been affected; and I feel it my duty, in this day of commercial depression, to assert my con- tinued adherence to the principles on which the remissions in the Customs- duties took place. (Cheers.) I have the firmest confidence in the justice of those remissions."

Sir Robert concluded with an allusion to the events abroad. "I must own I shall be influenced in my support of the proposal made by the Government by a refer- ence to the wonderful events which have taken place within a very recent period in a neighbouring country. (Loud cheers.) I think they are an ample justifi- cation for this country not consenting to incur any risk of a larger deficit for a period of three years. I conceive it to be utterly inconsistent with sound policy not to make any. reference to events which must have filled us all with astonish-

ment. Of this I am perfectly confident, that the true policy i of this country dic- tates the most complete and absolute abstinence from all interference in the in- ternal affairs of that country in which such a wonderful social revolution has taken place. (Loud cheers.) I hope, however, that we shall not fail to exercise. the rights of hospitality. It is of the utmost importance to the interests of hu- manity that this country should be a place of refuge for the victims of ea greet political changes. It has been so in other times, and I trust it will long continue to be so. But when, on fernier occasions, political exiles, after having been re- ceived in this country, and partaken of its hospitality, have taken advantage of their position to disturb Monarchical governments in other countries, I have al- ways protested against such an abuse; and I now declare that I apply the saute rule to those who would endeavour to disturb a Republican government. (Loud cheers.) Whilst, therefore, [trust that this country may continue to be a place of refuge for the victims of political revolutions, I do hope that its hospitality will not be abused for the purpose of making it the focus of intrigues against the Government of another country. (Cheers.) The same rule which is good for a monarchy is equally good for a republic. (hfuch cheering.) I heard, with great satisfaction, the declaration that our Government has wisely determined to ab- stain from all interference in the internal concerns of France; and I am convinced that the principle so proclaimed will be acted upon with perfect good faith and scrupulous honour—(" Hear, hear!" from the Treasury loench)—and that the Government will not only abstain from any such interference on its own part, but will discourage any abuse of our hospitality for a purpose of interference on the part of others. (Cheers.) I purposely abstain from any more particular allusion to the portentous events which have occurred in France. That country is still in the agoniea and throes- of a great social revolution., I attach not so mach importance to whatmay appear in this newspaper or in that. A Provisional Go- vanment, merely, is at present established' until a more regular one can be formed; bat I venture to express an earneet hope that those who direct the des- tiles of France will be content to occupy themselves with their own social con- dition. I hope it will be in the power of Frence to exhibit a Goverement strong in its own internal resources, which will be able to reconcile perfect independence with regard for the rights established by treaties, and which will not set us the example of that aggression—that desire for territorial aggrandizement, which may interrupt the peace of Europe, and inflict irreparable misfortune on the whole chi- lined world.' (Loud and general cheering.) Lord GEORGE BErtrtricx endeavoured to reply to the great exculpatory speech which he had just heard, with attacks of the usual kind on Sir Robert Peel; and he repeated the round of Protectionist argument for raising large revenues by taxes on foreign impute.

He proposed the restoration of some of the foregone duties on timber, corn, and cotton, &c., as sources of revenue which would rapidly restore the Exchequer balances to a flourishing state.

Lord George alluded to the bite events in France. There was no man in that House who had less desire to commit any act of aggression upon Franco than he had; there was no gentleman in this country, or in France, who looked with more admiration on the moderation, the mercy, the magnanimity that had been dis- played by the French nation under great provocation. He did not believe that all history recorded any precedent for conduct so moderate, so magnanimous aid chivalrous, as that of the entire French people; and, so far as their internal go- vernment and institutions were concerned, be would not even have the imperti- nence to pass an opinion upon them, whether their change was for good or for harm: but it was his heartfelt desire that Republican institutions might prove as lastingly advantageous to their country, where property was so much divided, as, they had proved with our great 'fransatlantic rivals, lie remembered, however, that "Eu avant I la gloire" had become the household words of Frenchmen under the teaching of Napoleon; and could not but perceive that a possible up- shot of present changes might be the rise of ambitious leaders, who should irre- sistibly force the Government to territorial aggreisions. He therefore could in no way consent to leave the military or naval arms of this country in weakness. To the sources of revenue he had indicated be would add the sum to be derived from raising the general postage on letters to twice its present amount. From

die source he should expect 850,0001.; and from all his sources he counted that an income of 4,650,0001. would be derived. His advice to the House was this— Let them keep a tight hand on the Government; let them hold to this tax for another year; and when that term had expired it would be for them then to con- sider whether the expenditure could be reduced, the country being likely, as he did not expect, to rise again under their free imports and restricted currency, or whether, ou the other band, they would reject this tax and adopt a differeut aye- tern.

