The Sun. — London, England, 1861-04-30 00:00:00

Now, these arc minute statements, and I think 1 need not carry them further. - But in closing this part of tkesubject 1 will observe that it is not the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to frame his estimates with reference to extraordinary circumstances. He is bound to frame the estimates iu accordance with the circumstances in which he stands. It would have been wrong if the estimates of last year had been so framed as to meet a harvest unequalled in its badness for the last half century. The estimate that I now present is an estimate based on the expectation of an ordinary season; and I venture to say that, founded on that expectation, it is the fifth time that it has been my duty to preeent estimates of this nature to the House of Commons; and I never presented them with a stronger conviction, if we have anything like ordinary circumstances, that they are raore likely to be followed by an excess of revenue as com pared with the estimates. (Cheers.) There remainsone other question which this is not the time to discuss, and that is the pa; er duty. There will be a great many opportunities when this subject may be discussed in committee, when tha whole question may be discu , sed in its economical and social hearings. It is commonly assumed that the paper duty is a eenetantly increasing duty. 1 do not think that the increase in the paper duty up to the last year was at all remarkable, when we consider the vast expansion of the general trade of the country which has taken place in the last 20 years. The paper duty is not now, therefore, an increasing one. In 1859 it was £1,142,0e0, in 1860 it was £1,291,000, and in 1861 it' produced £1,305,000. Whether it be from the in fluence of foreign competition, or whether from the paralysis occasioned by the votes and proceedings in this house, I cannot say, but the paper duty has lost its spring and elas• lieity, and I doubt very much wheth©r any effort of ours will ever restore it. (Hear.) It is complained that there is a very scanty surplus, and at the same time it is said that we ought not.. to be so improvident as to abolish the duty on paper, which costs £ 600,000, but we are to reduce the duty on tea, which w ill cost £BOO,OOO. It has been a s sume d th a t whatever we give away in the matter of tea will reach the consumer, but what we give away in the matter of paper is certain not to reach the consumer. (Hear, hear.) but how does this matter stand? While the price of tea is 2s. Bd. a pound, you are to be persuaded to make a remission of 3d., which will be about 91 per cent. The value of paper is from 3d. to ls. per lb., and striking an average the value isabout ed. The duty which it is proposed to remit on paper is one penny halfpenny per lb. or 25 per cent., and it is well known that when yonremit a duty of 25 per cent. on the value of an article you are more likely to confer an advantage in a commercial point of view, and one whichlis likely to reach the consumer than where the duty removed is only 9 per cent. —(hear, hear)—and it is a fact clearly shown that the remis sion of part of the duty which took place long since on tea has never yet reached the consumer. But the duty on paper b 'ins removed, increased competition will follow, and it is quite certain the reduction will reach the persons inte rested in its consumption. There is one topic on which 1 must address the house as to the removal of the duty on paper; because of the very high flown doctrines of philan thropy preached by hon. gentlemen on the other sideof the house, whose great regardfor thelabouring classes has been placed in contrast with that of those who desire the removal of the duty off paper. That is a matter which requires some little consideration from this house. As respects the general question of the removal of the paper duty, it was fairly stated on a former occasion by the right hon. gentle man the rrember for Bucks that different opinions might be entertained as to du ies upon advertisements and newspapers, but there was no financial evil abstractedly greater than the evil which was connected with an excise whereby, as in the present instance, a physical and moral disadvantage was created, and the right hon. member supported that state ment by the vote he gave at a period when the duty on tea was not Is. sd. a pound, but 2s. ld. per pound. (Hear.) that this matter cuts rather deeper than is supposed into the reat principles on which this house has been engaged for the last 20 years in reforming the commercial laws of the coieutry. We are told the first obligation of the house is to neinee those fixes which are levied for the purpose of re venue on articles of popular consumption. If that is true, it. is not the principle on which former Parliaments or the present Parliament have acted with regard to commercial reform. It is not the principle which was carried out in 1841 by Lord Melbourne's Government. It is not the prin ciple acted on in 18-12 by Sir R. Peel. The reduction of duties upon articles of exclusive popular consumption was not the first, but the last, of the objects which he had in view—(hear)—becar a) he knew, and the Parliament knew, that in point of fact the true secret of improving the condi.- lion of the people was in the removal of duties, not the mere reel aetion of price on this or that article, Lut the liberation and extension of trade and the increase of it. (Cheers.) In 1842, when these reforms commenced, and when the income tax was imposed, in order to make them practicable Sir R. Peel declared the principle on which he should proceed. That principle was to diminish or abolish protection, and to away with all prohibition, to repress smuggling, and to liberate trade from its fetters; and the mere fact of reducing the price of articles of popular consumption was far behind in importance. In 1842 we sacrificed £1,600,000 of duties, nearly all of which consisted of differential dutiee ; £,000,000 of it was :or raw material—namely, timber. Those who say the course now proposed is not a provident one will see that in 1845 a still larger sum was given away, but there again not on a single article was the sacrifice made with ,a view to cheapening what was consumed by the people, if he excepted the article of sugar. £700,000 was given away on cotton. What an improvident Parliament was that to assent to a mea sure which was not in the last recuperative. Now that pro tection is gone and cannot be openly recommended or de fended. Substitutes—and they are poor substitutes indeed —are invented and palmed off on us, and we are told we are not to abolish the duty because the proceedings would not be recuperative. In the same year two other duties,equally objectionable, were abolished—namely, the glass duty and the auction duty. In 1846, £115,000 was given away, not to cheapen any article of popular consumption, but for the liberation of trade by the removal of differential duties. In fact, the same principle has governed every buiget pre sented to us, proposing extensive changes in the law, with one exception only, and that exception was the-budget of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks in 1852. lie adopted the principle which he called unrestricted com petition, and did not touch any of the remaining differential duties. What he did do was to propose a large reduction of the duty on tea—(opposition cheers)—and with respect to the excise he proposed to give away about two millions on the malt duty by taking off half the excise; but he left the reatrainti upon trade in full vigour--(hear, hear)--and I cannot complain now if the right hon. gentlemen con tinues to hold those principles, in opposition to the vria oiples which guided Sir R. Peel and the hon. members who sit near me. But let it be understood who are the innova tors; because when we are accused of a rash and desperate peliey, we are only carrying out those principles which have lone received the assent of the 13tieish Parliament, and ob tained icr it. she respect of the world at large for the man ner its which it has extended the trade and industry of the couairy. We do not claim any originality on this subject. 1 Logan as an humble labourer sisal disciple of Sir 11. Peel, and I only desineto continue to apply the principles on which he always acted. (Hear, hear.) There are those in the house who know that. when her Majesty's Government thin preipeeal to take off a penny from the income tax awl to repeal the- paper duty, they were offering a measure coneiiiatiou to the minority in this house. It was by a champion on the other side that the issue was raised last year upon the point whether the house would consent t.) remit the paper duty, or would forego the tenth penny oat the income tax. The hon. member for Somerset elates ntovea a resolution to the effect that as the repeal of Um duty on paper would necessitate the imposition of an adtlitienal p.'nny on the income tax, its repeal at that time west inexpedient. We understood those words to mean sim ply and plainly what they expressed. We were not to sup from that resolution that the paper duty was to be in dehniiely postponed. (Hear, hear.) The motion did not eieteseeet e llf ilibt as to the expediency of the removal of the duly, bet only as 1 the price at which it was to be effected. 