The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-22 00:00:00

outer as expedition, but we did not know whether that ex pedition would end in a warlike or an amicable way—a ques tion, indeed, which I could answer 20 minutes ago from pri vate information only. The noble lord's sheer, therefore, 'Was quite uncalled for. No doubt an expedition was or dered to be prepared, and some of your lordships seem to think that we did not provide for the expense of that expe dition. That was not the case. Last year there was taken a vote of credit for £550,000, and this year a similar vote of £500,000 was put in the estimates. In addition to this the army estimates include, for the pur poses of the Chinese expedition, a sum of £454,000, and the navy estimates a sum of £680,000, forming altoge ther as nearly as possible a sum of £2,500,000 provided for that expedition. (Hear, hear.) Do your lordships think that it would have been wise to make an enormous provision on that account ? We have generally 'been accustomed to do too much in that direction. What was the case in the Crimean war ?—That we so much ex ceeded what was necessary for the purposes of the e or that ended by paying back £1,600,000 into the Exchequer. If there is any one principle in finance which appears to me to be sound and indisputable, it is that you should either have a war budget or a peace budget. If your have a war budget, everything is exceptional ; but if you have a peace budget, it should be founded upon peace principles to this extent. If there is any danger, if there is any cloud upon the hori zon it rests with the responsible Government to provide those armaments, those numbers of men on land and at sea, and those stores which may, in their opinion, be necessary to provide against contingencies, and also to provide for the raising of the sums of money required to meet the expen diture occasioned by such preparations; but if you go be yond that, and take large and undefined sums for large and indefinite contingencies, you act contrary to sound princi ples, and you become liable to this great and practical in convenience,—that if, fortunately, you should be disap pointed in your fears, you have a sum of one, two, three, or four millions, whichever it may be, which, according to the spirit of the law, should, at the end of the year, be ap plied to the reduction of the national debt. Now, I ask your lordships wht ther it would have been wise at the be ginning of the year, when you were asking for an enormous revenue of an almost unprecedented character, to burden the people with additional taxes, the product of which might possibly be applied merely to the discharge of debt ? (Hear, hear.) My lords, lam aware of no other charge of improvidence which can be made against the original bud get; but it may be said that since its publication circum stances have altered. (Hear, hear.) I know of one cir cumstance, which I will mention, and which tells against me in this argument ; other matters have been referred to as to .which we were infornied at the time the budget was framed, and which were amply provided for. There was the question of fortifications. A commission had been appointed to inquire what was necessary to be done to defend our principal arsenals. We knew of the re port of that commission when the budget was framed; we know of it now, and I am happy tq say that we have at last got all the collateral information which will enable her Majesty's Government to come to a decision upon it. Well, one of these things will happen—either we shall reject that report, and the finances will be completely untouched, except as regards the large and unusual sum taken for current purposes of fortification ; or we shall adopt it in one of two ways. If we adopt it and come upon the current revenue to provide the means necessary for car rying it out it is clear that it will require a greater provision than the £BOO,OOO included in the estimates, or than the 51,500,000 which my noble friend stated to the deputation the other day was the amount of revenue which he was going to save the country—and really when the noble lord undertakes to teach the Government their duty, it is no light matter to state estimates at half a million more than their actual:amount; if, on the other hand, we determine to adopt the report, and to borrow money for the purpose of carrying out its recommendations, then the large vote for fortifications which is already before the House of Commons is sufficient, at any rate, to pay the interest of the money which will be required during the present year. Since the month of February the question of the China war has re mained in the same position in which it then stood, and until this afternoon we could not tell whether there would be peace or war ; nay, we now know nothing more, except that from the tenour of a private telegram, there is reason to fear that hostilities are li k ely to take place. We cannot, however, tell whether the war will be short and successful, and therefore rather a benefit to the finances of next year than otherwise, in consequence of the indemnity to be ob tained from China, or whether it will be prolonged over next year, and therefore require a budget for war. I am now going to state the circumstances that tell against me. The estimated surplus amounted to £460,000 0 wing to there being an error in the calculations of one of the departments of the revenue amounting to £230,000, and to the abandon ment of taxes to the amount of £lBO,OOO, that surplus is very nearly gone. (Hear, hear, from Lord Grey.) I am glad to hear my noble friend cheer iet a more cheerful man , ner this time—(a laugh)—but has my noble friend any rea son to suppose that it is a perfectly unusual circumstance that during the passage of a budget through the Houses of Parliament the surplus should disappear? I think that if he will refer to the records of our proceedings he will find a great many instances in which that has occurred without the Government thinking it necessary to modify their financial proposals in eonsequence. I will give an instance. In the year 1853 the estimated surplus, and more than the estimated surplus, utterly disappeared before the financial measures were passed through this House. I remember'that two noble earls opposite opposed in the strongest language the remission of the soap duties. They pointed to the probability of our becoming engaged in war with Russia, and said that under such circumstances they could not allow such a Bill to pass. (" Hear, hear," from the ,Opposition benches.) But they did allow it to pass, and partly upon my representation. I begged them not to alarm the country, not to disturb the trade of the country, but to leave the responsibility where it ought to fall until you turn out the Ministry—upon Her Majesty's Executive Government ; and what was the result ? Why, at the end of that very year you had a surplus of £3,500,000. (Cheers.) And will any one tell me that when the Russian war did arrive, and two successive Governments had to appeal to the people of this country, they found them less able or less willing to give the lavish supplies which were asked of them, because the year before we had remitted taxes which reseed upon the trade and commerce of the country ? (tree; bear.) My lords, Ido not know whether or not my noble friend will cheer what I am going to say, but I am authorised by those most competent to form an opinion to state that, looking at the principles upon which the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year have been prepared, looking at the fact that on the 31st of March of this year there was a surplus of one million and a quar ter which was not taken into account in the financial state ment of February, and looking at the fact that the balances are now two millions higher than they were at the same period of last year, although at the end of that year then' was a surplus ofa million and a quarter—taking all th ese ' circumstances i nto consideration, they see no danger of any deficiency in the revenue of the present year. (Cheers.) I now come to the question of a prospective deficiency. In very quiet times there is no great objection—although it is a now system, and one which sprung up with the income tax—to making prospective arrangements ; but when you have to deal with very uncertain circumstances the adoption of such a course is utterly impossible. The noble earl, in that speech to which I have already al luded, said that if Her Majesty's Government could show that there would not be a deficiency of two millions next year he would not vote for the motion of my noble friend. lam afraid that I have no chance of obtdn ing his vote, because I utterly decline to make any estimate for next year. There would be no safety in doing so. No doubt if you compare the two years, allowing for the loss of taxation by the expiration of laws, what with the arrears of the malt and hop duty and other fallings-off, there will be a deficiency of two millions ; but if you take the nominal increase of revenue, and add to that the increase which has always arisen upon any large remission of taxation, though I make no estimate of what that may be, yet past experi ence shows that it is impossible to put it at less than a million, and when you add to that the £250,000 saved by the falling in of the Long Annuities, your deficiency, without going into any other calculation, instead of being c 2,000,000, will be reduced to somethic g like £750,000. I saw it stated in a leading article of the Tunes the otherday, that my noble friend the noble baron (Lord Monteagle) is the pivot upon which the British constitution turns. I was not aware of the fact before, and I venture to th nk, for reasons which I will state, that he is not even the pivot upon which this question turns. My noble friend is well acquainted with financial subjects. Formerly a Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, he has great knowledge and great love of finance, and has been in the habit of bringing his, views upon it before your lordships, as it was natural that he should do ; but with regard to the conduct of this house as a house my noble friend is nothing more than any other able and distinguished individual among your lord ships who sometimes takes part in your debates. lie has no pretensions to lead a great party; he can only attract those whom his reasoning, his arguments, and his eloquence convince. With respect to the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) the case is entirely