House of Commons, April 11.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 554, 6 August 1851, Page 3

House of Commons, April 11.

Lord J. Russelt, in 'moving that the house, at its rising-, should adjourn until Monday, intended (hat ho should bung on the motion respecting the Kafhr tribes, which stood on the paper in his name, in the shape of an amendment to the motion of Sir \V. Molesworth, which stood adjourned until Tuesday next. In reply to a question fiom Mr. Bunkos, Tho CiiANcrjiou of tho Kxciiiqulr said that the new hotise tax would he assessed on tho value of tho I house- assessed, which value, they must a*cerUun in tho ' best way they rould. .Probably the laling to tho property tax would be the best criterion as to tho value, except m some cases, which might be provided for. On the motion foi the Speaker's leaving the chair to go into committee on the Assessed Taxes Act, Mr. Disiui.li moved, as an amendment, " That in any relief to ho granted by the i emission or adjustment of taxation, due regaid should bo paid to the distressed condition of ihe owners and occupiers of land m the United Kingdom." The lion, gentleman referred to the fact, that although tho continued pressure of agricultural (listless bad compelled Ministers to make allusion to it in the Speech from the Throne, yet it had subsequently appeared that they had no measuio whatever in pieparahon to satisfy the expectations thus raised. He was not prepared to say that the agiicultunsts were much disappointed at this, for they were not very sanguine in expecting any effectual measure at tho hands of the present Government. The budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so bid as to be condemned by all parties, and he was by his own party held up as the Jonah who was to bo tin own to the whale to save a sinking Ministiy. Then came a Ministerial crisis, but Jonah had not been thrown overboard, and accordingly they had befoie them the same budget as before, with very little alteration, except that the only two propositions capable of benefiting the agricultural interest were withdiawn from tho right honourable gentleman's plan, and on the plea that they had been ungraciously received by those whom they were meant to benefit, lie proceeded to establish tiie fact, that^ as there was a surplus, and as tho landed interest w.is in a state of great dish ess, while all other classes were admitted to be in a stato of great prosperity, and remission of taxation in consequenco of thatsuiplus should be applied to the relief of the only class winch was admitted to bo in a state of deep and continued suffering. One measure proposed by the Government — that of transfeiun^ the expense of pauper lunatic asylums to the Consolidated Fund — was a valuable proposition, not as regarded the amount of relief it would confer, but because it admitted a great piinciplo<— the principle that this kind of local taxation ought not to fall exclusively on one description of proporty. That proposition, however, was withdrawn from the new budget. Ho would tell the right lion, gentleman that he might have given relief to tho agriculturists by turning his attention to the poor rates. Included in these rates wero miscellaneous expenses not devoted directly to tho relief of tho poor, amounting to no less a sum than £1,700,000 for England, Wales, and Ireland ; and with such a surplus, surely the light lion, gentleman might have relieved the landed intoiest from a charge like this. Jle did not mean to bring forward any such proposition, but had it been proposed by tho Chancellor of the Exchequer ho would most certainly have given it his support. Instead, however, of giving any portion of the surplus to the only class in a state of distiess, the whole of it was to be given to the class which was in a state of unprecedented prosperity. In fact, the conduct of the Government since tho commencement of the session, upon thevanous measures they had introduced, presented an aggregate anomaly which had never been equalled in the annals of Parliament. Ho hoped they would not have to say, when they should return to their constituents, " Injuicd you woip when you sent us to Parliament; but now you are insulted." Tho motion he submitted was one ofjustice and conciliation, and ho hoped that no false shnme on the pait of the right lion, gentleman would prevent his once more re-coiiaidoung his budget. Mr. Laiiouciihii, said the changes til hided to by the honourable member for Bucks woie wholly inconsistent with the lepeal of the window duties, and yet he had expressed Ins intention to suppoit that measure. Tho sin plus to be disposed of was about a million and a half, and this ho contended would he most beneficially applied, even for the /aimers tliemselvos, by modifying tho window tax, instead of diminishing tho income tay, as suggested by Mr. Ilenies, or transfen ing to the Consolidated Fund ceitain blanches of local taxation, as lecornmended by i\h. Disiaeli. To him the motion of the honoui lblo gnnlleman nppeaied to be an enigma, which could only bf> Rolved by the word " pioteclion," and he only leg rolled that his hidden meaning was not more unmistakeahly explained. The light lion, gentli'iiiriii (hen delemk'd tho Government pioposiUoii, •md expressed a hope that tho house would negative the amendment of Mr. Disiaeli. Mi. (U aijsiom 1 could not approve etiluely either of tho Government piupositiou or that of Mi. Disraeli, but being obliged to cIioom) bclwcou them, upon a comparison of their respective ndi (Ullages, he would vote ioi tho oii^mjl motion. He could not help wewinsr

