POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY:

The House of Commons last night discussed in Committee the Pro- perty-and-Income-tax Act Bill. The amendment which Mr. FREfm- FIELD moved according to notice, for making the tax more equitable in its pressure on annuities, was quickly disposed of in the negative ; the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having consented on the motion of Colo- nel Sninionr, that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to amend the act.

Then, on the motion that the several rates and duties be continued for three years, Mr. HUME moved his amendment for limiting the grant to one year, with the object of having the whole question deliberately con- sidered in a Select Committee.

Mr. Hume went into much statistical detail in support of his principle, that direct is preferable to indirect taxation ; and showed the proportion of these modes which now obtains : 67 per cent is levied upon the necessaries of life, 11 per cent is paid for Stamps, 8 per cent for Assessed Taxes, 10 per cent for the Property-tax II per cent for the Post-office, and the rest for smaller matters. Indirect taxation, therefore, presses with unfair weight upon the working classes. There is a general desire to reconsider the whole question of taxation. Mr. Hume has not the least desire to get rid of the Property-tax—he would retain it as a direct tax ; but he does not meet a single person who does not think that an attempt ought to be made to equal- ize the Income-tax, and remove some of its present injustice ; and he thinks that the present mode of assessment might be made less irresponsible. By direct taxation, between two and three millions might be saved ; and such taxes as the Malt-tax, which he sincerely desires to abolish, might be re- lieved with a view to their removal.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Hume seems to have thrown parties in the House into much confusion. It was supported by Alderman THOMPSON ; although he does not disapprove of indirect taxation, but ap- proves of raising part of the revenue by "a moderate duty on foreign productions," because he thinks the House has not kept good faith with the public in respect of the Income-tax. Mr. MOWATT supported it, thinking that Ministers seem unwilling to carry out the great policy of Sir Robert Peel which they profess to adopt. Mr. Bum supported it car the principle of relief to agricultural distress ; giving details of decline in: Devonshire, sometime—under Protection—the garden of England. Mr. Kienrinnon chid the Government for not volunteering the one-year re- newal instead of a three-years renewal of the tax ; and disputed the truth of the statement often made, that Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel considered it utterly impossible to impose the tax in any other form than that which they adopted. The Marquis of GRANBY, preferring the interests of the people to the convenience of Government, supported the amendment.

Mr. COBDEN opposed the amendment at considerable length, on the ground that it is not shaped so as to obtain the decision of the House on the matter really at issue.

The proceedings of the evening must convince Mr. Hume that the terms

of his motion would have been much better if different. If he had moved to impose a smaller tax on precarious incomes, the question would have brought on a fair division; but then he would have been beaten, as the Member for Coekermouth was, by two to one ; for was there any more likelihood now than before, that any concession would be made by the owners of real pro-

pertyin favour of the trading and professional classes Mr. Hume i

was n fact taking a course on the side of raising panne income from the poorer portion o :the community; for the opposite side would certainly compensate for the repeal of this tax by others that he has stilL greater objection to. Upon every ground Mr. Cobden should decline to join' his friend Mr. Hume. (Ironical cheers from the Protectionists.) They might laugh, but he looked forward to changes in the representation which would give the great body of the people more power in the House of Com- mons than they have at present. He would ask every one of his friends- who did not wish to see the principle of Free-trade endangered to resist this' transparent attempt of the other side of the House to undo a system that had been eminently to the advantage of the great mass of the community. (Cheers and "Oh, oh!")

Mr. JACOB BELL complained of the unpleasant predicament in which he was placed by Government, at a time when he considered it very Mr proper to put them in a minority : he cannot face his friends if he votes for this measure. He appealed to Lord John Russell to consider whether that is a proper position to place his friends in ?

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT sympathized with Mr. Bell, but felt less than. he the necessity of relieving the Government from their difficulty.

It would be impossible, however, for the Government to make any per- manent reductions in the coffee and timber duties if they, have on y one year's Income-tax before them. The Budget would fall to the ground, and there would be a fresh scramble for a surplus, for the maintenance of which there could be no security. He must therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. Mums supported the amendment.

Str CHAPTES WOOD commented on the inconsistency of Mr. Hume, who desires the tax to be permanent yet limits it to the shortest period; quoted the authority of Sir Robert Peel for the present form of the tax ; and backed the reason given by Mr. Sidney Herbert for opposing the amends:

went. It is impossible to propose fiscal reductions with nearly 5,000,000& dependent on an annual vote, especially at a time when no man can say what events may happen in Europe within any given number of months hence.

Mr. Disnsers combated the inferences that Protection is hidden under the support given by Members of his party to the amendment ; satirized the anxieties of Mr. Cobden on the one side, and the tribulation of the in- nocent Member for St. Alban's on the other ; and warned the House not to be diverted from the issue before them by that stale old ruse of crying out that " this is a reversal of our commercial policy."