different. I was surprised that, in addressing the deputation to which I have so often re ferred he seemed to dwell upon a distinction which he supposed to arise from the motion for the rejection of this bill being made, not by himself,but by the noble baron. Why surely this is not so insignific an t a question that the noble earl was waiting to see whether or not some independent mem ber of your lordships' house took it up li e must h ave had in his own mind clear views as to whether it was of sutit importance for him to undertake it hi mself, or wh e th er he should leave it entirely loose. Well, my lord s , I h ave the greatest possible admiration for the ability th e character, and the position of the noble ea r l ; I am no ; sera that I have not almost been wanting in good taste in too often alluding to the admiration which I have felt for those qualities ; but that feeling is'not without exception. I have the greatest respect for his gifts and attainments, but there is one gift which he does not possess. That one gift is the gift of prophecy, which no human being will say he pos. Sessis. He has indulged in prophecies with regard to trade, n avigation, and almost every question of finance ; and in ever y instance his predictions have been signally unlucky. I have alluded to the alarm he expressed with respect to the remission of the soap duties. In the same year another qu es ti o n aros e. My right hon, friend Mr. Gladstone has THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 22, 1860, been incessantly taunted with the mistake he made as to the amount which the succession duty would produce. My right hon. friend was not alone in his expectationsof a large return from the succession tax, because the noble lord him self proved by figures and details that that impost would extract from the pockets of the unfortunate landowners a sum of £4,000,000 sterling per annum, or much more than double the amount which it has actually yiellee. (Hear.) In his speech on the Customs Duties Bill, on the 22d of June, 1846, the noble lord said— " I am about to deal with this measure chiefly on the score of revenue, for I beg your lordships to observe that you have at this moment a calculation of only a very small sur plus revenue, even with things as they are, for the service of the current year; and if the calculations respecting the revenue which I have made are accurate (and I have taken every pains they should be so), those who are in office this time 12 months, whoever they may be, will be in great dan ger of experiencing a deficiency in the revenue. Yet, my lords, it is under these circumstances that the Government think it wise and politic to introduce a bill for the purpose of reducing or repealing the duties on numerous most im portant articles. Duties altogether repealed, £55,879; a reduction of duties by one-half on articles producing a re venue of £2,326,000, £1,283,121; duties on corn, £400,000. I am aware that a certain increase in the consumption will make up part of the loss, but that there will be a serious defalcation of revenue arising from the reductions proposed by this bill will readily be admitted on the part of Govern ment themselves." That was spoken by the noble earl opposite in 1846, and what is the answer to be given to it ? On the 22d of February the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said— " The right hon. gentleman who preceded me in office made his financial statement on the 9th of May last year. He stated that he anticipated a surplus from the ordinary revenue of £76,000, and from extraordinary sources= namely, money from China, of £700,000, making a total of £776,000. By subsequent legislation foreign sugar was made admissible into the country, and in nine months, from April to December, the duty paid on the foreign sugar imported amounted to £304,000. That, of course, is an item which the right hon. gentleman could not calculate upon when he made his financial statement, but adding the sum derived from the sugar duties to that which the right hon. gentle man anticipated, it would give a surplus of only about a million of money. If, however, hon. gentlemen will refer to the balance-sheet of the sth of January, they will find that the produce of the revenue far exceeds this calculation, for the surplus amounts to £2,846,000. The produce of the revenue since the sth of January has exceeded again, be yond all expectation, the produce of the corresponding quarter, and I think the probability is that I should be fully justified in stating that when the period comes to which the calculations of the right hon. gentleman referred his calcu lations will be still more exceeded, and that the surplus of the sth of April will be even still more considerable than that which I have stated as the surplus on the sth of January." I say, then, that the noble lord, when he comes forward as the head of the great Conservative party and proposes to support the motion of the noble baron, by which this house will in effect take upon itself the financial duties that pro perly belong to the executive Government and the House of Commons, surely ought to show that he has some fitness for the task. (Hear, hear.) The same noble lord, I find, stated to the deputation, " We know nothing with regard to the vestion of any substitute at all. I was not aware that this repeal was taken as a substitute for any tax which was imposed. It is part of the general financial statement made by the Government, but I have never seen in any quarter, anil certainly not before the House of Lords, any proposal of an alternative tax." My lords, it seems per fectly incredible that the noble earl, taking these duties upon himself, should not appear to read the debates of the House of Commons upon those matters of finance which we are to correct, and should not even be informed by his political friends in that house that motions were made there by Conservative members and supported by all the Conservative leaders, but which were rejected after long debate by a decisive division. (Hear.) I now come to a more extraordinary statement of the noble lord. He is reported to have assigned, as a reason for not giving up the paper duty, that it is not a declining but an increasing tax. I should really like to have an explanation from the noble earl Upon this point. Does he not know that every Excise duty which has been repealed of late years was an increasing, not a de clining duty ? Or does he mean to say that the course we have taken in all these cases, which has, I think, been so fruitful of benefit to the country, was a wrong course, and one that ought not to be followed by any further remissions of the same kind ? In his address to the deputation the noble earl said : " But you must allow me to recall to your recollection that when in 1858 or 1859 (I forget which it was), I made use of the expressions to which reference has been made by Mr. Sergeant Parry, and when Mr. Disraeli in the same year, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, assented to a resolu tion of the House of Commons, stating that this was, in point of principle, an objectionable tax, we, at the same time, objected to a further resolution which was proposed to be added to it—namely, that the financial arrangements of the country should be made in such a manner as to enable that tax to be forthwith taken off, or cone words similar to those, and that that was a year in which, having considerable means at our disposal, we preferred reducing the income tax, and we preferred reducing the tea and sugar duties. We thought that the reduction of those two taxes was more important than the taking off of the paper duties, and we gave a preference to those two, and under those circum stances declined to take off the paper duties." Now, Hansard is a book often consulted by your lordships —(a laugh)—for we have many copies of it in our library ; and if we resort to that authority we shall find that in that year Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the noble earl's Government, made a long financial statement, the pith of which was shortly this—that instead -of having a large surplus the Government had a deficiency, and a deficiency of how much ? Why, of Ll,ooo,ooo—(hear, hear)—and instead of reducing the tea and sugar duties, they borrowed a sum of money in order to meet that large deficiency; they repealed certain acts of Parliament entail ing on them the obligation of their repaying other sums ; and they also raised the duties on Irish spirits, on checks, and st imps—the whole yielding them at the most an esti mated surplus not so great as that which the noble earl thinks so small when it figures in Mr. Gladstone's budget. (Hear, hear.) After that, I think the noble earl is really out of court in advising your lordships to take a safe and pru dent step in financial matters. I believe there are on this side of the house noble lords eminently fitted to deal with financial questions, and no doubt there are noble lords oppo site who possess the same qualifications, although I am not so well acquainted with them. But there must be others who have come up to-day from the extreme end of the king dom, and who are too attached to hunting, literature, and other pursuits that are best carried on in the country to at tempt to master the principles or the details of finance. These noble lords, knowing the vast information and expe rience of the noble earl opposite upon all other matters, may think it perfectly safe on this occasion to put their con sciences in his hands. But if the noble earl's prophecies, as nobody will deny, have always failed—if his knowledge of finance is of the most limited description—if, indeed, that subject is so repugnant to his capacious and well-stored mind that ho cannot for two consecutive years remember, but, on the contrary, jumbles and confuses together all the fa is and figures of his own department as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, then I think he places noble lords on his own side in a difficult and even false po tion in respect to how they are to vote to-night. (Hear.) Nly lords, I believe the amendment of which notice has been given is not in accordance with the spirit of the con stitution; nor do I think it consistent with the dictates either of justice or wisdom. I shall very briefly state the grounds of my opinion. The greatest of our debates since I have had the honour of sitting in this house was one in which a noble and learned lord, whom we all rejoice to see as strong and vigorous now as