1-;arely there could I,e nothing more legitimate and natural than that we, when we found ourselves in a position to do so, should maintain the connection between the income tax and the paper duty by proposing t ) repeal the latter and to take the penny off the former—(hear) —and thus, as I think, make a proposal couched in the spirit of conciliation. In asking the house to vote fir that which closed the contro • versy of 1860, and not to vote for that which will hand it over from year to year, perhaps to be brought forward again under circumstances of greater doubt, and difficulty, and danger, we have done that which will be felt to be correct by all those who bring a candid mind and independent view to this question. I do not know whether there will be any, or if any, how many divisions on these resolutions. We thought when we submitted them that theywere very simple, but though more thav fortnight has elapsed we have not yet been permitted to take a single step upon them. I hope that if gentlemen really entertain the feelings which they have described, we shall have some mode of ascertaining the sentiments of the house. (Cheers.) Quite apart from the 14 t` , rest of any government or any party, I do not believe that these long-drawn and &rniess debates, with intervals of " 1 " es tree nights between them, supported by men of great name, but hardly any two of them agreeing, even in the cours e of their arguments, and none of them willingito submit a distinct proposal to the house—l do not believe that the teethed of conducting public business is favourable to that which we alt desire to maintain, viz., the credit of parliament with the country. (Cheers.) ,I am quit: sure we shall find those on the other side as well as those on this who are ready to tike a wise and comprehensive view of the . i mpor t an t considerations whichare involved in our decision over and above those cctereer(al. and financial elements which give to the p lan itself a uffipient and conclusive weight—(hear, further, I ate convinced that ttle linage, when it exa mines In. full ,the Wilulo of th e mo tives and arguments that bear on the proposition we now maize for liberating the la , t arti cle o f British manufacture the fetters of the excise'—'(cheers)—.will be satisfied that in making that proposition We are in the .... _ kttlis of those who haveon former 0cc..4 stuns given wise ul viee 1) Parliament, and the adoption of whose recot; unle , i/1113 at various intervals during tho last 29 yeir s h ay Iloilo much to 'extend the tame and credit of the nation with foreign lands, and established the Parliament and Crown or .. , __.. this country in the affections of the people. (Cheers.) Air. DISIIA.F.LI—Sir, 1 must repeat the surprise which on the first night of this debate I ventured to express at the iwpatienco which the Government have evinced at this house discussing the important measures they have brought before us. (Hear, hear.) It is easy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to describe our discussions as aimless and uninteresting; but what I want to ask the house and the Government is this—What )ther mode was there for this house to express its opinion on the general scope and ten dency of the policy of the Ministry, and to ask that infor mation and those explanations which were necessary for us before we could go with any profit into committee to con• eider the propriety of passing the particular resolutions then to be submitted to us ? (Hear.) When we reflect what an elaborate,lengthened and complicated performance a financial statement, especially inlhese days, necessarily is, it is impos sible that the Governmentcan suppose that on the first night of such a statement being made the house can arrive at a result upon the multifarious projects which solicit its con sideration. The Government must feel that for us to enter in that manner, without thought or examination, into Com mittee of Ways and Means, and devote our attention to the particular resolutions must lead to the most desultory and immature discussion, and perhaps to rash and precipitate conclusions which both the house and Government may after wards have cause to regret. (Hear.) As a general principle, therefore, I say it is expedient that when a budget has been introduced to our notice, before we go into a committee of Ways and Means, there should be a discussion on its general tendency. But, Sir, I think there are particular reasons with reff rence to this question, and With reference also to the present Government, which render such a course in the highest degree necessary ; because I say that upon this subject last session the House of Commons was kept in the dark. (Hear, hear.) The House of Commons last year was summoned at an earlier date than its usual period for assembling. Very extensive financial propositions were then brought before it. Those propositions were pressed upon our attention by I cogent circumstances connected with treaties with foreign Powers. And when the house expressed on' more than one important subject the necessity of more information than the Government were prepared to give, on both occasions the house was not, in my opinion, treated with the candour which it should at all times receive at the hands of a Mi nister. (Hear.) I don't want to make a grave charge, but rather to illustrate the position I wish to put before the house. I would refer to that Chi na vo t e , th e su bj ec t o f so I much discussion in this debate. When last year the right lion. gentleman brought forward his proposals in such ex traordinary circumstances of pressure the attention of the house was naturally called to the vote he then proposed, amounting, I believe, to £500,000 for carrying on the war with China. A great many gentlemen on both sides of the house expressed their apprehension that that was not an adequate provision for such a purpose. There was considerable incredulity felt upon both sides, but what was the reply of the right hon. gentleman ? He scoffed at that incredulity and those apprehensions, and he said that the expense of the Chinese war was not be measured by that single vote, but by the proportionate increase that would be found in the naval and military estimates of the country, and on that representation the proposals of the right hon. gentleman were passed. Well, what happened ? A few months afterwards the same Minister came down to this house and proposed a vote of almost as many millions as at the beginning of the year he had proposed hundreds of thousands to carry on that war. At this moment no one can suppose that the right hon. gentleman in February was not as fully aware of the necessity for that vote as in May. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, it shows that the house should not be hurried into coming to a decision upon financial subjects. Take another instance. When the house met last year, and the financial propositions were put before us, there was a great expect: ion in the country that a proposal would be made by the Government to provide considerable fortifications for the defence of these realms; and there were inquiries made from both sides of the house as to whether any such proposal was contemplated by the Go vernment. The right hon. gentleman scoffed at all inqui ries. He rose and said that no proposal of the kind had been before the Cabinet, and he would not listen to such a suggestion. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer metre an observation.] I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon, I heard him, I fully believe, make that observation. (Hear, hear.) The consequence was that the whole of the finan cial propositions were passed, but a few months afterwards the Ministry brought forward a most extensive scheme for ; erecting these fortifications to the amount of some millions, and then it turned out that these fortifications had been resolved upon by the Government in consequence of a report made by the Royal Commissioners which was dated, I believe, before the meeting of Parliament, and certainly was in the possession of Government when the budget was brought forward. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, I say under these circumstances it becomes the House very cautiously to preceed when they are dealing with finan cial measures in the present day, and especially when those financial measures are brought forward by the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) What has been the consequence of the haste and precipitation of the house in passing the budget of the right hon. gentleman last year ? The consequence has been that there is a great deficiency. (Hear.) I ask the house to consider how that deficiency has been supplied. It has been :supplied by increasing the liabilities and di minishing the resources of the country—by reducing the balances in the Exchequer and by increasing the debt. (Hear.) At this moment, although I have listened with the utmost attention to the statement of th 3 right hon. gentle • man, I must say that I can make out no answer to the statement of my hon, friend the member for Stamford as to the mode by which the deficiency of last year has been sup plied. (Hear.) Is there a gentleman in the house who has a clear conception of it? (Hear.) There was a sum of £1,440,000 taken from the balances in the Exchequer and an increase of the debt by the issue of Exchequer-bonds, which ultimately arrived at the amount of-£440,000; but there is an item of £620,000 more of a very peculiar and suspicious character, which in the figures in the official papers recently laid upon the table appears as repayments of advances, and my hon. friend the member for Stamford naturally wished for some explanation. He could not un derstand exactly how repayments of advances paid into the Exchequer to be re-issued could become revenue raised within the year for the service of the year. (Hear.) But what has been the answer of the right hon. gentleman ? He:says the repayments for advances being due to the Con solidated Fund, he did not take them for the service of the year, but, being due to the Consolidated Fund, they became part of the balances of the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) If they were due to the Consolidated Fund, and paid into the Exchequer, they must be re-issued in answer to fresh demands, and it is quite clear that the right hon. gentleman has availed himself of the repayment of moneys not raised in the year for the service of the year in order to contribute to his d e fi c i enc y, an d th ere f ore, according to his own statement, h o h as b een taking out from the bal ances not £1,440,000, but £2,000,000, and part of this sum was repayments which ought again to be lent for the public service. (Hear.) Ido net wish now to dwell much upon this topic, as I have to call attention to more important points, but it is a curious thing, remembering 1852, when one of the predecessors of the right hon. gentleman proposal as part of a scheme of great administrative reform, to take repayments of £lOO,OOO as balances in the Exchequer, the rig; ht hon. gentleman then rose and made that the chief ground for his celebrated attack—(hear)—and in the name of outraged finance called upon Parliament to terminate the existence of a Government who could be guilty of such acts —(hear)—the only difference between the Government of 1852 and that of 1861 being that we ventured to propose to du it with the consent of Parliament, and the right hon. gentleman has done it without the consent of Parliament. (Hear.) I will only touch for one moment upon the next