tliG amendment as ha% itip; some 1 relationship to protection, the restoration of which the lion, gentleman and Ins party were pledged, if possible, to brine,' about. With reference to iho ftlinisteiial plan, he laid it down as nn axiom that the income tax mu^t bp equitably classified in its application, or it could not bo made a peimancnt lax. Tlieie were difficulties in t ho way of such clarification, and they must, therefore, prepare heieaftcr to forego this sourco of revenue. Ui< regretted tho large sacrifice winch had been inaJe in the new house tax by exempting houses under the value of £'20 per annum, because the tax was thereby placed upon a false basis, precluding it from being looked to ns a subBtitnte for tbo income tax in future years. I Mr. A. STAFroiiD condemned the Government reflecting the claims of the landed interest in their application of tho surplus at their disposal. It was in vain for the Government to put words mto tho tnouthof Her RJajes'y expreasivo of regret at the distress of the agricultural inteiest, unless they weio prepared to bring forward remedial measures. Whenever a demand was made for relief, Ministers sheltered themselves under the plea of iiee trade in lesisting it, coolly toiling the bouse that things would ultimately adjust themselves, and if sorely pressed they raise the cry of '• wolf," for tho put pose of frightening them with the idea of n return to protection and dear bread. This, however, was no reason for resisting inquiry, and he warned the house against driving the faimeis of England to the adoption of a course which the Government might not have contemplated when they resisted tho motion for inquiring into agricultural distress. Mr. Alcock and Mr. Sandars severally spoke against the amendment of Mr. Disiaeli. Lord J. Manni us leplied to the arguments advanced by Mr. Labouchcro, and expressed stiong doubts as to tho continuance of the prosperity in tho manufacturing dislucts unless the agncultuiists of the country could 1 c raised from their piefent state of prostration. The noble lord proceeded into a variety of. details to show, not only the extent of agiicultural distress, but also the utter impossibility, burdened as the farmers were, that thej' could stand up against the competition of foreign countries in agricultural produce. Mr. Emom thought that the protection speeches of the noble lord and Mr. A. Stall'oul had done immense mischief to the motion, of their leader. Ho thought Lord John Russell was equally indiscreet, as he sometimes was, in admitting into tho Queen's Speech a paiagraph which was nothing less than an invitatiou to motions like the present; and ho thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had committed a still qi enter blunder in opening a budget with a small boon to the agriculturists, and a greater yet in bringing down another budget withdrawing that boon, and thus givißg rise to the discussion in which tboywere now engaged. lie denied that tho landed proprietors weio as a class suffering anything which could warrant them in corning to the house for relief. With respect to the occupiers of land tho case might be different, but he could not assent to the proposition that that dkstiess was the result of the legislation of tho house. lie believed that Pailiamcnt could give no relief to the distress complained of, and that the agriculturists must rely upon the exorcise of the same sK ill and industty that enabled tho redt of their follow- countrymen to prosper. Mr. Re\ voids supported the amendment, which he would not do if ho thought it directly or indirectly implied protection. Notwithstanding tins preamble,however, the lion, gentleman m.i'le a most unanswerable protectionist speech, and said he wus prepared to support the amendment even at tho risk of turning out the piesent administration. Tho Chanckli on of the Exchequer said he fully expected how tho hon. gentleman would vote, because on a former evening he told them tfiat he would always vote against tho Government, irrespective of the merits of tho question on which his vote might be given. The Government would, however, do what it thought right, however it might regret the loss of tho support, of any hon. gentleman. lie then declared that if the amendment of Mr. Disraeli should bo carried ho must give up the repeal of the window duties. The hon. member for Bucks must know that such must be the case, and it was theiefore inconsistent on his part to bring forward the amendment, if he really was sincere in hia declaration that ho was favourable to a repeal of those duties, lie contended that the repeal of the window duty would be a great boon to the agriculturists, as was proved by comparing the returns of its effects respectively on manufacturing and agiicultural counties, showing that even after tho imposition of the house duty, the relief from taxation would be thieo-fourths in the agiicultural and only one-half in the manufacturing counties. With respect to tho suggestion of Mi. Gladstone, he was ot opinion that he could not succeed in any propositiou to extend the houje tax beyond the limit he had proposed. I Mr. W. Miles said that in his county the distress of : the labouring population was very groat, and ho beI bdieved it to be equally so in other counties, un<l yet even the slight relief proposod to be given to the landed interest by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in hia first budget, was withdrawn altogether in his second. Mr. JMi.wrjujAru supported the motion, but owing to the impatience- of the house was inaudible in Iho giillerv. Sir R. Pi vi. said, that although he was a Fiee-trader, he felt desirous of stating that lie must vote for the amendment of Mr. Disraeli, thinking that tho agricultural class, which was in a state of distreas, should be considered in the appropriation of tho surplus. Lord Noiwlys opposed the amendment, as an indirect mode of defeating tho repeal of the window tax. Sir W. Joi.liffe supported the amendment. Colonel Sibihorp also supported tho amendment. Lord J. Russell said if the window tax was to be repealed, it was quite evident that out of the remainder of the surplus no effectual relief could bo given to the landed interest, and therefore such motion as the one under consideration wore calculated to crent a delusion throughout the country^ Although protection was not directly involved in the motion, it was induectly inrolved, and hence the delusion lie complained of. It would be more worthy of a great party to come fairly before the house, and state at once that they stood boldly on the question of protection, aud then lot the issue bo decided by the country. Mr. M. J. O'Cowni-ll animadverted severely on tho course pursued by Mr. Reynolds iti opposing the Government without reference to the merita oi the measures they might bring forward. Mr. Kfogii replied to the asperities of Mr. M. J. O'Connell, and said ho would vote for tho amendment. Sir T. D, Aci.and supported the amendment, contending that as the prosperity of the other classos of tho community was chiefly at the expense of the agucultural interest, now there was a surplus, tho distressed agriculturists had a right to a share of it. Mr. J. O'Conni-ll said he oould not vote with the Government on that occasion. Mi. H. Grattan supported the amendment, believing that free trado had beggared Ireland. The house then divided, aud the numbers were — For the. amendment ..... 250 Against it 263 Majority against it . . . i'J The announcement of the numbers was received with roitoratcd cheers from the Protectionist benches. The house then went into committee, and tiflor a short conversation the Chairman was ordered to report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Monday next.

(From the Tune*, April II.) In the House of Loidb last night, The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were read a third time. The report on (he County Courts Extension Bill was brought uj) and received, and Lord Brougham stated that he should move the third reading tluad.iy. Their Lordships then adjourned after despatching some other business.