then, took a leading part in advising your lordships as to the course you should adopt. (Hear, hear.) That noble and learned lord then laid down the principles of constitutional law, and those principles were sanctioned by this house. I of course allude to the discussion on the question of life peerages. (" Hear, hear," from the Earl of Derby.) He told us it was of no use going back to ancient precedents— it was of no use telling us that Coke and Blackstone and other learned authors laid down the law of the subject in the most distinct manner. They were of no authority. We must come to the usage and practice of the constitution since it has been defined and settled in its best days—viz., from the date of the revolution downwards. Well, this house adopted that reasoning. It is unnecessary, there fore, now to quote any learned writers. I myself rather re gret this, because the other day I took occasion to read Blackstone, Hatsell, and Hallam. I did not find anything that really applied exactly to bhe case. I found they all admit the real technical power of rejecting a money bill. I found they go further, and speak of the unreasonable ex tent of the jealousy of the House of Commons at small and trifling alterations. This showed more than any rule the usage and custom of the House of Commons. They also give as a reasonable ground of jealousy on the part of the House of Commons that this house could not originate a tax or indirectly charge the people of this ceentry. If, then,,you cannot tax the cemrannity, I cannot see how by rejecting a bill for the remission of a tax you don't practi cally charge the people. I know there may be a technic& difficulty, but as to the spirit of the thing, I conceive, if you adopt the noble lord's advice to-night, you will to all intents and purposes impose a burden on the people. The legal technical right of rejecting I don't deny. The very preamble of the bill shows it. The question being put four times to your lordships house shows it. Legally and tech nically the Crown may reject a bill passed by the other two branches of the Legislature. That, to a certain degree, is guarded by the responsibility of the Minister. The Crown undoubtedly has the technical right and prerogative to create 100 peers to coerce this house ; but for the Crown to exercise that right would be a gross and flagrant violation of the constitution. The House of Commons has, I should also say, by the power of stopping the supplies, a right to coerce both this house and the Crown ; but in all these instances the power is tempered by constitutional usage, it is tempered by prudence. In every one of these instances, not excepting that under consideration, it has been tempered by usage and cus tom. The noblebaron, I know, will produce certain meagre precedents with regard to the rejection of bills certainly affecting taxation and trade of one kind or another, but are these at all equal to what he proposes to-day ? He proposes now, on mere fiscal grounds as I understand;to reject a bill repealing taxation forming part of the financial scheme sub mitted by the officers of the Crown, and therefore, with the consent of the Crown, to the House of Commons, and adopted by that house. I say, I know of no precedent for the rejection of a bill remitting taxation, or even revising taxation, which formed part of a whole financial scheme so approved and recommended. If the noble baron can produce such a precedent, I hope he will do so. My lords, even if I were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the noble lord is not only technically and legally right, but that in propos ing, such an unusual course to your lordships he is within the pale of the constitution, I ask, is the course ha proposes a just one ? Is it just to the people of the country when a remission of burdens affecting trade and industry is pro posed by the Government and assented to by the House of Commons—is it just to the people after the remission and imposition of taxation have been balanced, to saddle them with additional taxation ? I had a letter from a very intel ligent tradesman from the tewn of Carmarthen, who stated that the tax on the paper he consumed would more than enable him to pay his income-tax. He was well satisfied with the budget, and hoped by his savings to be able to drink a little cheap French wine, but he was now to be ex posed to a double tax. I will tell you another set of indivi duals to whom the conduct recommended by the noble earl is unjust—l mean the Board of Inland Revenue. Is it fair to gentlemen on whom you impose the financial administration of affairs, on whom the whole onus of the collection of taxes depends, is it fair to impose on them the administration of a law which they cannot thoroughly recommend, and which if carried out must be unjust and unequal to a large portion of the taxpayers ? 1 say it is not just. Then, is it wise in your lordships, of all branches of the Legislature—admitting the constitutional right, is it wise to take the people by surprise as much as you htve taken them ? You have taken them by surprise, but—perhaps that comes more under the head of justice than of wisdom—is it fair to persons in every branch of_ the paper and publishing trade, who in the usual course of proceeding have embarked in contracts on the faith of this measure having passed the House of Com mons, and who will lose not hundreds but thousands by the purchase of s earn engines and land on which to ex tend their factories, as well as in numerous contracts both at home and abroad ? My, lords, I think the injustice to these men will be great indeed. It almost appears a case in which, from changes in our revenue system, compensation should ensue. Then, with respect to any real public objects proposed by the noble lord, in the consolidation of the finances for the - present or the future, is this:a wise proceed ing ? The principle has always been to limit to the smallest possib e space the inconvenience arising from any change in our system of taxation affecting the whole commercial and industrial world. As soon as the House of Commons declared their opinion in favour of the remission of any ens toms duty it ceased ; and these papermakers and publishers having proceeded on the faith of the House of Commons, 3 our lordships in agreeing with the noble lord will now be disturbing all confidence in the decisions of the House of Commons, and it will be impossible for the Government to propose the most beneficent improvements in taxation, with out our whole merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen being kept in a state of anxiety and suspense two or three months longer than they might otherwise have been. With regard to revenue, is it perfectly wise to put yourself in op position to the. House of Commons ? I sincerely hope the House of Commons will show the utmost moderation and temper with regard to the interests of everybody in view of any decision to which your lordships may come to-night ; but is it wise to take an unusual and exceptional course and to trust entirely to the moderation and temper of the Commons that no evil results shall arise ? The House of Commons will be placed in great difficulty, and to this I would call the special attention of the noble earl opposite. You by this act to-night certainly take an unusual course; and if there was anything wanted to make this more unpa latable to the House of Commons, I think you have it in the speech of the noble earl to the deputation upon this subject. The noble earl talks of permanent taxation, and he says : " When you state that refusing the repeal of a duty is equivalent to the imposition of a new tax, and when, further, I think I caught the expression in the address of a loose practice having prevailed of passing duties for a term o f years, definite and indefinite, I must protest, in the first place, against that being termed a loose practice which has been brought in, because it is a practice which, if it were disregarded, would destroy the very essence of our consti tution." • , (Hear, hear.) That the noble earl should cheer that ob servation I can understand, but that the house should cheer it utterly takes me by surprise. (Hear, and a laugh.) This is no laughing matter. The noble earl goes on to state : " There are certain great departments to be maintained, certain great services to be performed, which it is absolutely essential should not depend upon the annual ♦ote of Parlia • m. nt, and which the Lords and Commons, feeling together that they ought not so to depend, have placed out of their own power and have passed permanent acts for supplying the means of defraying the expenses of those departments, and have also provided that the appropriation to these de partments shall not be interfered with by animal vote." What does that mean ? It means that you are to take away the right of the Commons to stop the supplies . . I hope the noble earl will take the opportunity in his speech to-night of explaining this part of his address. There is, my lords. another view of our position which may very properly be taken in dealing with this great question—l allude to the internal state of the country. That is, lam happy to say, a topic which we can dwell upon with satisfaction, for never did greater order never did greater tranquillity prevail throughout the land than at the present moment. (Hear.) At no period, I may add, did a greater degree of soundness manifest itself in her trade, her agriculture, and her manu factures, while she is as I speak rich with the glorious pro mise of future production. The employment of the poorer classes, too, is in a state the most satisfactory, causing the diminution of poverty and crime. What ground for finan cial alarm is there, I should like to know, to be found in auch a position of affairs ? None ; and I shall not mince the matter, but shall take it for granted that many among your lordships look with some anxiety to foreign countries, and see certain signs in Europe which you think may possibly lead to war, and to complications which may result in drag ging England into the contest. You take this view, and you seek to make due provision against the contingency which you apprehend. Heaven forbid, my lords, that I should give expression to a syllable which would tend to encourage such an apprehension in the slightest degree, but if, unhap pily, such a consummation as that to which I allude should arrive, what, lot me ask, would be the best position in which we could stand to meet its approach ? Which would be more