desirable that an inquiry should take place with regard
to this tax, with a view of making it more just and
equal, and that he wished, such alterations and modifications
having been introduced, that the tax should be
continued, and that it should be made permanent.
"I could not agree (said Lord John Russell), nor do I
now come to the conclusion, that it was desirable to
abridge the duration of the tax for this purpose. But
the house having decided otherwise, it was for us to
consider what course we should take, so as to maintain
public credit and the financial system of the country.
Now, although, in my opinion, it is very inexpedient so
far to place such a tax in jeopardy as to make it last only
for a year, yet I cannot suppose that the majority of the
house which agreed to that motion had any view, any
intention of placing in jeopardy the public credit of the
country. Therefore, sir, concluding that such would be
the intention of the house, we have to consider whether
or no we can adopt the resolution of the house, and
proceed with the bill in its present shape. Now, many
gentlemen who in private have argued this question with
me, have said that there is a general impression in the
country that the income tax, which is at present unequal,
might be made more just and equal; and when I have
answered that Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, and others
who have been in office, and had to carry on the financial
arrangements of the country, have always come to a
different conclusion, it has been replied to me, that if
the conclusions to which those eminent men came should
be supported by an inquiry, the country would feel
satisfied by the result of that inquiry. If, on the other
hand, it should be shown that the tax by modification
could be made more fair and equal, in that case such
alterations might be adopted. So that in either way the
maintenance of the tax might be secured. I have no
doubt that those who have expressed this opinion in
private acted on that view when they gave their support
to the motion on Friday last. Seeing, then, that contrary
to our opinion, the house has come to that resolution,
we think it desirable, in the present state of affairs,
that there should be inquiry upon this subject. I think,
such having been the decision of the house, that it would
neither be fair nor wise to attempt to refuse or evade
that inquiry; but that there ought to be a fair inquiry,
and one conducted by the men who in this house are
generally the leaders upon financial subjects, and to
whom the house is disposed to pay deference. I should
therefore say that the government is prepared to agree
that there shall be a fair and full inquiry upon the
subject." But in making this concession, Lord John
considered that he and his colleagues had these rights—X
namely, that it ought to be made clear to them during
the pendency of the inquiry to which he now consented,
there would be no further alterations of the income tax
diminishing the produce of that tax during the year;
and that the arrangements proposed by Sir Charles Wood
in reference to the house-tax in lieu of the window tax,
and to the reduction of the timber and coffee duties,
would be sanctioned.—A desultory discussion then arose,
originating in regard to a notice of motion by Colonel
Sibthorp for altering the tax as affecting tenant-farmers,
but deviating into a debate whether it had been
understood on the protectionist side that the vote of Friday
night comprised a reference to a select committee. Mr.
DISRAELI suggested that the chairman should report
progress, so that Colonel Sibthorp's motion might come
on upon the bringing up of the report.—Lord J. RUSSELL
refused his assent to any other course than that he had
laid down, namely, the passing the bill, imposing the
tax, precisely as it stood, for one year, with the reference
to the committee proposed by Mr. Hume.—In
conclusion, the bill went through committee.

Lord John Russell stated the intended course of the
government on the subject of Official Salaries. After
some introductory remarks, he said that the most
important alterations, suggested by the select committee,
were the following. The junior lords of the treasury
were to receive £1000 a-year instead of £1200, and the
secretary of the treasury £2000 instead of £2500. The
mastership of the mint had been made unpolitical, and
offered to Sir John Herschel. The offices of paymaster
of the forces and vice-president of the board of trade
were combined two years ago: the government did not
think it expedient to reduce the salary by £500 a-year.
Nor did it propose to abolish the office of lord privy seal.
The proposition to reduce the salary of the chief
secretary for Ireland from £5500 to £3000 was intimately
connected with the question of abolishing the lord-
lieutenancy: if the latter office be not abolished, it
would seem desirable to reduce the salary of the former.
The government proposed that the salary of the parliamentary
secretary of the poor-law board be £1000 instead
of £1500 as proposed by the committee. The government
proposed that the salaries of the lord chancellor
should be £10,000 a-year instead of £14,000 (from two
sources) as at present; that of the chief justice of the
Queen's Bench £8000 instead of £7000 as proposed by
the committee; and those of the chief justice of the
Common Pleas and the chief baron, £7000 instead of £6000
as proposed. Persons appointed after last year would be
subject to the new arrangement. The recommendations
of the committee in reference to the diplomatic service
included a proposal to reduce our embassy at Paris to a
mission. The government strongly objected to that, as
an ambassador has certain privileges which do not
belong to an envoy, but proposed the reduction of the
salary from £12,000 to £10,000 The proposal to reduce
our embassy to the Ottoman Porte to a mission could
not be acceded to. At Vienna this reduction had already
been made. The proposal to consolidate all our German
missions in one central mission was particularly inapt at
the present moment, when such different interests and
different views prevail in every court in Germany. The
suggested consolidation of the Florence mission with
that of Turin was objectionable; but the recommendation
that the Turin mission might be united with
one at Rome certainly has its prospective advantages.
Although the terms of the Diplomatic Relations with
Rome Act prevents the dispatch hither of a Roman
minister, government understood that the court of Rome
would be ready at any time to receive a special mission:
and notwithstanding recent circumstances, we must look
forward to having relations at some future time with the
court of Rome, and the mission to Florence would be
the most convenient mode of communication. At the
end of his explanations Lord John observed, that whether
the house adopted the recommendations of the committee
or the proposals of the government, there would be
no material saving to the public. As the explanations
of Lord John Russell were unannounced beforehand,
the house was not prepared to discuss them. After some
brief criticisms on the diplomatic items by Mr. Urquhart
and Mr. Cobden—the latter declaring that so little
attention had been paid to the recommendations as
almost to make him decline to serve on any committees
in future—and a brief vindication of the government
resolutions on this part of the subject by Lord Palmerston,
the subject dropped.

On Tuesday, May 6, a motion was made by Lord
NAAS that the house should go into committee on the
mode of levying Duty on Home-made Spirits taken out of
Bond; with the intention of considering the same
resolution upon the subject which ministers twice
unsuccessfully opposed last session, and ultimately defeated
only by strong party exertions. The case assumed by
Lord Naas was, that the Irish and Scotch distillers are
injured by the present mode of levying the duty on
home-made spirits taken out of excise-bond—upon the
quantity originally placed in bond, instead of on the
quantity taken out of bond, notwithstanding the large
deduction from the original amount which is made by
evaporation and leakage. The government case in
reply is that this leakage and evaporation is a known
average quantity, for which, in the fixing of the relative
duties on home-made spirits and foreign-made spirits,
the home maker receives an ample allowance; the
distinctive modes of levying the duties being made
necessary by the increased and different facilities for fraud
placed in the way of the home producer. Lord Naas
went over his case much as he explained it last year.—
Mr. James Wilson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
repeated the government objections.—Mr. Reynolds,
Mr. Carter, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Hume, Colonel Dunne, Mr.
Napier, and Mr. Hastie, sided with Lord Naas; Mr.
Gibson, a member of a former select committee on the
subject, and Sir George Clerk, sided with the government.