The Express.
London, England, 1861-06-08 00:00:00

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL

---
Furl GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of this
bill, mid—My lords, 1 rue to move the second reading of
this important bill, the successor of that one which was
moved lest year under circumstances of a somewhat diffe-
rent character. At that time an amendment was moved by
• noble lord, whose former connexion with the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, sa well as his present con-
nexion with the Treasury, gave great weight to any nestiou
of his on • bill like the present. On that occasion your
lordships' house was crowded and great excitement prevailed,
and therefore I felt it to be necessary, even at the risk
of seeming tedious to your lordships, to go at length into
all the details of the bill, to meet by antitipatiou every
objection which I thought it probable might be made, sod
to make every appeal that I humbly could to your lord-
ships to take that course which I thought most expedient
and prudent with respect to so important a bill. And I
cannot help believing that the arguments I then used must
have had some effect, for we find ourselves this year met to
dismiss the same bill order somewhat different circum-
stances. Until this morning no notice whatever was gives
of any motion adverse to the bill. A statement, if I might
be allowed to mention it, has been made in another place to
the effect that it was not likely any opposition would is
this house be offered to the bill, and if I am not mistaken
the noble earl the leader of the party opposite statol at a
City entertainment that it was not his intention,
should the bill pass the Commons, to offer it say fur-
ther opposition in this house. For these reasons I
do uot now, certainly, anticipate the rejection of the
bill. A noble duke hao, it is true, given notice of rejection,
but I can hardly believe him to be serious in so suddenly
adopting what your lordships must feel would be • most
serious step for this house to take, thus placing yourself in
opposition to the other house of parliament, and on grounds
which, until I hear them again stated and strengthened, I
ceu hardly believe to be tenable. The notice of the noble
duke has already excited great alarm amongst the mercan-
tile community, but I cannot believe that alarm to be well
founded. lam rather inclined to assume that the noble
duke put his notice on the paper merely for the purpose of
giving spirit to the debate, or possibly with • view of
showing that his confidence was pot quite unlimited in the
noble earl who is generally considered to be the leader of
the party. The noble duke, perhaps, wishes to show that
he can take his own coarse with respect to a great question,
but I can hardly imagine that he means to press
his amendment to a division. With this conviction
I shall confine myself to a very simple statement of the ob-
jects of the bill, and of the principal reasons which have
induced the government to recommend it to the other house
of parliament, reserving to myself the right of replying at
length should any arguments be put forth in the de-
hate requinng, in my judgment, more detailed observation.
Lord Granville then proceeded to explain the various details
of the measure, and stated the reasons which had induced
the government to continue the tea soil sugar duties, and to
abolish the Excise duty on paper. The duty on par im-
peded its manufacture, pressed on almost every article sold,
and formed* slight export duty upon all goods sent abroad
wrapped up in paper, and was Injurious to the diffusion of
cheap sad good iterature, while it was no check upon bad.
The tax on paper had been condemned by the abstract
resolutions of the House of Commons, and by lead-
ing men of every party in both houses of parlia-
ment Their lordship bad objected to its repeal last year,
not became they considered the tax good in itself,
bet became the revenue was not in a condition to dispense
with its contribution. Now, however, that there was a
surplus, the government were justified in proposing its
repeal. In regard to the inclusion of the principal parts of
the financial scheme in ono immure, it was strictly accord-
ing to precedents (many of which be quoted). The rouse
of the House of Lords last year in rejecting the bill was, to
my the least, " unusual ;" neverthelese the House of Com-
mons had behaved with the greatest moderation, and this
bill had been brought in in its prmeat form in order to restore
that house to the position it ought to occupy in the taxa-
tion of the country. He trusted the Duke of Rutland would
withdraw his mutton.