" Let the House be quite sure that our commercial policy, whatever may be its merits or deficiencies, is too vast a creation to be shaken by a chance vote in this House." That was not the way that the Protectionists meant to assail it, if they should feel that their duty impelled them to take that course ; but they would not be deterred from taking a frank course upon all subjects with respect to taxation because a gentleman might say that the Government was embarrassed, or might rise and pretend for the five hundredth time that the party with whom he acted were seeking to establish the abrogated Corn- laws. Nothing is more popular at present out of doors than direct taxation ; but popular with whom ?—with those who are not directly taxed. And to what does that lead ?—not to taxation, but to confiscation. Nor is the evil only experienced by those who are taxed. Let them continue that system upon an equal or upon a greater scale as is the tendency of their present legislation, and they would attack the capital of the country—they would diminish the capital of the country, and the very means of the employment of the multitude who now cry out for direct taxation. Because therefore it dealt most crudely with the principle of direct taxation itself—because in its mode of assessment it was most inequitable and injurious to those classes whose interests they ought to support in that House, especially the profes- sional class—for those reasons, and for those alone, he felt it to be his duty to support the amendment. It it were an amendment from either side of the House positively calling on them to negative the imposition of the Income-tax, he could not in the present state of affairs sanction that course ; but because the present amendment did not interfere with the financial ar- rangements either of this year or the next, but allowed ample time to the Government to meet the difficulties of the day, and because he was sure no Government would attempt to meet those difficulties or redress those griev- ances unless they took such a course, he should give it his support.

Lord Jonsr RUSSELL exerted himself strongly to reclaim the errant Members of his party. If Mr. Rume was anxious to establish direct in the place of indirect taxa- tion—to abolish many millions of indirect taxation, which he said was ex- cessive, and supply its place by a general system of direct taxation—he was immediately supported by those who were in favour of indirect taxation, who would carry it to a far greater extent than was the case at present, and who would abolish direct taxes with a view to increasing indirect taxation. Mr. Hume must have been rather alarmed when he saw the care that was taken of his child by those who differ from him upon all the views he holds, and at the dandling and nursing which his infant had received during the whole course of the debate from those who are most strongly opposed to its existence. He must have been rather alarmed as to the future fate of that equal, just, universal, permanent tax, which he had in his imagina- tion. But there were other grounds upon which gentlemen opposite, in very considerable numbers, had supported the proposal in the course of the debate. Those grounds, however much Mr. Disraeli had tried to conceal them from the House, were founded on the necessity of getting rid of the Income-tax and of as much direct taxation as pos- sible, eible, with the view of imposing Import-duties upon foreign !"suuce. The words of Alderman Thompson, who rose so immediately is ne filgieman

proccuce,"—meaning, of his party, to support the amendment, were fort4n

as the Heuee i.T.Z.ff',C"..`; .11S:enamel, that foreign produce which is usually 1161101 by the name of corn. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Disraeli, how- 'ever, could riot bear the eagerness with which his friend Alderman Thomp. -son rushed forward in favour of the amendment. They never had a question brought forward in that House with regard to local taxation, or the malt-tax, or any matter affecting the landed interest or the general taxation of the country, but some of Mr. Disraeli's supporters got up, and, with the manli- ness which belonged to their character as a party, made the avowal, "After all, our real object is the restoration of protection." Then Mr. Disraeli al- ways had to rise after them, and to say, "Don't take them at their word; ss hatever yearns's, have heard, I did not hear it." (Renewed laughter.) In- 'deed, he always happened to be in such a situation that ho did not hear a -word of Protection, though most gentlemen on both sides might have heard the necessity of a restoration of protective duties frequently reiterated. He would at length get tired if his friends would always march forward when le wished them to keep back—if they would persist in constantly getting -out of the line, and be always firing off their muskets when he wished them to reserve their fire. He would at last say, one of these days, "Upon my word, you are too bad ; I will not march ;through Coventry with you any .more." (Loud laughter.) Lord John sought for oratorical assistance in another quarter. They had only on the previous day a magnificent sight in this metropolis—a sight which was gratifying on many accounts. It was gratifying to see this na- tion and other nations of the world assembling in one place the various pro- ducts of their talents and their industry ; it was gratifying to see that the means had been found to place in a splendid and magnificent building those products of art and of industry. But what was most gratifying of all was to see the great mass of the people some said half a million, some nearer a million of persons, in the utmost good-humour, with content upon their countenances —(Cheers)---with loyalty in their hearts—(Renewed cheers)—assembled to witness the spectacle that was exhibited before them. Those people, some of them in the poorest and meanest habiliments, showing that they had dif-

