against him, his arguments, and his obser- | ed to George IV. by the late Pasha of vations. Indeed, he was so disgusted that, Egypt in 1820? The noble Marquess adhe confessed, it was with faint-heartedness verted to the proposal made for its removal that he applied himself again to the sub- to this country at the end of the camject. But all these questions, which were paign of 1801. The opinion of the late more fitted for a Committee, would come Sir Robert Peel expressed to himself was, under consideration again next year, and that it was a monument which ought to be he had perhaps now better terminate his brought to London and erected as a memoremarks, again expressing to his noble rial of Sir Ralph Abercromby and others. Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) his heartfelt who had fought and died in Egypt. The thanks for calling the attention of their late Sir George Murray also stated, that Lordships to that subject, and his earnest he joined with all his military and naval hope that he would continue to give the friends, who desired that the obelisk should House the advantage of his industry and be brought to this country. Some obloquy ability in considering all matters connected had been thrown on the condition of this with India. monument, under the impression that it was not of adequate value to compensate for the trouble and expense of removal. Perhaps its intrinsic value might not be much; but, as a monument, and as a trophy, it had a value peculiarly its own. The sculptures, he understood, were in comparatively good preservation. He had called attention to the subject solely at the request of several military and naval officers. The EARL of HARROWBY said, that in India it was left entirely to the East India Company to do everything as regards the formation of roads, canals, and other public works, and private enterprise did nothing. The consequence had been that the whole amount expended for these purposes during twenty years among a population of 100 millions, was a pitiful sum of something like three millions. The radical defect was, that it was not considered the first duty of a Government, especially in India, to provide the extension of roads and irrigation, without which it was impossible that there could be a development of industry or progress in civilisation. These objects the Mahometan conquerors of Hindostan had made their first duty; and their exertions in this respect, as compared with ours, placed this country in a most humiliating contrast. He had read a few years ago, with shame, a picture of the state of the Madras territory, with its hundreds and hundreds of tanks, all raised by the industry and enterprise of these Mahometan conquerors, but which were lying in ruin and decay. Whatever wars the East India Company might have been engaged in, this primary and most paternal duty of providing the first elements of civilisation ought to have occupied the foremost and most prominent place in their administration of the vast empire of India committed to their rule. On Question, agreed to; and ordered accordingly. The EARL of CARLISLE acknowledged the importance which attached to the obelisk, not merely as a memorial of the ancient art of Egypt, but also as a monument of British heroism. He had consulted with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and inquiries had been made on the subject. There were, he apprehended, some mechanical difficulties, and all he could say was, that the matter was still under consideration. House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, June 2, 1851. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Irish Fisheries; NEW FOREST DEER REMOVAL BILL. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEY opposed the second reading of the Bill, CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLE. which, if it passed, he said, would have The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH wish- the effect of depriving the poor of 20,000 ed to inquire of the noble Earl the Chan-acres of forest right, consisting of turfcellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, what cutting and fuel, which entirely depended steps had been taken for obtaining posses- upon the preservation of the deer. The sion of, or for removing, the obelisk called value of these rights might be estimated "Cleopatra's Needle," which was present- when he informed the House that the The Earl of Ellenborough MR. COMPTON did not oppose the Bill, but considered, before the House adopted it, the rights of the commoners should be taken into consideration. He recommended that the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of the Woods and Forests (Lord Seymour) should take powers for issuing a Commission to inquire into that question. He would, therefore, second the Amendment. LORD SEYMOUR said, the only way to improve the property of the Crown forests, was to get rid of the deer in the first instance, and with them the forest right. With respect to settling the claims of all parties, he was alarmed when he heard of their extent. There were two sorts of claims, those within the forest and those without; and, according to the lowest estimate, these amounted to 600,000l.; while, according to the highest estimate, they amounted to not less than 15,000,000l. He could not interfere with these claims, but thought it best to leave them to be decided in the ordinary way. His great object was to get rid of the deer. Earl of Malmesbury's commonage rights | Roebuck, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Vesey, and amounted to nine per cent on the whole of Mr. Beckett Denison. It would be in the his estate. He would move that the Bill be recollection of hon. Members that on the read a second time that day six months. 