question—that of the Chinese indemnity. I take it for granted that in F!orue way or other the right hon. gentleman will obtain that sum of money from China, probably at the expense of our merchants, for that seems to be not only acknowledged but to be vindicated. (Hear.) All I would say in passing upon this topic, which is no doubt suscepti ble of much controversy, for which at this moment we have not time is this—l do not clearly understand upon what principle c f finance this financial purist proposes to take this year and a half of the indemnity, which, in my mind, must have been pledged to the Consolidated Fund, to occupy the place of the balances which had already been abstracted-- upon what principle of finance he applies this year and a half of the indemnity to the service of the year. It is not money raised within the year for the service of the year, which the right hon. gentleman has told us is the only legitimate source of revenue. However, that is not a point upon which it is necessary for me to dwell at present. I come to the question of surplus, and upon that head I must say I am perfectly astonished by the argument of the right hon. gen tleman. He is surprised that anybody should doubt that he is in possession of a surplus. (Hear, hear.) I must say I think the indignation of the right hon. gentleman has some foundation. I cannot believe that any person occupying the position which he does could, under any possible circum stances, any conceivable circumstances, offer to the house estimates of the great branches of revenue which were not perfectly sound, well matured, and founded upon the deep est investigation and deliberation. I entirely agree in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman of the high character of those individuals to whom the right hon. gentleman and all who have at any time occupied the post he now fills must feel indebted fur invaluable services—l mean the heads of the revenue branches and the heads of departments of the Treasury connected with finance, which have been at all times represented by men of adequate ability, and which are represented at the present day in a manner never before ex celled, or perhaps equalled, in knowledge of duties and faith ful and sagacious discharge of those duties. But I may be an wed to say I cannot but regret that the right hon. gen tleman to-night, and the President of the Board of Trade on fOrmer evening, thought fit to draw the names and autho • rity of those distinguished men into our discussions in the House of Commons. Whatever may be their abilities, what • • ever their character, however great may be the debt which the country owes to them, it is the right hon. gentleman and her Majesty's Ministers who are responsible for all these estimates; and although I freely and entirely acquit the right hon. gentleman of having any intention of diminish- ing that responsibility, as I am sure he is the last man to seek to do so, yet every one must feel that the inevitable ten- dency of bringing the names and authority of those gen tlemen into this house is to diminish that responsibility (hear, hear)—to make Parliaments look to the heads of de partments and also has the tendency of diminishing the freedom maa independence with which those distinguished . men now perform those important duties. (Hear, hear.) "But," says the right hon. gentleman, " I am met in a most tinuottal and improper manner 1.357 the Opposition. Last ME SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EV'MNING, APRIL 30, 1861. year they prophesied an immense deficiency, and new this profligate Opposition"—profligate is, I believe the favourite epithet of the day—" they deny a surplus." Whereupon the right hon gentleman, with all that power of ratiocina tion of which he is master, proceeds to demolish the Oppo sition which had prophesied a deficiency and denies a sur plus, how does he do it ? First, be said, my hon. friend the member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), who in a man ner which has commanded public attention, and which has so deservedly obtained public confidence—(hear, hear)—in troduced the subject to the house, "he and the hon. member for Stamford," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer," are the two most important members of the Opposition who have as yet taken part in the debate ; they are the great financial authorities, and they do not deny a surplus." That is the way in which the right hon. gentleman proceeded to fix upon those who sit upon these benches the crime of deny ing the existence of a surplus. But then he said, pointing to the hon. member for Honiton (Mr. Moffatt), "There is the culprit"—(a laugh) —and he went on to destroy the de • tails of the statement which that hon. member made ; thate being the mode in which he thought proper to demolish the charges brought against his financial scheme by a Tory Opposition. (Cheers.) More than that, while charging us with denying the existence of a surplus, he refers to the speeches of the hon. member for Huntingdon and the hon. member for Stamford—two of the highest financial au thorities who took part in the debate on this side of the house—to show that they are of a contrary opinion, so that the right hon. gentleman is scarcely consistent in the line of argument which he adopts. (Hear.) Having proved that those two hon. members acknowledged that there was a surplus, he proceeded to show how com pletely e Tory Opposition had failed in their prophecies with respect to a deficlbncy, and for that purpose he read an extract from a speech of Lord Monteagle. (Cheers and langhter.) Not seeing the ridiculous point to which he had brought his argument, ho follows up by quoting a pas sage from a speech of Lord Derby, which has been literally and accurately fulfilled. (Cheers.) Now, for my own part, I quite gree with my hon. friends the members for Hunt • ingdon and Stamford, and even with the hon. member for Birmingham, in supposing that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would scarcely announce a surplus which it would be our interest to look upon as fallacious. That surplus is, no doubt, founded upon a calculation of the great branches of our revenue, and if there be any documents placed before this house which are more than others entitled to credit, they are, in my opinion, the estimates of the great branches of revenue, because they have brought to bear upon them not only that extensive information, that sagacity, and that peculiar experience to which the right hon. gentleman has to-night so justly, as it appears to me so properly, referred, but they are subjected to the judgment of the Cabinet, which in the present instance, as in the case of all Cabi nets, consists, I suppose, of statesmen of high reputation, capable of dealing with such questions as the political con tingencies of the year. If, therefore, I doubted these esti mates, if I thought they were drawn up in an inadequate manner and in a spirit which did not appreciate the events which were likely to occur within the year for which they were framed, I should, instead of discussing their merits on the motion fur going into Committee of Ways and Means, feel that they furnished a basis on which a vote of want of confidence in the Government might fairly be grounded. I am not, however, prepared to make such a pro position, or indeed to question in any degree the accuracy of those great estimates. I may, however, observe with respect to the minor point of the Chinese indemnity, that although a portion of that amount may not to my mind ap pear altogether legitimate, and although the manner in which it may accrue may not be altogether profitable, yet I cannot doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, by some means or the other, obtain that sum and that we shall therefore have to deal with a surplus. I take that surplus, then, at the amount at which the right hon. gentleman has stated it, and shall proceed to deal with it without, at this hour of the night (12 o'clock), entering too minutely into matters of detail. (Cries of Hear, hear, and oh I from the Ministerial benches.) I suppose hen, gentlemen opposite having invited me to express a definite opinion on the financial scheme of their Chancellor of the Exchequer, do not seek to deprive me of the opportunity of exercising that privilege. (Cheers.) Ido mit, as I said, propose to enter into details comparatively insignificant in point of interest, but shall at once address myself to the character of the right hon. gentleman's surplus, and the mode in which I think it is expedient it should be distributed. Now, with respect to the character of the surplus, I must say that the mode in which it is arrived at seems to me to -be somewhat peculiar. It appears to me, in the first place, to be based on a false assumption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in this position—there are several taxes which have expired or about to expire. Of these a great number are a vowedly war taxes. The right hon. gentleman would therefore find that he had an immense deficit to make good. He has to maintain the public credit of the country ; he has to take care that provision is made for duly sustaining her armaments, as well as for upholding the efficiency of the civil service, and for carrying out these objects ho is aware that whatever may be his deficiency, he can appeal with confidence t the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But has he, let me ask, under those circumstances, a right to appeal to this house for anything more ? (Hear, hear.) He has a right to ask, and ho may with confidence, however great the number of expired or expiring taxes may be, ask us to renew them to such an extent as is expedient for the great purposes of State to which I have referred. But the right hon. gentleman goes beyond these limits. He assumes he has a right to ask, and that he may confidently calculate that those expired and expiring taxes will be renewed, not merely for the maintenance of the military credit of the country, and with a view to upholding the efficiency of her civil service, but in order to make a financial experi ment. (Cheers.) Now, I leave to hon. ; members to say whether I have not fairly stated the case. (Hear.) I do not wish to misrepresent the position in which the right hon. gentleman is placed. Well, and what is the scheme which, under those circumstances, he proposes ? Why, the repeal of the Excise duty on paper. That being so I have been very curious to ascertain what has been the history of this tax in connexion with the proceedings of the House of Commons. So far as the Government is concerned, their connexion with this question is of very recent date. Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement, which was made, as I have already shown the house with too much precipitation gave expression to this astounding and, I will sal', even enormous declaration. He said that a general understanding prevailed throughout the country that there would in 1860 be a considerable diminu tion of indirect taxation, and he, therefore, prqposed, among other things, the repeal of the duty on paper. Now, that there was throughout the country a very general impression that die t t h t eatyltwouldtaxation, I believes no o e a n eon econsiderablether side d di on will deny—(hear, hear)—and the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would, I think, be the last person to challenge in debate the justice of this statement, inasmuch as the expec tetion was founded on his own legislation, to which this House adhered under other Governments with his entire assent and complete sympathy. (Cheers.) But if the right hon. gentleman could do or say any thing which could astonish me—which he cannot—(laughter)—l must admit that that which would be most likely to produce that effect was the ingenious invention of his soaring imagination, by means of which he sought to impress us with the idea that the pivot on which the whole financial campaign last year was to turn was that it was the general impression on the mind of the British public, that there would in 1860 be a great diminution of taxation. (Hear.) Proceeding on that assumption, he recommended to us the repeal of the paper duty. He did not, however, rest there, but laid down the doctrine that the house was pledged to a remission of the tax. I will now point out to the house the astounding pedi gree of this celebrated public question ; and, in doing so, I shall have occasion to allude especially to the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, in his speech a few evenings ago,. made a statement with respect to myself which I cannot help thinking—although it was repeated by his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night—was singularly infelicitous and indiscreet. I cannot in passinghelp remarking that this mysterious pledge in reference to the repeal of the paper duty seems somehow or another to enter into our debates, as if there were an undertaking on the part of the principal members of the Opposition to carry out that object, and it appears to me, I must confess, a somewhat new dogma in Parliamentary practice that the opinions expressed upon a particular pro position by the leaders of Opposition should turn out to be an irresistible reason why her Majesty's Ministers should carry that proposition into effect. (Cheers.) Now, what took place upon this question, in alluding to which the right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade read the other evening a garbled extract from a speech .which I made some time ago ? The right hon. gentleman told us that he brought forward a resolution inviting the house to repeal the paper duty, and that I spoke in favour of the motion. Re did, kcwever, nothing of the kind. He was, on the occasion to which I am referring, connected with a great and powerful interest, known in common parlance as the Association for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge. In 1850 he brought forward a motion for the repeal of tho se ' taxes, and they were described by the right hon. gentleman in four resolutions ; but every resolution was put separately, and the first, in favour of the repeal of the paper duty, was not put, but was only brought lyrward as eV among others to effect that which was a favourite object with the right hon. gentleman —namely, to free the public press from the shackles by which ifs progress was impeded. I entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman in that respect, and have taken every step in my power to carry that object. I thought then that the preFs of this country was most un wisely and impoliticly shackled. In 1853 I stated that the press could not be too free. I knew that under the then condition of law the cheap press in this country sent forth an unlimit's.d supply of blasphemy, sedition, and all those opinions most dettimental to the State, and I believed that an unshackled press would instruct the public mind, be filled with sound information, and guided by intelligence and moderate views. The result has shown that I have not been disappointed iu these views. The right lion. gentle man failed in bringing in his measure in 1850 ; but every measure, except the remission of the duty on paper, the direct object of wl.ich was to free the press and to destroy those shackles that prevented its beneficial development, has been passed. What was the second resolution of the right hon. gentleman ? It was to put an end to the stamp on newspapers. That was passed, and I voted for it, The next resolution for putting 411 end to the advertisement duty was likewise passed. I do not recol lect the fourth resolution. Probably it was not of such great importance as the others, but I know that it passed, and what is the consequence ? The object of the measure of 1850 to free the press and take off the taxes on knowledge has been attained. (Hear, hear.) We have renny newspapers. The great object of those motions was to have penny newspapers. You have them now swarming over the country, and when a newspaper is set up it takes that form. And has the existence of these newspapers dis appointed the expectations of those who were opposed to the shackles of the press ? Where are better writing, more fresh and authentic intelligence, or a more manly and pa triotic tone to be found—though, of course, each newspa per supports its own party ? Have these penny newspa pers realised or not the expect am of the member for Hert fordshire, that they would be of a Conservative character ? There never were more penny newspapers, end never were Conservative opinions more popularly advocated. (Hear, and laughter) The Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted to-night another of those expressions of mine deli vered on one of those motions which I supported in 1853. But what was the motion ? In 1853 the same subject-was brought before the house. I then voted for taking off the newspaper advertisement duty, and I stated that with the repeal of the duty on advertisements and of the stamp on newspapers we conceived that the great object which the right hon. gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) sought to accomplish would be effected, as it is practically proved to be so by the great change in respect to newspa pers; and that we then looked cn the question of the Ex cise on paper merely as a fiscal question. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer made, I think, in his reference to what I said in 1850 an observation almost as unfortunate as the right hon. gentleman, for he stated that we were then prepared to take off the tax on paper NI hilo the tea duty was 2s. 2d. a-pound. It is impossible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have made a statement proving a result more contrary to that which he wished to establish. Where is the analogy between the tea duty then and the tea duty at present ? There were then no war duties on tea, and the government consequently had entered into an engagement with respect to war duties. (Hear, hear.) And I want to know, with our two-thirds of a million surplus, what possible effect could we have produced on the tea duty, then being at 2s. 23. a pound ? (Cheers) The tea duty at that rate had been a stumbling-block to every financier, and no go vernment had ventured on grappling with it, but when we had the opportunity the first thing we did was to gr:apple with the tea duty, and we proposed a measure which, after some gradual declines, would have left the tea duty at ls. a pound. (Cheers.) We believed that that measure would net only have contributed immensely to the comfort of the great body of the community, but would have given a great stimulus to our Eastern trade. (Hear.) Though the Par- Fament to which that policy was recommended did not choose to support the Ministers who proposed it, still it is a fact that the party which voted against us made it one of the conditions for supporting our successors that our policy respecting the tea duty should be adopted, (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman then wants to found his policy of re pealing the paper duty on what he calls a pledge of the house in 1858, but I will show the house that no pledge at all was given, and that that resolution of the President of the Board of Trade was not carried, the house only express ing an opinion that the paper duty was one which under favourable circumstances ought to remitted. Let me remind the house under what circumstances the motion of the Pre sident of the Board of Trade was brought forward. It was made two days after the financial statement. On that occa sion I found a very large deficiency at the end of the finan cial year—somewhere about £3,500,000. It was a deficiency of a peculiar nature, not - occasioned by our expenditure ex ceeding our revenue, but by unwise and improvident en gagements, into which the country had entered by establish ing a sinking fund, which the right hon. gentleman sup ported me in opposing, and £2,000,000 of Exchequer-bonds, which represented a war expenditure during the Russian campaign. New, observe, the revenue of the country was equal to the expenditure. But what was the state of the country in 1857 and 1853 ? There was a monetary crisis, panic, and commercial embarrassment ; the rate of discount was 10 and 8 per cent.—at S per cent. when the budget was brought in. 