desirable, that its advent should find the two Houses of Parliament acting with cordiality together, without a particle of jealous feeling towards one another, under their beloved Sovereign, directing in unison the energies of the wealthiest and the most public-spirited nation, on earth, or that it should come upon us,at a moment when a series of recriminations between the two branches of the Legislature had sprung up—and nobody can tell how soon they might under a certain state of things break out—affording a scan dalous spectacle to the other nations of Europe ? (Hear.) Do you suppose, my lards, that you would in the latter case find yourselves in a better position either to carry on diplo macy or to pros. cute war than you would in the former, even though you had to aid you s me. few hundred thou sand pout ds extracted from a tax which no one among us desires to see permanent, and which is now seriously dam aged as a source of revenue. (Hear, hear.) There is one other consideration which I would suggest to your lord ships' notice before I sit down. Is it wise for yourselves or for the interests of this house—which I believe stands as high now in popular favour and esteem as it did at any pe riod of iI s existence—to take the course which the noble earl opposite asks you to pursue ? One great proof my lords, that I am right in saying you hold such a position in public opinion is to be found in the fact that no writing, speech, or declaration hostile in spirit to this house can be made that the attack does not immediately fall flat to the ground, being devoid of any substantial foundation. (Hear.) Is it prudent, then, for your own sakes to afford what in accordance with my view might be construed into a reasonable ground of complaint against you, and to do that which in accordance with the view of almost every one among us must appear to be calculated to furnish food for declamation to those who may seek to injure this branch of this Legislature as one of the institutions of the realm ? It was, I think, Mr. Burke, who said that one of the most critical and invidious functions which the House of Commons had to discharge was to originate the whole weight of taxation, inasmuch as its hand was felt and seen in every burden that pressed upon the people. This system has, however, hitherto worked well, connecting as it does taxation with represen tation. Would it be wise for your lordships to introduce a new system, and to have your hand, instead of that of the House of Commons, felt in every burden which presses upon the people ? (Hear.) My lords, I have done. It re mains for me simply to thank you for your unexampled kindness and indulgence, and to ass are you that the obser vations which I have just offered to you have been made with feelings as earnest and sincere as by which I have at any period of my life been animated, and with a strong hope that your lordships may see the expediency, indepen dent of all party considerations, of avoiding, by your deci sion to-night, the occurrence of a state of things the direct or indirect consequences of which it is impossible for any one among us to predict. (Loud cheers.) Lord LYNDHURST—The noble lord who has just spoken, my lords, has done me the honour to refer to what fell from me on a former occasion, but I trust that I shall before I sit down be able to satisfy your lordships that the remarks to which he alludes have no bearing upon the pre sent case. I hope, therefore, I may be allowed, even at this early stage of the argument—not proposing to myself to enter . intothe whole question under discussion, confining myself to the preliminary and most important question the privileges of this as contrasted with the other House of Parliament—to trespass for a short time on that indulgence which you usually exhibit to those who address you on sub jects of this nature. (Hear.) There can, my lords, be no party question—no possible party question—involved in the consideration of the privileges of your lordships' house. All we have to do in dealing with the subject is to ascertain what those privileges are, and then 'to act in accordance with the conclusion on the point at which we may arrive. The noble earl opposite alluded in the course of his speech to some meeting which took place lately, and which was presided over by a great number of the members of the other House of Parliament. (Earl Granville said he had not spoken of the meeting to which the noble lord referred.) My noble friend has not alluded to the meetikg, but he bas alluded to its results. (Hear, hear.) That meeting was, I repeat, presided Over by several members of the House of Commons, and what, let me ask, were the doctrines which were there laid down ?° The doctrine, my lords, that for this house to reject a money bill was an invasion of the privileges of the other branch of the Legislature, and an in fraction of the rights of the people. Not satisfied with that statement, those who addressed the meeting declared.snch , a proceeding to be an insult to the monarchy. I believe also that at that meeting, or at some other of a similar character, a member of the House of Commons who has great influence with certain classes of the people of this country told his audience that the amendment of which my noble friend op posite (Lord Monteagle) has given notice is an insult to the other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, my lards, I have felt it to be my duty—l hope not with impro priety, having on more than one occasion presided over your lordships' deliberations, in which position it fell within my province to examine into and to make myself as far as pos • sible master of the question of the privileges of this house — to lay before you the conclusions on the subject at which I have arrived. (Hear.) You must not, however, for one moment suppose that I assume to myself any authority in dealing with this important question. I have no intention or desire to dogmatise with respect to it. I shall simply do that which 1 have doge on a former occasion—lay before you as plainly as I can the facts, the principles, the autho rities, and the precedents with which, in connexion with this point, I am acquainted, leaving your lordships—with out any doubt as to the conclusion to which you will come —to form your own epinion upon the matter. Now, it is in the first place, molt desirable in such a discussion to get rid of all those points in regard to which no doubt exists. I do not dispute—ncr can it be for a moment disputed— that we have no right whatsoever to amend what is called a money bill. We hate, moreover, no right whatsoever to originate a bill of thst nature: Formerly, indeed, and for many years, a very sharp controversy took place between the two Houses of Parliament as to the existence of the right to which I refer. From the time of the Restoration to a considerable period after the Revolution there were cases in which this louse exercised the right of amending money bills b. oughtup from the other House of Parliament with little or no dispute on the point. Controversies, in deed, sometimes toot place which were carried on with no small degree of acrimony. All the cases- on the subject are to be found collected in the third volume of Mr. Hatsell, who I may fairly represent as being the advocate of the privileges of the House of Commons. I may observe that the result was that this house abandcned the claim. Why ? Because they had no power to en force it. If we amended a bill which was sent up from the other House of Parliament, the House of Commons had the power of rejecting that amendment. With them the blll originated, and it was idle for us, therefore, to insist on the right to amend it. But that principle does not apply to the rejection of Money Bills. (Hear, hear.) There is not an in stance to be found in which the House of Commons has controverted our right to reject Money Bills. Over and over again, I repeat it, nothing can be found in the Parlia mentary journals or in any history of Parliamentary pro ceeding to show that our right to reject Money Bills has been denied. (Hear, hear.) There is a curious anecdote to be found in Roger North's " Examen," which bears upon the point. A Money Bill came up from the other house, in which there was supposed to be something or other in formal or improper. There was a payment to be made of some money on account of the past year, and great diffi culty existed as to what course should be taken. Roger North, who knew well the privileges of both houses, states that it put the House of Lords in a dilemma. He says we could not mend the least punctilio in a Money Bill, but he admits distinctly in terms that we had a clear right to throw it out altogether, although we did not like to exercise that right, because we were afraid that a similar bill would not come up, and we were anxious to pass the bill. They got out of the dilemma in rather a curious way. After two days' discussion, some noble lord, a little behind the seenes apparently, asked to see the bill, to have it laid on the table, and when it was produced it was found perfectly correct, and the house passed it at once. Still I don't mean to rely on the authority of Roger North, well acquainted though he was with the privileges of both houses ; but before going to the authorities which established those privileges, I will consider the arguments and authorities of those persons who oppose our privileges. I find there is a resolution quoted of the House of Commons in 1671, which I will read to your lordships. On a bill for an imposition on foreign commodities tho Commons resolved,— " That in all aids given to the King by the Commors the rate or tax ought not to be altered." Your lordships don't dispute it. (Hear, hear.) That is an authority on which our adversaries rely. (Hear, hear.) Another authority on which they rely is a resolution of the Commons in 1678, which I will also read to your lordships. On the 3d of July in that year they resolved : " That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for the :granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends' purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords." These are the two authorities which are relied upon by the adversaries of our privileges, and they deduce from them that the Lords have no power to reject Money Bills. These authorities say that we have no right to amend a Money Bill, and that we have no right to priginate a Money Bill, and, by a curious kind of logic,'they conclude that we have, therefore, no right to reject