scribed the Budget as being the foundation of a solid system of finance, and destined, if the country continued to enjoy the blessings of peace, to secure many years of happiness and prosperity.

The Earl of Derby would not offer any opposition to the second reading, because the tax was inevitable, and the state of the finances such, that it was impossible for the present or any Government to dispense with the large sum it brought into the Exchequer; but he objected to its principle, and he entered into an elaborate criticism of the Budget, to show that the calculations were vague and illusory, and the conclusion a contradiction to the premisses. He questioned the probability of the cessation of the tax in 1860, and referred Mr. Gladstone's success to the counter-attraction of a heavy tax on landed property, rather than to his powerful reasoning. He protested against the hasty conclusion of Lord Aberdeen as to the intentions of the late Government with regard to the renewal of the tax, and maintained it was an erroneous supposition that Mr. Disraeli had not matured plans for carrying out his policy, the fact being, no time was given him to develope them.

Lord Portman and Lord Berners adversely criticised the Income-tax Bill and the Budget. Lord Brougham put several cases to show the injustice the present Income-tax inflicts on capitalists, professional men, and traders. He also strongly objected to the principle, but despaired of the discontinuance of this execrable tax at the end of the next, or the next following, seven years. The Mar

quess of Clanricarde also feared for its discontinuance in 1860.

The Marquess of Lansdowne said that the Ministers were perfectly sincere in their provision for the cessation of the tax. They did not contemplate extending it beyond 1860. He had always op

posed it as a permanent tax, and his opinion had not changed. Ministers had now put it in the power of Parliament to discontinue the tax, and that was all they could do.

The Earl of Wicklow defended the Bill, and its extension to Ireland.

The second reading then passed without a division.

On the 27th of June, on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, the discussion was renewed by Lord Brougham, who spoke at considerable length against the principles of the tax, which he said fell directly upon capital, inasmuch as it fell upon the profits of the investments made for improvements in agriculture, commerce, and manufactures. This was an evil incidental to the tax, and irremovable, for no allowance could be made for those years where there were no profits at all. He urged at great length the arguments so often repeated, that the tax is unequal and inquisitorial, and the machinery by which it is raised so dreadful, that he would not, if he could avoid doing so, intrust it to any Government. But he felt that with all its evils the tax was a matter of necessity, and could not be spared. He did not expect that it would expire in 1860. He recalled the circumstances under which the old Income-tax was repealed in defiance of the Government of the day, through the instrumentality of

nightly discussions on petitionsa popular privilege no longer allowed to the House of Com

mons.

Lord Monteagle felt great difficulty in agreeing to the reimposition of the tax as a substitute for a number of assessed taxes and customs duties bearing upon the wealthier classes. But Government had certainly promised that the tax should terminate in 1860; and he thought greater securities for the performance of that promise were contained in the Bill, and in the accompanying financial measures, than in the Act of 1806 referred to by Lord Brougham; and he hoped Government would take measures to secure that result as far as it was in their power.

The Bill was then read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do now pass, the Earl of Wicklow moved an alteration of the 13th clause, whereby the mode of assessment in Ireland would be assimilated to that in England. It was unfair, he said, that the landlord should have to pay the tax on rents he never received. The mode of assessment in the Bill was exceptional; and the clause drawn to remedy the grievance would not do so, for in Ireland rent was not lost from insolvent, bankrupt, or absconding tenants, but from tenants who would neither pay nor abscond.

The Earl of Aberdeen defended the mode of assessment laid down in the Bill. The Income-tax was extended to Ireland under favourable circumstances. The valuation of the poor-law-below the rental-was the basis of the tax; and where the rental was lower than the valuation, the landlord could pay on the amount of the rent. In

every point of view consideration had been shown for proprietors.

In the debate that followed Lord Beaumont vehemently supported Lord Wicklow's proposition; and denounced the Bill as a "lie," for placing a tax as an Income-tax on property that may not produce any income at all.

The Duke of Newcastle rebuked Lord Beaumont for the warmth of his attack, and vindicated the justness of the measure. In the course of his speech the Duke gave some statistical information as to the number of tenants in Ireland.

He had that morning received some most important statistical information which had been published as to the state of the occupiers of land. The total number of the occupiers in Ireland valued at 61. and under was 564,144. The number of occupiers rated over 61. and under 2001. was 397,575. Adding those under 6l., it made the number of tenants valued under 2007., 961,719, very nearly 1,000,000. This showed the number of persons rated under 2007. in Ireland. Now, what was the number of persons rated at 300l.? The number was 3716

that was the total number of landlords in Ireland rated at 3001. The number of persons rated over 3001. could not be more than 1500.

The Marquess of Clanricarde appealed to the fears of the Government. If they would not reconsider the point, they would hear of it again; for it affected the most loyal, the most intelligent men-not disloyal agitators, but the very class who ought to be conciliated. Lord Campbell followed on the same side. The tax would be levied on the owner;

but in some parts of Ireland rent was paid, in some it was not paid. In England the occupier had to pay the tax-why should a different system be adopted in Ireland? Then the remedy was a mockery, except in cases of bankruptcy, or insolvency, or absconding. Lord Monteagle and the Earl of Clancarty also supported the amendment: but it was rejected, by 34 to 18.

The Earl of Lucan objected to the 42nd clause, which provided that a reduction of one-third should be allowed on payment of rentcharges under the Drainage Acts. He thought that the whole should be deducted instead of one-third. Some discussion ensued; but this amendment also was rejected by 21 to 10; and the Bill passed.

Bill having been moved in the House of Commons, Sir John Pakington said he had intended to meet the motion with an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, but finding his friends were not then prepared to go on with the discussion, he should allow the Bill to be now read a second time, and reserve his opposition until the next stage.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer assented to this suggestion, and proposed to take the discussion on the 13th. He then proceeded to explain the propositions of the Government with reference to the liability of corporate bodies to the succession duty. They were of opinion, he said, that while, on the one hand, it was just that if a succession tax were imposed upon the general mass of property in the hands of private individuals, it would not be just that the property of corporations should be exempted from some payment, it would be most convenient that, instead of laying the duty upon such property in a lump, it should be imposed in the shape of an annual tax upon corporate property, speaking generally, which it was proposed should be at the rate of 3d. in the pound for a pe

rate of 6d. in the pound. With regard to municipal corporations, it was proposed to adopt the same rate as in the case of the incometax, namely, to regard as liable to the duty their realised property, exempting such of their revenues as were derived from any rate or tax levied upon the community. Trading corporations did not lie within the purview of a tax of this kind. Charitable and eleemosynary corporations, including ecclesiastical corporations aggregate, would be dealt with under the rate he had before mentioned, paying 3d. in the pound upon their aggregate revenue for the first seven years, and 6d. in the pound thenceforward, as an equivalent or a commutation for the succession tax. There was a limited class of corporations aggregate—namely, religious and benevolent corporations, and others supported in the main by annual donations or subscriptions, or by the proceeds of invested property, which it was not proposed to subject to the tax, except with respect to such of their property as should be derived from bequests, or as they had been in possession of anterior to the commencement of the present century. A question of considerable difficulty, he observed, arose