'Was that a time to lay on new taxes in order to carry out a ptoposal made by the Opposition ? (Hear.) Why there could be no question as to the right conduct to pursue, but whether it was right or whether it was wrong, it was unanimously adopted 'by the house ; and men of high finan cial authority—the right hon. gentleman himself and the hon. member for Portsmouth—: poke highly in the praise of that policy and supported it. But we did something more on that occasion than provide for the deficit, artificially created. We laid down the principles that, in our opinion, ought to guide the house in the remission of taxation. What were those principles ? First, that the engagement made by the right hon. gentleman with regard to thedimi nution and the ultimate remission of the income tax should be carried out in its spirit. Next, that if an opportunity , occurred we ought to fulfil the engagement of the Govern ment with the people to terminate the war duties on tea and sugar, which they had been called on t) pay in order to carry on the Crimean war. The house entirely approved this principle, and I will show how completely it sanctioned and adopted our financial policy by what occurred only two days after, when this celebrated resolution on the paper duty was proposed. Two members of the present Govern ment were then sitting on these benches—the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for the Home Department—one a great authority on finance, the other a distinguished statesman. The noble lord (J. Rus sell) spoke in support of a remission of the paper duty when circumstances should be favourable, but he said the first thing the house had to consider was the duty on tea and sugar. (Hear.) What said the Secretary for the Home De partment ? He was chary of his approbation of a repeal of the paper duty under any circumstances, but one thing was quite clear to him, that it could not be thought of till the income tax was disposed of. (Hear.) This shows exactly what was the policy the House of Commons at that time adopted, in a very full house of 500 or 600 members, while the resolution with regard to the parer duty was carried in so thin a house that it was impossible for the Government to divide against the worthless proposition. Who can doubt then, what is the engagement of the House of Commons if its decision ‘ on a question of finance has any consequence or power ? (Hear.) That was the recognised policy of the Go vernment, and I believe it is still the popular wish of the country. (Cheers.) Now, with regard to the income tax, there are two points that deserve consideration ; one is the effect of a remission in a financial, the other in a political view. In 1857, the house will recollect there was a great agitation in the financial mind of the country with respect to a remission of the 93. war income tax. It was well un derstood that the Government, availing itself of the techni cal language of the act of Parliament, intended to levy the additional 93. war tax—representing a sum of more than £9,000,000—0n the country for the year utter the war ter • I gave notice of a motion challenging that policy; the opinion of the hon.., was so strong, and the feeling in the country so irresistible, that the Government gave up the Dd. ; it gave up the resource it by law possessed of rais ing £0,000,000 of money, and an act was passed repealing the existing law. What was the effect of that ? In 1857 and the commencement of 1858 wo had the commercial and monetary crisis to which I have referred. There was great commercial embarrassment and distress in the country; yet during it all the revenue of the country sustained itself. (Hear, hear.) And why ? Because the consumption of the country was stimulated by this immense remission of direct taxation. (Cheers.) And if the right hon. gentleman will enter that beehive he has so picturesquely described to us, he will find the working bees all agreeing that such was the effect of the remission. But now as to the remission from the political point of view. There is nothing influences the opinion of foreign States with regard to this country more than the consciousness that such is its wealth that the Sovereign can, by appealing to one single tax, raise annu • ally an amount that other Governments can only acquire by most costly loans, raised at a high rate of interest that leaves those countries in a proportionately exhausted con dition. If the income tax were what the right honegentle mon in such glowing terms, and with such frequent elo quence, has contended it ought to be—a weapon adapted only to the purposes of war, nothing can havo'such influ ence, looking at it politically and morally, as the knowledge that this country can raise 20 millions as an annual revenue while potentates who might ethreaten the peace of Europe can only raise such a sum by loans at such a rate of inte rest as must impoverish the coffers of the State and exhaust the industry of the country. Such an engine as the income tax is to a Minister of Vas country more powerful than any armament that can be devised ; more powerful than fleets and armies. (Cheers.) It is th refore worse than madness in time of peace to throw the whole weight of our financial system upon it. (Cheers.) It was for this reason, and from a general sense of the inquisitorial and unequal character of the tax, that made us declare in 1858 that it was our policy to carry out the engagement of the right hon. gen tleman. The house accepted that policy unanimously, and the right hon. gentleman supported it. And when the in come tax fell to 5d., I, for one, did not consider the occasion favourable for a repeal of the paper duty. lam tempted to touch on the position in which we are placed with regard to the war duties on tea and sugar, the other cardinal points of our finance. And it was with the deepest regret I listened to the right hen. gentleman to-night when he spoke on the subject of remitting duties on articles that enter largely into the consutnptio i of the people. I think I never heard a case more sophistically ar,gueJ, or more fallaciously placed before the house. The question is not whether we shall reduce or remit duties on articles of consumption, but whether Go vernment and Parliament have entered into au engage ment with the consumers of those articles to remit, in a moment of exigency, the special taxes that aggravate the cost of those articles. lam net requiring any specific pro position; I am laying (lowa a declaration that it is the policy of statesman never to enter into any engagement with the great body of the people as to articles of general consumption that may make them feel that they smart under an act of hijuslice. I want to know, if we leave war taxes —and war taxes of recent imposition—pressing on the people in time of peace, with what prospect of success we can ap peal to them, should war again occur, t come forward, and bear a share of the public burdens ? (Hear, hear.) , That is a consideration of high public policy, and not an abstract principle about raising a revenue by duties on articles of general consumpr on. You may defend the general duty on tea and sugar, but you cannot defend on these abstract priuciplee of public policy the violation of public faith, orthe disappointment and distrust which you will create in the country. (Cheers.) I must do the right hon. gentleman the justice to say that on ether occasions, when he has him self so strongly and so passionately advocated the remission of these war duties—when he has said that they affected the happiness of millions of homes, he was influenced by proper feelings. To-night, however, he has taken refuge in sophis tical evasions. He has intimated to us that there is a mode by - which the war duties on tea and sugar may be remitted. " You may retrench," says the right hon. gentleman, "your expenditure." This country, as we were told by an hon. member the other night, is suffering froth profligate ex penditure, and if the right hon. gentleman did not himself use the phrase he cheered the epithet, and afterwards, in his reply, enlarged and expatiated n,n the sentiment. Now, it is right to ask for a frank declaration from the right hon. gentleman on this subject. We heard a great deal last year about a gigantic innovation, but to my mind there is no in • novation so gigantic as a Chancellor of the Exchequer de nouncing as profligate the expenditure for which he is sup plying at the same time the ways and means. (Cheers.) I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes to the house on this subject an explanation which he has avoided giving to night. If he believes the expenditure to be impolitic, to use the mildest term, on what principle can he vindicate his sitting on that bench ? (Cheers.) I have asked men of all parties, the simple and plain, and men of refined intelligence, for an explanation, but they have all been perplexed by a mystery of conduct that is unparalleled in the history of this country. (Hear, hear.) But the right hon. gentleman does more. He insinuates that the Government, as well as himself, are recommending and pursuing an expenditure that is contrary to their conviction of public necessity. It is some one or other, some unknown but irresistible force, that urges them on. Sometimes it appears to be the coun try, sometimes the house, but never the Ministry. (Cheers.) Now, is it the fact that the country is ungovernable and irrational on this point ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given this explanation more than once. He wrote some months ago to some one who complained to him of the in come-tax, and said "It is your fault. You go about agitat ing the country, and you must pay for it." Now is that true? Are there any public meetings in favour of expenditure ? I believe there is in the country a calm confidence and con viction that any Government which calls upon the country for sacrifices ought to be supported. Perhaps the right hon. , gentleman may refer to the volunteer movement as au evi dence of the national irrationality. I should, however, draw from that noble ebullition of patriotis u an indication of a very different character. (Hear, hear.) I should recog nise in that movement a desire on their part to assist the Government in placing the country in the commanding position it ought t 3 occupy with as littlo cost and pressure upon the industrious part of the community as possible. (Hear.) It is neither just nor true, therefore, to say that it is an irrational country that has forced on this expenditure. Well, is it the house ? Let us look to the facts. At the end of the year 1859 the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud, who has addressed us to-night with such sus tained and varied ability on the whole of this financial ques tion—(hear)—brought before the house a proposition for an address to the Crown, I think, that considerable sums should be laid out in providing for the necessary defence of the country. The Government disapproved that proposi tion, and on a division defeated the right hon. gentleman by a large majority. Next year the Government, after more extended observation, arrived at the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman was right, and they brought for ward a proposal for fortifications on a large scale. The Government then carried the scheme that they had rejected by a majority. Well, it is not the country or the house that forces on this profligate expenditure. Who is it, then? It is not difficult to point out the author of the expendi; Lure, and I believe that in acting as he has done he has been governed by a high sense of duty, and that he does not shrink from the responsibility of the course he has pursued. No doubt it is the Prime Minister of England. (Hear, hear.) In repeated speeches in this house, and in ad dresses to his countrymen out of doors, he has never con cealed his opinion that the present position of public affairs was such that it was the duty of the Chief Minister of the Crown to call on the country to make those exertions and endure those sacrifices. (Cheers.