a bill of that kind. That is a logic peculiar to theniselves, which certainly would not meet with the approbation of the great Stagyrite. (Hear, bear.) But whatll complain of is thig,—l complain of tae want of fairness, the want of candour,—l won't say of honesty, be cause that is too strong a word (a laugh), displayed in quoting these passages, and omitting to quote others which are to be found in the self-same book, and which lead, as far as inference can lead, to directly the opposite conclu sion. (Hear, hear.) Is this fair ? Is this candid ? Can you place any reliance upon persons who adopt this style of argument ? (Cheers.) In fact, it is destructive to the case which they endeavour to set up. (Hear, hear.) In the very book whence the quotations I have read are drawn you will find what lam now about to read. In 1689, one of the best periods in our history, the Lords amended a Money Poll Bill, I believe. The Commons disa greed, and desired a conference, giving their reasons for that conference. In their reasons, which are stated with the utmost elaboration, with the utmost minuteness, and with a kind of superabundance of words which seems to show that they meant to sweep everything into their net, they admit in the ;most unqualified manner, not only the power but the right, the constitutional right, a right equal to that of the :House of .Commons, to reject Money Bills when they think proper, and when they think the interests of the country require it. (Hear, hear:) I defy any person at all acquainted with the law and constitution of this country to entertain a different opinion after having sifted and examined the subject even in a superficial manner. (Hear.) I have some scruple in reading the reasons stated by the House of Commons, on account of the superabun dance of words, but still they will show hoW earnest the Commons were on the subject, how eager they were to state their own privileges, and then you will bee the value of the admission they make as to the authority of this house. On the 9th of May, 1689, they sent up their reasons for de sing a conference on the amendment of the Poll Bill by the Lords. Among them are the following —and this extract, I beg your lordships to observe, is taken from the same book as those I read before, which are relied on by our ad versaries:— " All money aids and taxes to b e ra i se d or c h arge d upon the subjects in Parliament are the gift' and grant of the Commons in Parliament, and are and always have been, and ought to be, by the constitution and ancient course and laws of Parliament, and by the ancient and undoubted rights of the Commons of England, the sole and entire gift. grant, ani present of the Commons in Parliament, and to be laid, rated, raised and paid, levied and returned for the public service and use of the Government, as the Commons shall direct, limit, and appoint, and modify the same. And the Lords are not to alter such gift, grant, limitation, ap pointment, or modification of the Commons in any part or circumstance." Nothing can be more full, nothing more precise, than this phraseology ; nothing can show greater anxiety to state what their rights are. (Hear.) So far 'they are not dis puted by your lordships; and then the extract goes on : " Or otherwise to interpose in such bil s, than to pass or reject the same for the whole, without any alteration or amendment, though in ease of the subjects." (Cheers.) Nothing can be more distinct than this admis sion, they state their own rights forcibly, and they state the exception in favour of the Lords with equal force and pre • cision, but not with equal abundance of words. (A laugh.) But they don't stop there. They go on, and use a kind of simile : "As the Kings 'and Queens, by the laws and constitu tions of Parliament, are to take all, or to leave all, in such gifts, grants, and presents from the Commons, and cannot take part, and leave part, so are the Lords to pass all or reject all, witho u t diminution or alteration." This is not an admission of power;but of a right—(cheers) — an admission by the Commons of a constitutional right of this house. And it is to be lamented that those gentlemen who contend against the privileges of this house, and who have quoted certain passages from this very work, had not the fairness to cite the one I have now read, which is to be found in the very next page to that from which their ex tracts were taken. (Cheers) I have another of a some what earlier date,—the year 1671. And it is remarkable that the very document which I have just read should have been founded on the proceedings to which I am now about to call your lordships' attention; so that in reading the case which they have quoted they must have had this very docu ment before them. (Hear.) A bill for an inquisition en foreign commodities came up from the House of Commons, was amended by the Lords, and the Commons rejected the amendments, A conference was demanded, and the pro ceeding were continued for several successive days. Now, mark what took place. Your lordships maintained it to be for the happiness of the constitution that the two houses should mutually be checks on each other. What was the answer of the Commons ? "So they aro still," they said, "for your lordships have a negative to the whole." (Hear, hear.) There is a marked admission on the part of the other house. Another part of the argument was, " If the Lords may deny the whole, why not a part ? Else the Commons may at last pretend to bar a negative voice." The reply of the Commons bears on the present question :—"The King must den, the whole of every bill or pass it; yet this does not take away his negative voice—why should it take away yours ?" (Loud cheers.) My noble friend on Saturday re ceived a deputati.n, which at great length and with marvel ous audacity endeavoured to dissuade him from opposing this bill. But they took nothing by their motion. (Laughter and cheers.) And when, as they were about to retire, one more pugnacious than the rest took a long and lingering look behind, and endeavoured to draw my noble friend into a con flict, the noble wisely and prudently refused to be en trapped into any admission. My noble friend put the ques tion very clearly when be asked—" What is the use of our discussing money bills when they come up to this house, if we have no right to reject, as we admit we have no right to alter them ?" (Cheers.) Noble lords will recollect that when the Succession Duty Bil was sent up from the other house, it was very warmly discus-ed and debated by your lord ships. My noble • friend, Lord Aberdeen—whose absence on the present occasion I greatly deplore—was then at he head of the Government—a man of high talent but of still higher reputation, not alone in this country but through out Europe and the world. (Cheers.) That noble lord has been a member of your lordships' house for 60 years, and from his station, character, and acquirements no one can be more conversant with our privileges. What was the language held by Lord Aberdeen in 1853 ? "Now your lordships cannot alter a tittle of this bill ; not a particle. You may, and this you have a full right to do, throw it out on the second reading. (Loud cheers.) That is perfectly within your lordships' competence to do." It is for your lordships to consider, in this particular case, whether it will be prudent and proper, having regard to the interests of this country, that you should adopt such a course. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend opposite has done me the honour to cite my authority. What was the nature of the circumstances which led to the decision he has re ferred to ? It was stated that 400 years ago the Sovereign had created a life peerage, but no instance had occured since that time. The argument I made use of, which was sup ported by many noble lords, was that everything in this country depends on long usage and prescription; when, therefore no such right has been exercised for 400 years, and no claim has been put forward during that period, it ought not to be acted on, and cannot be considered as part of the law and constitution of the country—particularly after the many changes, including a revolution and a restoration, which have taken place. (Hear, hear.) That was my argu ment; but does it apply to the present case? My lords, I shall be able to show that within a recent period this right which we claim has been acted on without dispute—(hear) —not in one, two, or three cases merely, but in numerous instances. I hold a list of these cases in my hand, and I have selected the more modern. In 1809 a bill came up to this house for continuing and granting certain duties on malt. It was rejected. (Hear, bear.) lam nct prepared to say whether the bill was rejected in form, or whether, according to the usual course, the motion was that it be read a second time, or committed that day three months. Again, in 1789 a bill was passed through the House of Commons, and came up to your lordships, for imposing a duty on cocoanuts. It was rejected on the 6th of August in that year. A similar bill was brought up in 1790, and again rejected; so that not only are there admis sions of our right by the House of Commons over and over again, in the most distinct terms— not only has there been no instance in which they have dis puted that right, but cases have occurred in which it has been exercised by this house without any complaint on the part of the Commons. But a distinction is drawn by my noble friend opposite, who says those were bills for impos ing taxes ; this a bill to relieve from taxation—(hear)—and my noble friend alleges that a wide distinction is thereby created. (Hear.) That is certainly a novel doctrine ; I never heard it broached before; there is no precedent for it, no authority can be cited in its favour, no dictum even is given. But as regards our practice, I hold in my hand a list of cer tain bills for relief from duties, which were rejected by your lordships' house. (Cheers.) In the year 1790 a bill was passed through the Commons to relieve the coasting trade of Great Britain by removing stamps on certaindocuments, and abolishing stamps respecting the Isle of Man. This bill, which I believe had reference to smuggling, was re jected by your lordships, and there was not a murmur of complaint that I can find even a trace of. What becomes then of my noble friend's distinction ? What becomes of his 400 years' prescriptive right which he cited against my self ? (Hear.) But I should be sorry that the case rested even here. In 1805 a bill