After some remarks by Mr. JAMES WILSON, who wanted to adjourn, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. DISRAELI, Sir CHARLES WOOD consented to postpone further debate till Friday ; when he hoped a division would be come to. Roust( CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL,

The House, on Wednesday, went into Committee on Mr. Anstey's Roman Catholic Relief Bill.

On the first clause which repeals, inter (Lila, the act 1 Eliz. cap. 1, Sir ROBERT INGLIS proposed an amendment— It had been stated in the House, that this act of Elizabeth was virtually re- pealed already, by the 7 and 8 Victoria, cap. 102, and 9 and 10 Victoria, cap. 59. In that case, the only effect the clause could have would be to enable &mei

Catholics to deny the Queen's supremacy:, although Protestants would be unable to do so. He therefore moved the omission of the words "shall be repealed."

After a conversation on points bf order, a division was taken; and the amendment was negatived, by 94 to 59.

Mr. HENLEY thought, that at least there should be one law for all; and he moved the omission of the words "so far as the same relates to Roman Catholics." Mr. ArrszEr was quite willing; but other Members objected on points of form, and Mr. Henley withdrew his amendment; only, how- ever, for it to be taken up and reinsisted upon by Mr. LAW; who in his turn was persuaded to relinquish it at that stage. Subsequently, Mr. HEN- LEY moved an amendment to omit so much of the clause as repeals the act of Elizabeth. This was negatived, by 151 to 119: but in the discussion, continued on some subsequent amendments, a fresh dispute arose; several Members appealing to the Attorney-General for an opinion as to whether the statute of Elizabeth created any offence, and whether that statute had since been repealed by the statutes of Victoria. Sir JOHN JERVIS thought, that under the act of Elizabeth, to assert the spi- ritual or ecclesiastical preeminence of any party against the Crown, would be a violation of that act, though it would be an unnamed offence.. The acts of Vic- toria repealed the penalties of that act, but enacted nothing as to the law. Nei- ther did they declare the common law. Mr. ANSTEY and Mt. SIIEIL save some qualification to the Attorney-General's law, by comments on the meaning of the word "supremacy:" Mr. Sheil said, the act of Elizabeth asserted a falsehood. The Pope has spiritual authority in these realms. Mr. Justice Coleridge had said that the Pope was the rightful head of the Christian world. (Cries of" No, no!") He had indeed said it was so—at least before the Reformation. (Loud laughter.)

Sir JAmEs GuAnAst was alarmed st the Attorney-General's doctrines about treason: according to those doctrines, the toast of "the sovereignty of the People" would be treason.

Sir Rosser looms rose in defence of his friend Mr. Justice Coleridge; who, be maintained. had been misquoted by Mr. SheiL Mr. Sheil only retracted when the feeling of the House was seen. —Mr. eitEIL warmly repelled the imputation of such sinister conduct. After ocesiderable further discussion, he rose again, and recurred with increased warmth to what had fallen from Sir Robert Inglis. With an absence of his Usual gentle- manly bearing, Sir Robert had imputed wilful falsehood: from any other Member Mr. Sheil would demand an explanation. • ' Sir RoBERY. looms said, he had made no charge of falsehood. Mr. Sheil knew well, too, that it would be inconsistent with his principles to give the satis- faction that seemed to be indicated. Even if he at all feared thetilternative he hoped he should be as willing as he was, in the absence of such terror, to slate that he meant no charge of falsehood. Mr. Sum left the matter to the sense of the House.

A debate arose on the arrangement of the clause repealing the penal -prohibition of Papal bulls; the object. being to continue the prohibition against "treasonable bulls," while removing that against "innocent bulls." Sir CuARLEs WOOD suggested a clause with this object. Mr. LAW thought the amendment ill devised to accomplish its purpose; and he mo- ved that the Chairman report progress. A squabble arose, in which Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CoNNELL accused the Recorder of tiiiiiorthy tricks for delay. Mr. LAW ietorte4, by declaring his opposition to bulls and all su- perstitious mummeriee.Q, Allear!" "Oh!') Tlie Earl of ARUNDEL an SURREY retnarked; the fitst eceurrenoe in the preterit et:linen of *beer= odious painful to the religieusibetings of his fellow.catbehteec...Seeteg -the dieeirderly -state a feeling In .thallonse, Sir rerliaLro,Wodroproposed te adjourn the discnaiion.--Vitimately, at a few minutes to six b'olock, the House returned; the Committee to sit again next Wednesday.

Wan POOR-LAW---.THE, QUARTER-ACRE CLAUSE.

On Thursday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAwronn asked leave to bring In a bill to amend the Irish Poor Relief Extension Act, with a:view to the repeal of the 10th section, or quarter-acre clause.