5th of May the House, after a lengthened Amendment proposed, to leave out the discussion, limited the Income Tax to one word "now," and at the end of the Ques- year, with the view of having in the interim tion to add the words "upon this day six a full inquiry into the working of the tax, months." and also to endeavour to remove some of its inequalities. He afterwards moved, in consequence of that understanding, that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of making that inquiry. A month had since elapsed, and now various personsfelt anxious to know when that Committee would be nominated; and as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had given him permission to nominate it now, before proceeding to the Orders of the Day, he proposed to do so at once. It was necessary to state that the time which had elapsed since the 5th of May had been partly caused by a desire on his part to form such a Committee as would satisfy the House that full justice would be done to so great and important a question as the present. He did not believe that one side of the House was more interested in it than the other; and, therefore, his great anxiety had been to select from both sides those who had devoted their attention to the subject. With that view he had selected names from the four divisions of the House, but it turned out that those names were not satisfactory. The landed interest seemed to be of opinion that the numbers were unfair, and that they would not be sufficiently represented on the Committee; and yet he was only anxanxious to select six names, leaving the remainder to be filled up by whomsoever on either side might wish to be on the Committee. At the last meeting on the subject he had altered two of the names. He had substituted since then a Member for Ireland, and another country gentleman, and he did not think he could have made a better selection. He was most desirous that the Committee should endeavour, as far as possible, to see how the Income Tax Act had operated since its enactment in 1842, and whether evasions of the payment of the tax could not be prevented. His own conviction was that the evasions of the tax had been to a very great extent. The tax was not levied on a just principle. His desire was that the imposition should be such as that every man in the country should pay a fair proportion of the taxation of the country for the protection which he enjoyed from its laws. He had been MR. MULLINGS regarded the Bill as a measure of confiscation, which ought never to receive the sanction of the House. MR. HENRY DRUMMOND objected to the Crown entering upon the business of growing timber for the Navy; and, as there were several objectionable clauses, he would support the Amendment. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 82; Noes 28 Majority 54. Main Question put, and agreed to :-Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee. INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX MR. HUME begged to nominate the following Gentlemen as Members of the Select Committee on the Income and Property Tax; Mr. Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Herries, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Harry Vane. Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Henley, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Frederick Peel, Mr. informed by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, that Mr. Pitt had admitted the impossibility of adjusting the tax properly; but, on reference to that eminent man's speech, there was to be found this statement: "No scale of income which can be devised will be perfectly free from the objection of inequality, nor can evasions be altogether prevented-ali we can do is to approximate as far as possible to a fair and equal distribution." That statement fully coincided with the view he (Mr. Hume) entertained. Mr. Pitt himself began on a most erroneous principle, by raising different rates from different sums, commencing so low as 60l. per annum, and varying the rate of the tax according to the amount of the income. A variety of alterations were afterwards made in the law, and it would be allowed that from the experience derived during the time of Mr. Pitt's administration, and from the operation of the Bill passed by him, and also from what had taken place since 1842, considerable advantages had been gained in respect of their knowledge on this subject. His wish was, that after the Committee should have ascertained the working of the present system, they should proceed to inquire whether any mode could be adopted to render the property tax fair and equal. He was against all exceptions from the tax on account of the amount of property which the party possessed. His wish was to lay the tax on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, and to free industry as much as possible. Another object he wished to attain was to render the tax permanent. Nothing was more desirable to be avoided than frequent changes in the system of taxation of a country. Even a change from bad to good was often attended with evil. Therefore, his wish for going into Committee was to see whether it was not competent to adopt some permanent system. The origin of the tax, as was well known, was to enable the reigning sovereign to carry on a war; its object now was to enable the Government to pay the interest on the debt incurred by that war. He would cheerfully lend his assistance to the Committee, however onerous the duty might be, to render the inquiry in every way worthy of the expectations of the House and the country. MR. HERRIES said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, contrary to his (Mr. Herries's) expectation, had invited the House to a discussion, which, if entered upon, would, he ventured to say, Mr. Hume prevent any other business being considered that night. The hon. Gentleman had not only suggested as a subject of debate the past but the future