was sent to this house for abo lishing certain fees payable to customhouse officers in Eng land ; that was a bill for relief from taxation, and it was re jested by your lordships without complaint. In 1807 a similar step was taken with respect to a bill which proposed to abolish payments to customhouse officers in Ireland, and no complaint followed. In 1808 a measure was carried through the Commons to repeal duties on coals carried coast wise in Wales, and granting others in lieu thereof. Here was a bill to remove and to impose taxation, embracing conse quently both alternatives, and it likewise was rejected by your lordships. (Cheers.) So much for the authority and antiquity of the claim which is said to • be obsolete 1 Then, my lords, in 1811, there was a bill passed by the other house to suspend for one year the duties on corn, to ask for distil lation of spirits in England, and to permit the distillation of spirits from sugar. That was a bill for the relief of du ties, and the amount of those duties was considerable. That bill was discussed in the House of Commons at great length. All the agricultural interest took part in the discus sion, and when it came down .to this house it was again dis cussed at great length. Lord Liverpool was then Minister. He took pad in the discussion, as did also Lord Bathurst, the Minister for the Colonies. After a long debate the bill was thrown out. Did Lord Liverpool, the Minister of the day under whose authority the bill was introduced, did he make any complaint ? (Hear.) Did the House of Com mons make any complaint? Not a single syllable. (Hear.) So far from that, when a few days afterwards a bill was brought in to make amends for the loss of duties, he merely said, " I introduce this bill in consequence of the rejection of a bill by the other house." (Hear.) Never was a sub ject more fully discussed than that was. But this is a stronger case. It is a case of a tax in progress. The mo ment a bill has passed this and the other house, and received the Royal assent, it becomes the law of the land. All in dividual authority on the part of the House of Commons is at an end—has terminated, and the house has no more au thority over it than your lordships have. It is a law which, like any other law, can only be revoked by the joint action of the two Houses of Parliament and with the consent of the Crown. (Hear.) I was surprised to hear my noble friend the other day admit that the whole permanent revenue of the country could not be touched by the House of Commons without the consent of this house. However I think I have gone sufficiently, if not too much, into this matter— (cheers)—but the question is of immense importance, not only to the constitution, or to this or the other house, but to the country. (Hear.) I have stated distinctly what rights we claim and what rights we have exercised. We exercise those rights not for ourselves, but for the people. I hear it said that the House of Commons may order their officers not to levy a tax of excise. The House of Commons may annihilate that or any other law, and leave the responsibility upon their unhappy agents who are instruments of their caprices. But that is not a subject for discussion here. It would be indecent in me—it would not be respectful to the House of Commons nor to your lordships—it would not be respectful to the Sovereign—it would not be respectful to - wards myself, were I to enter upon such a consideration. I hear it said, too, that a discussion took place respecting a substitution of a penny of income-tax for these duties, and that the substitution was agreed to. Whether a penny of the income-tax was or was not meant as a substitute for these duties I have no means of knowing, but this I do know, that we could not strike out that penny. We had no right to amend that bill, and if we had attempted to amend it we should have been told at once it was an invasion of the privileges of the House of Commons. This is the answer I give to the charge of " sharp practice r " which I believe an hon. member who has considerable influence over some classes in this country to whom I have before referred has endeavoured to fix upon -your lordships. I may be told there is a surplus. That is a perilous matter into which I do not choose to enter. It forms no part of the programme which I have marked out for my self. I leave that to my noble friend opposite (Lord-Mon•• teagle), who I have no doubt will sufficiently clear up that portion of the subject. The question comes to this :—lf your lordships are satisfied, as you must be, that you have not only the power but the constitutional right to reject this bill, and if you aresatisfie I that there is an actual deficiency, that next year there must be a most enormous deficiency, and that the present state of Europe is such as to create continual anxiety—(hear, hear)—then I ask your lordships will you consent to give up, not for the present year only, but permanently, a sum of nearly a million and a half ? (Cheers) That is the proposition I put to your lordships, and lam satisfied what your answer will be. As I said I would confine myself to this question of privilege, I will only further observe, that the illusions, perhaps I may say the delusions, created by the introduction of the budget seem to have passed away and we have learnt that although brilliant eloquence has charms, yet, like other seductions, it is not without its dangers. (Laughter.) The same schemes may bear the impress of genius, of imprudence, of rashness. Satis eloquentice, sapientic e parum is not an irreeoncileable combination. (Hear, hear.) If my noble friend will move the amendment of which he has given notice _I shall give him, for the reasons I have stated, my cordial Support. (Lead cheers.) Lord REDESDALE said that members of the House of Commons complained that they could not procure access to the places set apart for them, and accordingly the bar was ordered to be cleared of all persons except members of the House of Commons and younger sons of Peers. Lord MONTEAGLE then rose and said,—l have been delighted with the arguments I have heard from my noble and learned friend, which are so conclusive upon what is, after all, the great question out of doors. After that speech I do not think any one will be disposed to question the full and unqualified right, as admitted by high autho rities and sanctioned by undisturbed practice, of this house dealing with any money bill, either by accepting or reject ing it. If the arguments you have heard have carried, as they must have done, conviction to your lordships' minds there is an end at once and for ever of the charges that have been loosely and unpardonably brought against this house. It is but a small matter that one of the humblest members of this house, like myself, should have been made a 'special object of attack, and that personal motives should have been attributed to me. Allow use, in the first place, to say that, however gratified and honoured I may be with the approval by the noble earl opposite (Lord Derby) of the motion of which I have given notice, yet, as he has stated elsewhere, I beg to say that I make this motion as a matter of duty, and there is:no combination to deal with this question either in an objectionable or unparliamentary manner. My noble friend, I believe, was as ignorant of my intention to give the notice as I was entirely unprepared for his declaration of opinion on the subject. If it be true that this is our right and privilege, that it does not rest upon our own as sertion of the fact, and that such a right is as useful to the other branch of the 14egialature as it is valuable to ourselves, there is an end at least of all the charges of our seeking to interfere with the privileges of the House of Commons. I must say, for one, though it may be presumptuous in me to use the expresWon, that the members of this house are as little minded to injure the privileges of the House of Corn monr as they are unwilling to abandon their own. (Hear, hear.) In both cases I believe that the privileges of Parlia ment form an essential part of the constitution of the coma. try. Like the rest of the constitution, those privileges have grown by degrees; and I agree with the President of the Council that it is to comparatively recent times, after our constitution passed through the throes of revolution, that we must really refer far guidance upon this question, and not to times long antecedent. Those who are but slightly acquinted with the Parliamentary history of England must know that in earlier times the Lords exercised a very dis tinct and separate power with respect to money bills and taxation. But it is unnecessary to go back to remote history. We may more safely refer to a period when our constitu tion was matured, and if we do so we shall find that in this essential matter the right of the House of Lords has never yet been brought into question. This part of the argument on the other side has been so conclusively swept away by• my noble and learned friend that it would be unbecoming in me to advert to it at any length. In addition, however, to what has fallen from him—not in corroboration, because no corroboration of mine is needed—l may point out one or two instances in which this matter has not been left in doubt, but has been decided after solemn deliberation. Many of these instances occurred during the existence of strong Governments, exercising, especially in this house, a strong influence. On one of these occasions the question was adjudicated upon after the Lords had been summoned. The house then pronounced a, unanimous decision on the subject ; the decision was communicated to the House of Commons, and from that time to the present, there is no instance of cavil, of dispute, or of protest en the part of the House of Commons. One of the first of these instances occurred in 1758 upon a bill to discontinue for a limited time the duties payable on tallow imported from Ireland. A motion was made for the postponement of the measure for two months, and the bill was lost. Y9ur lordships will see that the same principle was involved, whether the sus pension was for two months or for any other period of time. The bill was thrown out by this house, and no objection was raised by the Commons. I have heard a distinction made between the action of the Lords in respect of Excise and of Customs. Now here is a ease of an Excise tax. In 1816 a bill came before the Lords "to repeal the duties of excise on stone bottles, and to impose other duties in lieu thereof." A