i

deulty by their ndustry to earn their daily subsistence—they saw without envying, without repining, without complaint, the equipages of the rich and the splendid pass before them : they did so, as Lord John believed, because they felt that injustice was not exercised towards them. (Cheers.) But if we were to tell the people that the rich were to have their incomes in- creased by adding to the price of the daily food of those masses, we could then no longer expect to see those cheerful countenances; we could then no longer expect that the institutions of the country would meet with ready and contented obedience; but we must expect the heartburning, the ill- will, and the discontent which must follow the imposition of unjust laws. Mr. Muserz and Mr. Roznecx supported the amendment. Mr. GR&CH feared that by supporting it he should not get practically what he wished. Mr. Hume replied, with a declaration that he would take the support of Any side of the House.

On a division, the amendment of Mr. HUME was carried, by 244 to 230. The Protectionists hailed the result with repeated bursts of cheering. The clause was amended so as to limit the tax to a duration of one year. Lord Toner Rtrssin.a stated that he would go on with the bill in Com- mittee on Monday next ; postponing the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill to that day week. Earlier in the evening, Mr. CHILDERS, founding on the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Exeter, and his further letter to Archdeacon Bartholo- mew, summoning a Diocesan Synod of his clergy, put the question, "How is Government prepared to act with regard to the proposed sy- nod ? " Lord JOAN RUSSELL replied with an explanation—

The opinion of the Law-officers has been taken on the proposal of the Bishop of Exeter. It does not appear that the assembly which the Bishop intends to convoke in any respect bears the character of a synod, either in the mode of the assembly, in its constituent parts, or as to the subjects upon which it is to deliberate. Provincial Synods cannot be summoned but by the King's writ ; and they cannot issue decrees or enact canons without the consent of the Crown, under peril of imprisonment to all persons concerned. But Diocesan Synods have always been called by the Bishop: it would seem that they too cannot enact any canons ; but whether they can or not, the Bishop of Exeter has expressly declared that it is not his intention they should do so, and that he is loth to do anything that may be construed into an act of disobedience or disrespect to the Crown. The word "synod" seems to be merely an assumption—a very unfortunate as- sumption—by the Bishop ; giving rise to the suspicion that he purposed to do some acts forbidden by the law : it is unfortunate, to use no harsher term, that he should give the name of synod to an assembly formed in a different way, under what is completely a device of his own, for different purposes.

In reference to the language of the Bishop of Exeter towards the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, Lord John Russell said—" It is well known that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a man of peculiar mildness of character— (Loud cries of "Bear, hear !") and of truly Christian forbearance ; and I think it is because he is a man of peculiar mildness of character, and of well- known Christian forbearance, that that language has been used. (Loud and general cries of" Hear !" from both sides of the House.) But, without any intervention of Government, the Archbishop will so conduct himself as to retain the veneration hitherto accorded to him ; and nothing which the Bishop of Exeter has said or can say against him will in the least diminish the respect for him, or cause him to depart from the character he has ac- quired, so far as, by the use of unworthy language, or by the interchange of epithets of invective, to diminish in any way the purity and the holiness which belong to his exalted office." (Loud and continued cheering.)

A further question by Mr. Honssissr produced the explicit statement by the Arronney-Gesteass, that these Diocesan Synods were held in an- cient times, and though fallen into desuetude and succeeded by Convoca- tion, are not illegal.

The existence of a quasi-system of passports at Dover was brought under notice by Mr. J. B. Ssirrn : at Dover more is required of foreigners than is asked of Englishmen landing at a foreign port. Lord Prissiest- STON explained, that there is nothing like passports at Dover—no permis- sion to pass into the country, or to travel through it. But the act passed when the Alien Act expired, compels every foreigner landing to give his name, under a penalty of forty shillings ; that is all : showing the passport is the best way of giving the name, but if foreigners prefer it they can give the name personally. Mr. C013DEN regretted the existence of even this practice, considering our vaunted superiority : but foreigners will now understand that they have only to give their names ; that Go- vernment has no power to exclude or remove them, or to molest them unless they offend against the law.

Mr. MIME raised his protesting voice against the arrangement by which I the Park riders who have been displaced from Rotten Row are now ad- mitted into Itensington Gardens—to the imminent danger of the ladies and children Who walk there, Lord SEYMOUR gave no hopes of altera- tion: he had at first chosen another rie..Zii L'Sede Park itself, but the Commander-in-chief objected that that choice would interfere with mill- tarp reviews, and he was obliged to abandon it. Mr. Hume should remember that the present retirement and seclusion of Kensington Gardens is not unattended with danger to females : if Mr. Hume him- self would ride there, he would contribute to the safety and security of the females who resort thither.