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, indulging in one of those unwise taunts which he sometimes conveys, talked about the gossip in the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) on the subject of Cabinet divisions. Lord I Sir, we need not maunder about in ante-chambers to discover differences in the Cabinet—(cheers)—when we have a patriotic Minister appealing to the spirit of the eountry, telling it that it must be prepared to defend itself against aggressive ambition, and to show Europe that we are determined to maintain our rights, and when, at the same time, we find the Chan• cellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it is to supply the Ways and Means by which those exertions are to be sup ported, proposing votes with innuendo, and recommending expenditure in a whispered invective. (Cheers.) Don't tell me that there are not misunderstandings is the Cabinet-- that the right hon. gentlemen and noble lords who compose it are all of the same opinion—when on that most important subject, the expenditure of the country, which affects every branch of policy, there is between two of the most eminent Ministers of the Crown—ono the Prime Minister and the other the Chancellor of the Exchequer, such difference and discordancy. (Cheers.) There is only one other point I will touch upon, and that is a subject which I think of late years has been unnecessarily introduced into our debates; but still it has been introduced, and I know enough of the House of Commons to be convinced that, when a subject has been introduced and touched upon by men of great in fluence and authority, and when it fills the public mind, it is worse than useless to attempt to avoid it. That subject is the influence upon the condition of the Government which any vote in Committee of Ways and Means may produce if contrary to some details of the measures which they now have introduced to us. I think this is a subject upon which it becomes the House of Commons to acquire as accurate and as clear a conception of the public duty of public men as they well can. Power is a possession which ought not to be lightly accepted, and which, to my mind, ought not to be lightly relinquished. (Hear.) To accept or to relinquish it involves the fulfilment of a very grave duty to our• Sovereign, whom we embarrass very often by such conduct, and to our country, whose condition must always to a certain degree be affected in such a case. (Hear, hear.) If, indeed, the House of Commons, directly or indirectly, expresses a want of confidence in an Adminis tration, my opinion is the sooner they quit the helm of affairs the better, for though, under certain circumstances, that may entail great public inconvenience, there is no pub lic inconvenience, as there can be no public injury, equal to their continuing in a responsible position when they have lost the 'confidence of those to whom they are responsible. (Hear.) Generally speaking, a Minister must deeply reflect before he relinquishes the trust which he bas accepted. Nothing can be more unwise, nothing more pernicious to himself—if that limited consideration is to have any influ ence—nothing can be wore generally injurious to public men t ran that their country should find that in taking such a course as either the acceptance or abdication of power they are animated by private and personal motives, but par titularly by personal pique. (Hear, hear.) When a Mini ster finds that in a time of great public abstraction Lind anxiety his foreign policy has not been challenged or criti eised--eertainly not by the Opposition; when he finds that with regard to our internal affairs large claims have been made upon the confidence of the representatives of the people, and that they have not hesitated cordially and gene rously to vote every supply, though of an unprecedented amount in time of peace, which they have been asked to grant t) the Crown ; when that Minister cannot lay his fingers upon a single public act of this session in which any principle of importance is involved which the house and those who formally oppose him here have successfully re sisted—it would be a very strange thing that a Minister so favoured and supported should come forward to challenge the most precious privilege of the House of Commons. (Hear.) When a Minister is prepared to make a remission of taxation it has ever been held to be the most precious privilege of the House of Commons to give their advice as to the mode in which that remission should be distributed. (Hear, hear.) To say that a Minister should, because the House of Commons differed from him on a point involving the distribution of a surplus for the relief of their' constitu ents and the great body of the people—for him to take such an occasion to quarrel with the house, or even to desert the service of the Soverei= n, is in my mind a highly unconsti tutional proceeding. (Hear, hear.) It has always been laid down by the most eminent writers, it has always been held by our most eminent statesmen and orators, that if there be an unquestioned privilege in this house it is that of advis ing the Minister with impunity as to the distribution of any remission of taxes. (Hear, hear.) We heard last year a great deal of an assault upon the privileges of the House of Commons, upon which I will not now dwell, because there will be other opportunities to treat that subject if necessary. But there never was under these circum et races an assault upon the privileges of the House of Com mons so great as would be perpetrated by that minister who denied to us the privilege of advising how the surplus of taxation should be distributed. (Hear.) But it may be said, " This perhaps is an unfortunate occasion on which to found the change either of a ministry or of a Parliament ; but it may be an opportunity which a minister is justified in taking if he finds himself embarrassed by a powerful and aggressive opposition." But is that the position of the noble lord ? (Hear.) Ido not mean to say that we who sit on this side of the table may not have our own private opinion of the manner in which we were expelled from those, (the ministerial) benches. (Hear.) But no one has ever heard a murmur from us on the suiject. (Hear.) !No one has ever found us whimpering here over our personal losses and grievances. (Hear.) On the contrary, I knew very well (for I ventured to predict it) that - when the noble lord moved the resolution which has been described but recently by one of the most eminent and influential supporters of the Government as a great mistake, it would lead him and his friends into a plition of great embarrassment and humiliation. (Hear.) I never hesitated fur a moment, however, in giving to the noble lord when he took that course, credit for the most honourable feelings. I thought that he tnistcok the temper of the country, and would find out he had mistaken it; but I had no doubt that in bring • ing forward his resolution he acted iu all sincerity and in no other spirit than that of a noble and a justifiable ambi tion. (Hear, and a laugh.) When the noble lord next session had to relinquish his bill, no taunt reached him from these benches, because I thought that noble lord ftrAcl -the Ooverumeut iu taking the owe were actuated liy Kll timents equally honourable. This year the question, which once was embodied in a resolution, now recognized as a great mistake—the question of Parliamentary Reform, be came definitively shelved—(hear, and laughter)—and from that mou ent there was no doubt greater irritation conscien tiously felt by gentlemen below the gangway in consequence of the conduct of the Government. That irritation was not concealed. Every invitation that was Parliamentary and legitimate was given to us to embarrass the Govern ment. Did we avail ourselves of those opportunities? (Cheers.) On the contrary, we gave the ministers credit, as before, for being actuated in the course which they ' took by those sentiments of honour and by those convic tions of public duty which I believe always animate gen tlemen in their position. (Hear, hear.) What has been the course pursued by the opposition during the present session? I will not refer to it in detail because many of the instances which I might adduce might be painful to hon. gentlemen opposite. (A laugh.) But I will take one case of a financial character to show the temper of this Op position, which some suppose to be so aggressive. A motion for the repeal of the hop duty was brought before the house immediately before the right hon, gentleman had to propose his budget. Having last year objected to repeal the Excise duty on paper, because it put an end to a com plete branch of our revenue, I thought it would be incon sistent to be precipitated into supporting the repeal of the hop duty, though unquestionably it is, both in amount and in its character, very different from the paper duty. In supporting the Government, and I believe I may say in ob taining for them a majority upon the question, I placed myself in a painful position towards many friends whom I greatly regard, and towards an interest with which I deeply sympathise, as I proved by a measure which when Chan cellor of the Exchequer I submitted to the house. (Hear.) There were other occasions fresh in the recollection of hon. gentlemen, when it is well-known that on this side of the house there was an anxious and a very prompt determina tion to support the Government of the Queen; and even since this unfortunate, this ill-advised, and unhappy bud get was produced the Government have three times, in Committee of Supply, been sustained from defeat by the Opposition. (Cheers.) Then I think I have shown that there are no special circumstances arising from the exis tence of a powerful, menacing, and aggressive Opposition that could give any colour to violent and rash conduct on the pat tof the noble lord. (Hear, hear;) From this house, and from those who, because they sit opposite to him, bear the constitutional and formal name of Opposition, the noble lord since he has accepted office has receivedupon the whole a sincere and cordial support. (Cheers.) Sir, no one grudges the noble lord the position which he occupies. (Cheers.) He has for many years served his country and his Sovereign, often with great advantage, though we may sometimes have questioned the prudence or propriety of some particular course that he has taken. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord has on all occasions expressed himself in a:manner upon the important subject of the defence of the country which has obtained from this side of the house an echo sincere and stedfast. (Hear, hear.) The general policy of the noble lord has been well received and countenanced on this side of the house; and on this very question of finance, on this question of the paper duties, if it is possible to under stand language aright, no one who sat in this house last year can suppose that there is any serious difference be tween the gentlemen on this side and themoble lord. (Hear, hear.) Then is this Minister, who in difficult circumstan ces has been so supported—is this Minister whose policy in these eventful times has not been challenged by the Opposition—is this Minister, who has come forward to make unprecedented demands on the finances of the country, to ask an amount of taxation for which he has never applied in vain,—is this Minister, who never has brought forward one great measure that has been defeated by the Opposition (for I maintain that the measure of Parliamentary Reform was mainly defeated by his own friends) ; is this the Min ister who, after a career so long and experience so great, after having lived so long in the House of Commons and loved it so well, who will grudge to the house the enjoyment and exercise of its dearest privilege—the privilege of con sidering how a remission of taxes may be effected most advantageously for the interests of the country ? (Cheers.) I can never believe that the noble lord, after running so illustrious a career, will commit so great a political mistake. (Hear, hear.) Ho knows the House of Commons better. He knows England better. (Hear, hear.) Such a course might become a man of violent passions. It might become a man who has a secret understanding and carries on the business of the State in such a mysterious manner as to confound all speculation. (Cheers.) But such is not the course that becomes the manly character of the Prime Min ister of England. (Cheers.) Convinced, then, that in assert ing this dearest privilege and fulfilling this most important business we shall arrive, whatever may be the decision of the Committee of Ways and Means at no result but what will be to the advantage of the country. I shall offer no opposition to the first resolution which is to be submitted to our con sideration, and which stands second on the list, the first resolution having been already agreed to. I retain and strongly retain all those opinions which I have so frequently expressed respecting the policy we should pursue with regard to the income-tax; but, considering the circum stances in which we are placed, considering that a committee is now sitting on the subject, and that it is impossible when there is a remission of taxes that there should be a re mission of both direct and indirect taxes, I shall offer no opposition to the resolution. When we approach the second resolution that will come under our notice, and which pro ' poses to renew not only the old duties on tea and sugar, but the war duties also, I think the house will have gravely to consider whether it is wise to pass that resolution entire. (Hear.) We ought to consider whether if there is to be a remission of indirect taxation—which I should be prepared to approve—we should not find it more expedient and ad vantageous that that remission should take piece on this third resolution. (He r, hear.) Of course it does not re quire a Chancellor of the Exchequer to inform us that that gentleman made a great mistake who proposed to remit all the war duties, though no proposal of that sort has met my ear during the debate—(hear)—and it will become a matter of grave consideration to what amount and to what articles that remission should be directed There are two great con siderations to be looked to. In the first place we ought to look to the immediate and general advantage of the commu nity, and we ought to take care that if we remit taxation it shall be remitted in such a manner that the whole advan tage shall go into the pockets of the community. (Hear, hear.) So much for the immediate advantage of the com munity ; but there is another consideration in my mind not less important than than,—we ought to consider how re• ini'ss►on of indirect taxation may at the same time stimulate industry of the country. (Hear, hear.) I have not the 'Slightest doubt that if you take off the Exise duty on paper, or on anything else, you will, to a certain degree and in a limited sense, stimulate the industry of the country. I don't use those words to depreciate the remission of any Excise duty, but it must necessarily be in a limited sense. There are indirect taxes, however, which you may remit which which would give a much more extensive stimulus to the occupations of the people, and which would contribute to much greater results than the remission of the Excise on any particular article. You must look to the state of our markati. (Hear, hear.) The state of our markets, though it may be, and, I have no doubt, has been, duly taken into consideration by the Minister in the estimate laid before us, is a subject to which the House of Commons cannot be blind. (Hear, hear.) You have our great American trade already embarrassed, and though one still cherishes the lin gering hope that the dissensions may terminate among those to whom we are bound, not more by blood than by the sympathy of a thousand sentiments, still he would be a sanguine man who can suppose that, under any circum stance, the trade of the great American nation will be for some time that which it has been. (Hear, hear.) Our Levantine trade is only just escaping—l can hardly say escaped—but is only just terminating a convulsion greater than has happened in our time. India is suf fering, and the whole of the Continent of Europe is either in a state of confusion, or its general industry is de pressed and destroyed by r•.rilitary preparations or military expenditure. (Hear, hear.) It is clear, therefore, that the prospects of those great markets are by no means suspi cious ; but there is a great trade, an increasing trade in the far East, which offers at this moment a remarkable opening for the enterprise and the capital of England. Lord Elgin, who has just returned to this country—it is not in a blue- book, but the house may depend upon it it is perfectly au thentic—says that while in China ho took especial pains to ascertain what was the amount of the populatian of that country—whether those traditions which had long pre vailed on that point were mythical or founded on fact ; and, havini given great pains and industry to ascertain the truth, it is the opinion of Lord Elgin that the real popula. tion of China, taken by census, is not less than 400 ,000,000 human beings. It is impossible, therefore, not to see that that is the point of the world which ought now to be watched with the greatest anxiety and interest. (Hear, hear.) We have another country in the vicinity of China which, though not so extensive, has a refined civilisation and a population of many wants—l mean Japan. Have we, then, an opportunity at this moment, by remitting wisely and boldly the duty on one great article of general con sumption, not only of adding to the happiness of a thousand homes—to use the Chancellor of the Exchequer's language —but of giving a consistent stimulus to the commerce of this country ? (Hear.) I think that remission ought not to, be frittered away between the articles of tea and sugar. (Hear, hear) I think we shouid concentrate our efforts on on e o f th em . (Hear, hear.) It is the war tax on tea on which we should concentrate our efforts—(hear, hear)—and I believe tfira, if 'we do so in a manner to consult the inte rests of tire revenue, and to secure that the whole advan tage of the remission shall reach the pockets of the con sumer, the result will be one highly beneficial to the country. (Cheers.) I think I may further state that an hon. friend of mine, representing one of the' greatest constituen cies in the world —my hon. friend the member for Liverpool —will in committee take our opinion on that course. (Loud cheers.) I thonglit it fair to the Government and frank to the house that I should state the course whieh we propose to take. (Hear, bear.) There are points which may after-. wards arise, and upon which it may be necessary for the committee to act; but it is not necessary for me at present to go beyond the statement which I have made, (Hear, hear.) I apprehend that we shall gc into Committee of Ways and Means or} T'aiirsday. The house, there fore, will not have been taken by surprise, and the Govern ment attcl the C9Lamitt:4 Will have bast time t 9 ecrp.elcleV the course which they will take in reference to the notice which I presume my hon. friend will put upon the paper to-night. (Hear.) I earnestly pray the decision which the house may come to in Committee of Ways and Means will be the one' most conducive to the interests of the people, and to the maintenance of the commerce of the country. I cannot ' doubt that if the house be animated by sentiments which will make them desire such a result, those sentiments will • prevail and find an echo in the country ; and that no Inall will more sincerely respect your decision—whatever thet decision may be—then the noble the Prime Minister of England. (Loud and general cheering.) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, it is not my intention at this late hour of the night t 3 enter into those controversial dis cussions which have occupied so much of the time of the house ; but I am bound to say, that although we have spent a great deal of time In this preliminary discussion, and although a great variety of opinions have been expressed, yet I do not complain that we have lost or improvidently consumed the time of the house—(hear)—because, in a met' ter involving so many comparative points, it was natural that a great number of varieties of opinions should ariset and it was desirable that those different subjects should be freely canvassed and discussed, in order that the haulm might come to some final decision on the course which it should be disposed to take. (Hear.) We have made pro gress, because, though in the earlier discussions there ea' peered to be some doubt in the minds of some hon. member; as to whether there was or was not an available supine, the right hon. gentleman .whe has just sat down has fairly admitted that a surplus there is. The only question, there' fore, for the house to consider is in what manner that our• plus should be disposed of. (Hear.) lam glad that the right hon. gent'eman has stated that with regard to the proposal which the Government have made with respect to the income tax no opposition is intended to be offered. I should hope that, that being the case, we may be allowed, late as the hour is, to go into committee to pass the resolii tion to which there is no opposition, and clear the way for that discussion which will take place on Thursday in re spect to those propositions on which there is a difference of opinion. (Heir, hear.) Now, I admit that the issue which the right hon. gentleman has stated it to be his in tention to propose is a perfectly fair one to be submitted to the house. (Hear, hear.) Though there are many considerations which would lead the house to prefer the remission of the duty on tea, I think it is a misnomer to call it a war duty; because, if I am not under a misap prehension, the ar duty on tea was Is. 9d., and since the war the duty has been reduced to ls. sd. I believe the present duty is lower than ever it was at any former time ; but, at all events, the higher duty put on during the war has ceased, and the duty now, instead of being Is. 9d., is only ls. sd. I mention this in order that the house may clearly understand the point on which its decision will to required. I admit that it is a very legitimate proposal to make, to substitute the repeal of the duty on tea for the repeal of th a duty en paper. I prefer remission of the duty on paper. I think there are good and valid reasons why we should accept the reduction of the income tax, and that economical and commercial reasons have been stated in favour of the remission proposed by the Government. (Hear, hear.) Whether a pledge has been given or not, whether we are bound by resolutions or not, I think n° man can deny that, at all events, we are in that position with regard to the paper duty (not only with respect to itself but with respect to the other House of Parliament) that, it is highly desirable on the gravest political ground that we should take the opportunity of repealing the duty, especially if we can do it in a manner which will render it less disagreeable than it otherwise would be for the other house to concur in its repeal. (Cheers:) I think it is clear that if we do not repeal that tax this year we shall be urged to take the earliest opportunity to repeal it which the state of our finances will permit. We shall then, perhaps, have to send up that bill singly, and I put it to any one whether it will not be more easy for the House of Lords to consider in the . proposal, when we accompany the repeal of the Excise duty on paper with a popu'ar measure for the ditai" nution of the income tax—(hear)—whether i'; will no facilitate a good understanding and accord between the twe houses that we should send up the two measures, rat her than send up singly and nakedly a bill for the repeal of the duty, to which last year the House of Lords refused to accede. (H ear.) In my opinion it is impossible to suit' gerate the value of a settlement of a question which has created ill-feeling and misunderstanding between the two houses. (Hear.) Ido not mean now to argue the question fully; it will be argued when it comes properly under our consideration; but I wish to state that I retain the opinion on which the Government have acted in proposing the ar rangement which has been laid before the house. Both on the ground of the intrinsic value of that repeal, and on the higher and more important ground of its bearing on the relations of the two houses to each other, I attach great value to maintaining the repeal of the paper duty in preference to a diminution of the duty on tea. (Cheers.) It would be quite misplaced at this time of night to, go further into that argument. I merely state, therefore, that notwithstanding the reasons which the right hon. gentleman has stated he is prepared to allege in favour of the diminution of the duty, her Majesty's Government will certainly maintain the proposal which they have made. (Cheers.) The house then went into Committee of Ways and Means. Upon the first resolution, with respect to the income-tat Mr. T. BARING said he thought it desirable to defer the adoption of the first resolution for the reduction of the in" come-tax until it was ascertained whether it was the plea sure of the committee to adopt the remission of the pape r duty. His own impression was that if the paper duty Wee abolished they ought not to have any reduction of the in come-tax, because it was a very different proposition to re peal a positive tax like paper from that of reducing a pro ductive duty like tea. He thought of moving on ThursdaY that the resolution on the income-tax be postponed unil after a decision had been taken on the resolution with re' spect to paper. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BARING moved that the Chairman do report pro' gress. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con f es sed that he was disapp o i n t e d—(l aug h ter )—i n the i nteres t of hon . gentlemen opposite, among whom he had l oo k e d f or some unity terms ofpi in'rndproceeding, especi a ll y a f ter the very dis tinct which the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire had declared that there was to be Ile opposition to the first resolution. (Hear.) As regarded idle order of those resolutions it was but natural that those ire' posing tixation should precede those by which it was to be repealed. Mr. BARING said he had no communication with his right hon. friend, and was therefore unaware of the course which it was intended to pursue. But, entertaining the strong objections which he felt to a positive throwing awe,' of revenue which there was no means of replacing, he should simply move that the resolution do not pass, reserving I° himself the right of opposing it on a future occasion. Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought the object his hon. friend the member for Huntingdon had in view would be marred by the course which he proposed to take, which would have the effect of raising a false - issue instead of that between tee and paper, on which the house was anxious to divide. In reply to the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, The CHAIRMAN stated that it was a well-established rule in Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means that resolution could not be postponed, unlike a bill where the clauses might be taken up in whatever order was considered most convenient. Mr. DISRAELI said he had not intended by his Omen's' tions to preclude any gentleman who might be desirous to discuss the question of the income-tax from the opportunity of doing ro. If such a desire were really entertained the Government, he trusted, would waive their right to preso the first resolution. Mr. BRIGHT said if the hon. member for Huntingdon could not make up his mind to part both with the penny 0 0 the income-tax and the amount of the paper duties, or an equivalent, he ought to agree to the reduction of the in- come-tax and to vote against the remission of duty either upon tea or paper. (Laughter.) Lord• •PALMERSTON thought the hon. member for Huntingdon would perceive that it was not necessary ter his purposes to object to the passage of the resolution, which must be adopted or negatived, then, or on some future' occasion, as it could not be postponed. The resolutions were merely the foundation of that which was to give effect to them, and many future opportunities would necessarily be afforded to those who objected to the reduction of bt►e income-tax to negative that portion of the financial scheme in case they thought proper to do so. Mr. WALPOLE pointed out that the question which they were considering was whether the income-tax should be reimposed at 9d. or at 10d. He was not awar e th a t tali one wished it to be fixed at the latter amount—(hear, hear) but, of course, if the hon. gentleman wished to discuss question, he ought to have the opportunity. Mr. MALINS hoped the hon. gentleman would thrall" no impediment in the way of a proposition which was 1 111 ' animously approved by the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. BARING thought it not unreasonable that at such an hour they should not proceed with the discussion , but repeat progress. It had been doubted by severed mew bers whether there was really a surplus. Lord P A LMERSTON observed that the hon. gentleman was in this dilemma, that, while holding that there was na a surplus to warrant any remission of taxation, he was rao'r ing a resolution the practical effect of which was to preven t the renewal of the income-tax. (A. laugh, and " hear.") Mr. BARING said that if the Government w i s hed to pass the resolution at that hour he would not interfere. He begged to withdraw his motion. • Mr. CONINGIIAM h o p e d it was un d e rstood that the proposition virtually b e f ore th em was a v ote of confidence in the Government. (Laughter, and "gear, bear.") The resolution was then agreed to, and the house re sumad. The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad- journed at 2 o'cloek. LONDON : Printed and Published by 311:1RDO YOUNG, 0t No. 112, Strand, Printer, Itt TM SUN °film, No. 112,Strea d . in the Precinct of the savoy, In the Comity of 3114dlela Tnesclay, Aprii 29, MI.