Motion that it be read a second time that day six months was made and carried, and the House of Commons made no complaint. As an officer of the other house, I mean Mr. May, is stated to have expressed an opinion'to the contrary of that which I am advancing, I wish to read a passage from his very able text book on the law and practice of Parliament. After alluding to the legal right of the House of Commons to originate taxation, and to the usage of Parliament which precludes us from amending a money bill, he quotes the resolution to which my noble and learned friend adverted, which, while it affirms the right of the Commons to originate money bills and send them here, clearly reserves to the House of Lords the fullest power of rejecting them. Mr. May says : —" The functions of the House of Lords in matters of supply and taxation are thus reduced to a single assent or negative." (Hear.) And again :—" The Crown demands money, the Commons grant it, the Lords assent to the grant." But I wish your lordships to consider that, by law and Parliamentary usage, the rights of the House of Commons are not merely limited to the origination, the framing, and the passing of money bills. Another import ant right which they exclusively possess is the appropria e tion of the sums so raised. We have nothing to say to the votes of supply and to the framing of the Appropriation Act. We cannot alter a single grant which appears Many one of those Acts of Parliament; but with regard to one and all of them we have full and entire power to deal with them as a whole, and to adopt or reject them. Now, when it is said " reject this bill, and you create a sum of £1,400,000 in addition to the supplies which have been already voted," I wish to point out that not one farthing of this sum can be issued or applied to the public service, except upon a legis lative authority derived from the House of Commons, ori ginating with them, one which it is peculiarly their func tion to frame, and in which we are not entitled to make the slightest alteration. I said just now that a sum of £1,400,009 was affected by this h ill. But, in truth, the amount re specting which you are called upon to decide by your vote to-night is not £1,400,000; it is a perpetual annuity to that extent. (Hear.) If you adopt the suggestion of the House of Commons, you will part with a sum of £36,000,000 ster ling, that being the capitalised value of the annuity which you are now called upon by the other house;to put an end to. Let me again remind your lordships that nothing can be paid out of the Consolidated Fund except by a vote of Parliament, and when we are accused of wishing to diminish the power of the House of Combons, it should be recollected that not one single farthing of that sum can be appropriated except by a Bill which originates with the House of Commons. It has been already intimated that a desire has been expressed on the part of some to diminish the security now afforded by certain charges being placed on the Consolidated Fund, and it has even been suggested that if it could be contrived to make the taxation of this country generally distasteful and abhorrent to the community, they would then cut down the establishments for the purpose of getting rid of the taxation. This has been suggested in quarters fully aware, I should have thought, of the dangers of such a doctrine, for every step taken in the way of diminishing the security now created for the payment of charges on the Consolidated Fund strikes eminently at the whole credit of this country. With respect to the allegation that is now proposed to reimpose the paper duty, I would observe that it is not your lordships' vote that reimposes that duty, sup • posing you should reject the present bill ; for that sum of £1,400,000 rests not on your act but on the law of the land, on the right of the Queen, Lords, and Commons to grant the sum, and the grant of the sum cannot be repealed except by the sanction of Parliament. But in this matter, as the noble and learned lord reminded the house, we are charged in rather unusual language with sharp practice, for it is said we have accepted the vote of £1,000,000 from the income • tax, in the first place, and now we refuse to remit the paper duty. With regard to the Income-tax Bill, it willbe remem bered that when it was passing through the third reading in this house, I desire.' some further delay, but the Government &daring that public inconvenience would re sult from the postponement of the measure, I abstained from insisting on its postponement, upon the distinct un derstanding that we should not be prejudiced in the discus sion of the Paper Duty Bill by the fact of having passed the Income-tax Bill without dismission. (Hear, hear. It is said that one penny in the income-tax was a substitute for the paper duty, but if the present bill be registered, there v; ill be nothing to prevent the House of Commons then diminishing, if it thinks proper, the income-tax, or reducing by one half the war-duties payable on tea and sugar. (Hear.) Our rejection of the present bill actually gives to the Cpra mons the power of applying £1,000,000 sterling in the way which in their judgment would be most conducive to the public service. I wish to call attention to what will be the result of repealing this duty on our public credit. I ask any one conversant with mercantile affairs whether the position of this country at present would be creditable, or I might almost say decent, in the case of any private indi vidual who depends on his credit ? You have now a debt which you are bound to pay at a given time. In November you are bound by l aw to pay the owners of the Exchequer bonds £1,0,0,000. What is the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? In his place in Parliament he gets up and says, at the very time when he diminishes his revenue by £1,400,000, " I am not in a position to make provision for that debt." The fairer statement would have been, " I am putting myself in a position in which I cannot pay it." And how do you stand ? This is not the first time you have made a postponement of this kind, nor will it be the last. There are two other sums of £1,000,000 each whch have been carried on and made charges on the income of 1862 and 1863. For those you also have to provide; and you have now established a precedent which a private mer chant could not venture to act on without forfeiting his credit. Let me say a word about the condition in which we stand. It has been said that the great object of the money arrangements of the present year is to leave every thing, as far as possible, free and open for the decision of Parliament in the next session ; yet at the same time it is proposed that you should take a step which compromises the whole case there was to be discussed, and commits you to two propositions—one being the reckless substitution of direct taxation falling on the property of the country for indirect taxation incident to the consumption of various articles. That step cannot be taken without the greatest peril. (Hear.) Take, for example, the property tax ; it was proposed by Mr. Pitt to carry them through a terrific struggle. The proposition was that while the tax should be considered a war tax it might be continued far one year in peace, for the purpose of paying the outstanding expenses of war. Well, Lord Liverpool was at the head of a strong Government, but he was unable to defend the tax. The dislike to it was so strong that it was not only thrown over • board, but a motion was made in the House of Commons that all the documents relating to it should be destroyed, to preserve the country from its re-enactment, but:we have had experience in our time. Sir C. Wood when Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the continuance of the property tax for a year. Tho House of Commons consented to the propo sition, but it appointed a committee to inquire into the mode of collecting the tax, and the result was that the tax was swept from the face of the earth. Other cases of a similar kind have occurred, but in this year the matter is even worse, inasmuch as the tax is passed for a portion of the year only—the most dangerous mode of dealing with such an impost. But, after all, the real question is, have we any money to spare? If we have, let us dispose of it in a truly English way, by paying our debts and discharging honestly the engagements we have undertaken. I deny, however, that we have a surplus. We have been told, in deed, that by the falling in of certain annuities a large sum _something like £2,000,000-45 at our dispbsal, and that we m ay fairly apply it for the relief of the trade and com merce of the country. That is a pretty imagination, but it is purely imagination. There is no fact to support it. The payment of that money was anticipated before the annuities fell in, because you have repealed other taxes ccntempora neously with the expiration of the annuities, and therefore not a single sixpence of the £2,000,000 now remains avail able, But it may be said that we have other pious at our disposal. I think, however, that if we limit our inquiry t the present year—although as prudent men we ought to .. consider what will be the demands of 1861—(hear) —we shall find nothing consolatory in the prospect before us. The balance upon an estimated income of £70,000,000 is only £474,000. Such a surplus cannot inspire confidence in our financial position; but have we really got it? No such thing. Even in the short interval which has elapsed betvieen the opening of the budget and the present time ths't £474,000 has gone after the £2,000,000 of annuities, and has vanished into thin air. (Hear, hear.) Nor is that all. Ho* is the balance of £174,000 produced ? It has already passed away , but aslong as it existed it was created by the most extraor-• dinary combination of discordant ways of appearing rich without being so that ever was beheld, either in public Or in private life. There is one sum of £1,400,000 which is made up of payments that would otherwise fall in next year —(hear)—and which no more belongs to the income of the present year than do the rents of any of your lordships' estates for the year 1861 properly form part of your income in 1860. (Hear, hear.) I thiuk, therefore, you will see that, instead of a surplus, we have to deal with a deficiency. Dut is this all? In the case of the China war there has been are attempt to transfer a charge from the present to the follow- , ing year—to say nothing about it until the pressure became irresistible, and