By that clause it is enacted, in the most specific and unqualified manner, that if a man possess a quarter of an acre of land, no matter what the amount of his destitution may be, he is doomed to pine without relief. The clause operates most severely. Such destitute persons are often prevented from getting rid of land which they have occupied : in the case of joint occupancy, one joiut-tenant cannot surrender the land without the consent of the other- landlords will not al- ways receive the surrender; or a man may not beabie to sell bis occupancy. The motion was supported by Mi. FAGAN, who stated that there are in Ireland 95,000 families subsisting on land under one acre in extent; by several other Irish Isferoberi; by Mr. PouLLerr Sotrork, Mr. AGLIONBY7

and Mr. WAKLEY. .

Sir WILLIAN SomErtvILLE showed that in practice the clause is not harshly enforced. The Poor-law Commissioners do not inquire whether thelandlord has acespted the surrender of the land or not; in fact, they do not investigate the title, but merely look to the actual occupation.

- Sir Gstiosas GREY observed, that when the clause was introduced it was opposed by only nine hiembmie, of whom only three were Irish. It was thought necessary to check that *base by which persons holding ten of fifteen acres of land, and refusihg to cultivate or surrender it, yet sought parish relief. Mr. IIONsELL ooneurred in the descriptions of the distress in Ireland, but could not impute it to the particular clause.

The repeal or the clause would speCially benefit those jobbing landlordi' who tried to get their tenants on the poor-date in order that their rents might be paid by such means. Mr. Sharman Crawftrd had complained that the Poor-law was insufficient, sod yet be WAS for throwing a rew class on the fund. As to the Insufficiency of the Poor-law, there never was a greater mistake than to introduce it by itself: it ought to have been accompanied by other measures—the reclama- tion of waste lands, and systematic colonization. It is the opinion of Mr. Helm, art authority of great weight,' that any person having more than a quarter Of an acre of laud, who offers to give it up, is entitled to relief.

On it -division, Mr. Crawford's motion was negatived, by 114 to 24.

" EXPULSION OF ENGLISH WORKMEN FROM PRANCE. In reply to Mr. STAFFORD on Thursday, Sir GEORGE GREY made a statement. In conse- quence of demands made by French workmen in the flax-factories at Rouen, the employers bad been obliged to discharge a very large number of English men and *omen employed- in those factories; and the discharged workpeople bad been sent away so suddenly that many had brought with them a very partial supply of clothing, and had come away- without the arrear of wages due. Mr. Feather- stonhaugh, th ..liritish Consul at Havre, had made provision for the comfort and So'bf the people to this 'country, and had endeavoured to obtain who remained behind to look after their wages and property. e ivy had, also desired the Mayor of Portsmouth to provide for the ti ot. those who should arrive at that port; and they had accordingly been bed with clothing, and With means to reach their homes in Dundee, Gins- , Belfitst, and Dublin. Lord Normanby had put himself in communication, Lamartine at. Paris; and had received an assurance on the part of the Provisional Government that the most liberal compensation should be given for— the losses which had been sustained by parties expelled, and that instructions had been sent down to the authorities at Rouen to prevent the repetition of such outrages.

BRITISH NAVY DI THE TAGUS. Lord PALMERSTON stated, OR Monday, fs reply to Mr. HONE, that orders had been given to withdraw the bulk of oar squadron from Portugal. Sir Charles Napier had been recalled. A single line- of-battle ship would remain as heretofore, to protect British property and interests.

Tun LATE RIOTS were alluded to in the House of Lords on Thursday. The Martinis of SALISBURY drew attention to words imputed to Mr. Hall, the Police Magistrate, which conveyed unmerited censure upon a Policeman for using his staff somewhat vigorously in Trafalgar Square. The Marquis of LANsnowNE stated that Mr. Hall had spontaneously dliselaimed the words imputed. Lord Lansdowne took the occasion to compliment the Police, for having discharged their duties promptly and efficiently in the very disgraceful though at the same time very contemptible disturbances in London; also in the somewhat more seri- ous disturbances in the Northern part of the island.

hum TENANT-RIGHT. OR Tuesday, Hr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved fat- leave to bring in a bill to define and extend to all Ireland the tenant-right which prevails in the province of Ulster. Sir GEORGE GREY assented to the introduc- tion of the measure, as its discussion wouldi advantageously precede the further discussion of the Government measure on tenant-right. The bill was brought in and read a first time.

DEBTOR LAw IN IRELAND. On Tuesday, Sir WnrsAm Sopron-lux ob- tained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of imprisonment for debt in Ire- land.

THE LYME REGIS COMMITTEE reported, on Tuesday, that Mr. Abdy's re- turn was good. The Committee also reported that a system of bribery had been organized in the borough, on behalf of Mr. John Attwood, a Member of the Home of Commons [for Harwich]; and that Mr. Attwood had paid the expenses, amounting to many thousand pounds, of both the present and former petitions against the return of sitting Members. The Committee desired to impress on the House the necessity of putting instant restraint on such transactions, as destruc- tive of all freedom of election. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear! ") The minutes and evidence were ordered to lie on the table.

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given by Commission, on Tuesday, to the Con- solidated Fund Bill, and the New Zealand Government Bill.