The DuieoIITITLAND said his objections to the bill
were that he doubted the mistime of a surplus. He
thought that other taxes ought to be repealed before the
duty on paper, and that the form in which the bill came
before the house was objectionable. In the present condi-
tion of affairs in Europe mid America, when it was impos-
sible to say how long peace might be preeerved, it was most
inopportune to abolish the duty on paper, especially in the
state of warlike preparation which was going on in France
and England. Objecting strongly to the form in which the
bill had been sent up to the house, he declined to accede
to Lord Granville'e suggestion of withdmwiug the motion.
Lord DERBY said that, in spite of his high opinion of
the Duke of Rutlaod's opinion and character, ho could not
concur with the practical conclusion at which he had ar-
rived, although he agreed with him in regarding the bill as
objectionable in substance and in form—in substance, be-
cause he thought that if a surplus existed there were tuxes
priming heavily on the poorer classes which had • pre-
ferential claim for repeal over the paper duty, and in
form because the bill was sent up in one measure
in order to preclude the house from exercising
its judgment upon it. Briefly alluding to the reasons
which had induced him to follow the course be
bad pursued last year on this question, and of the effect
of the decision of the house in contributing to reduce the
deficiency of the present year by 1,2150,0001., the amount of
the retained paper duty, he proceeded to dismiss the bud-
get for the present year, and pointed out the means by
which Mr. Oladstoee had replaced the deficiency of the
previous year by • surplus, and expressed his surprise that
the House of Commons had been cajoled by so transparent
• fallacy. He did not dispute the existence of the surplus,
but the question was, how could it be best em-
ployed? He was read to admit that the paper
duty was an objectionable tax, and one which, if
there worsen overflowing exchequer, ought to be repealed,
but its repeal would not work the marvels which were pro-
phesied, and would only benefit " editors of penny news-
papers," and the makers of bandboxes. The whole gum-
tiou was, however, • financial one, and as the House of
Commons had by • small majority decided on the repeal
of the paper duty, he did not wish to take the re-
sponsibility. of advising the house to set themselves
in opposition to that decision especially as the
position of the question in the last and the present
year were widely different. Lord Derby next ex-
amined at some length the right of the Lords to alter a
money bill, contending that they had that right, and sup-
porting his arguments by quotations from various authon-
ties, of whom lir. Fox was one—but considered that it
was unwise for either house to push its privileges to the
utmost, and to manifest an unconciliatory sprit. Advert-
ing to the mode in which the House of Commons had
dealt with "Tack Bills," he admitted the right of the
Commons in that particular, but objected strongly
to the manner in which it bad been exercised
in proposing to take away a permanent tax and
substitute a purely temporary one. The noble earl
I continued—The conduct of the other House of Parliament
over the finances of the country consists, first, in the neces-
sity by an annual vote to provide for all the great services of
the country ;_ and next, that no step can lie taken for the
applimition of the money voted without the introduction of
all the items into en appropriation act. Rut let us suppose
that this privilege of the House of Commons
carried to the utmost, and that they do away
with the whole of the permanent taxation of
the country, and observe that if this precedent
is to be followed, and that the supply for the
year is to be purchased by the abolition cit some permanent
duty, then gradually the permanent taxation of the country
will be reduced to • minimum, and if the permanent
taxation be reduced to a minimum then all the great serricee
a the country will be compelled to be provided for by the
annual vote of parliament. Theo if all the tuxes affecting
trade are required to be provided for and made dependent
npou the &anted votes -if permanent taxation, which alone
can give security for the interest of the na-
tional debt, and for the maintenance of the credit
of the country, is to be done away with, most
serious and ruinous consequences must be the result.
Therefore while 1 do wriest, that in the present case I am
disposed to object to the *itemise of the discretion of the
Howe of C,ouinious, I do say that it is a serious question,
not only for your lordships' cuosiderat ion, but for the con-
sideration of the members of the House of Commons, and
hope of the great utikuity of those who value the per-
manence of the institutions of the country, and I warn
them to beware of any attempt to substitute annual for per-
mauent taxation, and thereby to unsettle the whole rela-
tions of commerce. clicking its credit and faith, and intro-
ducing into all financial matters an uncertainty which
cannot but be prejudicial to the highest and best interests
of the country. (Hear, hear.) It is in my own recol-
lection when the begat duties used to be an annual
vote, and so great erne the iucouvinience found to result,
sod such the pandmatiou of trade that took place from the
uncertainty whether the duty mould be left unaltered, re-
dnoed, or increased in the course of each successive year,
that it was found absolutely sceneryto on thai
which had Lees minuet and to make it a permanent duty.
And if it is this that the right hen. baronet of whom I have
spoken complains of, as an infraction of the privileges of
the House of Commons, it was a concession by the Howie
Commons not of its privileges, but of that which was felt
tube absolutely manurial for the commercial and mercantile
interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) Therefore I
do earnestly hope that this question of substituting
I annual for permanent taxation will be carefully weighed
by this tied the other Ilona* of Parliameht before the eye-