to leave your lordships to imagine that no such charge really existed. I think that I have accurately ascertained the result of the answers given to the questions put by noble friend near me (Earl Grey). The native troops sent to China are to be paid out of the military chest, but that chest was not provided for this Chinese war, and cannot properly be applied to the payment of its expenses, unless Parliament votes a sum to replace that which is taken from it. if that sum is voted you must place it in your balance-sheet, and it will make your position more desperate than it appears to be at present. But that sum is borrowed without any means of repaying it. Both the debt and the means of repayment are kept, from your knowledge; and I say it will be unpardonable if, even at this period of the session, a vote is not taken with a view to replacing in the military chest the sums which have been so advanced from it. No provision is made in the army esti mates for the pay of the native troops serving in China; the vote of. credit granted this year is for the expenses of the past one. No estimate is presented for the expenses of the China war during the current year; the army estimates cover only part of the expenses of the British force in China and no part of the expense of the native force, and large arges under these heads will have to be provided for hereafter. There is another destruction of that which has already been destroyed,—this imaginary balance. You have also had a debt paid. The Spanish Government has been both sufficiently rich and sufficiently well disposed to pay its debts; and the sum so received you have carried to the credit of this balance-sheet. During the progress of the budget there has been an extra loss upon the wine duties of £171,C00, and many of the penny duties upon trading ope rations have been abandoned, and yet your lordships are called upon, without a full, clear, and distinct explanation to show that you are parting with your own money, and not with that which belongs to others, for whom you are trustees, to abandon a tax to which there is but slight ob jection. Although I may be supposed, from old habit, to view taxation with a more favourable eye,than can be ex pected from those who have not held the disagreeable office of national tax-gatherer, I am not going to praise either the paper duty or any other tax. No doubt, it would be better if you could abolish both that and many other duties; but you cannot afford it. I remember that Mr. Hunt, a member of the House of Commons, a man of no great observation, but of . considerable shrewdness and com mon sense, said what was very true, that you could not raise a large, income like. £70,000,000 sterling without tax ing the millions ; you might attempt to substitute direct taxation in order to relieve the lower class, but you could not tell how that would influence wages, and thus affect them. (Hear, hear.) One of the most extraordinary commendations which has been passed upon this budget is that you are reducing the subjects of taxation; that you are about to depend for all the means of meeting the en gagements of the country upon, I think, 16 articles. Why, that augments the danger of your position, by dirainishiiag your resources 1 It is a practice which is contrary to the old principle of taxation, and entirely at variance with the system of Mr. Pitt, than whom, I say it without admiring his general politics,—there never was with regard to com mercial subjects and general views of finance a greater, wiser, or more successful Minister. It hai up to this time been admitted by all writers upon the subject that if you wish to diminish pressure and lessen danger you should in crease the service over which that pressure is to extend. Any other doctrine may be plausible, and may be popular for a time, but unless it tends to the general security and credit of the country the poorer classes as well as the richer will suffer. (Hear, hear.) How, my lords, will you stand next year ? All this time you have heard nothing as to that. Suppose that all is right for the present year, how will you stand in the following one ? I will assume the estimated income for the present year to be. 570,600,000. Next year you will lose, as compared with that sum, £700,000, the proportion of the paper duty _which is paid this year; and, unless you break your word ante relieving the people from the war duties on tea and sugar, a further sum, which, together with that, will amount to £1,500,000. Then you can't expect to call up a further sum upon the malt and hop credits. You will have exhausted the whole amount that you can obtain in that way. Therefore your income next year will necessarily be £1,400,000 less than that of the present year. You had also taken into account for this year one-half of the casual payment received from. Spain. Now, assuming the expenditure to be the same as that of 1860, there will be a clear deficiency for the next year of £11,033,000. I pray your lordships' attention to that fact. But that is not all. There is a variety of other things which you will have to provide for. Have we not all heard of ascheme for thenational defences ? Information on that subject was promised to Par liament some time ago, but it has not been produced. We' ace, therefore, left to conjecture as to the probable cost of carrying out that scheme ; but the surmise is that it,will involve an expenditure exceeding 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 sterling. I may be told that sufficient provision _has been made for this object in the present year ; but that only shows that a very large sum will be required for what I must pre sume is a necessary work in the course of next year. Such, then, is the condition in which I apprehend you will find yourselves in 1861; and I put it to the house whether, under these circumstances, your lordships are warranted in de priving the revenue of a capital sum of 36 millions. It has been said, indeed, that the income from the paper duty can not be collected. To that assertion, however, there is this manifest and triumphant answer, that this tax is the very best and most economically collected portion of our whole revenue, and that it is increasing every year. The total expense of collecting an annual sum of a million and a quarter is only £6,250. If any noble lord should doubt that statement, he will find it supported by the authority of Sir Henry Parnell's commission of inquiry in 1835, which has already been referred to. The report of that commission contains returns showing that no greater a reduction than the sum of £6,250 would be effected in the charge for the Excise establishment by the repeal of the paper duty. Com pare that item with the cost of collecting your Customs' duties, with the cost of collecting other portions of your Ex cise revenue, or even with the cost of collecting your pro perty tax, and you will see that you are now asked to part with the easiest and cheapest collected part of your.entire system of taxation. I had the honour of myself proposing the remission of one-half the paper duty, and since thatmea. sure was adopted the revenue under the reduced tax has in creased from £715,600 to £1,400,000. The augmentation has been steady and continuous, and the exportation of paper has also rapidly increased. (Hear, hear.) I ask your lord ships, then, by agreeing to my amendment, to give the House of Commons the opportunity of dealing with this source of taxation next session, when avowedly the whole of our system of finance must be brought under their review. Do not, by assent to this bill, let them practically decide the fate of British finance for years to come by one hasty and ill-considered vote. I appeal to their own goid sense to leave this part of the revenue to be discussed hereafter in connexion with all other branches of the public income, when it can be seen whether we have the money to spare for dispensing with this tax, and whether its repeal would involve smaller loss to the Exchequer, and afford greater relief to the community than the remission of any other impost. I do not ask the House of Commons to surrender any of its valued privileg s. I do not call upon your lordships to affirm that circum stances may not yet arise when it will be expedient to abo lish the paper duty ; but 1 hope by our vote to-night we shall induce the House of Commons to claim for itself what it ought to claim as a matter, of prudence and sound policy, viz., an opportunity of wisely and dispassionately consider ing the whole question, not of the paper duty only, but of that duty as contrasted with all the other taxes which press upon the trade andindustry of the country. My noble friend referred to the cause of est 'cation, and the advantage which it would derive from a repeal of the paper duties; but if he w ill take any one of the excellent school-books which are circulated under his administration, and weigh the small fractional part of the price which the paper duty represents, he will agree with rue that it can form but a very inconsi derable argument for the abolition of the tax under present circumstances. Under the French treaty we are in this po sition—syou have either a prohibition or a prohibitory duty on the exportation of foreign rags ; and I should like to know how any reduction of duty without an increased sup ply will give a relief to the consumer. It is only when you can get the power of making more paper that the price will be diminished in the market. It was not for the noble earl, then, to use the hackneyed, threadbare, worn-out argument insisting that the diffusion of knowledge was a reason for parting with a million and a quarter of revenue. But I have detained your lordships too long. I have endeavoured to state the case in no adverse or disagreeable manner to the Government. The course I have adopted upon this occasion .is one I have taken every year when I thought any finan cial measure objectionable. The noble earl opposite knows well that on former occasions when he was in the Govern ment I objected to some of his financial measures. I have felt it right, from the position I formerly held, and that which I now hold, to give some attention to questions of this kind, and to state my opinions on them, though some what distasteful, I fear, to many of your lordships. Ibe g now, my lords, to move that this bill be read a second time this day six months. (Hear, hear.) Lord DUFFERIN said that after anxious inquiry and duo deliberation he had come to the conclusion that it was .I •