history of the property tax. It was after midnight when, on a former occasion, the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) moved for his Committee, and he (Mr. Herries) was thus prevented from making the few observations which he now felt it his duty to address to the House on the Motion for its nomination. At an early stage of the Session, he (Mr. Herries) laid before the House his views respecting the property tax. A very large proportion of the House was then of opinion, with him, that at that time the House might have commenced the abolition of an inconvenient impost, and at the same time might have maintained public credit, and have made ample provision for the public service. That proposition having been rejected, but not by a large majority, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) proposed that the tax should be limited, not to three years, but to one year. To that proposition he (Mr. Herries), with perfect consistency, readily assented. It was perfectly true the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, though not in his Motion, made a proposition for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Property Tax. Now, he (Mr. Herries) wished the House to understand that, although he might not have opposed the appointment of a Committee, it was no part or condition of his assent to the tax being limited for one year, that such a Committee should be appointed. On the contrary, he should have thought it a good reason for not entering into an inquiry, that the tax was limited for one year only, his expectation being that that would have been a bona fide limitation of the term of the tax itself, as a preliminary to its being ultimately abandoned. This led him necessarily to advert to the different views with which they were about to enter upon this investigation. But if he understood rightly the tendency of the speeches of hon. Members on the other side of the House on this subject, it was that the property tax was to be a permanent tax. The Committee might mend it if they could, and they might institute an inquiry for that purpose; but if they could not improve it, it must be retained in its present form. Now, his (Mr. Herries's) view of the matter was exactly the converse of that. He said, "Since you are engaged in this investigation, go into it; and if the Committee can make this tax more free from those objections emergency. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. 350 which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) | tion of a tax productive of such immorality, considers to be inherent in it, namely, except under circumstances of extreme those of inequality, vexation, and fraud, then he would admit that they would have reason on their side; but if the Committee could not show that, and if the result should not be favourable to those views, then he (Mr. Herries) contended that the only alternative was that the tax must cease," His proposition was, "either amend the tax, or abolish it;" but the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was, "Amend the tax ifyou can; but if you cannot, then you must adopt it as it is." Hon. Gentlemen, in the course of their arguments on this subject, and, perhaps,berty to object to its composition. There the public in general, seemed to entertain were upon the Committee the names of the belief that the greatest objection to eleven Gentlemen who voted for the perthe tax consisted in the assessment of petuity or permanence of the property the duty on incomes derived from profes- tax, and the names of only four who voted sions or personal earnings, or in any other on the other side. Could the report of a way unconnected with the possession of ca- Committee so constituted be expected to pital, at the same rate as on incomes issuing be satisfactory? The members of the out of vested property. Now, whatever might landed interest had not complained of the be the weight or validity of the objection constitution of the Committee, although to the assessment on that score, he (Mr. they were scarcely represented upon it; Herries) did not consider it as affording but they would have been justified in doing the strongest argument against the con- so, for the tax undoubtedly pressed with tinuance of the tax. A paper recently unequal severity upon them. presented to the House, exhibiting an ex- COLONEL SIBTHORP said, it was an traordinary diminution of the amount of unpleasant task to object to the name of income, returned under Schedule D, had any Gentleman, but paramount duty comadded to the conviction which he had pre-pelled him to disagree to some of the viously been led to entertain, that it was under that schedule, comprising the return of the profits of trade, that the inequality, vexation, and fraud inherent in the tax were chiefly to be found. They depended on the declarations of the parties, which there were no means of checking except by severe inquisition. There existed, therefore, strong temptations to fraud, against which there was no remedy but vexation. He would adduce an example, for the accuracy of which he had the highest authority. Within one small manufacturing division, the total income returned was 70,000l. per annum. The Commissioners, convinced that it was much below the truth, instituted inquiries to ascertain the quantity of the raw material which passed into the several factories, by means of which they could form a judgment of the profits derived from the conversion of it. Upon those data they surcharged the parties up to 150,000l., and, after discussion, an assessment of 130,000l. was gladly acquiesced in. Many cases of the like nature were constantly occurring, and, therefore, he protested against the imposi names proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume). He objected, too, that no one member of the military or naval professions was nominated on the Committee. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had called the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact; and he had given him (Colonel Sibthorp) to understand that a member of those professions should be placed on the Committee-but he did not see that it had been done. MR. VERNON SMITH inferred from the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and of the right hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), that it was still an open question whether there was to be a Committee at all. For himself he should be very glad to give his vote against any Committee being appointed. If that question could be brought before the House for decision, he, for one, would be happy to record his vote against it, not being aware that any possible advantage could arise from the inquiries of a Committee. The hon. Member for Montrose said the object of his Motion to limit the tax for one year was to have an inquiry. The tax more equitable, and have no Committee at all. right hon. Member for Stamford gave his vote to limit the tax to one year for no such purpose; and many other hon. Members The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEdid the same. If they had given their QUER said, the House would do him the votes merely to inquire, a more stultifying justice to remember that he had never vote in itself could not have been given. expressed any opinion in favour of the They were on the eve of the Whitsuntide Committee. He stated, when the propoholidays; July was near; even with a vote sition as to the Committee was first made, in the Committee that three should form a that the questions to be decided were quorum, there would be a difficulty in get- questions of principle, and ought to be ting three Members together; and he de- decided by the House itself, and ought fied the Committee to report anything of not to be referred to a Committee, and he any value before that period of next Ses- pointed out the contradiction such a course sion, when the right hon. Chancellor of would involve, and the difficulties which the Exchequer must be prepared to say would stand in the way of coming to any whether he proposed a renewal of the tax satisfactory conclusion. His hou. Friend or not. A more fruitless inquiry could not the Member for Montrose nevertheless be conceived, and he thought, at all times, moved, and he would do him the justice to a more objectionable inquiry could not be say he fairly stated that he moved, the entered on, because it relieved the Govern- limitation of the tax to one year, for the ment of responsibility, and transferred that purpose of getting a Committee appointed, responsibility to the House. This Com- and with the hope that the result of the mittee could not possibly learn anything labours of the Committce would be to that the House and Her Majesty's Minis- make the income tax permanent. The ters did not already know; and therefore House would also remember that a good he saw no grounds on which the Commit- deal of discrepancy of opinion was extee need be appointed. They had had no pressed upon that Motion; and that when discussion on the question whether the he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) Committee should be appointed or not. pointed out the discrepancy, the hon. It was taken as a corollary on the vote for Member for Buckinghamshire, the able limiting the tax to one year, and was agreed and eloquent leader of the Opposition, to early one morning without discussion. stated that he, for one, supported the The hon. Member for Montrose said this Motion on the same grounds as the hon. was a question for both sides of the House. Member for Montrose himself. Taking If there were to be sides in the Committee, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire as a division of town and country, the landed the exponent of the opinions of his party, interest was certainly not very fully re- he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprepresented. There were nine town Mem- hended that it was the wish of a majority bers to six county Members, and of those of the House that a Committee should be six, two were Members for one county appointed. The Government acquiesced in for the West Riding of Yorkshire. As far that opinion, because they conceived it was as he was concerned, he was very glad to the opinion of the majority of the House. see them there; but he doubted very The House was now put in the very much if hon. Gentlemen opposite thought strange position in which it must always them the fittest representatives of the be placed when two extreme parties joined landed interest. If any question should to carry a vote in which, in truth, there arise between land and trade, town and was no common concurrence. The hon. country, fixed property and industry Member for Montrose did not wish, in (though he thought fixed property was point of fact, to limit the tax to one year. nothing more than accumulated industry), The hon. Gentleman opposite did not wish it was important that the Committee should to have a Committee for the purpose of represent all interests. He hoped that if rendering the tax permanent. The conthe Committee was persevered in, the hon. sequence was that he believed, in his conMember (Mr. Hume) would take further science, that a majority of the House did time to consider the names he placed on it, not wish for a Committee at all. After so as to give satisfaction. At present it the division on the Motion of the hon. was most unsatisfactory; and any report Member for Montrose, there was no disemanating from it would not be worth the cussion on the question whether the Comtime occupied, or the difficulties encounter-mittee should be appointed or not. It was ed. Let Her Majesty's Ministers make the moved at a late period, and there was no Mr. Vernon Smith |